SCS Global Services Report

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse

seine (TUNACONS) fishery
MSC Fishery Assessment Report
Public CertificationReport

Authors Client Contact

Gabriela Anhalzer, Lead Guillermo Moran

Dr. Gerard DiNardo, Principles 1 & 2 Manta, Manabí-Ecuador

Dr. Michael Harte, Principle 3 [email protected]

July 7th, 2022

2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA

94608 USA
+1.510.452.8000 main | +1.510.452.8001 fax
www.SCSglobalServices.com
 SCS Global Services Report

1. Table of Contents
Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery 1

MSC Fishery Assessment Report 1

1. Table of Contents 2

List of Tables 4

List of Figures 6

2 Glossary 8

3 Executive Summary 10

4 Report Details 13
4.1 Authorship and peer review details 13
4.2 Version details 15

5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview 16

5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification 16
5.2 Assessment results overview 20

6. Traceability and eligibility 22

6.1 Eligibility date 22
6.2 Traceability within the fishery 22
6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody 25
6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody 26

7 Scoring 27
7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores 27
7.2 Principle 1 29
7.3 Principle 2 57
7.1 Principle 3 226

8 Appendices 280
8.1 Assessment information 280
8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques 280
8.3 Site Visit 280
8.4 Peer Review reports 287
8.5 Stakeholder input 326
8.6 Conditions 403

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 2 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8.7 Client Action Plan 428

8.8 Surveillance 436
8.9 Risk-Based Framework outputs 436
8.10 Harmonised fishery assessments 440
8.11 Catch Composition Tables 446
8.12 Vessel List 450

References 452

9 Template information and copyright 467

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 3 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

List of Tables
Table 1. Unit of Certification(s) and Unit of Assessment(s) .........................................................................................10
Table 2. Fisheries program documents versions .........................................................................................................15
Table 3. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification (UoC): TUNACONs free school and FAD fleet .......17
Table 4. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification (UoC): US California Coastal based small-purse
seine fleet ....................................................................................................................................................................18
Table 5. Principle level scores ......................................................................................................................................20
Table 6. Summary of conditions ..................................................................................................................................20
Table 7. Traceability within the fishery .......................................................................................................................23
Table 8. Summary of Performance Indicator Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores.....27
Table 9. Principle level scores ......................................................................................................................................28
Table 10. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data Yellowfin Tuna EPO ................................................................36
Table 11. Management quantities (P(Model)) for yellowfin tuna in the EPO (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020). ................39
Table 12. Free school species specific cumulative catch by weight (mt) and relative percent for the TUNACONS UoA
from 2015-2018. Data is pooled across flags and vessel category (3-6). Non-tuna species catch weight is estimated.
Only species with % of UoA catch values ≥ 0.01 are shown. (Data source: IATTC observer program) .......................60
Table 13. FAD species specific cumulative catch by weight (mt) and relative percent for the TUNACONS UoA from
2015-2018. Data is pooled across flags and vessel category (3-6). Non-tuna species catch weight is estimated. Only
species with % of UoA catch. (Data source: IATTC observer program) .......................................................................61
Table 14. ETP species elements for both FAD and free school sets based on observer data from 2015-2018. (Data
source: IATTC observer program) ................................................................................................................................62
Table 15. Number of ETP species caught by all vessels in the TUNACONS UoA fishing free school sets and reported
disposition (dead, injured, and alive) based on observer data from 2015-2018. (Data source: IATTC observer
program) ......................................................................................................................................................................63
Table 16. Number of ETP species caught by all vessels in the TUNACONS UoA fishing FAD sets from 2015-2018.
(Data source: IATTC observer program) ......................................................................................................................64
Table 17. Catch data reported in logbooks for two of the three vessels in the UoA for the US-based California
Coastal small purse-seine vessels fishing in the IATTC for years 2014 to 2018. ..........................................................66
Table 18. Drifting FADs deployed by vessels in the UoA ...........................................................................................126
Table 19. IATTC Active resolutions of particular relevance to the Units of Assessment ...........................................228
Table 20. Decision Rule for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores based on Scoring Issues, and for Calculating
Performance Indicator Scores in Cases of Multiple Scoring Elements. (Adapted from MSC FCPV2.1 Table 4) ........285
Table 21. Stakeholder Input Fundación Pesca Limpia- General Comments ..............................................................326
Table 22. Stakeholder Input Fundación Pesca Limpia- PI Input.................................................................................327
Table 23. Stakeholder Input ISSF – General Comments ............................................................................................330
Table 24. Stakeholder Input ISSF – PI comments ......................................................................................................336
Table 25. Pew - General Comments ..........................................................................................................................339

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 4 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 26. Pew – PI Input ACDR ..................................................................................................................................345

Table 27. MSC Technical Oversight PCDR Comments ...............................................................................................381
Table 28. ISSF PCDR General Comments ..................................................................................................................384
Table 29. Pew PCDR General Comments ...................................................................................................................386
Table 30. Pew Comments PCDR PI Input- New at PCDR Stage ..................................................................................390
Table 31. General Comments ....................................................................................................................................400
Table 32, MSC Scoring Guideposts based on PSA scores for the Northern sub stock of the Eastern Pacific Bonito
Tuna (Sarda chiliensis lineolata) and Stripped Bonito Tuna (Sarda orientalis). .........................................................436
Table 33. PSA productivity attributes and scores- Northern sub stock of the Eastern Pacific Bonito (Sarda chiliensis
lineolata)....................................................................................................................................................................437
Table 34. PSA productivity attributes and scores- Striped bonito .............................................................................438
Table 35. Harmonisation requirements per PI under Principal 2, as noted in Table GPB1 in the MSC FCP v 2.2. ....441
Table 36. MSC fisheries Operating in the WCPO (Updated November 2021). ..........................................................443
Table 37. Scoring differences.....................................................................................................................................445
Table 38. Rationale for scoring differences ...............................................................................................................445
Table 39. Cumulative catch by weight (mt) and percent of the UoA catch of all species in the TUNACONS UoA FAD
set fishery based on observer data from 2015–2018. ...............................................................................................446
Table 40. Cumulative catch by weight (mt) and percent of the UoA catch of all species in the TUNACONS UoA free
school set fishery based on observer data from 2015–2018. ...................................................................................448

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 5 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

List of Figures
Figure 1. Total catches (retained catches plus discards) for the purse-seine fisheries, by set type (DEL, NOA, OBJ),
and retained catches for the longline (LL) and other (OTR) fisheries, of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean,
1975-2018. The purse-seine catches are adjusted to the species composition estimate obtained from sampling the
catches. The 2018 data are preliminary. (Reproduced from IATTC-17-2019). ............................................................30
Figure 2. Natural mortality rates (M) at quarterly intervals, used for the assessment of yellowfin tuna in the EPO.
Reproduced from Aires-da-Silva and Maunder (2012). ...............................................................................................31
Figure 3. Estimated annual recruitment at age zero of yellowfin tuna to the fisheries of the EPO. The estimates are
scaled so that the average recruitment is equal to 1.0 (dashed horizontal line). The solid line illustrates the MLE of
recruitment, and the shaded are indicates the approximate 95% confined intervals around those estimates.
Reproduced from Minte-Vera et al. (2015). ................................................................................................................32
Figure 4. Yellowfin probability density functions for Fcur/FLIMIT (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020). .................................38
Figure 5. Yellowfin probability density functions for Scur/SLIMT (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020). ..................................38
Figure 6. Estimated annual recruitment of yellowfin tuna to the fisheries of the EPO for the 48 models from the
reference set. The lines indicate the maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of recruitment (with colors
corresponding to different values of the steepness)...................................................................................................39
Figure 7. Yellowfin probability density functions for Fcur/FMSY (IATTC SAC-11-08). .................................................40
Figure 8. Yellowfin probability density functions for Scur/SMSY (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020). ...................................41
Figure 9. Kobe (phase) plot of the current spawning biomass and fishing mortality relative to their MSY reference
points. The panels represent interim target reference points (SMSY_d and FMSY).(Top) Point estimate with the
indication of the model. Each model is represented by a combination of its basic configuration plus the steepness
assumption. (Bottom) Dashed limes represent limit reference points. The center point for each model indicates the
current stock status, based on the average fishing mortality (F) over the last three years; The solid black circle
represents all models combined; to be consistent with the probabilistic nature of the risk analysis and the HCR, it is
based on P(Scur/SLIMIT<x) = 0.5 and P(Fcur/FMSY>x) = 0.5. The lines around each estimate represent its
approximate 95% confidence interval. ........................................................................................................................41
Figure 10. Time Frame of Observer Datasets as reported by the IATTC. ....................................................................68
Figure 11. Percent of trips by large (carrying capacity > 363 t) purse-seine vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean for
which observer records of bycatch and discards are available, 1993-2012 (Hinton et al. 2014). ...............................69
Figure 12. Total catch of skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean by type of fishery. Reproduced from IATTC-
94901. OBJ signifies object sets, NOA signifies non-object or unassociated sets, and OTR signifies other set types. 74
Figure 13. Average annual distributions of the purse-seine catches of skipjack, by set type, 2015-2019. The sizes of
the circles are proportional to the amounts of skipjack caught in those 5° by 5° areas (source IATTC 2021). ...........75
Figure 14. Indicators based on purse seine fishing effort. DEL refers to the dolphin-associated fishery, NOA refers to
the unassociated school fishery, and OBJ refers to the floating-object fishery ( IATTC, 2020). ..................................77
Figure 15. Indicators based on purse-seine catch in weight, 2000-2020. DEL refers to the dolphin-associated
fishery, NOA refers to the unassociated school fishery, and OBJ refers to the floating-object fishery (IATTC, 2020).
.....................................................................................................................................................................................78
Figure 16. Indicators based on purse-seine catch in number, 2000-2020. DEL refers to the dolphin-associated
fishery, NOA refers to the unassociated school fishery; OBJ refers to the floating-object fishery (IATTC, 2020). ......78
Figure 17. Indicators based on purse-seine catch-per-set, 2000-2020. DEL refers to the dolphin-associated fishery,
NOA refers to the unassociated school fishery, and OBJ refers to the floating-object fishery (IATTC, 2020).............78

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 6 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 18. Indicators based on average length of skipjack in the purse-seine catch, 2000-2020. DEL refers to the
dolphin-associated fishery, NOA refers to the unassociated school fishery, and OBJ refers to the floating-object
fishery. Note the y-axis limits differ from the figures for the other indicators to accentuate the changes because
average length is less sensitive to fishing mortality (IATTC, 2020). .............................................................................79
Figure 19. Tag release and recovery positions of bigeye tuna, at liberty for >30 days. Release locations (black) and
recoveries released in the WPO (red), CPO (green) and EPO (blue) are shown. Source Schaefer et al. 2015. ...........81
Figure 20. Annual catches of bigeye (metric tons) by fishing gear (top) in 1979-2019. Red: longline; blue: purse
seine. Average annual distributions of the purse-seine catch of bigeye, by set type, 2014-2018 (bottom). The sizes
of the circles are proportional to the amounts of bigeye caught in those 5° by 5° areas. ..........................................82
Figure 21. The standardized longline indices of abundance and the associated 95% confidence interval used for the
stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. ..................................................................................83
Figure 22. Retained catches (t) of Pacific bluefin tuna in the EPO, by gear, 1952-2018 (from ISC 2020). ..................90
Figure 23. Elasmobranch discards (tons) in tuna fisheries of the EPO by purse seine, longline and other vessels from
1987-2019 (2019 is incomplete) (data from IATTC, 2015 and IATTC 2020). ...............................................................94
Figure 24. Observed number of sharks finned during IATTC-observed trips, 2006-2009. (from IATTC-COR 2009).
Note that these data are generated for all IATTC-observed trips, not from Ecuadorian flagged vessels specifically. 96
Figure 25. Mean-scaled standardized silky shark bycatch-per-set (BPS; in numbers of sharks per set) in sets on
floating objects for large sharks, with and without live release, in the north (top) and south (bottom) EPO. Vertical
bars indicate pointwise approximate 95% confidence intervals. ..............................................................................100
Figure 26. Unstandardized catch rates of oceanic whitetip sharks from floating object sets (1994-2006) (IATTC-SAC
2011). .........................................................................................................................................................................105
Figure 27. Retained and discarded catches of sharks and rays, in tons, reported by observers aboard large purse-
seine vessels, 1993–2018, by set type (dolphin (DEL), unassociated (NOA), floating object (OBJ)) (left y-axis).
Longline data (right y-axis) are considered to be minimum catch estimates. Data for the past two years should be
considered preliminary; longline data for 2018 not currently available. ..................................................................106
Figure 28. Interaction rates of whale sharks with the purse-seine fishery, per thousand sets, all set types combined,
2003-2016. .................................................................................................................................................................110
Figure 29. Incidental mortality of sea turtles (number)in the EPO purse seine fishery by set type, 1993-2008. (from
Hall and Roman 2014). ..............................................................................................................................................117
Figure 30. Sea turtle interactions and mortalities, in numbers of animals, for large purse-seine vessels, 1993–2018,
by set type (dolphin (DEL), unassociated (NOA), floating object (OBJ). ....................................................................121
Figure 31. The floating object fisheries (OBJ) defined by the IATTC staff for analyses of yellowfin, skipjack, and
bigeye in the EPO. The thin lines indicate the boundaries of the 13 length-frequency sampling areas, and the bold
lines the boundaries of the fisheries. OBJ-N is the northern floating object fishery, OBJ-S is the southern floating
object fishery, OBJ-C is the central floating object fishery, and OBJ-I is the inshore floating object fishery. ...........194
Figure 32. Map of the location of the Galapagos Islands, showing protected areas and areas used by humans
(mostly agricultural zones). .......................................................................................................................................195
Figure 33. Marine protected areas (MPAs) with coral reef in the equatorial eastern Pacific region. MPAs color-
coded by country. MPAs are marked with a cross inside the circle. .........................................................................196
Figure 34. Number of FADs observed and retrieved annually in the EPO, 2005-2017 (Hall and Roman 2019). .......196
Figure 35. IATTC management area. Source ISSF 2019. ............................................................................................239

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 7 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2 Glossary

AIDCP The Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program

The Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama (Autoridad de los Recursos Acuáticos
ARAP de Panamá)
BET Bigeye tuna
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CPCs Members and cooperating non-Members of IATTC
CPDF Catch per day fished
CPUE Catch per unit effort
dFAD Drifting Fishery Aggregation Device
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EPO Eastern Pacific Ocean
ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected species
FADs Fishing Aggregation Device
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
Fcur the average fishing mortality for the three most recent years
FLIMIT Fishing Mortality Limit Referente point
FMSY the fishing mortality that will produce the maximum sustainable yield
HCR Harvest Control Rules
IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
IUU address illegal, unreported and unregulated
Kg Kilogram
Lb. Pound, equivalent to roughly 2.2 kg
LL Longline
LL-C Central Longline fishery
LL-S Southern Longline fishery
LOA Length Over-All
M Million (lbs.)
MSC Marine Stewardship Council
MSE Management Strategy Evaluation
MSY Maximum Sustainability Yield
nm nautical mile
NOA Unassociated fishery
NOAA The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
OBJ Floating-object fishery
OFL Over-Fishing Level
PI Performance Indicator

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 8 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

SAR Stock Assessment Reports

SCS SCS Global Services
SI Scoring Issue
SK Skipjack tuna
SLIMIT Sustainable yield limit reference point
Smsy maximum sustainable yield
SRP Under Secretariat for Fishery Resources in Ecuador
SSB Spawning Stock Biomass
t and mt metric ton
TAC Total Allowable Catch
UNFSA UN Fish Stocks Agreement
WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
WWF World Wildlife Fund
YFT Yellowfin tuna

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 9 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

3 Executive Summary
This report presents the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment of yellowfin tuna, skipjack and
bigeye harvested by purse-seine vessels, considered to be a single Unit of Assessment (UoA). The
assessment was conducted, and the findings were prepared by SCS Global Services (SCS), an MSC-
accredited, independent, third-party conformity assessment body, in accordance with the MSC Principles
and Criteria for sustainable fishing. The assessment complies with the MSC Certification Requirements
2.01 MSC Fisheries Standard and Fisheries Certification Process v2.1 .
Table 1. Unit of Certification(s) and Unit of Assessment(s)
UoA Fishing fleet Method of Capture Stock/Species
(FCP V2.1 7.5.2.c) (FCP V2.1 7.5.2.b) (FCP V2.1
7.5.2.a)
1 Select vessels flagged to Ecuador, fishing in the EEZs of Purse-seine on free sets
Ecuador and the international waters in the IATTC
2 Convention area. Purse-seine on FAD sets
Select vessels flagged to Panama and US fishing in the Eastern Pacific
3 Purse-seine on free sets
international waters in the IATTC Convention area. Ocean Yellowfin
4 Purse-seine on FAD sets Tuna (Thunnus
5 Select vessels flagged to the US fishing in the EEZs of the US Purse-seine on free sets albacares) stock
and the international waters in the IATTC Convention area.
6 Purse-seine on FAD sets
Select vessels from the US California Coastal Small Purse
7 Seine fleet flagged to the US fishing in the EEZs of the US Purse-seine on free sets
and the international waters in the IATTC Convention area.

Fishery Operations Overview

The fishery is comprised of a group of larger purse seine vessels operating in the Exclusive Economic Zones
(EEZs) and international waters in the IATTC (Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission) Convention Area
and fleet of smaller purse seine vessels operating out of California within the US EEZ. The larger fleet is
referred to as the ‘TUNACONS UoAs’ and is comprised of 46 purse seine vessels from five fishing
companies and three countries that set on both free schools and Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) (See
Section 8.12 Vessel List). Fishing vessel carrying capacities range from 270 t to 2,304 t and fishing generally
occurs in high seas areas of the EPO equatorial region. The California Coastal Small Purse Seine UoA is
comprised of three small purse-seine vessels flagged to the U.S. with carrying capacities ranges from 127
t to 145 t that set exclusively on free schools. Fishing is conducted in waters adjacent to San Pedro,
California U.S.A. For more details of the fishery operations see Section 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)
and Unit(s) of Certification (UoC).

Assessment Overview

The team selected to undertake the assessment includes three team members that collectively meet the
requirements for MSC assessment teams. These are:
▪ Gabriela Anhalzer, Team Leader

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 10 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

▪ Dr. Gerard DiNardo, Principle 1 & Principle 2 Expert

▪ Dr. Michael Harte, Principle 3 Expert

The team met with fishery representatives, scientists, and stakeholders remotely. Documents were
presented by fishery representatives and fisheries scientists. Client representatives were thorough in their
approach and provided the assessment team with supporting documents. The original announcement for
the assessment indicated that the Risk-based framework (RBF) may be need and this was confirmed from
information provided prior to and during the site visit. The re-assessment proceeded with the RBF for PI
2.2.1 of the U.S. California Coastal Small Purse Seine UoA. SCS carried out stakeholder consultation to
gather data to inform the scoring in conformity with the requirements set out in Annex PF.

Stakeholders were notified of the onsite visit, invited to speak with the team regarding any concerns and
time was scheduled during the onsite to meet with stakeholders.

Peer Review of the assessment was conducted by three reviewers selected by the MSC Peer Review
College from the following list, the list also contains a second shortlist consultation that was required for
this fishery due to the non-availability of two of the candidates in the original shortlist at the time of the
report release:
• Carlos Julio Polo Silva
• Don Aldous
• Johanna Pierre
• Sophie Des Clers
• Geoff Tingley
• Giuseppe Scarcella

SCS also allowed 60 days for the Client to develop a Client Action Plan, during this time the client also
provided information on items that lead to ‘material difference’ of the following PIs: PI 2.2.2 SId for
Ecuador and Panama Tunacons fleet increased from SG60 to SG80, for PI 2.3.1 increased in SI a for mobulid
scoring element from SG60 to SG80, for PI 2.3.3 scores were raised for shark scoring element as data
issues were resolved, for PI 3.1.1 condition for Panama removed, bringing score of SG60 to SG80. The
information provided by the client is incorporated into the rationales for the corresponding PIs.

The report was posted for Public Comment to the MSC website on March 23rd, 2022, with the public
comment period closing on April 23rd, 2022. Stakeholder comments were received during the PCDR
consultation and responded by the assessment team.

Summary of Findings

In this report, we provide rationales for scores presented for each of the Performance Indicators (PIs)
under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy), Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact) and Principle 3
(Governance, Policy and Management system) of the MSC Standard. No PIs failed to reach the minimum
Scoring Guidepost (SG) of 60 and the average scores for the three Principles remained above SG80. A

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 11 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Client Action Plan, detailed in Appendix 1.2., was produced to meet the conditions. In Principle 1 one
target species was assessed, yellowfin tuna. For yellowfin tuna, all PIs received scores above SG80. The
initial ACDR included skipjack and bigeye, both target species scored below 80 on aggregate and thus were
re-moved as target species from P1 to primary main species under Principle 2. There are no conditions for
Principle 1 for yellowfin tuna.

In Principle 2, UoAs were established based on the fleet/flag state (Ecuador, Panama, US, and US California
Coastal fleets) and the set types (free school and FAD). For the TUNACONS free school set UoA, one PIs
(and 2.3.3) received score under SG 80, while in the TUNACAONS FAD Set UoA, five PIs (2.1.1, 2.3.3, 2.4.1,
2.4.2, 2.4.3) received scores under SG 80. The basis for the conditions is the lack of sufficient management
strategies and/or information concerning FAD interactions with habitats. The overall P2 scores for the two
UoAs were all above 80 and observer data was provided, as well as significant documentation showing
progress towards the FIP and a commitment to advance sustainable fishing practices.

For the US California Coastal small purse seine UoA, 3 PIs (2.1.1, 2.2.2 and 2.3.3) received scores under SG
80, these are related to bluefin tuna status, shark finning and information on ETP species.

In Principle 3, Panama has one of the PIs (3.2.3) received scores under SG80, related to compliance and
enforcement. Ecuador has one PI (3.2.3) that received a score under SG80, related to compliance and
enforcement. Ecuador scored above 80 for PIs relating to legal frameworks, long term objectives; fishery
specific objectives; decision making processes; and monitoring & management performance evaluation.
Panama scored above 80 for PIs relating to long term objectives; fishery specific objectives; decision
making processes; and monitoring & management performance evaluation. The US component for the
Tunacons fleet and for the US California Coastal fleet scored above 80 for all PIs.

In this report, we provide the rationales for all scores proposed, which support the assessment that the
fishery is recommended for certification.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 12 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

4 Report Details
4.1 Authorship and peer review details
Audit Team

Gabriela Anhalzer–SCS Global Services–Team Leader

Gabriela Anhalzer received a Masters degree in coastal environmental management from Duke University.
Ms. Anhalzer has several years of experience in marine conservation and fisheries, she has worked as an
independent consultant conducting evaluations of fishery improvement projects and as a fisheries policy
and stakeholder specialist. She has also worked as an associated researcher in Latin America for sea turtle
population studies, sea bird census, and supporting stakeholder engagement in participatory
management of marine protected areas. Ms. Anhalzer has provided technical support for numerous MSC
assessment and possess a comprehensive understanding of MSC fisheries standard and stages; meeting
MSC’s team leader qualifications and competency criteria. Ms. Anhalzer has received ISO 9001 auditor
training, has completed the MSC training and has affirmed she has no conflict of interest.

Gabriela Anhalzer’s experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2
(FCP v2.2):
✓ Completed training meeting requirements in Table 1 of GCRV2.4, as evidenced by the
certificate of passing auditor training for the ISO course 19011
✓ Holds a Masters degree in coastal environmental management, and has over five years’
experience in the fisheries sector related to stakeholder management and facilitation.
✓ Completed of the latest MSC training modules applicable to this assessment within the past
five years (V2.1 Team Leader MSC modules in January 2019).
✓ Has undertaken several MSC fishery assessment and surveillance site visits as a team member
in the last 5 years including: Surveillance for the southern Gulf of California Thread Herring
Fishery in Sinaloa & Nayarit Mexico, the Small pelagics fishery in Sonora, Gulf of California, US
Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery, US Atlantic Spiny Dogfish Fishery, and the North-eastern Tropical
Pacific Purse Seine Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna Fishery.
✓ Has demonstrated experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation
techniques, as verified by SCS records audit witness records and previous audit reports.
✓ Is competent in the MSC Standard and current Certification Requirements, auditing techniques,
and communication and stakeholder facilitation techniques, as verified by the completion of
ISO 19011 auditor training.
✓ Has completed RBF Training
✓ Has affirmed she has no conflict of interest

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 13 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Gerard DiNardo, Senior Technical Specialist at SCS, Responsible for Principles 1 and 2

Dr. Gerard DiNardo has over 25 years of experience as a research fishery scientist and senior manager for
NOAA Fisheries in the United States, as well as extensive knowledge, understanding, and involvement in
fishery issues and processes of tuna-RFMOs and RFOs. Ensuring sustainable development and
management of fisheries, including the identification of research and plans of action to support effective
management decision making has been the focus throughout his career, and with a strong background
and understanding of international fisheries and MSC. He holds an MSc from Long Island University, C.W.
Post Center and a Ph.D from University of Maryland, where his dissertation topic was FISHMAP: An Expert
System for Sampling Fish Populations.

Gerard was appointed as the Fisheries Resources Division Director of the Southwest Fisheries Science
Center in San Diego, CA from 2015 to 2019. Previously, he held several positions at NMFS, including
Supervisor of the Stock Assessment Program in the Fisheries Research and Monitoring Division at the
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. Dr. DiNardo was multiple publications related to the assessment
of pelagic species, including tuna. He’s held positions as Co-Chair of the Joint PICES/ISC Working Group on
Ocean Conditions and the Distribution and Productivity of Highly Migratory Fish for the North Pacific
Marine Science Organization, standing member of the NMFS National Stock Assessment Methods
Steering Committee, science expert on the U.S.A. Delegation to the Western Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission and Chair of the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in
the North Pacific Ocean (ISC).

Dr. DiNardo’s experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2 (FCP
v2.1):
✓ With relevant degree (PhD from the University of Maryland) and over 5 years of research
experience in a marine conservation biology and fisheries
✓ Has passed the MSC compulsory training modules for Team Members within the last 5 years.
✓ Affirms they have no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment.
✓ The team member will be onsite

Dr. Michael Harte, Independent Contractor, Responsible for Principle 3

Dr. Michael Harte is a Professor in the College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State
University in the USA, having trained in physical geography and economics in New Zealand and Canada.
He is recognized internationally as a fisheries and marine policy adviser, researcher, educator and program

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 14 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

leader. He has held senior positions in the private, public, academic and NGO sectors in Australia, the US,
the Falkland Islands, Canada and New Zealand.

Dr. Harte has extensive policy and economic analysis experience working with commercial and small-scale
fisheries, ecosystem-based fisheries management, bio-economic analysis of fisheries, climate impacts on
fisheries, eco-labelling, cost recovery and resource rents in fisheries, and the development of policies and
regulations associated with the monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries, as well as work on
seafood markets and traceability. His work spans both academic and practical fishery management
domains. Dr. Harte experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2
(FCP v2.1):
✓ With relevant degree a PhD in Geography from University of Victoria, and over 5 years of research
experience in management or research experience in a marine conservation biology, fisheries, and
natural resources
✓ Has passed the MSC compulsory training modules for Team Members within the last 5 years
(August 6, 2019).
✓ Affirms they have no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment.
✓ The team member will be onsite

4.2 Version details

Table 2. Fisheries program documents versions

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.1

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.3

MSC Reporting Template Version 1.1

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 15 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview

5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification
5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment

The Unit of Assessment includes the yellowfin caught by the select 46 Ecuadorian, Panamanian, and US
vessels that belong to members of TUNACONs using purse-seine gear (both free school and FAD1) fishing
within the IATTC and for some vessels, within Ecuador’s EEZ management area. The purse-seine vessels
include class 6 (subject to IATTC mandatory observer coverage) and class 3-5. These vessels are referred
to as the TUNACONs fleet. In addition, there are three other vessels from the California Coastal small
purse-seine vessels flagged to the US fishing in the IATTC. These vessels target yellowfin and skipjack.

Principle 2 has been scored separately for the larger purse-seine vessels and the select three US vessels.
For the larger vessels, FADs and free school sets are separate UoAs. There are 3 UoAs for Principle 3,
consisting of the three flag states: Ecuador, US, and Panama. There is a total of seven Units of Assessment
(UoAs).

The UoA and UoC are identical.

This fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCP v2.1 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it
▪ Does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international
agreement, use destructive fishing practices, does not target amphibians, birds, reptiles or
mammals and is not overwhelmed by the dispute. (FCP 7.4.2.1, 7.4.2.2, 7.4.3, 7.4.5)
▪ The fishery does not engage in shark finning, has mechanisms for resolving disputes (FCP
7.4.5.1), and has not previously failed assessment or had a certificate withdrawn.
▪ Is an enhanced fishery based on the use of FADs, is not based on an introduced species
and does not represent an inseparable or practically inseparable species (FCP 7.5.1, 7.5.2,
7.5.8-13).
▪ Does overlap with other MSC certified or applicant fishery (7.5.14), and scores have been
harmonised following FCP Annex PB. For a list of overlapping fisheries see Section 8.10
Harmonised fishery assessments in this report.
▪ And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for violating forced labor laws
(7.4.4)
▪ The Unit of Assessment, the Unit of Certification, and eligible fishers have been clearly
defined, traceability risks characterized, and the client has provided a clear indication of
their position relative to certificate sharing (7.5.1-7.7.7).

1
FADs are defined in this assessment to include drifting logs, and anchored/drifting FADs.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 16 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 3. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification (UoC): TUNACONs free school and FAD fleet

UoA 1 and 2: Vessels

Description
flagged to Ecuador
Species Yellowfin Tuna Thunnus albacares
Stock Eastern Pacific Ocean stock
Vessels operating in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Convention area
Geographical area
and Ecuador’s EEZ
UoA1: Purse-seine gear types using free school
Harvest method / gear
UoA2: Purse-seine gear types using FAD sets
Vessels identified by TUNACONs members, including Eurofish, NIRSA, Servigrup, Tri
Client group
Marine, and Jadran.
Other eligible fishers There are no other eligible fishers.
Flag states Vessels are flagged to: Ecuador

UoA 3 and 4: Vessels

Description
flagged to Panama
Species Yellowfin Tuna Thunnus albacares

Stock Eastern Pacific Ocean stock

Vessels operating in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Convention area
Geographical area
and Panama’s EEZ
UoA3: Purse-seine gear types using free school
Harvest method / gear
UoA4: Purse-seine gear types using FAD sets
Vessels identified by TUNACONs members, including Eurofish, NIRSA, Servigrup, Tri
Client group
Marine, and Jadran.
Other eligible fishers There are no other eligible fishers.

Flag states Vessels are flagged to: Panama

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 17 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

UoA 5 and 6: Vessels

Description
flagged to US
Species Yellowfin Tuna Thunnus albacares

Stock Eastern Pacific Ocean stock

Vessels operating in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Convention area
Geographical area
and US’s EEZ
UoA5: Purse-seine gear types using free school
Harvest method / gear
UoA6: Purse-seine gear types using FAD sets
Vessels identified by TUNACONs members, including Eurofish, NIRSA, Servigrup, Tri
Client group
Marine, and Jadran.
Other eligible fishers There are no other eligible fishers.

Flag states Vessels are flagged to: US

Table 4. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification (UoC): US California Coastal based small-purse
seine fleet

UoA 7 Description

Species Yellowfin Tuna Thunnus albacares

Stock Eastern Pacific Ocean stock

Geographical area Vessels operating in the US EEZ.

Harvest method / gear Purse-seine gear types using free school

Client group Tri Marine

Other eligible fishers There are no other eligible fishers.

Flag states Vessels are flagged to the United States.

5.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries or Introduced Fisheries –

This fishery involves fish aggregation devices (FADs) deployed, which under G7.4.2.12 (MSC FCP v2.2) are
considered a “habitat modification” and subject to fishery enhancement considerations. The assessment
team evaluated the use of FADs in the UoA against the MSC eligibility criteria in Table 1 of the MSC FCP
v2.2 and determined that FADs meet the following requirements:

Any modifications to the habitat of the stock are reversible and do not cause serious or irreversible harm
to the natural ecosystem’s structure and function.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 18 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Following clause 7.7.1.2 d in the MSC FCP v2.2, the CAB shall assess the impacts of habitat
modification under the habitats and ecosystems components in Principle 2, considering environmental
impacts including:
▪ Whether serious or irreversible harm may be caused to the natural ecosystem’s structure
and function, including the natural food chains of predator and/or prey species.
▪ The types and extent of habitat modifications and the possibility of these causing serious
or irreversible harm

Reversible modification of habitat: FADs are deployed in the epipelagic zone often in relatively deep
waters where there is no habitat impact, however, FADs may also transition into derelict and/or stranded
gear that may entangle with benthic habitat when lost and/or not recovered. These potential indirect
impacts of drifting FADs are considered reversible once FADs are removed. Additionally, the assessment
team considered the potential for drifting FADs to cause serious or irreversible harm in PIs 2.4.x. Derelict
FADS are considered abandoned fishing gear. The MSC intent regarding impacts from gear loss on habitat
is described in Box GSA7 (MSC Standard v2.01), indicating that the impacts of gear loss on habitats are
considered under the Habitats components, specifically at the SG100 level for PI 2.4.2, where fisheries are
required to have a management strategy in place even for gears that do not regularly contact benthic
habitats since gear loss could occur. Considering a broader interpretation of the MSC’s intent (in line with
clause 7.7.1.2) the assessment team took a more precautionary approach categorizing coral reefs that are
impacted by abandoned fishing gear as VMEs.

The assessment team noted that the use of FADs is subject to management measures and controls at both
national and IATTC levels. Though measures are in place, evidence of habitat impacts on VMEs and other
habitat types due to lost or derelict FADs require actions by the UoA to ensure measures are implemented.
As a result, the assessment team issued conditions to ensure adequate progress for implementation of
relevant management measures and controls within the UoA (see PIs 2.4.X).

Serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function is not caused by FAD modifications: the
assessment team has reviewed relevant and credible resources and scientific publications about the
“ecological trap” hypothesis. This hypothesis is centered on potential evidence of disproportionate
aggregation and/or changes of behavior of certain species due to FADs. The assessment team carefully
considered the evidence presented on fish residence times and concluded there is no unequivocal
evidence of irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function (see PI 2.5.1).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 19 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

5.2 Assessment results overview

5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement

With the information available, the fishery meets the minimum requirements for being awarded
certification which includes meeting the SG60 for all Performance Indicators and an average score of 80
or greater for all three Principle scores. The team discussed the merits and shortfalls of the fishery and by
consensus recommended certification for the fishery.

In accordance with MSC Certification Requirements, the report was made open to objection by interested
parties for a period of 15 working days from publication of the Final Report with the positive certification
determination. No objections were received. The SCS Certification Board reviewed the report,
Performance Indicator rationales, peer reviews and stakeholder comments and agreed with the
Assessment Team’s recommendation to certify the fishery. The certificate will be awarded after the Public
Certification Report is posted to the MSC website.

For PI level scores please see Table 8

Table 5. Principle level scores

Overall weighted
Yellowfin
Principle-level scores
Principle 1 - Target species 82.5

USA -small
Ecuador Panama USA Ecuador Panama USA
fleet
Free School Sets FAD Sets

Principle 2 - Ecosystem 84.7 84.7 84.7 81.3 81.3 81.3 82.0

Ecuador Panama USA

Principle 3 - Management 84.6 84.0 87.7

5.2.2 Summary of conditions

Table 6. Summary of conditions

Related to
Condition Performance
Condition previous
number Indicator (PI)
condition?

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 20 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Tunacons UoAs: By year 4th surveillance bigeye is highly likely to be

above the PRI.
OR
2-1 If Bigeye is below the PRI, there is either evidence of recovery or a 2.1.1 SIa NA
demonstrably effective strategy in place between all MSC UoAs
which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they
collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.
US Small PS UoA: By year 4th surveillance Pacific bluefin tuna is
highly likely to be above the PRI.
OR
2-2 If Pacific bluefin tuna is below the PRI, there is either evidence of 2.1.1 SI a NA
recovery or a demonstrably effective strategy in place between all
MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they
collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.
US Small PS UoA: By the 4th annual surveillance audit, provide
2-3 PI 2.2.2 SI d NA
evidence that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place
Tunacons UoA: By the fourth surveillance, provide evidence that
2-4 information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to PI 2.3.3 (b) NA
manage impacts on mobulas and sea turtles
US Small PS UoA: By the fourth surveillance, provide evidence to
demonstrate that some quantitative information is adequate to
2-5 PI 2.3.3 (a) NA
assess the US Small PS UoA related mortality and impact on ETP
species.
Tunacons FAD UoA: By the fourth surveillance audit provide
evidence that FAD sets by the UoA are highly unlikely to reduce the
2-6 structure and function of the VME habitats (coral reefs and 2.4.1 (b) NA
protected areas) to a point where there would be serious or
irreversible harm.
Tunacons FAD UoA: By the fourth year surveillance audit, provide
evidence that there is some objective basis for confidence that the PI 2.4.2 (a)
2-7 NA
measures/partial strategy will work, based on information directly and (b)
about the UoA and/or habitats involved.
Tunacons UoA FADs: By the third surveillance audit, provide
evidence that available information is adequate to allow for
2-8 identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, PI 2.4.3 NA
and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction
and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear
Panama: By the fourth year surveillance the client provides evidence
to show that a monitoring, control and surveillance system has been
3-1 3.2.3 SI a NA
implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated an ability to
enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.
Panama: By the fourth year surveillance the fishery client shall
present evidence to demonstrate that sanctions to deal with non-
3-2 3.2.3 SI b NA
compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide
effective deterrence.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 21 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Ecuador: By the fourth year surveillance the fishery client shall

present evidence to demonstrate that sanctions to deal with non-
3-3 3.2.3 SI b NA
compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide
effective deterrence.

5.2.3 Recommendations

6. Traceability and eligibility

6.1 Eligibility date
The target eligibility date will be the date of the certification of the fishery.

Based on the information provided by the client, SCS has determined that: for the vessels in the Tunacons
UoA that only fish on FAD and free school sets, the Chain of Custody (CoC) starts at the point of landing,
for the select vessels in the Tunacons UoA that have authorization from IATTC to set on dolphins2, CoC
will be required to start at the point of capture, thus CoC certification is required to verify that the fishery
client maintains appropriate systems and records to demonstrate the traceability back to the UoC. For the
US California Coastal Small PS UoA, CoC starts at the point of landing

6.2 Traceability within the fishery

Description of Tracking, Tracing and Segregation Systems

The following traceability evaluation is for the UoC/UoA covering the TUNACONS and US California Coastal
small PS fleet. Because some components of the assessment use set types not covered under this fishery
assessment, chain of custody (CoC) is expected to begin at the point of capture; all vessels will require
their own CoC certificate, which will require an evaluation of the processes in place to ensure eligibility
into the MSC supply chain.

Below we’ve listed the main stages of the supply chain within the TUNACONS and US-based fleet fishery
and the relevant tracking, tracing and segregation systems at each step:
1. Capture of product:
Tunacons UoAs: All vessels in the UoA are tracked using a monitoring system (VMS) during
operation. Vessels target tuna using purse seine gear, on either FADs or free school sets. All
vessels have 100% observer coverage. Once the tuna is identified by the vessel, the set is
made, and the catch is brought onboard. The catch is sorted on the deck and retained species

2
Note that this fishery was assessed under FCP 2.0, assessing only FAD and free school sets, sets on dolphins are
not part of the UoA. For such fisheries MSC requires that CABs shall apply the Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Unit of
Certification (UoC) requirements (FCP 7.5.2, 7.5.3 and 7.5.6) by 25 March 2023. The UoA requirements under FCP
2.2 requires all set types to be included within the UoA and UoC.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 22 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

are placed into the pre-designated well. The captain’s logbook records an estimate of the
catch (volumes, species), set type, late and long, date when fishing started/ended, and the
well. Observer also record catch, set type, and date. Product is stored in wells after capture.
Any transfer of fish between wells is recorded in the captain’s log sheet.
US California Coastal small PS: Vessels are required to record catch data in logbook and
submit to the National Marine Fisheries Service.
2. On-board processing:
Tunacons UoAs: No onboard processing occurs. Fish are placed into wells and frozen at
sea.
US California Coastal small PS: No onboard processing occurs.
3. Product unloading and product sale/change of ownership”
Tunacons UoAs Product is offloaded in port. No transshipment occurs. At the point of
offload, a port inspector will validate the information presented by the vessel, verifying that
documentation meets requirements, including fishing permit, volume of product captured,
species captured and fishing gear. All vessels provide the first receiver with the captain
logsheet of the trip, captain statement, and well summary. Once the inspection is completed,
the offloading of the product is approved to be transported to the processing companies. A
transportation permit (guia de transito) is emitted by the port inspector detailing the license
plates of the transport vehicle, estimated volume and destination of the product. The first
receiver will require their own chain of custody certificate for the catch to be eligible to enter
the MSC supply chain Several of the fishing fleets and processing companies are vertically
integrated companies, for which the change of ownership may occur after initial processing.
For other companies change of ownership will take place at point of offloading. However, for
purposes of this assessment CoC starts at offloading, expect for the select vessels authorized
to fish on dolphin sets, for which CoC starts at point of capture. For product landed in
Ecuadorian ports the following documents are submitted to the first buyers once the port
inspection is completed: for foreign flag vessels the Guide for the mobilization of Fishery
Products (Guia de Movilizacion de Products Pesqueros – GMPP), which detailed the product
offloaded and is supported with import authorization. For national flagged vessels, the
Fishing Landing Control Monitoring Certificate ( Certificado de Monitoreo de Control de
Desembarque Pesquero CMCDP) is issues, which is delivered to the owner of the vessel. ..
US small PS UoA: Product is offloaded in port. No transshipment occurs. At the time of
unloading, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations require that a Fish
Landing Receipt be issued by the first receiver and be provided to the fishing vessel and to the
State. A lot number is assigned to all fish offloaded by each vessel and products are tracked
through the freezing process, storage and ultimate sale or export. The first receiver will
require their own chain of custody certificate for the catch to be eligible to enter the MSC
supply chain.

Table 7. Traceability within the fishery

Factor Description

Will the fishery use gears that Tunacons UoAs: Vessels only target tuna using purse-seine gear. No gear types
are not part of the Unit of not included in the UoC would be used. Gear type and set type is verified via
Certification (UoC)?

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 23 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

several mechanisms including 100% observer coverage, vessel logbook and port
If Yes, please describe: inspections.

For vessels in the Tunacons UoA that are authorized only fish on FAD and Free
school sets, there is no risk that gears or set types that are not part of the UoC
are employed, allowing CoC to start at point of landing.

In the Tunacons UoAs a few select large purse seine vessels are permitted by
the IATTC to employ set types that are not covered in the assessment (dolphin
sets). IATTC regulation require large purse seine vessels to always carry an
observer on board, and that both the observer and vessel logbook report
information on set type. enter. Observers must be present any time fish is
transferred between wells. Systems in place are considered appropriate to
manage the risk of mixing between non-certified and certified fishing method,
however segregation systems would need to be confirmed through a chain of
custody audit. For this reason, for these two vessels, chain of custody begins at
the point of capture.
There is no risk that other vessels in the fleet

US small PS UoA: In the US Small PS UoA, all gear and set types are part of the
UoA, thus chain of custody begins at the point of landing. This information is
validated via vessel logbook and fishing permits.
Tunacons UoAs: The large purse-seine vessels flagged to Ecuador and Panama
do not operate outside of the UoA geographic area (Ecuador EEZ and IATTC
comission area), thus segregation is not required.
However, the larger US flagged vessels (Tri Marine vessels) under assessment
also fishes in the Western Pacific Ocean under the purview of the WCPFC. These
vessels also covered under another MSC fisheries certificate in the WCPFC (F-
SCS-0094). Vessels will continue to fish in both convention areas
The US fleet. Fishing masters are required to complete official logbooks which
records information about the fishing vessel’s activities including inter alia set
location, type of set, catch volumes by species and well numbers. Only fish
Will vessels in the UoC also fish captured in the IATTC is MSC eligible under this assessment. The fishing
outside the UoC geographic master’s logbook and well chart enables identification of catch from MSC-
area? eligible areas. If there is catch from non-UoA regions, it must either be stored in
separate wells, or a double-separation net must be used to prevent mixing
If Yes, please describe: when stored within the same dry well.
Well level segregation is
believed to be maintained
In July 2020, under the authority of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Convention Implementation Act and the Tuna Conventions Act, NMFS issued a
final rule revising the management regime for U.S. fishing vessels that target
tunas and other highly migratory fish species in the overlap area. The rule
applies all regulations implementing IATTC resolutions in the area of overlapping
jurisdiction and some regulations implementing WCPFC provisions. US flagged
vessels fishing on the high seas in the overlap area must be registered on the
IATTC Regional Vessel Register and be authorized by NOAA to fish on the high
seas in the WCPFC Area. Catch and effort data is reported to both the WCPFC
and IATTC. However, only the IATTC catch and effort limits implemented by the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 24 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

United States in NMFS regulations apply in the overlap area. Based on this rule
and its application to the UoC we consider all catch and effort in the overlap
area as part of the EPO and therefore as part of the UoC for this assessment.

These vessels segregate MSC-eligible catch in the WCPFC from any catch from
the EPO. Non-MSC eligible catch is segregated at the well-level (or by double-
nets if stored in the same well). The following records are passed on: captain’s
log sheet records the location, set type, and well chart identifying the fish as
MSC or non-MSC. The Tri Marine office receives a weekly update on the well
report and reviews these documents and then issues an MSC qualification
determination.

The systems in place are already in place for the certified Tri Marine Western
and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin fishery and considered appropriate to
manage the risk of mixing between non-certified and certified fishing methods.

US small PS UoA: The US-based fleet fishes uniquely in areas under assessment
(US EEZ).
Do the fishery client members Tunacons UoAs: The fishery clients handle both certified and non-certified fish.
ever handle certified and non- See the section above regarding fishing activity outside the geographic area and
certified products during any of using non-certified set types and description of mitigation of these risks.
the activities covered by the
fishery certificate? This refers US small PS UoA: The fishery clients handle only certified fish. No mitigation is
to both at-sea activities and on- necessary.
land activities.

If Yes, please describe how any

risks are mitigated.
Does transshipment occur Tunacons UoAs: No transshipment occurs for any vessels in the fishery.
within the fishery?
US small PS UoA: No transshipment occurs for any vessels in the fishery.
If Yes, please describe:

Are there any other risks of Tunacons UoAs: No other risks are known at this stage.
mixing or substitution between
certified and non-certified fish? US small PS UoA: No other risks are known at this stage.

If Yes, please describe how any

risks are mitigated.

6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody

The team has concluded and determined that the product originating from the TUNACONS and US-based
fleet will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and be sold as MSC certified or carry the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 25 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

MSC ecolabel. The team has determined that for the select vessels in the Tunacons UoAs that are
authorized to set on dolphins, Chain of Custody will be required at the vessel level because of the risk of
catch from set types outside of the assessment mixing with MSC-eligible product. Lists of documents to
be solicited by CoC auditors at point where CoC is required will include the captain’s log-sheet, captain’s
statement, and well stowage plan. For all other vessels CoC will start at point of landing. the US small PS
fleet CoC will start at point of landing. List of documents to be solicited by CoC auditors at point where
CoC is required for this UoA will include captain’s log-sheet and captain’s statement,

Below is a list of parties/categories of parties whose product will be eligible to use the fishery certificate
and sell product as MSC certified with the blue eco-label:

• NIRSA
• Tri Marine
• Eurofish
• Jadran
• Servigrup
• Cal Marine Fish Company, LLC
List of eligible landing points:
• Mazatlán, Mexico
• Pago Pago, American Samoa
• Posorja, Ecuador
• Manta, Ecuador
• San Pedro, USA

6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter

Further Chains of Custody
There are no IPI stocks in this fishery. Tuna species, including skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye are stored in
the same wells. While there is a concern of the risk that bigeye may not be distinguishable from yellowfin.
The client explained that species sorting takes place once the product is offloaded and prior to any
processing activity.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 26 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

7 Scoring
7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores
Table 8. Summary of Performance Indicator Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores.
Yellowfin

Principle Performance Indicator (PI) Score

1.1.1 Stock status 80

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding
1.2.1 Harvest strategy 80
One
1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 80
1.2.3 Information & monitoring 80
1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95

USA -
Ecuador Panama USA Ecuador Panama USA small
fleet
Free School Sets FAD Sets
Two 2.1.1 Outcome 80 80 80 70 70 70 60
2.1.2 Management strategy 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 85 85 85 85 85 85 85
2.2.1 Outcome 90 90 90 90 90 90 80
2.2.2 Management strategy 80 80 80 80 80 80 75
2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 95 95 95 95 95 95 80
2.3.1 Outcome 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
2.3.2 Management strategy 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
2.3.3 Information strategy 75 75 75 75 75 75 70
2.4.1 Outcome 90 90 90 75 75 75 90
2.4.2 Management strategy 85 85 85 75 75 75 85
2.4.3 Information 90 90 90 75 75 75 95
2.5.1 Outcome 90 90 90 90 90 90 90
2.5.2 Management 80 80 80 80 80 80 80
2.5.3 Information 95 95 95 95 95 95 95

Ecuador Panama USA (all)

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 80 80 80
3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 80 80 95
3.1.3 Long term objectives 100 100 100
Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 90 90
3.2.2 Decision making processes 85 85 85
3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 75 70 80
Monitoring & management
3.2.4 performance evaluation
80 80 80

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 27 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 9. Principle level scores

Overall weighted
Yellowfin
Principle-level scores
Principle 1 - Target species 82.5

USA -small
Ecuador Panama USA Ecuador Panama USA
fleet
Free School Sets FAD Sets

Principle 2 - Ecosystem 84.7 84.7 84.7 81.3 81.3 81.3 82.0

Ecuador Panama USA

Principle 3 - Management 84.6 84.0 87.7

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 28 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

7.2 Principle 1
7.2.1 Principle 1 background

7.2.1.1 (Yellowfin Tuna, Thunnus albacares)

Life History Information

Taxonomic classification
Class: Actinopterygii
Order: Perciformes
Family: Scombridae
Genus: Thunnus
Species: albacares
Behavior

Yellowfin tuna have a general tendency to school by size. In free-swimming schools, yellowfin tuna are
generally smaller in size with approximately 85% of the fish < 85 cm in length. This behavior is modified
when the fish schools are associated with dolphins. In this case, yellowfin tuna are generally larger in size
with approximately 70% of the fish > 85 cm. The main dolphin species associated with yellowfin tuna are
spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuate), spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), and common dolphin
(Delphinus sp.). Yellowfin tuna also aggregate around floating objects including logs, debris, dead whales,
and other flotsam.

The horizontal distribution of yellowfin appears to be correlated to temperatures between 20° and 30°C.
Prey distribution is also an important factor in the distribution of yellowfin tuna and its distribution
appears to be correlated with upwelling areas and the boundaries of oceanic fronts between the
Equatorial Countercurrent and the South Equatorial Current. Additionally, the thermal structure of the
water column strongly determines the distribution of yellowfin tuna which appears to be limited to the
placement of the thermocline. This particular behavior of the fish has favored the development of the
purse seine fishery (Cole 1980). Figure 1 shows that historically yellowfin tuna has been caught by purse
seiners predominantly associated with dolphins although catches by purse seiners on floating objects have
been important. Very little yellowfin tuna is caught in other types of fisheries (IATTC-17-2019)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 29 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 1. Total catches (retained catches plus discards) for the purse-seine fisheries, by set type (DEL, NOA, OBJ),
and retained catches for the longline (LL) and other (OTR) fisheries, of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific
Ocean, 1975-2018. The purse-seine catches are adjusted to the species composition estimate obtained from
sampling the catches. The 2018 data are preliminary. (Reproduced from IATTC-17-2019).

Growth and Natural Mortality

Growth of yellowfin tuna (YFT) was modeled in the latest full assessment following a Richards growth
curve. However, the asymptotic length (L∞) was poorly estimated because the data do not include many
old fish (Aires-da-Silva and Maunder 2012). This problem was reflected in the results of the assessment
given that the outcome was sensitive to the assumed average size of the oldest fish (Minte-Vera et al.
2015).

Maximum age recorded for yellowfin in the western-central stock was 6.5 years and the IATTC models
growth up to 7.2 years. The maximum recorded length of 209 cm is larger than the L ∞ assumed by the
IATTC of 185.7 cm (Cole 1980; Maunder and Aires-da-Silva 2009).

Natural mortality of yellowfin tuna has been modeled as a function of age and the curve representing this
relationship has varied with the years. The latest assessment separates male from female mortality. The
curve for males declines sharply from 0.7 to 0.2 in the first two years and stays at that level until the oldest
age. Female mortality declines together with males but soon after they reach 0.2 it increases logistically
until at about 5 years it stabilizes at around 0.6 (Figure 2; Aires-da-Silva and Maunder 2012).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 30 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 2. Natural mortality rates (M) at quarterly intervals, used for the assessment of yellowfin tuna in the EPO.
Reproduced from Aires-da-Silva and Maunder (2012).

Reproduction and Recruitment

Adult yellowfin are heterosexual without external sexual dimorphism. Sexual maturity can be reached at
sizes as small as 50 cm, although most reports indicate that the usual size at maturity is around 110 cm at
an age of approximately 2 or 3 years old (Cole 1980). Although spawning occurs throughout the year in
warm northern equatorial waters, there may be some degree of fluctuation caused by the sequential
movement of the 24-degree thermocline as summer progresses from the northern hemisphere to the
south. This probably explains the observation of two cohorts that are 6 months apart in the length
frequency data (Schaefer 2009). Larvae of the yellowfin tuna appear across the Pacific, probably
associated with tropical and subtropical waters, peaking in density from April to June and restricted to the
upper 50 or 60 m of the water column (Cole 1980).

Given the right environmental conditions, particularly temperature, yellowfin can spawn daily, or close to
daily, with more than 60% of the mature females spawning every day (Schaefer 1998). This strong
dependence on environmental conditions is reasonable support to assume recruitment is independent of
stock size. However, this was tested by varying steepness in the assessment model. The trend in annual
recruitment in the 2019 stock assessment (Minte-Vera et al. 2019) suggests there was a period of high
productivity between 1983 and 2003 followed by a period of under-average recruitment (Figure 3). The
relationship of temperature with recruitment has been further investigated by adding a temperature
variable into the stock assessment model and by correlating temperature and recruitment outside the
stock assessment model. No statistical relationship was found in either of the two approaches.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 31 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Stock Structure

The IATTC recognizes a single biological stock for yellowfin tuna. Potential division into two sub-stocks has
been suggested with the dividing line drawn at 15° N (Schaefer 2009), but this proposition has not been
verified, nor considered for stock assessments or management decisions. It is also considered that
exchange between the EPO and the western Pacific is limited, and therefore the two regions are
considered to have separate stocks. Results of tagging are limited but some have suggested the possibility
of movements restricted to relatively small areas (Schaefer et al 2009). Further investigation of this
potential structure at a finer scale has been suggested (Aires-da-Silva and Maunder 2012).

Figure 3. Estimated annual recruitment at age zero of yellowfin tuna to the fisheries of the EPO. The estimates
are scaled so that the average recruitment is equal to 1.0 (dashed horizontal line). The solid line illustrates the
MLE of recruitment, and the shaded are indicates the approximate 95% confined intervals around those
estimates. Reproduced from Minte-Vera et al. (2015).

Status of stocks

The 2020 benchmark assessment of yellowfin tuna in the EPO represents a new approach (Minte-Vera et
al., 2020). Previously, a ‘best assessment’ approach was used for the evaluation of stock status using a
single ‘base-case’ model. The new approach is based on ‘risk analysis’ methodologies, which use several
reference models to represent various plausible states of nature (assumptions) about the biology of the
fish, the productivity of the stocks, and/or the operation of the fisheries, and takes into account the
different results, thus effectively incorporating uncertainty into the formulation of management advice.
This change, which represents a paradigm shift at IATTC, both for the staff’s work and for the
Commission’s decision-making regarding the conservation of tropical tunas, also allows the staff to
evaluate explicitly the probability statements specified in the IATTC harvest control rule for tropical tunas
established in Resolution C-16-02.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 32 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The risk analysis encompasses alternative hypotheses on the states of nature that addressed uncertainties
and issues from previous assessments. There were 48 reference models (states of nature), representing
12 different model configurations, each with four different values of steepness (0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0).

Current status relative to a reference point was calculated as a weighted average of the point estimates
of the ratio from each of the alternative stock assessment models, with weights equal to the relative
model probabilities (equal to the expected value under the normal distribution assumption made for each
model). The probability of exceeding a reference point was calculated using the cumulative distribution
functions (CDFs) for the ratios of Fcur and Scur relative to the reference points for each of the alternative
models, which are then combined using the model probabilities.

In recent years, temporal changes in stock status indicators (SSIs) have been used to explain potential
trends in stock status (Minte-Vera et al., 2020). the methods used previously to compute the SSIs, based
on purse-seine data only, have been revised to mitigate possible bias introduced in the allocation of fishing
effort among purse-seine set types. The new SSIs: (a) include measures of catch, effort, CPUE, and average
length of the fish in the retained catch; (b) begin in 2000, the first year of species composition sampling
for the purse-seine fishery and shortly after the major offshore expansion of the floating-object fishery;
and (c) have reference levels set at the 10% and 90% percentiles.

IATTC Resolution C-16-02 defines target and limit reference points, in terms of biomass and fishing
mortality. The SLIMIT adopted as interim by the IATTC (in the 87th meeting) is the spawning biomass that
produces half of the virgin recruitment given that the stock-recruitment relationship follows the Beverton-
Holt function with a steepness of 0.75. This spawning biomass is equal to 0.077 of the equilibrium virgin
spawning biomass (Maunder and Deriso, 2014).

The combined distribution of Fcur/FLIMIT from the 48 models tested is unimodal. The combined ratio of
Fcur/FLIMIT is estimated at approximately 0.3 and the probability of Fcur > FLIMIT = 0. The probability
distribution for Scur/SLIMIT is also unimodal. The combined ratio of Scur/SLIMIT is estimated at
approximately 3.0 and the probability of Scur < SLIMIT = 0.

Annual recruitment estimates are not sensitive to the value of steepness and estimates through 2000
were generally above average, with the largest recruitment in 1999, followed by lower than average
recruitments through 2018. In recent years recruitment increased significantly, but with a larger
uncertainty. It should be noted that this pattern follows the general trend of the index of abundance.

The target reference point of spawning biomass is the level of spawning biomass that should be achieved
and maintained. The spawning biomass that produces the MSY (SMSY) was adopted by the IATTC (in the
87th meeting) as the interim target reference point for tropical tunas in the EPO. IATTC Resolution C-16-
02 mentions that when dictating rebuilding targets, actions are required to allow for at least 50% chance
of rebuilding the spawning biomass to the dynamic MSY level (SMSY_d) within 5 years or two generations.
Here, SMSY_d is derived by projecting the population into the future under historical recruitment and a
fishing mortality rate that produces MSY (FMSY). The value of SMSY_d used to compute reference points

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 33 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

for yellowfin is the mean projected spawning biomass for the last four projection quarters. To determine
stock status relative to spawning biomass the probably that the ratio Scur/SMSY_d < 1 is estimated by
assuming CV is equal to that of Fcur/FMSY.

The combined distribution of Fcur/FMSY from the 48 models tested is unimodal. The combined ratio of
Fcur/FMSY is estimated at approximately 0.65 and the probability that Fcur>FMSY = 9%. The probability
distribution for Scur/SMSY_d is also unimodal. The combined ratio of Scur/SMSY_d is estimated at 1.58
and the probability that Scur<SMSY_d = 12%. Based on this information and the cyclic nature of
recruitment, which in the last few years appears to be increasing, the stock is likely fluctuating around
MSY.

To capture the uncertainty about the population dynamics of yellowfin in the EPO, the 48 reference
models (12 models x 4 steepness values), each reflecting a different hypothesis, were considered when
evaluating the status of the stock. Results from each model is shown on a Kobe plot (see Figure 9).

Fishing and Management

The harvest strategy specifies that if fishing mortality is higher than the level consistent with producing
MSY, F is reduced to FMSY. Implementation requires estimation of the F-multiplier management
parameter, which is the ratio of FMSY/Fcurrent. Simply put the amount of fishing mortality above or below
FMSY is represented as a proportion of effort (in days of fishing) that would be needed to reduce F if it
exceeds FMSY, or, conversely, could be increased if Fcurrent is below FMSY. The F-multiplier is adjusted
to account for the change in the fleet carrying capacity and then applied to the current number of days of
open season. The multiplier is computed for yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack stocks, and the one with the
lowest value is used to obtain the total length in days of closure for the following fishing year.

IATTC agreed on interim limit and target reference points intended to maintain stocks at MSY. The LRP for
yellowfin is set at 0.28*SMSY which correspond to a 50% reduction in recruitment from its average
unexploited level based on a conservative value of stock-recruitment steepness (i.e. h = 0.75). The interim
TRPs are FMSY and SMSY.

IATTC Resolution C-16-02 established the harvest control rules for yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack, based
on the reference points outlined above. The HCR follows:
▪ multi-year management measures will attempt to keep F below FMSY for the species requiring the
strictest management (i.e. the most vulnerable of the three tropical tuna species in terms of stock
status);
▪ if the probability that F>Flim is >10 %, management measures shall be established such that there is
at least a 50 % probability that F will reduce to FMSY or below, and a probability of <10 % of F>Flim;
and
▪ if the probability that SB<SBlim is >10 %, management measures shall be established such that
there is at least a 50 % probability that SB will recover to SBMSY or above, and a probability of
<10 % that SB will decline to <SBlim within two generations or 5 years, whichever is greater.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 34 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The main conservation measure established by the IATTC for yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack are
Resolutions C-17-01 and C-17-02, and include:
▪ a closure of 72-days for purse seine vessels greater than 182 t capacity from 2018 to 2020 (vessels
with Dolphin Mortality Limits are allowed an additional 10 days of fishing in 2018-2020);
▪ a seasonal closure (9 October to 8 November) of the purse seine fishery in an area known as the
"corralito", west of the Galapagos Islands, where catch rates of small bigeye are high;
▪ a full retention requirement for all purse seine vessels regarding bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin
tunas;
▪ limits on the number of active FADs that each purse seiner can have at any time, ranging from 70
FADs/vessel for the smallest vessels to 450 FADs/vessel for Class 6 vessels (1200 m3 capacity). Class
6 vessels are also required to not deploy FADs 15 days before the selected closure period and to
recover within 15 days prior to the start of the closure period a number of FADs equal to the
number of FADs set upon during that same period; and
▪ bigeye catch limits for the main longline fishing nations.

Pole-and-line, troll, and sportfishing vessels, and purse-seine vessels of IATTC capacity classes 1-3 (182 t
carrying capacity or less) and longline vessels less than 24 m length overall, are not subject to the above
measures, except those related to the management of FADs.

Uncertainty in the stock assessments have led to difficulties in the operation of the HCR. In 2018, the
outcomes of assessments of bigeye and yellowfin were considered in relation to the C-16-02 HCR and the
requirements of C-17-02. The results of the 2018 assessment of bigeye, specifically the F multiplier (0.87)
was below the previous estimate, suggesting that the current 72-day seasonal closures should be
extended to 107 days. For yellowfin the 2018 estimated F-multiplier was 0.99. While the results suggested
an increase in the closure period would be needed no change in the duration of the closures was
recommended. The reasons included a significant amount of uncertainty in the bigeye tuna assessment
to support modifying the current management measure and current fishing mortality for yellowfin was at
the approximate the level corresponding to MSY. Given the continuing increase in fishing effort in the
purse-seine fishery, IATTC scientific staff recommended a limit on the total number of floating-object and
unassociated purse seine sets. Due to difficulties in limiting floating-object sets (see IATTC 94-03) no action
was taken. In 2019 the IATTC staff reiterated its 2018 recommendation to limit the total combined number
of floating-object and unassociated purse-seine sets based on a continuing increase in the number of
purse seine sets (particularly floating-object sets) observed in the EPO.

In 2020, IATTC conducted a risk-based analysis to determine if the current 72-day closure period meets
the objectives specified in the harvest strategy for both yellowfin and bigeye. The analyses suggested that
under the pessimistic scenario for bigeye the 72-day closure period meets the objectives of the harvest
strategy and no additional closure days are needed. However, the P(SB>SBLIMIT) was determined to be
at the established threshold of 10%, and, consistent with the harvest strategy, IATTC staff recommended
additional conservation measures to reduce fishing mortality, including a limit on floating-object sets for
all purse-seine vessels, combined with individual-vessel daily active FAD limits. IATTC still needs to
determine whether to adopt the recommended measures.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 35 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

IATTC scientists have developed a workplan plan to address the issues with the stock assessment in the
short term. In the longer term, under the strategic plan it is proposed to conduct a comprehensive
Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) for EPO tropical tuna.

7.2.1.2 Catch profiles

Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

Table 10. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data Yellowfin Tuna EPO

TAC* (Total Catch IATTCH) Year NA Amount NA

UoA share of TAC Year NA Amount NA

UoA share of total TAC Year NA Amount NA

Year (most recent) 2018 Amount 415 mt

Total green weight catch by UoC
(Tunacons UoA)- Free School Sets
Year (most recent) 2019 Amount 340 mt

Year (most recent) 2018 Amount 4,005 mt

Total green weight catch by UoC
(Tunacons UoA)- FAD Sets
Year (most recent) 2019 Amount 1,875 mt

Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most recent) 2019 Amount 275 mt
US California Coastal Small Purse
Seine Year (second most
2020 Amount 1,750 mt
recent)

*There is no TAC in the IATTC for yellowfin. Effort is managed by number of days.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 36 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

7.2.2 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

PI 1.1.1 – Yellowfin tuna—Stock Status

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of
recruitment overfishing
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

Guide It is likely that the stock is above It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of
post the point where recruitment stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is
would be impaired (PRI). above the PRI.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

IATTC Resolution C-16-02 defines target and limit reference points, in terms of biomass and fishing mortality.
The SLIMIT adopted as interim by the IATTC (in the 87th meeting) is the spawning biomass that produces half of
the virgin recruitment given that the stock-recruitment relationship follows the Beverton-Holt function with a
steepness of 0.75. This spawning biomass is equal to 0.077 of the equilibrium virgin spawning biomass
(Maunder and Deriso (2014) – SAC-05-14).

The limit reference point of fishing mortality (FLIMIT) is the fishing mortality threshold that should be avoided
because fishing harder could endanger the sustainability of the stock. The FLIMIT adopted as interim by the
IATTC (in its 87th meeting) is the fishing mortality rate that, under equilibrium conditions, maintains the
spawning population level at SLIMIT.

Current status relative to a reference point was calculated as a weighted average of the point estimates
of the ratio from each of the alternative stock assessment models (N=48; there are 12 model configurations
with four steepness (h) values associated with each configuration), with weights equal to the relative
model probabilities (equal to the expected value under the normal distribution assumption made for each
model). The probability of exceeding a reference point was calculated using the cumulative distribution
functions (CDFs) for the ratios of Fcur and Scur relative to the reference points for each of the alternative
models, which are then combined using the model probabilities.

The combined distribution of Fcur/FLIMIT from the 48 models tested is unimodal. The combined ratio of
Fcur/FLIMIT is estimated at approximately 0.3 and the probability of Fcur > FLIMIT = 0 (Table 11 and Figure 4
below). The probability distribution for Scur/SLIMIT is also unimodal. The combined ratio of Scur/SLIMIT is
estimated at approximately 3.0 and the probability of Scur < SLIMIT = 0 (Table 11 and Figure 5Figure 5).

Annual recruitment estimates are not sensitive to the value of steepness and estimates through 2000 were
generally above average, with the largest recruitment in 1999, followed by lower than average recruitments
through 2018. In recent years recruitment increased significantly, but with a large confidence interval (Figure 6).
It should be noted that this pattern follows the general trend of the index of abundance.

While IATTC established interim reference points for tropical tuna in the EPO, they are lower than
values used in other MSC certified stocks. Using guidance provided in GSA 2.2.3.1, where an analytically
determined estimate for MSY is available and no estimate of PRI available, a more precautionary approach is

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 37 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

required and the default MSC PRI of 20%S0 is recommend. Weighted estimates of SMSY/S0, based on 12
potential states of nature, were computed for each level of steepness (1.0, 0.9, 0.8, and 0.7). For yellowfin tuna
the average PRI across all states of nature and steepness combinations was 0.22 (range 0.19 - 0.24), and only at
a steepness of 0.7 was current stock biomass below the PRI. Past assessments assumed a steepness value of
0.75, and if applied to the current analysis, stock biomass is above PRI. Given that the tested states of nature
and steepness combinations encapsulate a wide range of uncertainties, the PRI is precautionary (well above the
established LRP in the IATTC), and SCURRENT is above PRI, requirements at the SG 80 level are met. As there
are outcomes which suggest the stock is below 20%S0 and, despite it being highly likely that the stock is above
the PRI, the contribution of each measure to reduce uncertainty is not fully understood and the assessment
team does not consider there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI. These contributions
could be quantified with implementation of a fully functioning MSE. On this basis SG100 is not met.

Figure 4. Yellowfin probability density functions for Fcur/FLIMIT (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020).

Figure 5. Yellowfin probability density functions for Scur/SLIMT (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 38 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 11. Management quantities (P(Model)) for yellowfin tuna in the EPO (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020).

Figure 6. Estimated annual recruitment of yellowfin tuna to the fisheries of the EPO for the 48 models from
the reference set. The lines indicate the maximum likelihood estimates (MLE) of recruitment (with colors
corresponding to different values of the steepness).
b Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of

post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock
consistent with MSY. has been fluctuating
around a level consistent
with MSY or has been
above this level over
recent years.
Met? Yes No

Rationale

The target reference point of spawning biomass is the level of spawning biomass that should be achieved and
maintained. The spawning biomass that produces the MSY (SMSY) was adopted by the IATTC (in the 87th
meeting) as the interim target reference point for tropical tunas in the EPO. IATTC Resolution C-16-02 mentions
that when dictating rebuilding targets, actions are required to allow for at least 50% chance of rebuilding the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 39 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

spawning biomass to the dynamic MSY level (SMSY_d) within 5 years or two generations. Here, SMSY_d is derived by
projecting the population into the future under historical recruitment and a fishing mortality rate that produces
MSY (FMSY). The value of SMSY_d used to compute reference points for yellowfin is the mean projected spawning
biomass for the last four projection quarters. To determine stock status relative to spawning biomass the
probably that the ratio Scur/SMSY_d < 1 is estimated by assuming CV is equal to that of Fcur/FMSY.

The combined distribution of Fcur/FMSY from the 48 models tested is unimodal. The combined ratio of
Fcur/FMSY is estimated at approximately 0.65 and the probability that Fcur>FMSY = 9% (Table 11 above in Si(a)
and Figure 4 below). The probability distribution for Scur/SMSY_d is also unimodal. The combined ratio of
Scur/SMSY_d is estimated at 1.58 and the probability that Scur<SMSY_d = 12% (Table 11above in Si(a) and Figure 8
below). There is zero probability that both S and F limit reference points have been exceeded (P(Scur<SLIMIT) =
0%; P(Fcur>FLIMIT) = 0% (see Table 11 above in Si(a)).

To capture the uncertainty about the population dynamics of yellowfin in the EPO, the 48 reference models (12
models x 4 steepness values), each reflecting a different hypothesis, were considered when evaluating the
status of the stock. Results from each model is shown on a Kobe plot in Figure 9). To be consistent with the
probabilistic nature of the risk analysis and the HCR, the black dot on the Kobe plot representing the combined
models is based on P(Scur/SMSY<X) = 0.5 and P(Fcur/FMSY>X) = 0.5.

Based on this information and the cyclic nature of recruitment, which in the last few years appears to be
increasing, the stock is likely fluctuating around MSY. This meets the SG80 requirements.

The probability that the spawning biomass at the beginning of 2020 is lower than the MSY level is 50% or less
for thirteen of the 48 models (Minte-Vera et al. 2020). Additionally, the overall trend in spawning biomass has
been gradually declining over time (1985 -2019) despite management measures to increase biomass to MSY
levels. Based on this information the assessment team concluded it is concluded that the SG100 level not met.

Figure 7. Yellowfin probability density functions for Fcur/FMSY (IATTC SAC-11-08).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 40 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 8. Yellowfin probability density functions for Scur/SMSY (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020).

Figure 9. Kobe (phase) plot of the current spawning biomass and fishing mortality relative to their MSY
reference points. The panels represent interim target reference points (SMSY_d and FMSY).(Top) Point estimate
with the indication of the model. Each model is represented by a combination of its basic configuration plus the
steepness assumption. (Bottom) Dashed limes represent limit reference points. The center point for each model
indicates the current stock status, based on the average fishing mortality (F) over the last three years; The solid
black circle represents all models combined; to be consistent with the probabilistic nature of the risk analysis

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 41 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

and the HCR, it is based on P(Scur/SLIMIT<x) = 0.5 and P(Fcur/FMSY>x) = 0.5. The lines around each estimate
represent its approximate 95% confidence interval.
References

SAC-10-01, SAC-09-07, SAC-09-06, IATTC 2014, Minte-Vera et al 2020, Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020

Stock status relative to reference points

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status

relative to reference point
Reference point used Limit reference point 0.077S0
in scoring stock P (SCUR < SLIMIT) = 0% across
relative to PRI (SIa) MSC default PRI 20%S0 all runs)
SCUR/S0 from 0.11 to 0.30
across all runs

Reference point used SCUR/SMSY 1.0 P (SCUR < SMSY)= 0.12

in scoring stock P (FCUR > FMSY)= 0.09
relative to MSY (SIb)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 42 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.1.2 – Yellowfin tuna—Stock rebuilding

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe

Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Issue
a Rebuilding timeframes

Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable

post specified for the stock that is rebuilding timeframe is
the shorter of 20 years or 2 specified which does not exceed
times its generation time. one generation time for the
For cases where 2 stock.
generations is less than 5
years, the rebuilding
timeframe is up to 5 years.
Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

No rebuilding plan is required.

b Rebuilding evaluation

Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence that
post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are the rebuilding strategies are
rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is likely rebuilding stocks, or it is highly
effective in rebuilding the based on simulation modelling, likely based on simulation
stock within the specified exploitation rates or previous modelling, exploitation rates or
timeframe. performance that they will be previous performance that they
able to rebuild the stock within will be able to rebuild the stock
the specified timeframe. within the specified timeframe.
Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

No rebuilding plan is required.

References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range NA

Information gap indicator NA

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 43 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 – Yellowfin tuna—Harvest strategy

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Harvest strategy design

Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is
post expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of the responsive to the state of
management objectives stock and the elements of the the stock and is designed to
reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. harvest strategy work achieve stock management
together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI
stock management objectives 1.1.1 SG80.
reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.
Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

IATTC adopted a HCR for tropical tunas based on the interim target and limit reference points adopted in 2014
(Resolution C-16-02), aimed at preventing fishing mortality from exceeding the MSY level for the tropical tuna
stocks (bigeye, yellowfin or skipjack). If there is a 10% or greater probability of reaching the LRP for fishing
mortality or spawning biomass, the HCR triggers the establishment of additional management measures to
reduce fishing mortality and rebuild the stock via fleet-specific time/area closures and catch limits (see
Resolutions C-17-01 and C-17-02). While catch limits have not been imposed for yellowfin tuna in the IATTC
Convention area the established longline catch limits on bigeye tuna for China, Japan, Korea, United States, and
Chinese Taipei will likely result in reduced yellowfin tuna catches as these species are generally caught together.

Resolution C-17-02 outlined the specific measures in place for the 2018-2020 fishing years, with these measures
rolled over into 2021 via C-20-06 (see Section 1.1). In practice, the harvest strategy for yellowfin does not
necessarily relate directly to the yellowfin stock status but rather depends on all tropical tuna stocks assessed,
with resultant measures based on the worst case.

The duration of the closure is set according to the level of Fmult (FMSY/Fcurrent) for the stock requiring the
strictest management, at present bigeye tuna. While the harvest strategy is in theory responsive to the state of
the more vulnerable species (bigeye tuna), resulting in the adoption of more precautionary measures for
yellowfin tuna. Between 2013 and 2016 a 62-day closure period was established and due to increasing fishing
mortality the closure period was increased to 72-days in 2017, where it remains today. This approach seems
reasonable given past experiences and the timeframe set out by IATTC scientists to review and improve the
assessment is ‘likely to work’ (i.e. will not crash the stock). This meets SG60.

In the recent yellowfin stock assessment IATTC scientists determined the EPO stock to be “healthy”, not
overfished or experiencing overfishing (Minte-Vera et al., 2020). As part of the recent yellowfin and bigeye tuna
risk-based management approach, the consequence of varying durations of purse seine closures relative to the
probability of exceeding fishing mortality reference points as stipulated in IATTC Resolution C-16-02 was
assessed (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020), and the results indicated the current closure period is effective in meeting
management objectives. The regular undertaking of stock assessments and submission of data/information by
IATTC members, together with adoption of measures (-16-02, C-17-02, and C_20-06), clearly demonstrates that
the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in
PI 1.1.1 SG80. On this basis SG80 is met.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 44 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

While elements of the harvest strategy work together, unresolved uncertainties within the stock assessment
remain and testing of the harvest control rule with respect to reference points within an MSE framework have
not been completed. On this basis, SG100 is not met.
b Harvest strategy evaluation

Guide The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the
post to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been
experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and
argument. achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show
that it is achieving its
objectives including being
clearly able to maintain
stocks at target levels.
Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

At the SG 60 level, the SI requires that the strategy is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible
argument. Major components of the harvest strategy are MSY-based limit and target reference point based on
a conservative assumption on stock-recruitment steepness. The current strategy restricts fishing effort using
areal/temporal closures periods based on stock status determinations relative to reference points and this
strategy is common in fisheries management. Between 2013 and 2016 a 62-day closure period was established
and due to increasing fishing mortality the closure period was increased to 72-days in 2017 where it remains
today. We also note that the closures are beneficial to small bigeye tuna that have higher abundances in the
EPO. Therefore the strategy is responsive and likely to work based on past experiences and plausible argument.
Thus, SG60 is met.

While the harvest strategy for yellowfin itself has not been thoroughly tested (Maunder and Deriso, 2016), the
harvest strategy relies on the adoption of management measures based on the worst estimated status for
tropical tuna stocks, and partial MSE testing on bigeye tuna (Maunder et al. 2015). The 2020 stock assessment
indicated only a 9% probability that the fishing mortality corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield
(FMSY) has been exceeded and a 12% probability that the spawning stock biomass corresponding to the
maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) has been exceeded. Also, the probability that the F and B limit reference
points have been exceeded is zero. Thus, there is evidence that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives
and SG80 is met.

While the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives it has not been fully evaluated. Therefore, the
requirements for SG 100 are not met. The IATTC is working towards development of an MSE framework to
evaluate harvest strategies and the terms of reference for MSE workshops was established in Resolution C-19-
07; the first MSE Workshop was convened December 2019.

c Harvest strategy monitoring

Guide Monitoring is in place that is

post expected to determine
whether the harvest strategy
is working.
Met? Yes

Rationale

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 45 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

There is a considerable amount of data being collected that informs various aspects of the harvest strategy.
Observer coverage at 100% (for vessel category 6), logbook records, and additional research data gathering
provide the basic inputs for assessment models that have been developed over a long period of time and are
used in conjunction with the HCR. In addition, CPCs (Members and cooperating non-Members of IATTC) are
required to submit annual national reports on national compliance schemes and actions taken to implement
agreed IATTC measures. Additionally, C-20-06 requires IATTC scientific staff to analyse the effects of
conservation and management measures on tuna stocks, and, if necessary, to propose appropriate measures to
be applied in future years. Therefore, sufficient monitoring is in place to support the current harvest strategy for
YFT, and to determine whether the harvest strategy is working; SG 60 is met.
d Harvest strategy review

Guide The harvest strategy is

post periodically reviewed and
improved as necessary.
Met? No

Rationale

The IATTC regularly conducts stock assessments (last YFT assessment was conducted in 2020), evaluates the
utility of management measures and harvest strategy, and provides recommendations to improve the different
mechanisms in the harvest strategy. Examples of a search for appropriate reference points and control rules are
in: Maunder (2012a); Maunder and Deriso (2007); Maunder and Deriso (2013); Maunder and Deriso (2014).
Changes in stock assessment methodologies to improve estimation of parameters can be followed in: IATTC
(2000); Maunder and Watters (2001); Maunder and Watters (2003); Maunder (2012; Minte-Vera et al 2019).
These tests and analyses are particularly important for YFT because the biological characteristics and the
operational nature of the fishery has deemed the traditional indicators either unreliable or inappropriate
(Minte-Vera et al 2019). IATTC has used these investigations to reach agreements on alternative indicators and
reference levels that are used to assist in the determination of the status of the tropical tuna stocks (Minte-Vera
et al 2019, Xu et al 2019, Maunder 2019, Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020).

There is therefore effort and expertise used to improve the workings of the harvest strategy for tropical tunas,
by ongoing review and analysis of how it is performing overall and for particular species. However, the current
reviews have not addressed how management action will be triggered in a formalized manner for YFT
specifically, should indicators point to stock-level concerns for this less vulnerable species. Also, IATTC
Resolution C-17-01 required review of the tropical tuna harvest strategy during 2018. Unfortunately, this was
not accomplished and IATTC scientific staff recommended that the provisions of Resolution C-17-02 be
maintained. Since the harvest strategy was not sufficiently reviewed in 2018, SG100 is not met.
e Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of
post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning
is not taking place.
Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Not applicable as the target is not a shark.

f Review of alternative measures

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 46 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Guide There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of
post the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness
and practicality of and practicality of alternative and practicality of
alternative measures to measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to
minimise UoA-related related mortality of minimise UoA-related
mortality of unwanted catch unwanted catch of the target mortality of unwanted
of the target stock. stock and they are catch of the target stock,
implemented as appropriate. and they are implemented,
as appropriate.
Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Rationale

Reporting of discards is done via vessel logbooks and observer programs. Reported discards for the UoA
represented approximately 1 % for skipjack tuna, and less than 0.1 % for yellowfin and bigeye tuna. Hence,
there is no “unwanted catch”* of yellowfin in this fishery. Discarding of target stock within the UoA is
considered insignificant and we consider this scoring issue not to be relevant.

* SA3.1.6: The term ‘unwanted catch’ shall be interpreted by the team as the part of the catch that a fisher did
not intend to catch but could not avoid and did not want or chose not to use.
References

IATTC-SAC (2015); Maunder (2012a); Maunder (2012b); Maunder (2019); Maunder (2015); Maunder and
Watters (2001); Maunder and Watters (2003); Maunder and Deriso (2007); Maunder and Deriso (2013);
Maunder and Deriso (2014), Minte-Vera et al 2019, Minte-Vera et al 2018, Aires-da-Silva et al 2020.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Documentation describing changes (if any) to the

harvest strategy of tropical tunas in the IATTC
Commission area are requested.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant) 80

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 47 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.2 – Yellowfin tuna—Harvest control rules and tools

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a HCRs design and application

Guide Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to
post are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating
are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced at or above a target level
exploitation rate as the point as the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or
of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate
(PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account
level consistent with (or the ecological role of the
above) MSY, or for key LTL stock, most of the time.
species a level consistent
with ecosystem needs.
Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The Commission has consistently recommended the use of an HCR. IATTC Resolution C-16-02 outlines the HCR
for tropical tunas in the IATTC Commission Area as:

1. If the probability that F>Flim is >10%, management measures shall be established such that there is at
least a 50% probability that F will reduce to FMSY or below, and with a probability of less than 10% that
F>Flim.

2. If the probability that SB<SBlim is greater than10%, management measures shall be established such that
there is at least a 50% probability that SB will recover to SBMSY or above, and with a probability of less than
10% that SB will decline to below SBlim within two generations or 5 years, whichever is greater.

3. Purse seine closures can be established for multiple years and shall attempt to prevent the fishing
mortality rate (F) from exceeding the best estimate of the rate corresponding to the maximum sustainable
yield (FMSY) for the species that requires the strictest management.

These measures are expected to keep the biomass above the LRPs, and above the PRI. Thus, requirements for
SG 60 are met.

To satisfy the requirements at the SG 80 level the HCR must be “well defined”, “in place”, and “expected to
keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with MSY’. Based on Resolution C-16-02 the HCR is
well defined. There is also evidence that the HCR is functionally in place because there has been reliable and
systematic use of its main tool - temporal closures. Closures are the main tool used to control effort and are
numerically explicit; utilizing as input the F multiplier parameter representing the change in effort needed to
keep stocks at Fmsy or below Fmsy (IATTC 2007). The measures also ensure that the stock fluctuates around
MSY by maintaining F at a rate corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) for the species that
requires the strictest management, in this case bigeye tuna. This approach is precautionary in that stricter
management measures would be applied then if management was based on the less vulnerable species,
yellowfin tuna. Thus, requirements for SG 80 are met.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 48 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

To meet the requirements at the SG 100 level, HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a
target level consistent with MSY, or another more appropriate level, taking into account the ecological role of
the stock, most of the time. The current HCR attempts to prevent the fishing mortality rate (F) from exceeding
the best estimate of the rate corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) for the tropical tuna
species that requires the strictest management, in this case bigeye tuna. As previously noted, management
measures applied to yellowfin tuna established through the application of this HCR will be precautionary and
would be expected to keep the stock fluctuating at or above a target level consistent with MSY. While there has
been testing to determine the utility of this approach and the current closure period to meet management
objectives, the current HCR was not tested within a management strategy (MSE) framework. IATTC Resolution
C-19-07 recognizes the importance of MSEs in defining effective HCRs and outlines Terms of Reference (ToR) for
conducting MSE workshops to foster their development for tuna species in the IATTC convention area.
Subsequently, IATTC Staff developed a 5-year workplan to develop MSEs for tropical and temperate tuna
species in the EPO. Until additional testing is completed requirements at the SG 100 level are not met.
b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a

post robust to the main wide range of uncertainties
uncertainties. including the ecological role
of the stock, and there is
evidence that the HCRs are
robust to the main
uncertainties.
Met? Yes No

Rationale

IATTC Resolution C-16-02 established an HCR for tropical tunas in the EPO. A preliminary MSE approach, limited
in scope and testing of uncertainties, was utilized to develop and test the HCR developed for all tropical tunas
using bigeye as an example. While the overall harvest strategy did rebuild the bigeye stock towards the target
under all management scenarios, a more comprehensive MSE is recommended to evaluate the robustness of
the HCR (Maunder and Deriso 2016). Although simulations support the robustness of the HCR and the current
purse seine closure period of 72 days will maintain the yellowfin and bigeye tuna stocks at or above target
reference points, there is still a lack of direct evidence, and, as noted, not all uncertainties have been evaluated
(Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020). However, given the problems with the bigeye assessment, this may have to be re-
evaluated. On this basis, the requirements at the SG 80 level are met but not those at the SG 100 level due to
large remaining uncertainties in stock dynamics.
c HCRs evaluation

Guide There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that
post tools used or available to that the tools in use are the tools in use are
implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the
appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required
controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs.
HCRs.
Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The tools to implement the HCR are set out in Resolutions C-17-01 and C-17-02 and the main tool supporting
the HCR is the F multiplier (FMSY/F), which in turn determines the temporal fishing closure period. Closure
period determinations are not explicitly linked to the HCR but the number of days of closure have been adjusted

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 49 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

according to Fmult (FMSY/F) and other factors. Due to recent increases in capacity within the fisheries, closure
periods are adjusted accordingly. The utility of this approach requires a relationship between exploitation and
closure period, and since established closures are applied over multiple years the relationship should exhibit
temporal consistency. There is a provision for review and adjustment according to the outcome and on that
basis available evidence indicates that the tools are likely to be effective at controlling exploitation rates.
Requirements at the SG 80 level are met.

In 2017, the closure period for 2017-2020 was extended to 72 days based on the F multiplier adjusted for
capacity increases, However, due to uncertainties in the relationship between exploitation and closure period,
the duration of the closure period was not increased in 2018 as recommended by IATTC staff. However, the
utility of the closure the closure period was tested in 2020 as part of the benchmark assessments for yellowfin
and bigeye tuna in the EPO and a formal procedure developed to assess the risk of closure periods in meeting
management objectives. Results indicated that the current closure period of 72 days meets the management
objectives and IATTC recommended no additional closure days. On this basis SG 80 is met.

Using pessimistic results from the bigeye tuna assessment, results of the 2020 analysis of the closure period
indicated that P(SB<SBLIMIT) = 10%, which is the threshold and further reductions in SB would require
additional management measures and potentially a rebuilding plan. Consistent with the harvest strategy IATTC
staff recommended additional management measures to ensure no further increases in F. While a suite of
measures to curtail further increase in F were adopted during the 98th Meeting of the IATTC in October 2021
there is no available information to assess the utility of the measures, as well as compliance by CPCs. On this
basis SG 100 is not met.
References

IATTC (2007); Maunder and Deriso (2016)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 50 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 – Yellowfin tuna—Information and monitoring

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Range of information

Guide Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of

post related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock
stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity,
composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock
support the harvest strategy. data are available to support abundance, UoA removals
the harvest strategy. and other information such
as environmental
information), including some
that may not be directly
related to the current
harvest strategy, is available.
Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The Commission monitors the fishery in a variety of ways, leading to a very complete record of fishing
operations, catch, size-at-catch (size-frequency sampling), bycatch, efficiency and environmental interactions. In
2016, total catch of YFT by all fleets of all size and gear was approximately 254,000 mt. Of this total, purse
seiners caught approximately 242,000 mt. The total purse seine catch was obtained setting approximately
33,000 times, and out of these, only about 7,000 were by vessels smaller than 363 mt (IATTC 2019). This means
that the majority of the fishing effort on YFT was monitored by an observer program that has 100% coverage for
purse seiners larger than 363 mt. This coverage is by all standards large enough to consider that sufficient
information is being recorded about the behaviour and performance of the fishery. Observer data is used to
analyse fleet composition, stock structure, stock productivity and some biological aspects: this meets the SG60
and SG80 requirements.

While available data is sufficient to support the harvest strategy existing information falls short of being
comprehensive. Additional information on stock structure, growth, productivity, and abundance is needed to
reduce some of the most important uncertainties in the stock assessment. Also, the incorporation of available
environmental data into the assessment, which has not been conducted in a rigorous manner, would be
beneficial to identify which variables affect productivity and stock status and whether additional environmental
information should be collected. For this reason, the assessment team concludes that a comprehensive range of
information is not available; SG100 is not met.
b Monitoring

Guide Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by
post removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is
at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high
available and monitored accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree
with sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a
support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of
rule. more indicators are available inherent uncertainties in the
and monitored with information [data] and the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 51 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment

support the harvest control and management to this
rule. uncertainty.
Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Regular stock assessments are conducted to estimate the status of stocks including BET, YFT and SKJ. To this
end, extensive amounts of data are obtained by observers placed on every trip of vessels of class 4 and above.
A considerable amount of information on the biology of the species has been historically obtained to get a
reasonable understanding of the stock abundance, removals and dynamics, allowing for the estimation of the
status of the overall fishery. Understanding of status for YFT is obtained through direct evaluation of the
indicator metrics relative to historical trends. Therefore, stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly
monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or more
indicators are available and monitored with sufficient frequency to support the harvest control rule; SG60 and
SG80 are met.

The main uncertainties are well identified and understood, but some have not been fully addressed or resolved
(e.g., stock structure, length frequency sampling from purse seiners). On this basis SG100 is not met.
c Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on

post all other fishery removals
from the stock.
Met? Yes

Rationale

The fishery for YFT and the other two tropical tunas in the EPO is conducted by many countries including Mexico
and Ecuador that together hold more than half of the carrying capacity of the fleet. Other countries include
Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, and Nicaragua. Although the number of boats of small capacity is similar to
others of larger size, most of the capacity is in vessels of class 4 and above (nearly 95% in 2014). The UoA
comprises only a fraction of the catch obtained by the Ecuadorian fleet; therefore, a large portion of the fishery
is conducted by vessels out of the UoA.

Observer coverage on boats of class 4 and above (95% of total well capacity in 2018) assures that most of the
vessels that are part of the UoA catching YFT are monitored by either the observer program or other programs
investigating specific aspects of the biology of the species or the performance of the fleets.

IATTC stock assessments include retained catch plus discards for the different species of tuna by all gears
including purse seiners, LL and pole and line. All Stock Assessment Reports (SAR) describe this in the methods
section, as well as in annual reports on the tuna fishery, stocks, and ecosystem in the EPO (e.g. IATTC-94-01).
This meets the SG80 requirements.
References

IATTC-94-01, IATTC 2012, Aires-da-Silva, et al., 2020.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range ≥80

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 52 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 53 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.4 – Yellowfin tuna—Assessment of stock status

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

Guide The assessment is The assessment takes into
post appropriate for the stock account the major features
and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of the
rule. species and the nature of
the UoA.
Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The 2020 benchmark assessment of yellowfin tuna in the EPO represents a new approach. Previously, a ‘best
assessment’ approach was used for the evaluation of stock status using a single ‘base-case’ model. The new
approach is based on ‘risk analysis’ methodologies, which use several reference models to represent various
plausible states of nature (assumptions) about the biology of the fish, the productivity of the stocks, and/or the
operation of the fisheries, and considers the different results, thus effectively incorporating uncertainty into the
formulation of management advice. This change, which represents a paradigm shift at IATTC, both for the staff’s
work and for the Commission’s decision-making regarding the conservation of tropical tunas, also allows the
staff to evaluate explicitly the probability statements specified in the IATTC harvest control rule for tropical
tunas established in Resolution C-16-02.

The risk analysis encompasses alternative hypotheses on the states of nature that addressed uncertainties and
issues from previous assessments. There were 48 reference models (states of nature), representing 12 different
model configurations, each with four different values of steepness (0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0).

Current status relative to a reference point was calculated as a weighted average of the point estimates of the
ratio from each of the alternative stock assessment models, with weights equal to the relative model
probabilities (equal to the expected value under the normal distribution assumption made for each model). The
probability of exceeding a reference point was calculated using the cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) for
the ratios of Fcur and Scur relative to the reference points for each of the alternative models, which are then
combined using the model probabilities.

Based on the available information the team determined that the assessment appears appropriate for the stock
and for the harvest control rule. Additional clarification was provided during virtual meetings of the IATTC SAC
in July 2020 and incorporated into the assessment which has now been finalized and adopted by the IATTC; on
this basis the SG80 level is met.

The updated risk analysis approach allows for an improved consideration of uncertainty by testing plausible
states of nature, including the biology of the fish and fishery operations, and explicitly evaluates stock status in
a probabilistic way consistent with the HCR of the Commission. The 2020 yellowfin assessment, as well as the
risk-based approach in general, was reviewed at the 2020 IATTC SAC and Commission Meetings, the 2021 IATTC
SAC Meeting, and numerous IATTC Extraordinary Meetings spanning 2020-2021. The approach has been
endorsed and adopted by the IATTC and on this basis SG100 is met
b Assessment approach

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 54 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Guide The assessment estimates The assessment estimates

post stock status relative to stock status relative to
generic reference points reference points that are
appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and
category. can be estimated.
Met? Yes Yes

Rationale
The stock assessment is used to estimate stock status relative to MSY-related reference points that are
appropriate for yellowfin tuna. This information supports management decision making in the IATTC. This
meets requirements for the SG 80 level.
c Uncertainty in the assessment
Guide The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into
post major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is
uncertainty. evaluating stock status
relative to reference points
in a probabilistic way.
Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The 2020 benchmark assessment of yellowfin tuna in the EPO represents a new approach that explicitly takes
multiple sources of uncertainty into account (model configuration and input parameter estimates) in defining
stock status and formulating management advice within a risk-based framework. Several reference models are
constructed to represent various plausible states of nature (assumptions) about the biology of the fish, the
productivity of the stocks, and/or the operation of the fisheries, thus effectively incorporating uncertainty into
the formulation of management advice. On this basis SG60 and SG80 are met.

Current status relative to reference points are calculated as a weighted average of the point estimates of the
ratio from each of the alternative stock assessment models, with weights equal to the relative model
probabilities. The probability of exceeding a reference point is calculated using the cumulative distribution
functions (CDFs) for the ratios of Fcur and Scur relative to the reference points for each of the alternative models,
which are then combined using the model probabilities. Thus, the approach provides probabilistic statements
regarding stock status which are used in the formulation of management advice. We note there are
uncertainties to be further investigated, as with any fishery, but consider the fishery meets requirements at the
SG100 level.
d Evaluation of assessment
Guide The assessment has been
post tested and shown to be
robust. Alternative
hypotheses and assessment
approaches have been
rigorously explored.
Met? No

Rationale

Unlike previous yellowfin tuna assessments, the 2020 assessment employees a risk-based approach that
addresses the uncertainties about several assumptions and explicitly includes uncertainty in the evaluation of
stock status and formulation of management advice (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020). However, only a subset of the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 55 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

full suite of possible uncertainties or hypotheses are tested, and the assessment fails to address uncertainty in
spatial/stock structure which is considered a key source of uncertainty. Other sources of uncertainty identified
as important and requiring future work include uncertainty in growth and selectivity, as well as natural
mortality (Minte-Vera et al., 2020). On this basis alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have not
been rigorously explored and the SG100 level is not met.
e Peer review of assessment
Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been
post status is subject to peer internally and externally
review. peer reviewed.
Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Results of the IATTC research are often published in peer reviewed journals, particularly those related to
methodologies or the overall state of stocks and the fishery (e.g. Zhu et al. 2012; Hampton et al. 2005; Aires-da-
Silva et al., 2020; for a complete list of IATTC papers see (http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/IATTC-Outside-
Journals.pdf). The latest YFT stock assessment (Minte-Vera et al., 2020) underwent internal reviews during
virtual meetings of the IATTC SAC in 2020 and 2021, Commission Meeting in 2020, and a host of IATTC
Extraordinary Meetings in 2020/2021. On this basis SG80 is met.

The IATTC Commission in December 2019 assembled an external expert panel to peer review the yellowfin tuna
stock assessment model and provide recommendations to the IATTC scientific staff. (Cass-Calay et al. 2019). On
this basis the SG100 is met.

References

Zhu et al. (2012); Hampton et al. (2005); Minte-Vera et al. (2020); Cass-Calay et al. (2019); Aires-da-Silva et al.
(2020); http://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/IATTC-Outside-Journals.pdf

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range ≥ 80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score 95

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 56 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

7.3 Principle 2
7.3.1 Principle 2 background

7.3.1.1 Overview of Non-target Catch

All species that are affected by the fishery and that are not covered under Principle 1 because they are
not included in the UoA are covered under Principle 2. This section contains an evaluation of the total
impact of the fishery on all components in P2 and includes both observed and unobserved fishing
mortality. Unobserved mortality may occur from illegal, unregulated or unreported (IUU) fishing, biota
that are injured and subsequently die as a result of coming in contact with fishing gear, ghost fishing,
waste, or biota that are stressed and die as a result of attempting to avoid being caught by fishing gear.
This section also considers impacts on marine habitats (Performance Indicator 2.4) and the ecosystem
more broadly (Performance Indicator 2.5).

Primary species

For the purposes of a MSC evaluation, primary species are those in the catch, and within the scope of the
MSC program (fishes or shellfish), and not defined by the client as the target – which by definition is
evaluated under Principle 1. Primary species will usually be species of commercial value to either the UoA
or fisheries outside the UoA, with management tools controlling exploitation as well as known reference
points in place. In addition, the institution or arrangement that manages the species (or its local stock)
will usually have some overlap in a jurisdiction with the UoA fishery.

Secondary species

Species associated with the target that is harvested under some management regime, where measures
are in place intended to achieve management, and these are reflected in either limit or target reference
points are evaluated as Primary species within Principle 2. In contrast, secondary species include fish and
shellfish species that are not managed according to reference points. Secondary species are also
considered to be all species that are out of the scope of the standard (birds/ mammals/ reptiles/
amphibians) and that are not ETP species. These types of species could in some cases be landed
intentionally to be used either as bait or as food for the crew or for other subsistence uses, but may also
in some cases represent incidental catches that are undesired but somewhat unavoidable in the fishery.
Given the often-unmanaged status of these species, there are unlikely to be reference points for biomass
or fishing mortality in place, as well as a general lack of data availability.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 57 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Main species

For Primary and Secondary species, species may be considered “Main” based on either
resilience/vulnerability and catch volume. Species that are not “Main” are Minor. Main and Minor species
must meet different Performance Indicators (PIs) in P2.

Resilience/vulnerability:

If the species is considered "less resilient" and it is ≥ 2% of the catch, then it is considered Main, otherwise
it is considered Minor. If the species is not considered "less resilient" and it is ≥ 5% of the catch, then it is
considered Main, otherwise, it is considered Minor.

ETP Species

ETP species have been classified according to v2.01 SA3.1.5 such that:
▪ Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation;
▪ Species listed in the binding international agreements given below:
▪ Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), unless it can be
shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the UoA under assessment is
not endangered.
▪ Binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), including:
▪ Annex 1 of the Agreement on Conservation of Albatross and Petrels (ACAP);
▪ Table 1 Column A of the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA);
▪ Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS);
▪ Annex 1, Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and
Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS);
▪ Wadden Sea Seals Agreement; or
▪ Any other binding agreements that list relevant ETP species concluded under this Convention.

7.3.1.2 Overview of Species Classification

The Unit of Assessment includes a fleet of select 46 Ecuadorian, Panamanian, and US vessels that are
members of TUNACONs. The purse-seine vessels include Class 6 (subject to IATTC mandatory observer
coverage) and Class 3-5 vessels, that have in place a voluntary observer program. These vessels are
referred to as the TUNACONs fleet. The assessment team reviewed the catch composition for vessels in
the TUNACONs fleet across different flag states and size classes, respectively for free school and FAD sets,
and did not identify any significant differences in the results of MSC categorization, consequently the P2
catch data for Panamanian, US and Ecuadorian vessels in the TUNACONs fleet are evaluated jointly under
Principle 2. The team reviewed catch composition for FAD and Free School sets independently.

In addition, there are three other small purse-seine vessels flagged to the US fishing in the eastern area
of the EPO off the coast of southern California, USA that fall under the purview of IATTC. These vessels

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 58 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

target yellowfin and skipjack. These vessels are referred to as the California Coastal small purse-seine US-
based fleet and are evaluated separately from the TUNACONs fleet.

The Assessment Team received UoA observer records from the client, and verified they were provided by
IATTC for the TUNACONS fleet and from the observer program for the smaller Ecuadorian based vessels
(Vessels Classes 3-5). Catch of tuna species in observer records was expressed as weight, while the catch
of non-tuna species was expressed in numbers. Catch of non-tuna species was converted to weight based
on average weight for species commonly caught by UoA vessels.

Exploratory analyses of observer records did not detect a flag (U.S.A, Ecuador, Panama), vessel weight
class (3-6) or set type (free school or FAD) effect in terms of MSC classification. Regardless of how the data
were analyzed MSC classifications were consistent, comprised of target, primary, secondary-minor, and
ETP. Depending on set type, target species accounted for 11-18% of the reported total catch, while
primary-main accounted for 60-89%, primary-minor accounted for 0.42-20%, and secondary-minor and
ETP species each consistently accounted for < 0.5% of the reported total catch. All subsequent analyses
are based on set type with data combined across flags and vessel weight class.

No secondary-main species were identified in the free school sets (Table 12). In FAD sets no primary-minor
or secondary-main species were identified (Table 13).

The California Coastal small US-based purse-seine fishery is considered a separate UoA and assessed
separately.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 59 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 12. Free school species specific cumulative catch by weight (mt) and relative percent for the TUNACONS
UoA from 2015-2018. Data is pooled across flags and vessel category (3-6). Non-tuna species catch weight is
estimated. Only species with % of UoA catch values ≥ 0.01 are shown. (Data source: IATTC observer program)
Total
Total Catch % of
Catch Total Catch MSC
Common Name Scientific name Retained UoA
Discarded (mt) Classification
(mt) Catch
(mt)
Katsuwonus
Skipjack pelamis 148,259 1,841 150,100 88.59 Primary-main
Thunnus
Yellowfin albacares 17,676 109 17,785 10.50 Target
Thunnus
Bigeye obesus 705 0 705 0.42 Primary- minor
Eastern Pacific and Sarda chiliensis,
Striped Bonito S. orientalis 581 42 623 0.37 Secondary-minor
Bullet and Frigate Auxis thazard,
Tunas A.rochei 2 119 121 0.07 Secondary-minor
Common Coryphaena
Dolphinfish hippurus 10.226 1.425 11.651 0.01 Secondary-minor
Makaira
Blue Marlin nigricans 10.636 0.866 11.502 0.01 Secondary-minor
Istiophoridae &
All other billfish Xiphiidae 9.084 .843 10.059 <0.01 Secondary-minor
All other fish teleosts 0.511 5.29 5.801 <0.01 Secondary-minor
Other
All other sharks elasmobranchs 0.123 0.872 5.143 <0.01 Secondary-minor

Total Catch (mt) 169,378.12 100%

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 60 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 13. FAD species specific cumulative catch by weight (mt) and relative percent for the TUNACONS UoA from
2015-2018. Data is pooled across flags and vessel category (3-6). Non-tuna species catch weight is estimated.
Only species with % of UoA catch. (Data source: IATTC observer program)
Total
Total Catch % of
Catch Total Catch MSC
Common Name Scientific name Retained UoA
Discarded (mt) Classification
(mt) Catch
(mt)
Katsuwonus
Skipjack pelamis 169,185 2,248 171,433 60.18 Primary-main
Thunnus
Bigeye obesus 56481 381 56,862 19.96 Primary- main
Thunnus
Yellowfin albacares 51473 274 51,747 18.16 Target
Common Coryphaena
Dolphinfish hippurus 1,240.460 366.166 1,606.626 0.56 Secondary-minor
Euthynnus
Black Skipjack lineatus 952 449 1401 0.49 Secondary-minor
Acanthocybium
Wahoo solandri 318.461 45.548 364.009 0.13 Secondary-minor
Canthidermis
Ocean Triggerfish maculate 10.673 273.549 284.222 0.10 Secondary-minor
Bullet and Frigate Auxis thazard,
Tunas A.rochei 80 136 216 0.08 Secondary-minor
Makaira
Blue Marlin nigricans 196.280 4.205 203.083 0.07 Secondary-minor
All other fish teleosts 31.051 59.739 90.79 0.03 Secondary-minor
Makaira,
Marlin, Nei Tetrapturus 61.050 6.071 67.922 0.02 Secondary-minor
Other
All other sharks elasmobranchs 0.687 11.18 52.118* 0.02 Secondary-minor
Istiompax
Black Marlin indica 33.357 0.717 34.075 0.01 Secondary-minor
Smooth Sphyrna
Hammerhead Shark zygaena 0.250 5.696 29.793 0.01 Secondary-minor
Eastern Pacific and Sarda chiliensis,
Striped Bonito S. orientalis 21 4 25 0.01 Secondary-minor
Aluterus
Unicorn Filefish monoceros 0.640 17.775 18.414 0.01 Secondary-minor
Total Catch (mt) 284,431.65

In the TUNACONS fleet several ETP species were identified (Table 14). The observer records contained no
reported marine mammal interactions. There were significantly less interactions in the free school sets
(Table 15) relative to FAD sets (Table 16). The fate (alive or dead) of discarded ETP for free school and FAD
sets is shown in Tables 16 and 17, respectively.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 61 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 14. ETP species elements for both FAD and free school sets based on observer data from 2015-2018. (Data
source: IATTC observer program)
Justification for ETP classification
Common name Species name Relevant IATTC
CITES Listing
measures
Sharks
Carcharhinus C-21-06, C-19-05, Appendix 2
Silky shark falciformis C-16-06, C-05-03
Whale shark Rhincodon typus C-19-06, C-05-03 Appendix 2
Carcharhinus C-11-10. C-05-03 Appendix 2
Oceanic whitetip shark longimanus
Sphyrna lewini C-05-03 Appendix 2
US ESA
Scalloped Hammerhead shark Listing
Rays
Giant Manta Ray Mobula birostris C-15-04 Appendix 2
Chilean Devil Ray Mobula tarapacana C-15-04 Appendix 2
Smoothtail Devil Ray Mobula thurstoni C-15-04 Appendix 2
Spinetail Devil Ray Mobula japanica C-15-04 Appendix 2
Munk’s Devil Ray Mobula munkiana C-15-04 Appendix 2
Unidentified Mobula and
Mantas Mobula spp. C-15-04 Appendix 2
Sea Turtles
Green Turtle Chelonia mydas C-19-04 Appendix I
Eretmochelys C-19-04 Appendix I
Hawksbill Turtle imbricata
Dermochelys C-19-04 Appendix I
Leatherback Turtle coriacea
Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta C-19-04 Appendix I
Marine Turtles. nei Testudinata C-19-04 Appendix I
Lepidochelys C-19-04 Appendix I
Olive Ridley Turtle olivacea

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 62 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 15. Number of ETP species caught by all vessels in the TUNACONS UoA fishing free school sets and
reported disposition (dead, injured, and alive) based on observer data from 2015-2018. (Data source: IATTC
observer program)
Number Number Number Total
Common name Species name Discarded Discarded Discarded Number
Dead Injured Alive Caught
Sharks
Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis 218 0 465 683
Whale shark Rhincodon typus 0 0 8 8
Carcharhinus 0 9
Oceanic whitetip shark longimanus 9 0
Scalloped Hammerhead Sphyrna lewini 15 19
shark 4 0
Rays
Giant Manta Mobula birostris 0 0 54 54
Chilean Devil Ray Mobula tarapacana 0 0 3 3
Spinetail Devil Ray Mobula japanica 0 0 23 23
Smoothtail Devil Ray Mobula thurstoni 2 0 1 3
Unidentified mobula and Mobula spp. 58 62
mantas 4 0
Turtles
Green Turtle Chelonia mydas 0 0 27 27
Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata 0 0 3 3
Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea 0 0 3 3
Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta 0 0 7 7
Unidentified Marine Testudinata 65
Turtles 1 1 67
Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea 0 2 39 41
Grand Total 238 3 771 1,012

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 63 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 16. Number of ETP species caught by all vessels in the TUNACONS UoA fishing FAD sets from 2015-2018.
(Data source: IATTC observer program)
Number Number Total
NumberDiscarded
Common name Species name Discarded Discarded Number
Dead
Injured Alive Caught
Sharks
Carcharhinus
Silky shark 8,816 0 11,771 20,587
falciformis
Rhincodon 7
Whale shark 1 0 8
typus
Carcharhinus 85
Oceanic whitetip shark 19 0 104
longimanus
Sphyrna 212
Scalloped Hammerhead Shark 51 0 263
lewini
Rays
Mobula 7
Giant Manta 0 0 7
birostris
Mobula 2
Chilean Devil Ray 1 0 3
tarapacana
Mobula 29
Spinetail Devil Ray 3 0 32
japanica
Mobula 9
Munk’s Devil Ray 0 0 9
munkiana
Mobula 1
Smoothtail Devil Ray 0 0 1
thurstoni
Unidentified mobula and 103
Mobula spp. 2 0 105
mantas
Turtles
Chelonia 71
Green Turtle 1 0 72
mydas
Eretmochelys 7
Hawksbill Turtle 0 0 7
imbricata
Dermochelys 3
Leatherback Turtle 0 1 4
coriacea
Caretta 37
Loggerhead turtle 0 2 39
caretta
Unidentified Marine Turtles Testudinata 1 0 306 307
Lepidochelys 256
Olive Ridley Turtle 0 3 259
olivacea
Grand Total 8,895 6 12,906 21,807

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 64 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

US California Coastal Small Purse Seine UoA

Catch from the US California Coastal Small purse seine UoA, which comprises small purse seine vessels
(Vessel Classes 1-2), was summarized from logbooks (Table 17). Purse seine vessel categorized as Vessel
Class 1 or 2 are not required to carry observers and observer data is not available. The logbooks are limited
in scope, providing catch data for only tuna species. No data on interactions with ETP species or catch of
non-target species is collected. A qualitative approach was employed during the site visit to identify
secondary and ETP species not identified in the logbooks. Prior to the site visit the team reviewed
literature of potential ETP species in the area and spoke to US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
IATTC management and science officials and vessel captains regarding potential non-target species
captured by the fishery along with ETP interactions by the US small-purse seine fleet during the onsite
visit. A list of potential ETP species was shared via survey with stakeholders to gather anecdotal
information on ETP interactions. Based on the results of stakeholder interviews the team concluded that
anecdotal information indicated that the fleet does not interact with ETP species. The issue of limited
information is addressed in PI 2.3.3.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 65 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 17. Catch data reported in logbooks for two of the three vessels in the UoA for the US-based California
Coastal small purse-seine vessels fishing in the IATTC for years 2014 to 2018.

% of
Common Scientific MSC
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 UoA
Name name Classification
Catch

Thunnus
Yellowfin Target 67.74% 100% 21.84% 54.23% 31.19% 39.84%
albcares

Katsuwonus Primary main

Skipjack 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.63% 39.96% 23.08%
pelamis

Target species
Yellowfin and T. albcares
and Primary 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 17.63% 9.78%
Skipjack 3 K. pelamis
main
3F

Thunnus
Bluefin tuna Primary main 32.26% 0.00% 59.71% 25.81% 0.00% 15.10%
orientalis

Secondary
Bonito Sarda spp. 0.00% 0.00% 18.45% 16.33% 11.21% 12.19%
Main

Total UoA Catch (MT) 155 30 206 496 1,106 1,993

7.3.1.3 Observer Programs/Information Sources

TUNACONS Fleet IATTC Observer Program

Purse-seine vessels of carrying capacities greater than 363 mt (i.e. Class-6) have been required to carry
observers since 1992 (Hinton et al. 2014) after the IATTC passed an Agreement on the Conservation of
Dolphins (the “La Jolla Agreement”). This was reaffirmed in the Panama Declaration in 1995 by the
Governments of Belize, Columbia, Cost Rica, Ecuador, France, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Spain, United
States of America, Vanuatu and Venezuela. Subsequently, the Agreement on the International Dolphin
Conservation Program (AIDCP), provided a legally-binding multilateral agreement which entered into
force in February 1999, established the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) and further
enhanced the provisions of the La Jolla Agreement made in 1992. IATTC Resolution C-09-04 (adopted in
June 2009) on the IDCP also contains the agreement among IATTC members for the “requirement of
placing an observer on each trip made in the EPO by purse-seine vessels of capacity greater than 363
metric tons and ensure that at least one-half of the observers assigned each year to each national fleet
are IATTC observers”. There is also cross-endorsement of observers between the IATTC and WCPFC

3
Catch in logbooks for these entries was recorded jointly as yellowfin and skipjack; it was not possible to
distinguish the percentage of skipjack relative to yellowfin in this category and thus catch is merely reported
jointly.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 66 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Regional Observer Program, as agreed upon in the 82nd IATTC meeting in July of 2011, to monitor vessels
fishing or transiting the high seas areas of both Convention Areas (IATTC 2015b).

In 2019 there was a total of 283 active purse seine vessels registered with IATTC; to fish you must be
registered. Of those, 203 vessels were classified as large purse seine vessels, with a carrying capacity
greater than 363 t (vessel class 6). The remaining 80 vessels were classified as small purse seine vessels,
with carrying capacities <= 363 t (vessel classes 1-5). While IATTC has not specified an observer coverage
rate on smaller purse seine vessels, placement of observers has occurred on a voluntary basis. In 2015, 3-
4% of all PS trips on smaller vessels were observed, increasing to 11-12% in 2016. Since 2017/2018,
observer coverage of TUNACON’s smaller purse seine vessels (vessel classes 3-5) has been 100% and this
level of coverage is expected to continue in the future.

Funding of the observer program is obtained through levies on fishing companies which vary according to
total vessel storage capacity. National observer programs in the IATTC observer program include those of
Ecuador, as well as those in Columbia, Nicaragua, Panama, Venezuela, Mexico, and by the European Union.
Training of observers is the same for IATTC and national observer programs, and the initial training
program for new observers takes 3 weeks and covers fisheries regulation, data collection, species
identification, knowledge of fishing practices, and estimation methods. Although there does not appear
to be a formal program of regular training updates for observers, CPCs are advised of any significant
changes to requirements, such as from new resolutions passed by the IATTC.

Observers now collect information on every set undertaken during every trip, and a history of data
collection is represented in Figure 10 . The level of reporting of bycatch from larger vessels in the purse
seine fleet gradually increased from less than 50% of trips in the early 1990s to 100% by 2007 (Figure 11).

Whenever possible, observers record:

▪ Identification of individuals to species or species group;
▪ Characteristics used to make the identification of billfish, sharks, and turtles;
▪ The number of individuals (mt for tunas) by size category (small, medium, and large); and
▪ Length measurements of billfishes (since late 1988) and sharks (since late 2004) (Hinton et al.
2014).
▪ Location and size of dolphin pods relative to elements of fishing gear in a purse seine set
▪ Dolphin mortalities
▪ Georeferenced locations and boat activity at pre-specified intervals corresponding to changes in
activity
▪ FAD type (e.g. lesser entangling FADs)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 67 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 10. Time Frame of Observer Datasets as reported by the IATTC.

According to the IATTC, from 1979-2009 observers have recorded data on 11,500 trips and 356,000 sets.
As described in Heckel et al. (2000) observers keep a daily log on events (date, time of day, departure,
arrival, sightings, sets, geographic position, aerial assistance during a set, and other details about the
fishing procedure), weather conditions (cloud cover, sea state, visibility, water temperature), and all
retained catch. They also record the vessel’s features and all data concerning marine mammal sightings
and sets, school and object sets, sea turtle sightings, and more recently, the numbers and species
composition of any discards, and interactions with protected species. Thus, although the observer
programs were initially established primarily to provide information on the bycatch of dolphins in the
fishery they have now been expanded and cover the much broader range of information that modern
fishery observer programs normally collect.

Hinton et al. (2014) noted a key limitation of data collected by observers aboard purse seine vessels
operating in the EPO after the completion of a set. The recorded data are based on animals that remain
on the deck after the completion of a set whereas most bycatch is dumped overboard as soon as it is
brought aboard. It was further noted that this lack of access by observers leads to uncertainties in some
species identifications and underestimates of numbers of individuals. No information as to the extent of
this practice aboard purse seine vessels operating in the IATTC Commission area was provided, and there
have been no further reports concerning this activity. Since an independent review of the IATTC Regional
Observer Program covering the period January 2016 to March 2017 did not report this activity, we assume
the practice has stopped (MRAG Americas Inc. 2017) and does not impact the 2015-2018 observer data
provided. Unfortunately, comparisons of bycatch through time would be problematic because of this
activity.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 68 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 11. Percent of trips by large (carrying capacity > 363 t) purse-seine vessels in the eastern Pacific Ocean for
which observer records of bycatch and discards are available, 1993-2012 (Hinton et al. 2014).

Observers do not have a formal compliance role while at sea but are required to report any apparent
violations of any rules or regulations (such as fishing in closed areas or during any time closures); IATTC
considers compliance information from observers to be confidential. Observers are de-briefed upon their
return to port and these sessions cover a range of potential issues including data collection queries or
problems, missing or ambiguous records, crew collaboration, potential violations of fisheries laws or
regulations, and any attempts at bribery or intimidation. If potential violations of any rules or regulations
are reported by an observer these are immediately forwarded to the IATTC Secretariat.

While TUNACONS provided observer records from 46 vessels, spanning 3 flag states (Ecuador, US, and
Panama) and 4 vessel classes (3-6) to the Assessment Team to quantify fishing interactions, the team
noted potential gaps in information provided by observers. There were no reported marine mammal
interactions in the observer data set which is inconsistent with other fisheries in the region. However, it
was verified that the observer data were provided by IATTC and any interactions should have been
included in the data set. Finally, we note information on the “destiny” of bycatch animals was collected
by observers and provided to the assessment team in coded format. Destiny codes provide information
on the fate of bycatch species, such human consumption, number discarded (dead, injured, and alive),
other, and unknown. While there is no destiny code for shark finning, observers are required to report all
finning events (N. Vogel, pers. comm.).

As previously noted, IATTC requires 100% observer coverage on all large purse seine vessels (vessel class
6) operating in the EPO and there is currently no IATTC requirement to place observers on smaller purse
seine vessels (vessel classes 1-5) operating in the EPO. The TUNACONS UoA comprises 33 larger purse
seine vessels (vessel class 6) flagged to Ecuador, Panama, and the USA, and 10 smaller purse seine vessels
(vessel classes 3-5) flagged to Ecuador. As required by IATTC, 100% of all fishing activities occurring on
larger vessels was monitored and data spanning 2015-2018 provided to the assessment team by IATTC.
All fishing activities on the 10 smaller purse seine vessels spanning 2015-2018 was voluntarily monitored
by TUNACONS and these data were provided to the assessment team for analysis, and IATTC for archiving.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 69 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

TUNACONS intends to continue monitoring the 10 smaller purse seine vessels in the future and is working
to amend the TUNACONS bylaws to require 100% monitoring of all purse seine vessels (vessel classes 3-
6).

US-Based Data Sources

As purse seine vessels within the US California Coastal small vessel UoA are not required to carry observers,
none was provided. All analyses were based on logbook information which is limited in scope. The RBF
was announced prior to the site visit and was used to score the Principle 2 (PI 2.2.1) components for the
US-based fleet because of the lack of status information for bonito species. Additionally, given the limited
at-sea information for non-target and ETP species the team reviewed literature of potential ETP species
in the area, and spoke to US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), IATTC management and science
officials and vessel captains regarding potential non-target species captured by the fishery along with ETP
interactions by the US small-purse seine fleet during the onsite visit. The qualitative data gathering
allowed to have an understanding of potential ETP interactions for this fleet.

Description of the Fisheries

Ecuador

In Ecuador, the industrial tuna fishery began in 1952 at the port of Manta, and has been evolving since
then, such that by 2008 the active fleet consisted of 92 vessels, 90 of which were Ecuadorian flagged
and 2 flagged to foreign vessels. Currently there are approximately 109 purse seine vessels flagged to
Ecuador operating in the IATTC Convention Area, of which 62 are large purse seine vessels (Class size 6;
greater than 363 mt carrying capacity), 37 vessels are mid-size purse seine vessels (Class size 4-5;
between 182–363 mt carrying capacity), and 6 are small purse seine vessels (Class 2–3; between 46–181
mt carrying capacity).

Three purse seine fishing strategies are employed by Ecuadorian vessels operating in the IATTC
Convention Area, fishing on dolphin schools, free schools, and FADs (or other floating objects). The main
target species of the purse seine fisheries have been skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna. The purse seine
fleet capacity for Ecuador is approximately 90,000 m3 and in 2018 landed approximately 363,156 mt of
tunas and bonitos, accounting for 61% of the total landing in the IATTC Convention Area. Most of the
Ecuadorian landing come from vessels fishing on FADs and since 2008 the number of FADs deployed in
the IATTC Convention Area has steadily increased irrespective of vessels class size while the number of
free school and dolphin sets have declined significantly (IATTC-93 INF-A; IATTC 2018).

TUNACONS

Five Ecuadorian fishing firms created TUNACONS in July 2016 as a joint effort to promote a Fisheries
Improvement Project (FIP) for purse-seine tuna fisheries operating in the IATTC Convention Area,
including NIRSA Ecuadorian and Panamanian vessels), Eurofish (Ecuadorian vessels), Tri Marine (US
vessels), Servigrup Ecuadorian vessels), and Grupo Jadran (Ecuadorian and Panamanian vessels).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 70 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

TUNACONS involves 58 Purse Seine vessels, representing approximately 20% of the purse seine fleet
operating in the IATTC Convention Area. For the purposes of this assessment 46 vessels are included, 32
vessels are flagged to Ecuador, 5 vessels are flagged to Panama, and 9 vessels flagged to the US (see
section 8.12; Vessel List). The fisheries target yellowfin tuna in the EPO but do catch other tropical tunas
such as skipjack and bigeye tuna. The fisheries set on both free schools and FADs. Note dolphin sets are
not included in this assessment. Fishing occurs throughout the IATTC Convention Area, with most of the
fishing occurring in the tropical region north and south of the equator. The number of FAD sets by year
and vessel in the five fishing firms comprising TUNACONS is listed below (note that individual vessel
names have not been included).

Year
Company Vessel
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 TOTAL
A 149 168 174 186 195 872
B 61 68 71 88 79 367
C 63 72 81 91 74 381
D 138 143 147 162 158 748
E 63 62 74 73 67 339
F 142 149 135 166 151 743
EUROFISH G 116 128 144 0 82 470
H 126 142 135 156 165 724
I 140 168 157 180 192 837
J 157 166 184 198 186 891
K 115 133 129 0 92 469
L 69 63 79 82 86 379
M 0 0 150 171 178 499
A 180 165 311 332 279 1267
B 287 220 312 340 319 1478
C 285 277 398 237 300 1497
D 235 177 271 445 396 1524
E 275 243 319 277 314 1428
F 325 189 641 365 374 1894
NIRSA G 445 193 188 444 282 1553
H 402 519 425 412 414 2172
I 795 597 445 724 222 2783
J 367 240 916 454 689 2666
K 309 165 489 538 585 2086
L 719 578 639 891 697 3524
M 700 278 675 484 734 2871

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 71 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

A 190 36 324 284 350 1184

GRUPO
B 140 72 186 198 54 650
JADRAN
C 200 180 216 216 62 874
TRI MARINE All Vessels 555 600 800 850 660 3465
SERVIGRUP All Vessels 365 386 756 1004 907 3418
TOTAL 8113 6577 9971 10048 9343 44053

There is a requirement for 100% observer coverage of all PS fishing activities on larger vessels > 363 t
(vessel class 6). While IATTC has not specified an observer coverage rate on smaller vessels <= 363 t
(vessel class 1-5), placement of observers has occurred on a voluntary basis. In 2015, 3-4% of all PS trips
on smaller vessels were observed, increasing to 11-12% of all PS trips in 2016. Since 2018, observer
coverage of TUNACON’s smaller purse seine vessels (vessel classes 3-5) has been 100% and this level of
coverage is expected to continue in the future. Additionally, logbook reports and cannery uploading
records are available for both small and vessels, and in some instances are the principal sources of data
for smaller vessels.

Recent catches of yellowfin tuna by TUNACONS vessels between 2018 and 2020 are outlined in Table 10
and the catch of all species between 2015 and 2018 is outlined in Tables 12 and 13. Interactions with
ETP species between 2015 and 2018 are included in Tables 15 and 16.

Many of the IATTC Resolutions call on CPCs to implement adopted measures in their national fisheries.
Recognizing the importance of maintaining healthy and sustainable fisheries, and reducing adverse
ecological impacts of purse seining, TUNACONS voluntarily developed and implemented an onboard
code of good practices for its fleet (Garcia 2016). The code is intended to be a guide for both, beginner,
and experienced crews to encourage good on-board handling practices and to mitigate the mortality of
vulnerable species that interact in purse-seine tuna fisheries. It is a code that reflects the measures
taken to improve the operations of tuna purse seiners and to minimize the impact on the marine
ecosystem. In particular, the design of a non-entangling and biodegradable FAD, data collection
protocols, and identification of good practices for the safe handling and release of sensitive species (i.e.
sharks, turtles, etc.) that interact with tuna purse seine fisheries. To disseminate the information and
build capacity within the fleet, TUNACONS hosts meetings to discuss progress on FAD development and
train captains, crew, and industry on the code of good practices (TUNACONS 2018). Additionally,
TUNACONS has implement a FAD management plan aimed at the purse-seine tuna vessels of the
companies that make up TUNACONS (EUROFISH, JADRAN Group, NIRSA, SERVIGRUP AND TRI MARINE)
and that operate in the Eastern, Central and Western Pacific Ocean as appropriate. The plan can be
found at https://tunacons.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Ecuador-FADs-Management-Plan-PLAN-
GESTION-PLANTADOS-ECUADOR.pdf.

US Small Purse Seine Fishery

Three small purse seine vessels, categorized as Class 1 vessels, operate in coastal waters of the US
adjacent to San Pedro, California fishing exclusively on free schools. As the vessels are small, they are
exempt from carrying observers due to safety reasons. These vessels are required to submit logbooks

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 72 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

and are subject to inspections by the NOAA Fisheries and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Spotter planes are used to direct fishing operations and yellowfin tuna is the primary target. Bonito tuna
are routinely caught by the US small purse seine fishery and Pacific blue fin tuna occasionally caught.
The total annual catch of yellowfin tuna is relatively small compared to total catch of yellowfin tuna in
the EPO and the catch of Pacific bluefin tuna is small relative to the catch of Pacific bluefin tuna in the
Pacific Ocean.

7.3.1.4 Primary Species

Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)

Skipjack tuna are categorized as a primary main species in both the free school and FAD directed fisheries.

Biology

Skipjack tuna is an inhabitant of tropical, subtropical and warm temperate waters, and in the Pacific, they
are found from 40° N to 40° S across the whole oceanic basin. Water temperature above 20° C appears to
be the limiting factor of the latitudinal distribution. Given the age-dependent preference regarding certain
levels of temperature and oxygen, on the vertical dimension, both factors play a role on the overall
distribution of the species because the thermocline may be located at different depths in different
locations.

Skipjack tuna in the EPO are predominately caught using purse seines. Contrary to yellowfin tuna, skipjack
is not reported to school in strong association with dolphins but are seen associated with birds, drifting
objects, sharks and whales. Skipjack tuna are also found in free-swimming schools of fish. Figure 12 depicts
the total purse seine catch of skipjack in the EPO by set type from 1975-2018. Historically, skipjack tuna
catches have been predominantly associated with floating object sets, although catches on free swimming
schools have been important. Very little skipjack is caught in other types of fisheries (IATTC-94-01). The
average annual spatial distribution of purse seine caught skipjack tuna, by set type, from 2014-2018 is
shown in Figure 13. Major purse seine catches of skipjack tuna in the EPO occur at the eastern and western
ends of the ocean basin, with minimal catches north of 10°N.

An extensive review by Schaefer (2009) concluded that a northern and a southern stock of skipjack tuna
may exist, separated at about 15° N with very little mixing between them. However, research attempting
to determine stock structure of skipjack has been inconclusive. Knowledge about the movement of this
species indicates there is considerable movement among areas which can constitute different conceptual
units either geographically or from a stock-related perspective. Tagging in the study showed movement
of fish from the eastern to the western Pacific, but no tagged fish in the west were recovered in the east.
Schaefer (2009) downplays the relevance of what he calls “long-range movement of a few tagged skipjack”

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 73 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

(see IATTC 1995, Fig 64), indicating that data in the EPO only support offshore-onshore and north-south
movements, meaning the extent of the displacement capacity of skipjack is limited. Interestingly, this
author points to results that concluded that skipjack may not present definite migratory movements but
move in random directions within broad limits--as a diffusion process. This type of movement across a
large geographic range plus a very large effective population size may be help explain the lack of genetic
differentiation 4 between the Pacific and Atlantic oceanic basins (Ely et al 2005). Similarly, even rare long-
1F

range movements that introduce small amounts of genetic exchange between populations are capable of
maintaining genetic homogeneity across many genetic markers.

If these processes do not allow for interoceanic genetic differentiation, it would make it even more
difficult to determine a definitive stock structure in the Pacific alone. Alternative criteria such as
differences in spawning, growth and movement, as discussed by Schaefer, still need to be put in the
appropriate context to make sense when no genetic differences can be identified within a population or

Figure 12. Total catch of skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean by type of fishery. OBJ signifies object sets,
NOA signifies non-object or unassociated sets, and OTR signifies other set types. (Reproduced from IATTC-
94901)

4
The analysis used the hypervariable non-coding control region I and a segment of a coding region of mitochondrial DNA

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 74 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 13. Average annual distributions of the purse-seine catches of skipjack, by set type, 2015-2019. The sizes of
the circles are proportional to the amounts of skipjack caught in those 5° by 5° areas (source IATTC 2021).

between putative sub-units. The latest IATTC on skipjack assumes that for the purpose of stock
assessment the single stock in the EPO does not interact with skipjack in the Western and Central Pacific.

Skipjack is an oviparous, broadcast, batch spawners that can have fecundities much higher than other
species of tuna. Sexual maturity is reached at about 400 mm and skipjack tuna spawn throughout the year
in tropical waters and from spring to early fall in subtropical waters. No estimates of longevity exist, but
an individual at the large end of the size range (106.5-108.4 size class) was estimated to be at least 12
years (Forsbergh 1980). No stock-recruitment relationship has been identified and there is no clear
correlation between recruitment and environmental variables such as temperature.

Stock Status

Maunder and Deriso (2007) described skipjack tuna as “notoriously difficult to assess.” This is due to the
highly productive nature of the species and the elevated levels of variability in recruitment. Continuous
spawning, rapid growth and high abundance are additional factors complicating the estimation of
parameters regulating the dynamics of the species and the effect of fishing on the stock using regular
assessment methods. Despite improvements in the structure of models used to assess the status of this
fishery, age specific natural mortality is still very uncertain and yield per recruit appears to be maximized
by catching the youngest fish in the model (Maunder and Deriso 2007; Maunder 2012b).

A number of approaches have been tested to evaluate skipjack. Maunder (2012b) tested the performance
of four different approaches to assess the status of the skipjack, from the analysis of length structure, to
tagging data, a coupled ecosystem-population dynamic model, and the use of alternative fishery and
biological indicators.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 75 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Maunder and Deriso (2007) and Maunder (2012b) considered that the tag data analysis produced highly
uncertain estimates of exploitation rates. This author also found that determination of fishing effort is
problematic because “within a single trip, purse seine sets on unassociated schools are generally
intermingled with floating object or dolphin associated sets.” If effort cannot be determined, then reliable
CPUEs cannot be produced. When skipjack is associated with FADs, it is uncertain if the CPUE of the purse
seine fishery is an appropriate index of abundance. Overall, it is considered that the information in the
CPUE and length data was insufficient to produce reliable estimates of stock size. Biomass estimates from
the SEAPODYM analysis are much higher than those from the length based assessment, which is probably
the reason why the average estimate of annual fishing mortality (0.12) is much lower than that obtained
for region B in the length based assessment (0.74) (Maunder and Deriso 2007; Maunder 2012b).

In recent years, the stock has been assessed using alternative approaches that compares temporal
changes in eight stock status indicators (SSIs) (Maunder 2019). To evaluate current values of the indicators
in comparison to historical values, reference levels based on the 5th and 95th percentiles were used and
the situation in 2018 was summarized as follows:
▪ total catch, CPUE (both indicators), relative biomass, relative recruitment and standardized effort
are estimated to be at the upper reference level;
▪ relative exploitation rate is close to the historical mean level; and
▪ average weight per fish was at the lower reference level.

However, the methods used previously to compute the SSIs, based on purse-seine data only, have been
revised to mitigate possible bias introduced in the allocation of fishing effort among purse-seine set types.
The new SSIs: (a) include measures of catch, effort, CPUE, and average length of the fish in the retained
catch; (b) begin in 2000, the first year of species composition sampling for the purse-seine fishery and
shortly after the major offshore expansion of the floating-object fishery; and (c) have reference levels set
at the 10% and 90% percentiles (IATTC 2020). The situation in 2020 based on the floating-object fishery
can be summarized as follows:
▪ Fishing mortality has increased, mainly due to the increase in the number of floating-object sets;
▪ increased catches of skipjack since 2005 resulting from the increase in the number of floating-
object sets; and
▪ reduced catch-per-set and average length.

Consistent with the previous interpretation of skipjack SSIs described in Maunder (2019), inconsistencies
between some of the current SSIs persist and do not support the interpretation that fishing mortality has
increased as a result of an increase in the number of floating-object sets (IATTC 2020). In addition, IATTC
staff note that catch-per-set for the floating-object fishery may not be a reliable indicator of skipjack
abundance.

However, IATTC scientists note that there is concern over the substantial increase in number of sets on
floating objects in recent years. The low average weight may be an indicator of overexploitation but may

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 76 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

also be caused by recent recruitments being greater than past recruitments or expansion of the fishery
into areas occupied by smaller skipjack.

Overall, the data SSIs have yet to detect any adverse impacts of the fishery. Given this and the resilient
life history characteristics of skipjack, it is highly likely that the stock is above any limit reference point.

Given there is no analytical stock assessment for skipjack in the EPO, determining MSY is not possible.
IATTC staff routinely conduct a PSA to compare skipjack status with other stocks in the EPO for which an
assessment is possible, in particular bigeye and yellowfin tuna. Although skipjack tuna and bigeye have
similar susceptibility scores (overlap with fisheries), skipjack has a higher productivity score (and therefore
a lower BMSY and a higher FMSY), and if the status of bigeye tuna (or yellowfin tuna) is such that
Bcurrent>BMSY, IATTC contends this must also be true for skipjack. Results from the 2020 benchmark
yellowfin tuna assessment indicated that the stock is not overfished and not experiencing overfishing
(Minta-Vera et al., 2020) while for bigeye tuna there was a 53% probability the stock is overfished and a
50% probability that overfishing is taking place. Taking the risk analysis results for bigeye as reference, the
IATTC infers the following about the skipjack stock status in the EPO:
▪ There is less than 50% probability that FMSY has been exceeded (P(F>FMSY)<50%)
▪ There is less than 53% probability that Scur is below SMSY (P(S<SMSY)<53%)

Based on these results the stock may not be at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. To
effectively determine stock status a stock assessment is required.

Figure 14. Indicators based on purse seine fishing effort. DEL refers to the dolphin-associated fishery, NOA refers
to the unassociated school fishery, and OBJ refers to the floating-object fishery ( IATTC, 2020).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 77 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 15. Indicators based on purse-seine catch in weight, 2000-2020. DEL refers to the dolphin-associated
fishery, NOA refers to the unassociated school fishery, and OBJ refers to the floating-object fishery (IATTC,
2020).

Figure 16. Indicators based on purse-seine catch in number, 2000-2020. DEL refers to the dolphin-associated
fishery, NOA refers to the unassociated school fishery, and OBJ refers to the floating-object fishery (IATTC,
2020).

Figure 17. Indicators based on purse-seine catch-per-set, 2000-2020. DEL refers to the dolphin-associated
fishery, NOA refers to the unassociated school fishery, and OBJ refers to the floating-object fishery (IATTC,
2020).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 78 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 18. Indicators based on average length of skipjack in the purse-seine catch, 2000-2020. DEL refers to the
dolphin-associated fishery, NOA refers to the unassociated school fishery, and OBJ refers to the floating-object
fishery. Note the y-axis limits differ from the figures for the other indicators to accentuate the changes because
average length is less sensitive to fishing mortality (IATTC, 2020).

Management

See Section 7.2.1.2 Fishing and Management

Information

The purse seine fishery in the EPO has been monitored directly by the IATTC since the 1950s. Information
is collected in accordance with the requirements of Resolution C-03-5 from 2003 on Data Provision.

Bigeye Tuna (Thunnus obesus)

Bigeye tuna are categorized as a primary main species in the FAD directed fishery and primary minor
species in the free-school directed fishery.

Biology

Bigeye tuna are distributed throughout tropical and sub-tropical waters of the Pacific Ocean, between
40°N and 40°S, and vertically from the surface to depths of 500 m; they occasionally dive up to 1000 m
due to their tolerance of low oxygen levels and low temperatures. In tropical and sub-tropical waters adult
bigeye tuna exhibit diurnal movement from cooler deeper waters during the day to shallower warmer
waters at night. Juvenile bigeye tuna tend to inhabit shallower waters, forming mixed schools with skipjack
and yellowfin, resulting in catches by surface fisheries, particularly in association with floating objects.
Bigeye tuna feed on a wide variety of fishes, cephalopods, and crustaceans during the day and at night.

Bigeye tuna growth rates are slower than either yellowfin or skipjack, reaching around 40cm after one
year. Bigeye can reach 2 m in length and weigh up to 180-200 kg. Estimating growth rates of EPO bigeye
has been problematic. Age-at-length data derived from readings of daily increments on otoliths are only
available for fish up to four years of age, although the species is estimated from tagging studies to have a
lifespan of at least 15-16 years. Recent studies have updated bigeye age and growth estimates in the
WCPO and examined growth of some specimens from the EPO (Farley et al. 2017; Farley et al. 2018). The

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 79 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

studies indicated differences in the growth rates of bigeye tuna across the Pacific, with greater length at
age in the far east and far west of the area examined compared to the central longitudes. Otolith weight
data suggests faster growth eastern part of the EPO. Natural mortality (M) is assumed for young fish of
both sexes to be 0.25 and M for females increases after they mature.

Spawning takes place across most months of the year in tropical regions of the Pacific Ocean. It is seasonal
at higher latitudes when sea surface temperatures are above 24°C. Regional variation in maturity-at-
length have been detected; reaching maturity at larger sizes in the EPO than the WCPO. Recruitment of
EPO bigeye is highly variable. Bigeye tuna are distributed throughout tropical and sub-tropical waters of
the Pacific Ocean. Genetic studies have failed to reveal significant evidence of widespread population
subdivision in the Pacific Ocean (Grewe and Hampton 1998). These results are not conclusive regarding
the rate of mixing of bigeye tuna throughout the Pacific, however they are broadly consistent with the
results of historic tagging experiments on bigeye tuna undertaken by the Secretariat of the Pacific
Community (SPC) and the IATTC. While tagging data from earlier studies did indicate some long-distance
movement based on recaptures a large majority of the returns come from locations relatively close to the
release points. More recent tagging work, however, has suggested that while bigeye tuna in the far
eastern and western Pacific may have relatively little exchange, those in the central part of the Pacific
between about 180° and 120°W may mix more rapidly over distances of 1000–3000 nm (Schaefer et al.,
2015). It is now accepted that there is extensive movement of bigeye across the nominal WCPO/EPO
boundary of 150°W (Figure 19). Nevertheless, stock assessments of bigeye tuna are routinely undertaken
separately for the WCPO and EPO based on management boundaries of the WCPFC and IATTC.

Stock status

Annual catches of bigeye tuna by gear from 1979-2019 and their average annual distribution by set type
from 2014-2018 are shown in Figure 20. Since the late 1990s, purse seine has taken the majority of the
bigeye catch. Major purse seine catches of the bigeye catch in the EPO occur at the eastern and western
ends of the ocean basin, with minimal catches north of 10°N in the EPO. The majority of longline catches
in the EPO is taken north of 10°N.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 80 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 19. Tag release and recovery positions of bigeye tuna, at liberty for >30 days. Release locations (black) and
recoveries released in the WPO (red), CPO (green) and EPO (blue) are shown. Source Schaefer et al. 2015.

A spatiotemporal delta-generalized linear mixed VAST model is used to estimate the longline indices of
abundance for bigeye in the EPO. This approach models encounter probability and positive catch rate
separately to deal with zero-inflated catch observations, uses area-weighting, and can impute catch rates
in unfished locations based on estimated spatial correlation patterns, which are assumed to be constant
over both space and time. The early and late indices of abundance used in the assessment are
standardized by two separate VAST models (Figure 21Figure 21).

The 2020 benchmark assessment of bigeye tuna in the EPO represents a new approach. Previously, a ‘best
assessment’ approach was used for the evaluation of stock status using a single ‘base-case’ model. The
new approach is based on ‘risk analysis’ methodologies, which use several reference models to represent
various plausible states of nature (assumptions) about the biology of the fish, the productivity of the
stocks, and/or the operation of the fisheries, and takes into account the different results, thus effectively
incorporating uncertainty into the formulation of management advice. This change, which represents a
paradigm shift at IATTC, both for the staff’s work and for the Commission’s decision-making regarding the
conservation of tropical tunas, also allows the staff to evaluate explicitly the probability statements
specified in the IATTC harvest control rule for tropical tunas established in Resolution C-16-02.

The risk analysis encompasses alternative hypotheses on the states of nature that addressed uncertainties
and issues from previous assessments. There were 44 reference models (states of nature), representing
12 different model configurations, each with four different values of steepness (0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 81 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 20. Annual catches of bigeye (metric tons) by fishing gear (top) in 1979-2019. Red: longline; blue: purse
seine. Average annual distributions of the purse-seine catch of bigeye, by set type, 2014-2018 (bottom). The
sizes of the circles are proportional to the amounts of bigeye caught in those 5° by 5° areas. Source IATTC 2020C.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 82 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 21. The standardized longline indices of abundance and the associated 95% confidence interval used for
the stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Source Xu et ai. (2020).

Current status relative to a reference point was calculated as a weighted average of the point estimates
of the ratio from each of the alternative stock assessment models, with weights equal to the relative
model probabilities (equal to the expected value under the normal distribution assumption made for each
model). The probability of exceeding a reference point was calculated using the cumulative distribution
functions (CDFs) for the ratios of Fcur and Scur relative to the reference points for each of the alternative
models, which are then combined using the model probabilities.

The combined distribution of Fcur/FLIMIT from the 44 models tested is bimodal, due to the substantial
differences in the estimates between the “short-term models”, which are more pessimistic and the
“medium-term” models which are more optimistic. For the combined distribution, Fcur is at about 60%
of FLIMIT and the probability of (Fcur > FLIMIT is 5%. The probability distribution for Scur/SLIMIT is also
bimodal. The combined ratio of Scur/SLIMIT is estimated at approximately 3.07 and the probability of Scur
< SLIMIT = 6%. Based on this information, it is highly likely that the stock is above the limit reference point

For the target reference points, the combined distribution of Fcur is 7% above FMSY and the probability
that Fcur>FMSY = 50%. The probability distribution for Scur/SMSY_d is also bimodal. The combined
distribution, Scur is 9% above SMSY_d and the probability that Scur<SMSY_d = 53%. While these values
suggest the stock may be fluctuating around MSY stock projections were not conducted, providing no

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 83 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

information to assess the stock size trajectories relative to MSY. Additionally, the index of abundance has
been continually declining since the mid-1980s, with significant variability. Based on this information it
cannot be stated that the stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY.

Management

See Section 7.2.1.2

Information

The purse seine fishery in the EPO has been monitored directly by the IATTC since the 1950s. Information
is collected in accordance with the requirements of Resolution C-03-5 from 2003 on Data Provision.

Pacific Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus orientalis)

The catch of Pacific bluefin tuna from free school sets in the CA, USA California Coastal small purse seine
fishery UoA accounts for approximately 15% of the total catch and is assessed under P2 as a main primary
retained species. It should be noted that Pacific bluefin tuna is the only primary species in both UoAs.

Pacific bluefin tuna are fished by fleets across its range but their relative impact has varied over time.
Historically the coastal Western Pacific Ocean (WPO) fisheries had the greatest impact, and since the early
1990s the WPO purse seine fleet has increased its impact. The impact in the EPO was large before the
mid-1980s thereafter decreasing significantly (ISC Pacific Tuna Working Group 2018). In the EPO Pacific
bluefin tuna are commercially caught using small purse seines, and EPO fisheries were reported to have
taken approximately 25% of the total Pacific catch in recent years (2015-2020) (Figure 22). Catches in the
EPO are attributed to Mexico (off the coast of Baja California) and U.S. (off the coast of California), with
the majority of EPO catches attributed to Mexico (~ 90%) (ISC 2019).

Ninety percent of the EPO catch is estimated to have been between 60 and 100 cm in length, representing
juvenile fish, 1 to 3 years of age. Most of the catch by Mexico is transported to holding pens where the
fish are held for fattening and later sold to sashimi markets. The US catch is sold as fresh fish in local
markets. Bluefin have been caught during every month of the year, but most of the fish are taken during
May through October (IATTC 2018).

Prior to 1980 the average annual US purse seine catch of Pacific bluefin tuna was approximately 10,000
mt. Catches dropped precipitously after 1980 and in recent years (2015-2020) the average annual US
purse seine catch amounted to approximately 204 mt, of which the UoA (for which logbooks were
provided) was responsible for approximately 1.5% of the total Pacific-wide catch. Clearly the catch of
Pacific bluefin tuna by the US small purse seine UoA is insignificant relative to the total catch.

Biology

Pacific bluefin is primarily a temperate water species but it also ranges into tropical waters. Genetic and
tagging information indicates that Pacific bluefin tuna comprises a single Pacific-wide stock that is found

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 84 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

primarily in the North Pacific Ocean (Bayliff 1994, Tseng and Smith 2012). A portion of the Pacific bluefin
in the WPO migrate over to the EPO at about age 1 or 2; they stay in the EPO until about age 4 or 5, before
migrating back to the WPO, where they begin to spawn (Maunder et al. 2014).

Most fish are mature by 3 years of age (Tanaka 2006). Spawning has only been reported in the western
North Pacific Ocean. Pacific bluefin are estimated to live to at least 20 years of age (ISC Pacific Tuna
Working Group 2018).

Historical recruitment estimates have fluctuated since 1952 without an apparent trend. Relatively low
recruitment levels estimated in 2010-2014 were of concern in the 2016 bluefin tuna assessment. The 2015
recruitment estimate is lower than the historical average while the 2016 recruitment estimate (about 17
million fish) is higher than the historical average. The recruitment estimates for 2017 and 2018, while
based on fewer observations, are below the historical average and this trend appears to be continuing.
This is particularly concerning to both the short- and long-term recovery of this species given the WCPFC
and IATTC have agreed to increases allowable catch levels in both the WCPO and EPO regions.

Stock Status

The most recent assessment of stock status was conducted in 2020 using data through 2018 (ISC 2020).
The base-case model results show that: (1) spawning stock biomass (SSB) fluctuated throughout the
assessment period (fishing years 1952-2018); (2) the SSB steadily declined from 1996 to 2010; (3) the slow
increase of the stock biomass continues since 2011; (4) total biomass in 2018 exceeded the historical
median with an increase in immature fish; and (5) fishing mortality (F%SPR) declined from a level
producing about 1% of SPR in 2004-2009 to a level producing 14% of SPR in 2016-2018. The SSB in 2018
was estimated to be around 28,000 t, which is a 3,000 t increase from 2016 (the previous assessment)
according to the base-case model. An increase of young fish (0-2 years old) is observed in 2016-2018, likely
resulting from low fishing mortality on those fish relative to previous years. Although no reference points
have been adopted to evaluate the status of PBF, an evaluation of stock status against some common
reference points (Fmax, F0.1, Fmed, SPR10%, SPR20%, SPR30%, and SPR40%) shows that the stock is overfished
relative to biomass-based limit reference points adopted for other species in WCPFC (20%SSBF=0) and
fishing mortality has declined but has not reached the level corresponding to that reference point
(20%SPR) and the stock is subject to overfishing.

To promote recovery of Pacific bluefin tuna a rebuilding plan (or harvest strategy) was adopted and
implemented by the WCPFC and IATTC with an initial rebuilding biomass target equivalent to the median
SSB estimated for the period from 1952 through 2014 and a second rebuilding biomass target (20%SSBF=0
under average recruitment, without specifying a fishing mortality reference level. The initial goal of
WCPFC and IATTC harvest strategy is to rebuild the population to SSBMED by 2024 with at least 60%
probability. Additionally, the harvest strategy specifies that the estimated probability of achieving the
second biomass rebuilding target (20% of SSBF=0) 10 years after the achievement of the initial rebuilding
target or by 2034, whichever is earlier, is 60%. Projection analyses were conducted to determine which
suite of management measures would achieve the specified rebuilding targets. The projection results

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 85 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

assume that the CMMs are fully implemented and are based on certain biological and other assumptions.
The 2020 assessment estimated the initial rebuilding biomass target (SSBMED1952-2014) to be 6.4%SSBF=0 and
the corresponding fishing mortality expressed as SPR of F6.4%SPR. Point estimates of the SSB2018 was
4.5%SSBF=0 and the recent (2016-2018) fishing mortality is estimated at F14%SPR,. As the WCPFC and IATTC
have still not adopted reference points to evaluate the status of Pacific bluefin tuna, the evaluation of
stock status against common reference points continues to indicate the stock is overfished and
experiencing overfishing.

Population projections were updated in the 2020 assessment and expanded to include a suite of
alternative catch scenarios ranging from status quo (no increase in catch) to increased catches, as well as
to analyses to assess impacts of increasing catches by fish size (small (≤ 30 kg.) and large (> 30 kg.). Due
to increases in spawning biomass and reductions in fishing mortality since the 2016 assessment, it was
determined that catches could be increased and still not impact the ability to reach both rebuilding targets.
It was also determined that increasing catches of small Pacific bluefin tuna had a greater impact on the
long-term stability of the population. The results of the 2020 assessment and updated projections were
reviewed and accepted during IATTC and WCPFC scientific meetings, and full commission meetings for
both RFMOs in 2020.

Management

International

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Inter-Tropical Tuna Commission
(IATTC) are jointly in charge of the management of Pacific bluefin tuna,and use stock assessment
determination and advice from the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in
the North Pacific Ocean (ISC for short) and the IATTC scientific staff to establish conservation and
management measures.

The IATTC manage the catch of Pacific bluefin mainly through the setting of a total catch limit.
Conservation measure C-18-01 included the requirements that
“During 2019 and 2020, in the IATTC Convention Area, combined total commercial catches of
Pacific bluefin tuna by all CPCs shall not exceed the catch limit of 6,200 metric tons. No
CPC shall exceed 3,500 metric tons in 2019. Any CPC other than Mexico with historical
commercial catches of Pacific bluefin tuna in the Convention Area may catch 600 metric
tons of Pacific bluefin tuna in commercial fisheries in 2019 and 2020, combined, but not
exceeding 425 metric tons in any year. The 600 metric ton catch limit for each CPC under
this paragraph will be subtracted and reserved from the total catch limit for the exclusive
use of that CPC. Any over-harvest shall be deducted from catch in the following year in
accordance with Resolution C-18-02 [Amendment to Resolution C-16-08]. Over-harvest of
the biennial catch limits established in Resolution C-16-08 shall be deducted from catch
limits applicable to this Resolution. Under-harvest of biennial catch limits established in
Resolution C-16-08 shall be added to catch limits applicable to this Resolution in
accordance with Resolution C-18-02.”

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 86 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Regarding rebuilding targets, Resolution C-21-01 enhanced the long-term management framework for
the conservation and management of bluefin tuna in the EPO as initially outlined in C-18-02 and C-16-08.
Specifically, Resolution C-21-01 resolves ambiguities surrounding rebuilding targets specified in the C-18-
02 and notes provisions for strengthening scientific cooperation with the WCPFC and promotion of the
adoption of harmonized conservation measures for bluefin tuna in both organizations.

Noting the management objective of the IATTC is to maintain or restore fish stocks at levels capable of
producing MSY, a provisional rebuilding plan was implemented in part by adopting: (1) an initial (first)
rebuilding target of SSBMED,1952-2014 (the median point estimate for 1952-2014) to be achieved by 2024 with
at least 60% probability; and (2) a second rebuilding target of 20%SSBF=0 to be achieved within 10 years
of reaching the initial rebuilding target or by 2034, whichever is earlier, with at least 60% probability. As
specified in C-21-01 if the probability of achieving the second rebuilding target by 2034 or 10 years after
reaching the initial rebuilding target, whichever is earlier, is less than 60%, management measures shall
be modified to increase it to at least 60%. If the SSB projection indicates that the probability of achieving
the second rebuilding target by 2034, or 10 years after reaching the initial rebuilding target, whichever is
earlier, is at 75% or larger, fishery controls may be changed, including adjustment of catch limits, as long
as the probability is maintained at 70% or larger. Additionally

▪ Any adjustments to management measures shall be considered in cooperation between

the two RFMOs taking into account historical and future projected proportional fishery
impacts on SSB between fisheries in the EPO and fisheries in the WCPO.
▪ This harvest control rule will be reviewed and modified, as necessary, if depletion
estimates across the time-series have been adjusted due to changes in assumptions
and/or settings of the stock assessment model.
▪ CPCs shall continue to cooperate to develop a catch documentation scheme (CDS) for
Pacific bluefin tuna that is, if possible, electronic.

Based on results of the 2020 stock assessment and outcomes of the updated catch scenario projections
which indicated a 100 percent chance of reaching the initial stock rebuilding target by 2024, the IATTC
SAC in May 2021 proposed a 15% increase in allowable bluefin tuna catches for adults > 30 kg and no
change in catches for juveniles ≤30 kg. in the EPO; the proposed increase was adopted at IATTC’s full
commission meeting in October 2021. IATTC Resolution C-21-05 describes specific measures for the
conservation of Pacific bluefin tuna based on the increased allowable catch, including allocation to EPO
fisheries. Note the increase in catch was first proposed in 2020 by Japan and was approved in August 2020
at the WCPFC/IATTC Joint Working Group on Pacific Bluefin Tuna. The IATTC deferred action on the
measure until it received a formal recommendation from the WCPFC, which was provided in 2021.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 87 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

US Domestic Management

NOAA Fisheries and the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Western Pacific Fishery Management
Council manage this fishery on the West Coast and in the Pacific Islands under the Fishery Management
Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species and the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for the
Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific, respectively. Catches of Pacific bluefin tuna by US commercial
fishing vessels is generally limited to the west coast of the US, within the EEZ, by the US small purse seine
fishery. Between 2015 and 2020 catches of Pacific bluefin tuna by the US small purse seine fleet accounted
for approximately 1.5% of the total catch in the Pacific Ocean.

On March 4, 2022, NOAA Fisheries published a proposed rule (87 FR 12409) regarding domestic
implementation of Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) Resolution C-21-05 (Measures for
the Conservation and Management of Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean). This proposed
rule includes catch limits that would apply to U.S. commercial vessels that fish for Pacific bluefin tuna in
the eastern Pacific Ocean during 2022-2024. The catch limits may differ in each year and NOAA Fisheries
would impose an initial trip limit, an intermediate trip limit, and a lower trip limit on individual fishing
vessels that reduce as catch thresholds are met throughout the year.

At the beginning of each period (semi-annual or quarter), the initial trip limit would be imposed unless at
the start of the period, the threshold for the intermediate or lower trip limit is met. Similarly, if the
intermediate trip limit has been imposed during the previous period, the intermediate trip limit would
remain in effect unless at the start of the next period the threshold to reduce the trip limit to the lower
trip limit has been met. In each year, if the annual limit is estimated to be met, the fishery would be closed.
The annual and trip limits for 2022 and 2023 are as follows:

The annual limit would be 523 mt with an initial trip limit of 20 mt. The trip limit would be reduced as
follows:

2022:

• January - June: If cumulative catch is within 323 mt of the annual limit (i.e., cumulative catch
reaches 200 mt), the trip limit would be 15 mt. If cumulative catch is within 223 mt of the annual
limit (i.e., cumulative catch reaches 300 mt), the trip limit would be 3 mt.
• July-September: If cumulative catch is within 273 mt of the annual limit (i.e., cumulative catch
reaches 250 mt), the trip limit would be 15 mt. If cumulative catch is within 198 mt of the annual
limit (i.e., cumulative catch reaches 325 mt), the trip limit would be 3 mt.
• October-December: If cumulative catch is within 223 mt of the annual limit (i.e., cumulative
catch reaches 300 mt), the trip limit would be 15 mt. If cumulative catch is within 100 mt of the
annual limit (i.e., cumulative catch reaches 423 mt), the trip limit would be 3 mt.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 88 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2023:

The annual limit would be 720 mt with an initial trip limit of 30 mt. The trip limit would be reduced as
follows:

• January - June: If cumulative catch is within 320 mt of the annual limit (i.e., cumulative catch
reaches 400 mt), the trip limit would be 20 mt. If cumulative catch is within 220 mt of the annual
limit (i.e., cumulative catch reaches 500 mt), the trip limit would be 3 mt.
• July - September: If cumulative catch is within 290 mt of the annual limit (i.e., cumulative catch
reaches 430 mt), the trip limit would be 20 mt. If cumulative catch is within 200 mt of the annual
limit (i.e., cumulative catch reaches 520 mt), the trip limit would be 3 mt.
• October - December: If cumulative catch is within 250 mt of the annual limit (i.e., cumulative
catch reaches 470 mt), the trip limit would be 20 mt. If cumulative catch is within 100 mt of the
annual limit (i.e., cumulative catch reaches 620 mt), the trip limit would be 3 mt.

The rule (87 FR 12409) also requires fish buyers to submit, within 24 hours of landing, electronic landings
receipts with Pacific bluefin tuna landings in California ports using the E-tix system.

These measures clearly place significant restrictions and oversight on the UoA US small purse seine fishery
which only accounts for approximately 1.5% of total catches in recent years.

Information

The purse seine fishery in the ETO has been monitored directly by the IATTC since the 1950s. Information
is collected in accordance with the requirements of Resolution C-03-5 from 2003 on Data Provision.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 89 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 22. Retained catches (t) of Pacific bluefin tuna in the EPO, by gear, 1952-2018 (from ISC 2020).

Noting that the catch of Pacific bluefin tuna by US commercial fishing vessels occurs within domestic
waters along the west coast of the US, NOAA Fisheries published a proposed rule (87 FR 12409) regarding
domestic implementation of Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) Resolution C-21-05
(Measures for the Conservation and Management of Pacific Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean).
This proposed rule includes catch limits that apply to U.S. commercial fishing vessels catching Pacific
bluefin tuna in the EPO during 2022-2024. The US small purse seine fishery operates in coastal waters of
southern California and is the only US commercial purse seine fishery catching Pacific bluefin tuna. NOAA
Fisheries requires the submission of logbooks detailing the catch of Pacific bluefin tuna by the US small
purse seine fishery. NOAA Fisheries rule (87 FR 12409) also requires fish buyers to submit, within 24 hours
of landing, electronic landings receipts with Pacific bluefin tuna landings in California ports using the E-tix
system. The vessels are subject to port inspections by NOAA Fisheries to confirm species specific reported
catch levels.

7.3.1.5 Secondary Species

Eastern Pacific and Striped Bonito Tuna (Sarda spp.)

Following MSC guidelines Eastern Pacific and Striped bonito tuna (hereon referred to as bonito tuna) are
classified as a secondary-main species in the U.S. California Coastal small purse seine fishery operating in
coastal waters off southern California and a secondary-minor species in the TUNACONS fishery.

Biology

Bonito are coastal species that are found schooling with small tunas. They are also found around some
islands. The genetic structure of these populations is not well understood, and there appears to be

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 90 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

considerable complexity (Hall and Roman 2014). Fishbase reports the distribution of eastern Pacific bonito
(Sarda chiliensis) in the southeast Pacific to be from northern Peru to Talcahuano, Chile with a northern
subspecies (S. chiliensis lineolate) found from off the coast of Alaska, southward to Cabo San Lucas at the
tip of Baja California, and in the Revillagigedo Islands. Striped bonito (S. orientalis) is reported to be found
in the Hawaiian Islands, Pacific coast of USA extending to the southern tip of Baja California and Tres
Marias Islands extending to Cabo Blanco, Peru (especially during El Niño events), and the Galapagos
Islands and Gulf of Guayaquil (Fishbase.org).

They feed on clupeoids, other fishes, squids and decapod crustaceans and Fishbase indicates a trophic
level of 4.2 ±0.69. Spawning varies with the monsoon season. On Fishbase it is recorded that a female
eastern Pacific bonito (Sarda chiliensis) of 3 kg may produce millions of eggs per season, that is has a
medium resilience with a minimum population doubling time of 1.4 - 4.4 years and a moderate to high
vulnerability (51 of 100). The eastern Pacific bonito matures in its second year of life and reaches a
maximum longevity 5–8 years (Hall and Roman 2014). These attributes are indicative of a quite productive
species.

Status

IUCN lists bonito tuna as a species of Least Concern. IATTC has not assessed the status of bonito tunas,
but they are short-lived species with high productivity and are not considered to be under any appreciable
threat from fishing by IATTC vessels.

Management

There are no conservation measures directed specifically at bonito, but measures for the main target
species, such as Resolution C-17-01, provide some level of protection for the other retained species.

Information

Information on catches of bonito tuna comes from two sources, observer data for the TUNACON fleet and
logbook data from the U.S. California Coastal small purse seine fishery. Catches of bonito tuna in the
TUNACONS fleet is relatively small; 155 mt annually in free school sets and 6 mt annually in dFAD sets.
Bonito tuna catches in the U.S. California Coastal small purse seine fishery are also relatively small,
increasing from 38 mt in 2016 to 124 mt in 2018. Information is collected in accordance with the
requirements of Resolution C-03-5 (adopted in 2003) on Data Provision and Resolution C-09-04 (adopted
in June 2009).

Other minor secondary species

There were numerous secondary minor species caught by PS free-school and FAD sets in the TUNACONS
UoA (Table 12 & Table 13). No species comprised over 1% of the total catch, and therefore, are not
assessed in detail in the background. We adopted an ‘all-or-nothing’ approach in the scoring of secondary
minor species and have used blue marlin as the representative species. Readers are directed to the
Principle 2 scoring rationales for more information.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 91 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Mitigating ecological impacts of tuna purse-seine fisheries is paramount to effective fisheries

management in the EPO. Releasing small individuals of any species (target and non-target) through
techniques and fishing gear technologies would reduce the impacts of fishing operations and improve the
sustainability of the fishery. Additionally, the entanglement of species (target and non-target), including
those classified as ETP species, in the trailing netting of FADs is another fishing impact that should be
mitigated to improve the sustainability of the fishery. In 2006, the IATTC urged governments to reduce
incidental mortality of juvenile tunas as outlined in Resolution C-04-05 (REV 2), where Article 1, paragraph
b.i. directs CPCs to support and seek necessary funding to develop technologies for releasing juvenile
tunas, particularly through the use of sorting grids. Sorting grids allow the escape of small individuals that
can pass through the mesh of the grid in a purse seine.

Recognizing the importance of research to advance sustainable fishing practices, Ecuador undertook the
development of its own study on sorting grids between 2009 and 2011 with the goal of identifying an
effective grid technology for installation in purse seine nets on all Ecuadorian Class-6 (>364 t) tuna purse-
seine vessels. It was concluded that the sorting grid represents a good alternative to bycatch mitigation,
and it was suggested investigations be conducted on the behavior of the fish within the purse-seine net
and the survival of the fish that are released through the sorting grid. Additionally, Ecuador also initiated
bycatch mitigation research to develop non-entangling FADs and biodegradable FADs, and recently passed
regulations requiring the use of lesser-entangling FADs in all purse seine FAD fisheries, including the
TUNACONS FAD fishery. Observers confirm use of lesser entangling FADs as FADs are brought onboard
the vessel along with the catch providing opportunity for verification. In the EPO, TUNACONS has assumed
a leadership role in these three areas of bycatch mitigation research, which are now part of the broader
IATTC research plans.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 92 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

7.3.1.6 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species

The main source of information with regard to bycatch species, including ETP species, is from the observer
programs. For TUNACONS that means the combined results of IATTC’s observer program and Ecuador’s
National observer program. Mandatory observer coverage is set at 100% for larger purse seine vessels
(Vessel Class 6) operating in the EPO and there have been no non-compliance concerns with observer
coverage raised against the TUNACONS UoA. Given there are no non-compliance issues concerning the
observer coverage of larger purse seine vessels (Vessel Class 6) the Assessment Team considers the data
to be representative of and fishing activities for this class of vessels. With the implementation of a
voluntary observer program to monitor fishing operations of all smaller TUNACONS purse seine vessels
(Vessel Classes 3-5), the assessment Teams considers the combination of these data to be sufficient for
determining catch composition of the TUNACONS UoA. We note information on the fate of ETP species
was provided through the collection of destiny information (discarded (dead, injured, and alive), other,
and unknown) by observers. As observer coverage is not required for smaller purse seine vessels (vessel
class 1) operating in the IATTC area, no observer data is available for the US California Coastal based small
purse-seine vessels. These vessels operate in the US EEZ, and, while the submission of logbooks is
mandatory, ETP interactions are generally not recorded in logbooks.

Sharks and Rays

Sharks and other large fishes are taken by both purse seine and longline vessels. Silky sharks (Carcharhinus
falciformis) are the most commonly caught species of shark in the purse-seine fishery, followed by oceanic
whitetip sharks (C. longimanus). A revised consolidated resolution on bycatch (C-04-05 Rev 2) was agreed
in 2006 that requires the live release on purse seine vessels of non-target fish such as sharks, rays,
billfishes, dorado, wahoo and other non-target species to the extent that this is practicable. IATTC
Resolution C-05-03 (as amended through C-16-04) and C-16-05 discourages shark retention, requires full
utilization of retained sharks, requires vessels to follow safe release procedures for discarded sharks, and
establishes a limit on the amount of shark fins that can be landed relative to the total weight of retained
shark bodies. This ratio of fin-to-body-weight acts as a disincentive to target sharks because the shark
carcasses occupy hold space on the vessel and have little market value. The Resolution also mandates
reporting of shark catches to IATTC. Resolutions C-16-06 and C-19-05 define other shark conservation
measures with an emphasis on silky shark. A separate Resolution (C-11-10) entered into force in January
2012 prohibits the retention of oceanic whitetip sharks in all fisheries covered by the Antigua Convention
and requires the release of animals that are alive when caught.

Resolution C-15-03 requires the collection of catch and operational data associated with FADs and analysis
of the data to establish measures to regulate this fishing practice and reduce its effect on bycatch. The
resolution proposes additional measures for the protection of sharks, mainly whale sharks.

Large numbers of sharks are taken as bycatch by the TUNACONS UoA purse seine fleet, especially those
associated with floating objects. The two most common species of shark caught are silky and oceanic

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 93 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

white tip sharks. In contrast to the tuna longline fishery, the number of sharks caught as bycatch in the
EPO purse seine fishery is not considered to hinder the recovery of these species (Figure 23).

Elasmobranch Discards (tons) by Gear in the Tuna Fisheries of

the EPO
50000
45000 Purse Seine
Longline
40000
Other
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1988

2007

2014
1987

1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Figure 23. Elasmobranch discards (tons) in tuna fisheries of the EPO by purse seine, longline and other vessels
from 1987-2019 (2019 is incomplete) (data from IATTC, 2015 and IATTC 2020).

In addition to IATTC resolutions, Ecuador regulations ban directed fishing for sharks in all Ecuadorian
waters, but sharks caught in “continental” (i.e. not Galapagos) fisheries may be landed if bycaught with
fins naturally attached. In 2006, Ecuador issued the “National Action Plan for the Conservation and
Management of Sharks in Ecuador” (PAT-EC), which establishes the legal framework for the protection
and sustainable use and management of targeted and bycatch shark species at the national level (MICIP
2006). The plan was updated in 2020 with participation of PAT-EC and SRP officials, as well as the technical
support by WWF officials (Rosero, J. and O. Rosero, 2020). Incidental interactions with other species, in
particular sharks and rays in the artisanal fisheries, are documented through a monitoring program
(CMPIT) developed by the Undersecretary of Fisheries (SRP).

The U.S. developed and implemented its National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management
of Sharks (NPOA) in 2000 to ensure the sustainability of shark fisheries. Reports outlining the
achievements in the implementation of the NPOA are produced regularly highlighting management
measures, research activities, outreach and education efforts, and international fishery management
measures. The US Shark Conservation act of 2010 amended the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium
Protection Act and the MSA requiring all retained sharks in the United States, with one exception, be
brought to shore with their fins naturally attached.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 94 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The Ecuadorian Government, and more recently TUNACONS, have collaborated with Manta Trust to assist
in the conservation management of Ecuador's oceanic mantas under the umbrella of the 2010 established
project, Proyecto Mantas Ecuador (PME). The Ecuadorian Government with support from PME was
successful in listing oceanic manta on Appendix I and II of the CMS in 2011 and later Appendix II of CITES.
To promote development of a comprehensive research action plan for mantas in Ecuador, PME
established collaborations with the Ministry of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries, and
recently with TUNACONS to monitor and tag manta rays in the Galapagos Islands region. Information
gathered through this collaboration, combined with similar research collaborations in Peruvian waters, is
envisioned to lead to more comprehensive management of oceanic manta.

Shark Finning

Regulations on shark fishing and finning are generally developed, implemented, and enforced at the
RFMO and member country levels, and in some cases at the fishing company level. IATTC Resolution C-
05-03 calls for members to take the measures necessary to require that their fishers fully utilize any
retained catches of sharks. Full utilization is defined as retention by the fishing vessel of all parts of the
shark excepting head, guts, and skins, to the point of first landing.

As stipulated in the U.S. Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 shark finning is prohibited on all U.S. vessels
and NOAA Fisheries is required to provide the U.S. Congress with an annual report describing efforts to
implement the law (Oliver and Jacobs, 2020). Ecuador explicitly prohibits shark finning and has officially
established a shark monitoring program. Shark finning is prohibited in all Panamanian waters and
industrial fishers must land sharks with fins attached naturally; artisanal fishers may land the fins
separately, but the weight ratio must be no more than 5% fins to whole weight of sharks.

Data to assess the level of shark finning comes from IATTC reports of the Committee for the Review of
Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission, observer information, and port sampling
programs administered by Ecuador. We note that observer information from 2015-2018 provided to the
assessment team did not indicate any incidence of shark finning. In the 2010 report of the Committee for
the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission shark finning was observed on
3% of IATTC observed trips in 2009, resulting in 184 sharks being finned, including 70 sharks finned on 2
trips by Ecuadorian-flagged vessels. This represents a continued reduction in the number of sharks finned
in the IATTC Convention area from 2006 to 2009 (Figure 24) (IATTC-COR 2009).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 95 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 24. Observed number of sharks finned during IATTC-observed trips, 2006-2009. (from IATTC-COR 2009).
Note that these data are generated for all IATTC-observed trips, not from Ecuadorian flagged vessels specifically.

More recent publicly available reports from the IATTC-COR (IATTC-COR 2012, IATTC-COR 2013 and IATTC-
COR 2014) do not provide updated figures for the numbers of sharks finned nor any data on the levels of
compliance with C-05-03. The minutes of the 2014 report (IATTC-COR 2014) contain the comment that
“information on sharks is limited, and that it is worrying that there are few reports from CPCs on
compliance with Resolution C-05-03.” The assessment team reviewed the 2017 IATTC-COR report (COR-
08-03) and 2020 IATTC-COR report (COR-12-01) and noted that most CPCs are providing annual reports
on compliance with IATTC Resolutions and that from 2017-2020 only a single incident of shark finning
occurred on fishing vessels operating in the IATTC Convention area. It was verified that the observed
incident in 2018 did not involve UoA vessels (Ecuadorian, Panamanian, or US). As at-sea shark finning
activities is gathered by observers and observer coverage approaches 100% for both large (class 6) and
small (class 3-5) UoA purse seine vessels operating in the EPO, the full extent of compliance and finning is
considered known.

We conclude that incidents of shark finning reported by IATTC observers has significantly declined since
2006 and there is evidence that finning in recent years has not occurred on any UoA vessels. This is likely
due to a combination of measures, including stricter enforcement of established national regulations
prohibiting shark finning, adoption of the TUNACONS Code of Conduct that promotes good fishing
practices throughout the fishery, annual outreach trainings for vessel captains to reinforce established
regulations on shark finning and conveyance of requirements for new CMMs, placards on all vessels
outlining prohibitions for key CMMs, and an aggressive port sampling program to detect shark finning.
Presently, 100% of all foreign vessels off-loading catch at Ecuadorian ports are boarded and inspected,
while 10% of all domestic vessels are randomly inspected. Inspection agents use provided schematics of
vessels to identify and direct their search to potential fin stow-away areas, while also inspecting the catch
and fishing gear. The combination of observer data and port sampling, including the physical boarding of

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 96 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

vessels, help support the determination of no evidence of shark finning occurring in the TUNACONS UoA
in recent years.

Silky Shark (Carcharinus falciformis)

Biology

Silky shark is an abundant offshore, oceanic and epipelagic and littoral, tropical species, found near the
edge of continental shelves and islands but also far from land in the open sea. It occasionally occurs
inshore where the water is as shallow as 18 m; in the open ocean it occurs from the surface down to at
least 500 m. The silky shark is often found over deepwater reefs and slopes near islands.

Bonfil (2008) reported that on the basis of differences in life-history parameters, it was possible to identify
at least three distinct populations inhabiting the northwest Atlantic, the western central Pacific, and the
eastern Pacific. Genetic analysis of animals from the Pacific Ocean has also provided evidence that there
are distinct eastern and western Pacific populations (Galván-Tirado et al. 2013) although the possibility of
a single stock could not be excluded. Within the EPO, marked north-south differences in the length
composition of purse-seine bycatches suggest the presence of separate stocks divided approximately
along the equator (Roman-Verdesoto 2014; Roman-Verdesoto and Orozco-Zoller 2005; Watson et al. 2009,
cited in IATTC-SAC 2014b).

Silky sharks are viviparous with a yolk-sac placenta and have 2 to 14 young per litter. There seems to be
no pronounced seasonality in birth of young. The gestation period is estimated at 11-12 months (Hoyos-
Padilla et al., 2012; Galvan-Tirado et al., 2015). It is primarily a fish-eater, eating pelagic and inshore
teleosts including sea catfish, mullet, mackerel, yellowfin tuna, albacore, and porcupine fish, but also
squid, paper nautiluses, and pelagic crabs. It is associated with schools of tuna, has earned the ire of tuna
purse seiners for the damage it does to nets and catches and so is called the 'net-eater shark' in the EPO.
It reaches a maximum size of about 330 cm; males mature at about 187 to 217 cm and reach 270 to 300
cm; females mature at 213 to 230 cm and reach at least 305 cm; the size at birth is about 70 to 87 cm. A
more detailed description of the distribution, biology and growth of silky sharks is contained in Rice and
Harley (2013).

The FAO considers the species to have a mid-range intrinsic rebound potential. Rice and Harley (2013)
regard silky sharks as a low productivity species.

Status

A stock assessment of the status of silky sharks in the area of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean was
attempted by IATTC staff using Stock Synthesis in 2014 but the model was unable to fit the main index of
abundance adequately, and therefore the results were not considered to be reliable (IATTC-SAC 2014b).
The authors recommended the use of indicators until adequate information becomes available to conduct
a full assessment of silky sharks.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 97 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Aires-da-Silva et al. (2014) examined potential stock status indicators for silky sharks and determined that
standardized CPUE from purse seine sets on floating objects was the best indicator for silky shark
populations in the EPO. Indices of relative abundance for the silky shark in the eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO),
developed from purse-seine catch-per-set, were estimated using data from 1994 to 2016 (SAC-08-08a(i)),
and again updated with data through 2018 (Figure 25 SAC-10-17). For the northern stock, standardized
CPUE showed a large decline during 1994-1998 (70% or 53% depending on whether the 1994 data point
is included), followed by a 9-year period (1999-2007) when CPUE is stable with low variability, and a
gradually increasing trend through 2010. From 2011 to 2018 CPUE was variable, with no apparent trend.
For the southern stock, standardized CPUE for floating-object sets shows an 82% decline during 1994-
2004 followed by a period of stability, with very low variability, during 2004-2012. Between 2013 and 2018
CPUE was variable with no apparent trend.

Previous analyses (SAC-08-08a(i)) identified a correlation between North EPO indices, particularly for
small and medium silky sharks, and interannual variability in oceanographic conditions, and thus the
indices for those size categories, and for all silky sharks, were not updated because of concerns about bias.
Because of recent increases in the live release of silky sharks, two indices for large silky sharks were
computed and displayed in Figure 25, one including live release data (dead + live) and the other not. Taken
together, the indices likely bracket the trend that would have resulted in both the north and south EPO if
finning, shark handling, and data recording practices had continued unchanged since 1994. The real trend
is considered to be closer to the dead + live index because sharks recorded as released alive in recent
years would probably have been recorded as dead previously, and thus the dead + live index is likely a
more consistent indicator. However, the observers’ estimates of the sizes of sharks released alive may be
unreliable, and thus the increased live releases could bias the indices by size.

Hinton et al. (2014) have noted, however, that the stock status indicators used by the IATTC have not been
validated, that no formal reference points or harvest control rules based on them have been developed,
and that their use for management advice will require extensive testing such as that conducted in
management strategy evaluation. Nevertheless, there had been a series of precautionary
recommendations developed for the IATTC (IATTC 2013) because of the concerning trends in these
indicators.

A stock assessment of silky sharks in the West and Central Pacific Ocean using Stock Synthesis (Rice and
Harley 2013) concluded that overfishing was occurring and that it was highly likely that the stock was in
an overfished state. The assessment also estimated that catches by both the purse seine (FAD-associated
sets) and longline sectors were important sources of fishing mortality. This assessment assumed there to
be a single WCPFC stock but noted that the species had a circumtropical distribution. The IATTC’s SAC has
regularly noted that a Pacific-wide analysis of longline and purse-seine fishing is necessary to estimate the
impact of fishing on the stock(s) of silky shark (e.g. IATTC-SAC 2014c).

Recently, results of a PSA have been reported for a range of species including silky shark (IATTC-SAC-10-
14). This analysis differs from the PSA approach prescribed in the RBF, in particular the suite of attributes

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 98 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

used to score susceptibility and development of a novel extension of the PSA, EASI-Fish, to account for
cumulative impacts of fisheries on EPO species. IATTC routinely conducts both analyses with the goal of
transitioning to EASI-Fish as more data are collected and model uncertainty minimized. The PSA results
show that the susceptibility score for unassociated sets (2.14) is lower than object sets (2.57) and that
silky shark are among the species with the highest overall vulnerability score (2.07).

Overall, the results of these analyses provide strong evidence that silky shark populations in the EPO have
been depleted. Aires-da-Silva et al. (2014) considered it critical that precautionary measures be
implemented immediately to allow silky sharks populations to rebuild in the EPO. In addition, IATTC staff
have repeatedly recommended that improving shark fishery data collection in the EPO is critical. This will
facilitate the development of other stock status indicators and/or conventional stock assessments to
better inform the management of the silky shark and other co-occurring shark species.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 99 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 25. Mean-scaled standardized silky shark bycatch-per-set (BPS; in numbers of sharks per set) in sets on
floating objects for large sharks, with and without live release, in the north (top) and south (bottom) EPO.
Vertical bars indicate pointwise approximate 95% confidence intervals. Source IATTC 2019.

Management

IATTC Resolution C-00-08, adopted in 2000, called for fishers on purse-seine vessels to “promptly release
unharmed, to the extent practicable”, all non-target species, including sharks, and encouraged them to
develop techniques and equipment to facilitate this. IATTC

Resolution C-05-03 passed in June 2005 concerns the conservation of sharks (including silky sharks) caught
in association with fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. The main measures it contains are:
1. For the establishment and implementation, a national plan of action for conservation and
management of shark stocks,

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 100 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2. The provision of preliminary advice on the stock status of key shark species and propose a
research plan for a comprehensive assessment of these stocks
3. To fully utilize any retained catches of sharks
4. To have onboard fins that total no more than 5% of the weight of sharks onboard, up to the first
point of landing (off-loading)
5. The prohibition of retaining on board, transhipping, landing or trading in any fins harvested in
contravention of this Resolution
6. Encouragement for the release of live sharks, especially juveniles, to the extent practicable, that
are caught incidentally and are not used for food and/or subsistence
7. Support for improved data collection and research on improved gear selectivity and shark
nursery habitats.

Furthermore, IATTC Resolution C-04-05 passed in June 2006 contains the requirement for “fishermen on
purse-seine vessels to promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, all sharks, billfishes, rays,
dorado, and other non-target species” and for CPPs to “encourage fishermen to develop and use
techniques and equipment to facilitate the rapid and safe release of any such animals.” Also, for billfish,
sharks and rays to:
▪ Develop techniques and/or equipment to facilitate their release from the deck or from the net.
▪ Seek the necessary funds to carry out experiments to determine the survival rates of released
billfish, sharks and rays.
▪ Define areas and periods in which any of these species are most likely to be caught.

IATTC Resolution C-16-06 passed in June 2016 and entered into force on 1 January 2017 concerns the
establishment of further conservation measures for shark species, with special emphasis on the silky shark,
for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019. The main measures include:
▪ Prohibit retaining on board, transshipping, landing, or storing, in part or whole, carcasses of silky
sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis) caught by purse-seine vessels in the IATTC Convention Area,
▪ Require all longline vessels whose fishing licenses do not include sharks as a fishing target but catch
sharks incidentally, to limit bycatch of silky sharks to a maximum of 20% of the total catch by fishing
trip in weight,
▪ Require multi-species fisheries using surface longlines (defined as those in which the majority of
hooks fish at depths shallower than 100 meters and target species other than swordfish) to limit the
catch of silky sharks of less than 100 cm total length to 20% of the total number of silky sharks
caught during the trip,
▪ Shall subject the longline fisheries referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 to effective monitoring
measures to determine if the 20% maximum is exceeded, such as through port inspections and
review of observer data, and shall report to the Commission information on percentages reached,
in accordance with IATTC data submission requirements,
▪ Shall require vessels to not fish in silky shark pupping areas, as may be adopted by the Commission,
in accordance with the recommendation of the IATTC scientific staff, in coordination with the
Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC),
▪ For multi-species fisheries using surface longlines that have captured more than 20% of silky sharks
in weight on average, Members and Cooperating Non-Members (CPCs) shall prohibit the use of
steel leaders during a period of three consecutive months each year. The average proportion of
silky sharks in the catch will be calculated from data of the previous calendar year. New vessels

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 101 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

entering the multi-species fisheries affected by this Resolution and those for which no data are
available from the period immediately prior shall be sub-ject to the provisions of this paragraph,
▪ The IATTC scientific staff, in coordination with the SAC, shall recommend the most appropriate
period for the purposes of paragraph 6, on the basis of the analysis of the data provided by CPCs to
be taken into consideration in the revision of this measure.
▪ Vessels of less than 12m length overall using manually-operated fishing gear (i.e. without
mechanical or hydraulic winches) and that do not deliver to motherships at any time during the
fishing trip are excluded from the application of this resolution. For this excluded fleet, CPCs shall
work with the Commission’s scientific staff on the immediate establishment of data-collection
programs, which shall be presented at the meeting of the SAC in 2017.
▪ CPCs shall notify the Director, before 1 October of each year, the single period of restricted use of
steel leaders referred to in paragraph 6 which will be observed for the following calendar year.
▪ CPCs shall keep a record of the vessels and the period to which each vessel operator or owner has
committed for the enforcement of this resolution.
▪ CPCs shall require the collection and submission of catch data for silky sharks, in accordance with
IATTC data reporting requirements. CPCs shall also record, through observer programs and other
means, for purse-seine vessels of all capacity classes, the number and status (dead/alive) of silky
sharks caught and released and report it to the IATTC.
The Commission shall prioritize research by the scientific staff in the following areas:
a. Identification of the pupping areas of the silky shark.
b. Mitigation of bycatch of sharks, especially in longline fisheries, and survival of sharks
caught by all types of gears, giving priority to gears with significant catches. Survival
experiments should include studies of the effects on survival of shorter sets and the
use of circle hooks.
c. Improve handling practices for live sharks to maximize post-release survival.
d. The appropriateness of the percentage limit on silky sharks catch established in
paragraphs 2 and 3.
This Resolution shall be reviewed annually at the meeting of the SAC, in order to evaluate the adequacy
of the measures, notably those in paragraphs 2, 3 and 6.
This Resolution shall enter into force on 1 January 2017 and shall be reviewed at the IATTC annual meeting
in 2019.

IATTC Resolution C-19-05 passed in July 2019 and entered into force on 1 January 2020 extends Resolution
C-16-06 on silky shark mitigation measures for an additional two years (2020 and 2021). The amendments
to the Resolution increase flexibility by allowing exceptions for silky sharks accidentally caught and frozen
by purse seine vessels. In those instances, the amendments require reporting rather than mitigation
measures. In addition, there are inspection requirements for longline vessels that retain silky sharks, with
exceptions for CPCs that prohibit retention on longline vessels.

Directed fishing for sharks is banned in all Ecuadorian waters. Sharks caught in “continental” (i.e. not
Galapagos) fisheries may be landed if unintentionally caught (bycatch) and must be landed with fins
attached. A previous ban on trade in shark fins was lifted in 2007.

In 2016, Ecuador stablished the Darwin and Wolf Marine Sanctuary protecting ocean and animals around
the Galapagos islands, including sharks.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 102 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

TUNACONS voluntary measures:

Many of the IATTC Resolutions call on CPCs to implement adopted measures in their national fisheries.
Recognizing the importance of maintaining healthy and sustainable fisheries, and reducing adverse
ecological impacts of purse seining, TUNACONS voluntarily developed and implemented an onboard code
of good practices for its fleet (Garcia 2016). The code is intended to be a guide for both, beginner and
experienced crews to encourage good on-board handling practices and to mitigate the mortality of
vulnerable species that interact in purse-seine tuna fisheries. It is a code that reflects the measures taken
to improve the operations of tuna purse seiners and to minimize the impact on the marine ecosystem. In
particular, the design of a non-entangling and biodegradable FAD, data collection protocols, and
identification of good practices for the safe handling and release of sensitive species (i.e. sharks, turtles,
etc.) that interact with tuna purse seine fisheries. To disseminate the information and build capacity within
the fleet, TUNACONS hosted meetings to discuss progress on FAD development and train captains, crew,
and industry on the code of good practices (TUNACONS 2018).

Information

On-board observers have routinely collected data on bycatches in the EPO since 1993. However, prior to
2005, the only data collected were for sharks that died as a result of interactions with the fishery.
Therefore, there are essentially no data available on total catch prior to 2005.

There is a requirement for 100% observer coverage of all PS fishing activities on larger vessels > 363 t
(vessel class 6). While IATTC has not specified an observer coverage rate on smaller vessels <= 363 t (vessel
class 1-5), placement of observers has occurred on a voluntary basis. In 2015, 3-4% of all PS trips on smaller
vessels were observed, increasing to 11-12% of all PS trips in 2016. Since 2018, observer coverage of
TUNACON’s smaller purse seine vessels (vessel classes 3-5) has been 100% and this level of coverage is
expected to continue in the future. Additionally, logbook reports and cannery uploading records are
available for both small and vessels, and in some instances are the principal sources of data for smaller
vessels. However, catches of non-target species is not always recorded in logbooks, which hampers efforts
to conduct even data-limited assessments for such species (SAC08-06a).

Recognizing the importance of observer data TUNACONS recently implemented a plan to expand 100%
observer coverage to all fishing vessels, and to explore the utility (including feasibility) of using electronic
monitoring technologies to collect requisite data on segments of the fleet. The team was provided
observer data covering all of their small vessels (vessel class 3-5) in the UoC (N=10).

IATTC Resolution C-16-06 prohibits retaining on board, transshipping, landing, or storing, in part or whole,
carcasses of silky sharks caught by purse-seine vessels in the IATTC Convention Area. This Resolution
entered into force on January 1, 2017, however, based on the observer records many of the retained silky
sharks were caught outside domestic waters, and in the IATTC Convention Area in both 2017 (N=137) and
2018 (N=11).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 103 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharinus longimanus)

Biology

The oceanic whitetip (Carcharhinus longimanus) is an oceanic-epipelagic shark, usually found far offshore
in the open sea in waters 200 m deep, between about 30°N and 35°S in all oceans; it is normally found in
surface waters, although it has been recorded to 152 m. It has occasionally been recorded inshore but is
more typically found offshore or around oceanic islands and areas with narrow continental shelves.
Evidence also suggests a stock segregation between juveniles and adults of the species; with juveniles
more commonly found in equatorial waters to the west and adults more predominate to the southwest,
near the identified center of abundance (10oS, 190oE) (Clarke et al. 2011b, Lawson 2011). They are
viviparous with placental embryonic development, mature at 4 to 5 years of age, and reach 4 m long. Their
biology has indicated that it is likely to be a species with low resilience to fishing – even among shark
species - and minimal capacity for compensation (Rice and Harley 2012a). More details of the biology of
this species are provided in Molony (2008). Oceanic whitetip sharks are most often caught as bycatch in
the Pacific tuna fisheries, though some directed mixed species (sharks and tunas/billfish) fisheries do exist.

Status

IATTC does not perform stock assessments on oceanic whitetip shark. Assessments have been conducted
in the WCPO (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2019). Considering this species has a clear preference for open ocean
environments (Rice and Harley, 2012) we consider it to be plausible that there is movement between the
WCPO and EPO and that the status of oceanic whitetip in the EPO can be inferred from their status in the
WCPO. We note there are no definitive movement studies demonstrating migration between the EPO and
WCPO.

The unstandardized average bycatches per set of oceanic whitetip sharks also showed decreasing trends
for all three set types in the EPO (e.g. Figure 26), but the cause of this (i.e. fishery impact versus
environmental) cannot be determined at this time (IATTC 2015c). On average, less than 1 mt of oceanic
whitetip sharks are caught per year in each set type, with zero records of catch in the unassociated fishery.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 104 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 26. Unstandardized catch rates of oceanic whitetip sharks from floating object sets (1994-2006) (IATTC-
SAC 2011).

Recently, results of a PSA have been reported for a range of species including oceanic whitetip shark
(IATTC-SAC-09-11). This analysis differs from the PSA approach prescribed in the RBF, in particular the
suite of attributes used to score susceptibility and development of a novel extension of the PSA, EASI-Fish,
to account for cumulative impacts of fisheries on EPO species. IATTC routinely conducts both analyses
with the goal of transitioning to EASI-Fish as more data are collected and model uncertainty minimized.
The PSA results show that the susceptibility score for unassociated sets (1.00) is lower than for dolphin
sets (1.69) and object sets (2.08) and that oceanic whitetip shark are only moderately vulnerable with an
overall vulnerability score of 1.50. The relatively low catch of oceanic whitetip shark in PS fisheries
compared to the catch in longline fisheries since 2005 is believed to contribute to the moderate score
(Figure 27).

Tremblay-Boyer et al. (2019) completed an assessment for oceanic whitetip shark in the WCPO area and
concluded that despite the data limitations going into the assessment and the wide range of uncertainties
considered, all of the feasible grid model runs indicate that the WCPO oceanic whitetip shark stock
continues to be overfished and overfishing is occurring relative to commonly used depletion and MSY-
based reference points. While the assessment estimates that overfishing is still occurring (Frecent/FMSY
was 3.94) the stock assessment also estimates a slight recovery in stock biomass in recent years (2013-
2016). It remains unclear whether the stock status will continue to improve or perhaps decline in the
future. Stock projections based on the assessment will be undertaken to provide guidance on this issue.
There now appear to be few if any major fisheries targeting oceanic whitetip. The greatest impact on the
WCPO stock is attributed to bycatch from the longline fisheries, with lesser impact from purse seining (see
the Oceanic Whitetip panel in Figure 27.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 105 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 27. Retained and discarded catches of sharks and rays, in tons, reported by observers aboard large purse-
seine vessels, 1993–2018, by set type (dolphin (DEL), unassociated (NOA), floating object (OBJ)) (left y-axis).
Longline data (right y-axis) are considered to be minimum catch estimates. Data for the past two years should
be considered preliminary; longline data for 2018 not currently available. Source IATTC 2019.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 106 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Management

IATTC Resolution C-00-08, adopted in 2000, called for fishers on purse-seine vessels to “promptly release
unharmed, to the extent practicable”, all non-target species, including sharks, and encouraged them to
develop techniques and equipment to facilitate this.
IATTC Resolution C-05-03 passed in June 2005 concerns the conservation of sharks caught in association
with fisheries in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. The main measures it contains are:

1. For the establishment and implementation a national plan of action for conservation and
management of shark stocks,
2. The provision of preliminary advice on the stock status of key shark species and propose a
research plan for a comprehensive assessment of these stocks
3. To fully utilize any retained catches of sharks
4. To have onboard fins that total no more than 5% of the weight of sharks onboard, up to the
first point of landing (off-loading)
5. The prohibition of retaining on board, transshipping, landing or trading in any fins harvested
in contravention of this Resolution
6. Encouragement for the release of live sharks, especially juveniles, to the extent practicable,
that are caught incidentally and are not used for food and/or subsistence
7. Support for improved data collection and research on improved gear selectivity and shark
nursery habitats.

Furthermore, IATTC Resolution C-04-05 passed in June 2006 contains the requirement for “fishermen on
purse-seine vessels to promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, all sharks, billfishes, rays,
dorado, and other non-target species” and for CPPs to “encourage fishermen to develop and use
techniques and equipment to facilitate the rapid and safe release of any such animals.” Also, for billfish,
sharks and rays to:
a. Develop techniques and/or equipment to facilitate their release from the deck or from the net.
b. Seek the necessary funds to carry out experiments to determine the survival rates of released
billfish, sharks and rays.
c. Define areas and periods in which any of these species are most likely to be caught.

IATTC Resolution C-11-10 passed in July 2011 and entered into force on 1 January 2012 concerns the
establishment of further conservation measures for oceanic whitetip sharks caught in association with
fisheries in the Antigua Convention Area. The main measures include:
▪ Prohibit retaining onboard, transhipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or
whole carcass of oceanic whitetip sharks in the fisheries covered by the Antigua Convention.
▪ Require vessels flying their flag to promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, whitetip
sharks when brought alongside the vessel.
▪ Record inter alia, through the observer programs, the number of discards and releases of oceanic
whitetip sharks with indication of status (dead or alive) and report it to IATTC.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 107 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

▪ Directed fishing for sharks is banned in all Ecuadorian waters. Sharks caught in “continental” (i e not
Galapagos) fisheries may be landed if unintensionally caught (bycatch), and must be landed with
fins attached. A previous ban on trade in shark fins was lifted in 2007.

In 2016, Ecuador stablished the Darwin and Wolf Marine Sanctuary protecting ocean and animals around
the Galapagos islands, including sharks.

Information

Similar information concerning observer coverage and logbooks, described for silky sharks, applies to
oceanic whitetip shark. Additionally, so do the same reporting concerns. Observers reported on the fate
of 68 discarded oceanic whitetip sharks and 72% were reported alive at the time of release. Given the
relatively small number of oceanic whitetip sharks caught in this fishery between 2015 to 2018, 120
animals, and assuming a 28% immediate discard mortality rate, 34 oceanic whitetip sharks would be killed
over the course of 4 years. Given there will likely be latent mortality effects, say an additional 30%
mortality, the total number of dead animals would increase to 70 animals. The estimated number of dead
oceanic whitetip sharks resulting from UoA purse seine fishing activities is relatively small compared to
the magnitude of the longline catch and associated mortality in the IATTC area.

Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus)

Biology

Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) are globally distributed in tropical and warm temperate seas.
Approximately 75% of the global whale shark population lives in the Indo-Pacific region, the remaining
25% in the Atlantic Ocean, and their populations are potentially part of a single, global meta-population
(Sequeira et al. 2013). They are known to undertake multi-annual and very long-distance migrations
including between different parts of the Pacific Ocean (Norman 2005). They are also known to be resident
year-round in some areas but to use a different habitat in different seasons, being visible on the surface
at sometimes of year and swimming deeper and further away from shore at others, presumably in
response to prey distributions (Cagua et al. 2015).

Because whale sharks are listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List, traditional biological sampling
approaches are not permitted and very little in know about their life history. They are known to be
ovoviviparous and are reported as highly fecund (for a shark). Their life span has been estimated as 60 to
over 100 years, while a recent study in the Maldives estimated a maximum life span of male whale sharks
at 130 years (Perry et al, 2018). Age at maturity has been reported as nine years (Norman 2005), 25 years
(Perry et al., 2018), and 30 years (Harley et al. 2013). Using minimally invasive techniques over a 10-year
period, male whale sharks in the Maldives were estimated to grow to almost 62 feet (Perry et al., 2018).
More details of the biology of this species are provided in Molony (2008).

Status

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 108 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Whale shark status in the EPO have not been assessed. There is data on the whale shark interaction rates
with PS fisheries in the EPO and interactions observed in the UoA can be compared. From 2003 through
2016, 867 whale sharks have been involved in 718 interactions with the tuna purse seine fishery in the
EPO. The rate of interactions was very low, averaging about 3 per 1000 sets, but quite variable, with a
peak of about 12 in 2006, and a low and steady trend since 2014 (Figure 28). Within the UoA, 16 whale
sharks were caught from 2015 through 2018 and the interaction rate estimated across all set types and
flags was 1.0 animals per 1000 sets, similar to EPO PS interaction rates observed since 2014.

From 2003 and 2016, on average 93% of whale sharks caught in EPO PS fisheries were released alive,
although release rates varied among years; in 2007 it was 100%; the low of 77.5% was in 2013. Of the 16
whale sharks caught by vessels in the UoA from 2015 through 2018, 94% (N=15) were released alive;
similar to the EPO PS survival rate.

Neubauer et al (2018) estimated the risk to the Indo-Pacific Ocean whale shark population resulting from
interactions with Pacific Ocean purse seine fisheries using life history information and life history theory.
As there is no data on post release mortality of whale sharks from purse seines the authors conducted a
Delphi survey of experts, where it was estimated to be approximately 10%, with considerable uncertainty
depending on the release methodology. Owing to uncertainty in available data, the risk assessment model
suggested that the risk to Indo-Pacific whale shark from Pacific Ocean purse seine fisheries is moderate
to low, ranging from near 0% to as high as 54%. Noting that post release mortality represents the greatest
source of uncertainty in the risk assessment it was recommended that WCPFC initiate concerted efforts
to identify and promote best practice safe release methods for whale sharks and quantify post-release
mortality rates under a variety of release scenarios.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 109 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 28. Interaction rates of whale sharks with the purse-seine fishery, per thousand sets, all set types
combined, 2003-2016.

Management

IATTC Resolution C-00-08, adopted in 2000, called for fishers on purse-seine vessels to “promptly release
unharmed, to the extent practicable”, all non-target species, including sharks, and encouraged them to
develop techniques and equipment to facilitate this.

IATTC Resolution C-18-05 passed in August 2018 concerns the collection and analyses of data on fish-
aggregating devices and section 4 of the Resolution focuses on measures pertaining to whale shark. The
main measures pertaining to whale shark are:
1. Prohibiting CPC flag vessels from setting a purse-seine net on a school of tuna associated with
a live whale shark, if the animal is sighted prior to the commencement of the set.
2. CPCs shall require that, in the event that a whale shark is not deliberately encircled in the purse-
seine net, the master of the vessel shall:
a. ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure its safe release; and
b. report the incident to the relevant authority of the flag CPC, including the number of
individuals, details of how and why the encirclement happened, where it occurred,
steps taken to ensure safe release, and an assessment of the life status of the whale
shark on release (including whether the animal was released alive but subsequently
died).

IATTC Resolution C-19-06 passed on July 2019 is a stand-alone Whale Shark Resolution (separate from C-
18-05 on FADS) to more clearly mandate measures intended to prevent vessels from setting purse seines

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 110 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

on whale sharks, maximize the chances for safe release of unintentionally encircled individuals, and
mandate detailed reporting of such encounters.

Directed fishing for sharks is banned in all Ecuadorian waters. Sharks caught in “continental” (i e not
Galapagos) fisheries may be landed if unintentionally caught (bycatch) and must be landed with fins
attached. A previous ban on trade in shark fins was lifted in 2007.

In 2016, Ecuador stablished the Darwin and Wolf Marine Sanctuary protecting ocean and animals around
the Galapagos islands, including sharks.

Information

Interactions between whale sharks and the purse-seine fishery for tunas are known to occur in the eastern
Pacific Ocean (EPO), although they are relatively uncommon. Observers of the Inter-American Tropical
Tuna Commission (IATTC) and of the national programs that constitute the On-Board Observer Program
of the Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program (AIDCP), who are required aboard
all large purse-seine vessels (vessels gross tonnage > 363 t), to collect data on these interactions. Similar
information concerning observer coverage and logbooks, described for silky sharks, applies to whale
sharks. Additionally, so do the same reporting concerns.

On-board observers have routinely collected data on bycatches in the EPO, including whale sharks, since
1993. However, prior to 2005, the only data collected were for sharks that died as a result of interactions
with the fishery. Interactions with whale sharks are rare, and the number of mortalities of whale sharks
recorded by observers is very small. Moreover, on the forms used by the observers, whale sharks were
grouped with several other shark species in an "Other identified shark" category. Therefore, there are
essentially no data available prior to 2005.

IATTC Resolution C-00-08, adopted in 2000, called for fishers on purse-seine vessels to “promptly release
unharmed, to the extent practicable”, all non-target species, including sharks, and encouraged them to
develop techniques and equipment to facilitate this. It did not mention whale sharks specifically.
Implementing this measure required a better understanding of the interactions of whale sharks with the
tuna fishery, including their fate after release, and the development of suitable release techniques, and
during 2003-2004 an experimental program was implemented during which on-board observers collected
some information on these interactions. This resulted in data on the date, time, location, and set type, as
well as the fate of the whale shark, in 130 interactions; however, no size data were collected.

Resolution C-05-03, adopted in 2005, was the first to address sharks exclusively. It resulted in the Shark
Record, a dedicated data-collection form for sharks (including whale sharks), on which observers record
information on sharks released alive, as well as biological data such as length.

Resolution C-13-04 on fish-aggregating devices, adopted in 2013, and currently in force as Resolution C16-
01, was the first to address whale sharks specifically. Although it did not establish any data-reporting

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 111 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

requirements, it did require that any bycatches of whale sharks be reported “to the relevant authority of
the flag CPC, including the number of individuals, details of how and why the encirclement happened,
where it occurred, steps taken to ensure safe release, and an assessment of the life status of the whale
shark on release.”

Between 2015 and 2018 observers aboard UoA vessels reported a total catch of 16 whale sharks, 8 caught
in FAD sets and 8 caught in free school sets. Whale shark catch rates between set types differed, 0.7
animals/1000 FAD sets and 1.4 animals/1000 free school sets. All whale sharks caught in free school sets
were released alive and one caught during FAD fishing operations died during release. The catch of whale
sharks by UoA vessels is considered low and will not hinder the recovery of these species.

Scalloped Hammerhead Shark (Sphyrna lewini)

Biology

The Scalloped Hammerhead is a coastal and semi-oceanic pelagic shark, found over continental and
insular shelves and nearby deep water, ranging from the intertidal and surface usually to 275 m depth
(Moore and Gates 2015). Adults spend most of the time offshore in midwater and females migrate to
the coastal areas to pup (Stevens and Lyle 1989).

Status

While two distinct population segments (DPS) have been identified in the Pacific Ocean, the Eastern Pacific
DPS and the Indo-West Pacific DPS, the IUCN lists all scalloped hammerhead populations as critically
endangered. Systematic monitoring of population abundance does not exist for any of the scalloped
hammerhead DPSs. Data from shark deterrent programs, diver and fishermen surveys, and catch per unit
effort (CPUE) from fisheries-dependent monitoring are used to track population trends.

The US considers the Eastern Pacific Ocean DPS of scalloped hammerhead shark to be endangered and
US flagged vessels in the UoA are subject to regulations specified in the US Endangered Species Act.

Eastern Pacific DPS

Based on diver observations collected from January 1993 to December 2013 in Cocos Island, Costa Rica,
scalloped hammerhead relative abundance declined 45% during the period (White et al. 2015). Although
dives were not entirely standardized (e.g., there was no defined field of view), the protocols were
consistent throughout the study. Each dive averaged 60 minutes and was led by an experienced
professional divemaster. Dive depth ranged from 10 to 40 m depending on the site (n = 17), but depth
was consistent within sites. A standardized data sheet was used for all dive sites (White et al. 2015).
Peñaherra-Palma et al. (2018) used divers’ perceptions about changes in relative abundance of sharks in
the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR). Based on divers’ categorical trend scores and percentage of
abundance change from the 1980s through the early 2010s, the authors developed a semi-quantitative
virtual abundance change model based on an initial value of 1 then calculated the increase or decrease in

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 112 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

subsequent decades. Divers’ perceived a 50% decline in hammerhead shark abundance across the
decades (Peñaherra-Palma et al. 2018).
Management

There are no IATTC management measures specific to scalloped hammerhead shark in the EPO. Resolution
C-16-05 (on the management of shark species) requirements include the following:

• Commits IATTC staff to develop a workplan to complete full stock assessments for silky shark and
hammerhead sharks.

• Requires that fishers collect and submit catch data for silky and hammerhead sharks, including
the number and status of those sharks released.

• Requires that, for purse seine fisheries and where sharks are not retained, that sharks are released
unharmed, to the extent practicable, as soon as it is seen in the net or on the deck. It is specified
that gaffs or hooks must not be used, that sharks must not be lifted by the head, tail, gill slits or
spiracles, and whale sharks may not be towed out of a net.

Within Resolution C-05-03 paragraph 7 stipulates that:

• In fisheries for tunas and tuna-like species that are not directed at sharks, CPCs shall encourage
the release of live sharks, especially juveniles, to the extent practicable, that are caught
incidentally and are not used for food and/or subsistence.

United States Management Measures

While the U.S. ESA generally prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species, incidental takes
are permitted provided such taking is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species.

Data on the bycatch of scalloped hammerhead shark in the EPO is collected by observers under the ROP
following the data collection protocols required under C-11-08 and C-15-04 and reported annually to the
IATTC. Mandatory logbooks with daily catch and effort records for each fishing operation is required under
Resolution C-03-05, Resolution on Data Provision.
Information

The reported catch of scalloped hammerhead shark was significantly higher in FADS sets (N=263)
compared to free school sets (N=19), and catch rates were also significantly different (FAD sets = 25
animals/1000 sets; free school sets = 3 animals/1000 sets).

Based on observer records from 2015 to 2018 only one scalloped hammerhead shark was retained. While
IATTC Resolutions C-05-03, C-16-06 and C-19-05 address conservation measures for shark species,

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 113 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

including a prohibition on the retention of purse seine caught sharks in the IATTC Convention Area, most
of the agreed measures may not be binding.

The number of scalloped hammerheads caught as bycatch by the UoA vessels is not considered to hinder
the recovery of these species. The major source of fishery related mortalities on sharks in the EPO owes
to longline fishing activities.

Mobulid Rays

Rays of the family Mobulidae are characterized by late maturity, lengthy gestation, and long lifespan. They
are migratory across the tropical and temperate seas where much purse seine tuna fishing takes place.
While previously mainly taken in the EPO and WCPO as bycatch, Mobulid species are increasingly targeted
in some gillnet and harpoon fisheries in Indonesia and the Philippines. It’s noted that these fisheries have
reported increasing effort in terms of power and number of boats in recent years, however data on
catches by species are limited. While information on population numbers or trends is limited, local
populations are either subject to declines in areas where they are fished or threats from anthropogenic
factors (Marshall et al. 2019a).

Based on observer data from 2015 to 2018 five species of mobulid rays were caught by the fishery: Giant
Manta Ray (Mobula birostris), Smoothtail Devil Ray (M. thurstoni), Spinetail Devil Ray (M. japonica),
Chilean Devil Ray (M. tarapacana), and Munk's Devil Ray (M. munkiana). While the total catch of mobulid
rays by set type was similar (145 vs 147), numbers caught at the species level differed significantly
between set types. Catches of mobula in free school sets comprised fifty-four M. birostris (12.85 mt),
three M. tarapacana (0.27 mt), twenty-three M. japonica (1.41 mt), three M. thurstoni (0.06 mt), and
sixty-two unidentified mobula and mantas (3.33 mt). Catches of mobula in FAD sets over the four years
comprised seven M. birostris (1.67 mt), three M. tarapacana (0.27 mt), thirty-two M. japonica (1.97 mt),
nine M. munkiana (0.17 mt), and ninety-five unidentified mobula and mantas (5.66 mt).

While the overall catch of mobulid rays in each set type over the four-year period represents a small
portion of their total catch volume (0.01% for free school sets; 0.002% for FADs sets), the condition of
many discarded animals is unknown due to inconsistencies with collected information. The lack of reliable
information on discard condition, combined with the relatively large number of mobulid rays caught is
concerning.

Status

There are no stock assessments for mobulids, however, information on population trends is available for
some species and areas based on long time series of sightings at diving sites. Within the Indo-Pacific the
decline for devil and manta ray populations is estimated to be at least 78%
(https://www.cms.int/sharks/sites/default/files/document/cms_sharks-
mos3_inf.15_e_mobulid%20rays.pdf). In areas where devil ray catch data is available population declines
of 50-99% have been inferred (Croll et al. 2016, Rohner et al. 2017). Local and regional abundance has

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 114 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

been estimated for some areas and is mostly small, generally numbering less than 500 individuals, except
for Ecuador where abundance is estimated at more than 2,000 individuals.

Giant Manta Rays are targeted or taken as bycatch in artisanal small-scale fisheries, as well as taken as
bycatch in large-scale tuna fisheries. In areas where Giant Manta Ray are protected, the sighting trends
appear stable. Elsewhere, however, rapid declines have been noted in sightings records and landings
where they are targeted or caught as bycatch; these range from 71 to 95% declines over 13- to 21-year
periods (all less than the assumed one generation length of 29 years). It is estimated that the Giant Manta
Ray has undergone a population reduction of 50–79% over the past three generation lengths (87 years)
from 1931 to 2018, with further population reduction estimated over the next three generation lengths
from 2018 to 2105) due to current and ongoing levels of exploitation, and a reduction in area of occupancy
due to suspected local and regional extinctions (https://www.iucnredlist.org).

Devil rays are a bycatch component of many small and large-scale fisheries, and in some cases catch
aggregated and reported as Mobula spp. Based on a combination of declining sightings-per-unit-effort
(SPUE) data from monitored populations, catch landings data, and evidence of depletions, significant
population declines have been inferred (Fernando and Stevens 2011, Couturier et al. 2012, Hall and
Roman 2013, Ward-Paige et al. 2013, Lewis et al. 2015, Croll et al. 2016, Rohner et al. 2017). In areas
where catch data is available population declines of 50-99% over the last three generations (38 years;
from 1980-2018) has been inferred, with a further population reduction suspected over the next three
generation lengths (2018–2056).

Management

Most information provided on the status and biology of the five Mobulid rays comes from the IUCN Redlist.
The Giant Manta Ray is classified as Vulnerable, the Smoothtail, Spinetail, and Munk’s Devil Rays classified
as Near Threatened, and the Chilean Devil Ray classified ad Data-Deficient. IATTC Resolution C-15-04
summarizes the common characteristics of these rays, thus driving their special regulatory protection.
The resolution preamble states:

“…Considering that Mobulid rays (the family Mobulidae, which includes Manta rays and Mobula rays), are
extremely vulnerable to overfishing as they take a long time to reach sexual maturity, have long gestation
periods, and often give birth to only a few pups; Recognizing that the giant manta ray (Manta birostris) is
considered vulnerable by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the Munk’s devil
ray (Mobula munkiana) and the smoothtail devil ray (Mobula thurstoni) are considered near threatened
by the IUCN; Noting that Mobulid rays are caught as bycatch when fishing for tuna in IATTC fisheries, as
presented at the IATTC Scientific Advisory Committee meeting in April 2013, and release methods for
these animals do exist; and further noting the 2014 and 2015 IATTC staff’s conservation recommendations
and the fact that the Commission adopted recommendations on the handling of Mobulid rays on a
voluntary basis;…”

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 115 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The recent IATTC resolution (C-15-04) prohibits any retention of Mobulid rays (whole or parts) and
requires that Mobulid rays be released alive whenever possible. If caught unintentionally and frozen they
must be surrendered at landing/off-loading. The Resolution increased demands on the observer program
to record discard versus retention and status (dead or alive) of all Mobulid rays. There are further details
regarding enforceable best practices for the safe release of rays (including prohibition of gaffing and
reference to WCPFC-SC8-2012/EB-IP-12).

Turtles

The status of turtles encountered by fisheries in the EPO have not been specifically examined by IATTC.
While annual information on observer coverage rates in the EPO by flag state are not available, there are
no non-compliance observer issues for the UoA; the observer coverage rate is assumed to approach 100%
and the reported observer catch to be representative of fishing activities between 2015 and 2018.

A total of 837 individuals of five species of sea turtles were reported to have been caught by vessels in the
UoA between 2015 and 2018, of which all but 13 were released alive (Table 15 and Table 16). The species
involved are the olive ridley (N=300) , loggerhead (N=46), leatherback (N=7), green (N=99), and hawksbill
(N=10) turtles. An additional 375 unidentified turtles were caught by vessels in the UoA between 2015
and 2018. The overall turtle capture rate was estimated at 50 per 1,000 sets and varied by species; for
green turtle the capture rate was 6 per 1,000, olive ridley 18 per 1,000 sets, loggerhead 3 per 1,000 sets,
hawksbill 0.6 per 1.000 sets, leatherback 0.4 per 1,000 sets, and for unidentified turtles 23 per 1,000 sets.

Set type was the main factor affecting marine turtle encounters in the UoA purse seine fishery; FAD sets
had the highest incidence of marine turtle encounters (N=689) compared to free school sets (N=148)
(Table 15 and Table 16). In free school sets, 27 Green turtles, 3 Hawksbill turtles, 3 Leatherback turtles, 7
Loggerhead turtles, and 41 Olive Ridley turtles were caught. In FAD sets, 72 Green turtles, 7 Hawksbill
turtles, 4 Leatherback turtles, 39 Loggerhead turtles, and 259 Olive Ridley turtles were caught. However,
many sea turtles caught in both set types are unidentified (N=67 in free school sets; N=308 in FAD sets),
complicating the estimation of species-specific catches. Nonetheless, relying on submitted data
approximately 98% of caught sea turtles are released alive.

Status

Olive ridley turtles are the commonly captured species in the EPO because they are the most abundant
species in the region and are also attracted to floating objects (Hall and Martin 2014). Their numbers in
the EPO are also reported to be increasing (Eguchi et al. 2007) although the IUCN records global
populations to be decreasing.

Hall and Martin (2014) reported that between 1993 and 2009, 63 percent of the turtle captures happened
in sets on floating objects 25 percent in free school sets, and the remaining 12 percent in dolphin sets.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 116 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The number of incidental mortalities in the EPO purse seine fishery has decreased in recent years across
all set types (Figure 29Figure 29).

Figure 29. Incidental mortality of sea turtles (number)in the EPO purse seine fishery by set type, 1993-2008.
(from Hall and Roman 2014).

Numbers of sea turtle mortalities and interactions in sets by large purse-seine vessels on floating objects
(OBJ), unassociated tunas (NOA), and dolphins (DEL) for 1993–2018 is shown in Figure 30. The mortalities
of sea turtles due to purse seining for tunas are probably less than those due to other human activities,
which include exploitation of eggs and adults, beach development, pollution, entanglement in and
ingestion of marine debris, and impacts of other fisheries. Unobserved mortalities of sea turtles in FADs
is a concern, but implementation of lesser entangling FADs should reduce the risk.

Population estimates

The primary data to estimate sea turtle population size and trends are collected on nesting beaches, either
as counts of nests or counts of nesting females, or a combination of both (either direct or extrapolated).
Information on abundance and trends away from the nesting beaches is limited (at-sea transect surveys)
and often non-existent, primarily because these data are, relative to nesting beach studies, logistically
difficult and expensive to obtain.

Leatherback turtle

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 117 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Based on 28 years of aerial survey data from coast-wide and adaptive fine-scale surveys off central
California the abundance of leatherback turtles has declined at an annual rate of −5.6% (95% credible
interval −9.8% to −1.5%), without any marked changes in ocean conditions or prey availability. These
results are similar to the nesting population trends of −5.9% and −6.1% per year estimated at Indonesian
index beaches, which comprise 75% of western Pacific nesting activity. (Benson et al., 2020)

Hawksbill turtle

Population estimates for the critically endangered hawksbill turtle range from 57,000 to 83,000 individuals
worldwide (Olive Ridley Project, 2021). The Pacific Ocean population of nesting hawksbill turtles is
estimated at approximately 13,000 - 15,000, and assuming a sex ratio of 1:1 the total Pacific Ocean
population could range from 26,000 – 30,000 animals (NOAA Fisheries. 2021).

Loggerhead turtle

The North Pacific loggerhead subpopulation nests along the eastern coast of Japan and inhabits a vast
marine area covering nearly the entire North Pacific Ocean. The subpopulation is ranked least concern
because the combined long-term nesting population trend is increasing, likely resulting from the long-
term protection of nesting habitat in Japan (SWOT, 2017); current population is The South Pacific Ocean
loggerhead subpopulation nests in eastern Australia and New Caledonia, and its marine habitats extend
across a broad swath of the southern Pacific Ocean. This subpopulation is critically endangered because
the nesting population in eastern Australia, where most nesting takes place, has declined by greater than
80 percent since the mid-1970s and continues to decline (SWOT, 2017).

Green turtle

In the ETP annual estimates of green turtle nesting numbers has been increasing since 1996 and currently
is estimated at approximately 20,000 individuals; note this is a minimum estimate and does not
necessarily include the number of male green turtles (Seminoff et al., 2015).

Olive ridley turtle

Using multi-ship surveys conducted in 1992, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2003, and 2006 in the area defined by 5°
N, 120° W, and 25° N and the coastline of Mexico and Central America, at-sea estimates of density and
abundance of the olive ridley turtle in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP) were produced. A weighted
average of the 5 annual estimates (1998 to 2006) was 1.39 million turtles (95% CI: 1.15 to 1.62 million)
and the findings are consistent with the dramatic increases of olive ridley nesting populations that have
been reported over the past decade for beaches in the ETP.

Management

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 118 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

IATTC Resolution C-07-03, adopted in 2007, establishes non-binding actions by IATTC CPCs to:
1. Implement the FAO Guidelines to reduce the bycatch, injury, and mortality of sea turtles in fishing
operations and to ensure the safe handling of all captured sea turtles, in order to improve their
survival.
2. Beginning in 2008, report to the IATTC annually by 30 June on the progress of implementation of
the FAO Guidelines, including information collected on interactions with sea turtles in fisheries
managed under the Convention.
3. Enhance the implementation of their respective sea turtle bycatch, injury, and mortality reduction
measures that are already in place (using best scientific information) and collaborate with other
CPCs in the exchange of information in this area.
4. Implement observer programs for fisheries under the purview of the Commission that may have
impacts on sea turtles and are not currently being observed, taking into consideration economic
and practical feasibility.
5. Require fishermen on vessels targeting species covered by the Convention to bring aboard, if
practicable, any comatose or inactive hard-shell sea turtle as soon as possible and foster
recovery, including resuscitation, before returning it to the water.
6. CPCs with purse seine vessels fishing for target species covered by the Convention in the EPO
shall:
a. Avoid encirclement of sea turtles to the extent practicable.
b. Take actions necessary to monitor Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) for the entanglement of
sea turtles, and provide the monitoring results to the Commission as part of the requirement
of paragraph 2.
c. Require fishermen to release all sea turtles observed entangled in FADs.
d. Conduct research and development of modified FAD designs to reduce sea turtle
entanglement. Take measures to encourage the use of designs found to be successful at such
reduction.
7. CPCs with longline vessels fishing for target species covered by the Convention in the EPO shall:
a. Require fishermen to carry and, when sea turtle interactions occur, employ the necessary
equipment (e.g. de-hookers, line cutters, and scoop nets) for the prompt release of incidentally
caught sea turtles.
b. Continue to improve techniques to further reduce sea turtle bycatch.
c. Expeditiously undertake fishing trials to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of
appropriate combinations of circle hooks and a. bait, depth, gear specifications, fishing
practices, and other measures in reducing the bycatch, injury, and mortality of sea turtles,
assess their effects on the catch of target and other bycatch species, and provide results to
the IATTC.
d. At future meetings of the Commission, consider measures related to the use of circle hooks
and other gear modifications, taking into account the results of research and fishing trials
The Commission staff shall review information submitted as part of paragraph 2 of this Resolution,
results of research and fishing trials provided by CPCs (including the development of modified u
FADs and effectiveness of circle hook/bait combinations), and any new information available
regarding proven techniques to reduce sea turtle bycatch, injury and mortality in fisheries
targeting tuna and tuna-like species. Results of this review shall be made available to all CPCs and
shall be presented at the next meeting of the IATTC Bycatch Working Group, with the view toward
strengthening these resolutions as necessary.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 119 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

IATTC Resolution C-19-04, adopted in 2019 and entering into force on 1 January 2021, strengthens actions
in Resolution C-07-03 and provides safe handling and release guidelines for sea turtles.

The Ecuadorian government adheres to these international regulations and has also included ecosystem
considerations in the National Action Plans for Sharks/Rays and Mahi Mahi, which are captured with the
same gears as tunas. Ministerial Agreement 031, R.O No.451 (27 Oct 2004) prohibits target capture,
transporting, possession, processing, and commercialization of specimens below the length of 80cm. The
focus of this measure is to protect incidentally caught juvenile tunas and dolphinfish. Executive Decree
486, RO No. 137 (30 June 2007), Executive Decree 902 (reformed) applies to whale shark (Rhincodon
typus), basking shark (Cetorhinus maximus), great white shark (Carcharodon Carcharias), and sawfish
(Pristis sp.), and establishes that in case of incidental capture, live or dead, specimens must be returned
to sea. Ministerial Agreement 093, RO No. 273 (7 Sept 2010) prohibits targeted fishing on the giant manta
ray (Manta birostris) and other manta rays (Mobula japanica, M. thurstoni, M. munkiana and M.
tarapacana).

Sea turtles are given legal protection in the United States and its waters under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), which lists the hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley and green turtle as endangered; the
loggerhead is listed as threatened. This designation makes it illegal to harm, harass or kill any sea turtles,
hatchlings or their eggs. It is also illegal to import, sell, or transport turtles or their products.

In addition to the ESA regulations, US vessels are required to follow all measures contained in IATTC
Resolutions C-07-03 and C-19-04. NOAA Fisheries is also required to produce and submit annual reports
on protected species interactions with fisheries to the US Congress and summaries to the respective
RFMOs. While all of these regulations focus on bycatch mitigation, they also protect the structure and
dynamics of the ecosystem.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 120 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 30. Sea turtle interactions and mortalities, in numbers of animals, for large purse-seine vessels, 1993–
2018, by set type (dolphin (DEL), unassociated (NOA), floating object (OBJ). Source IATTC 2019.

US ETP Legislation

Within the US two laws or acts are in place to protect and recover ETP species depending on their
designation, and the laws/acts apply to all US fishing vessels regardless of fishing area. Endangered and
threatened species fall under the Endangered Species Act which was enacted in 1973 to protect
endangered and threatened species from becoming extinct (dying out). A species or subspecies is
endangered if it is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A
threatened species is one that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future. ESA
facilitates species recovery in several ways. It makes it illegal to import, export, take, possess, sell, or
transport any endangered or threatened species. In addition, ESA provides that land necessary for the
survival of the species should be designated as critical habitat. This includes land that is presently occupied

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 121 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

by the listed species and land that is important for its continued and future existence. The prohibition
against “taking” a listed species includes destruction of critical habitat. Three different departments of
the federal government administer ESA: the Department of Interior (endangered animals generally), the
Department of Commerce (marine mammals), and the Department of Agriculture (plants).

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) in enacted in 1972 and established a national policy to
prevent marine mammal species and population stocks from declining beyond the point where they
ceased to be significant functioning elements of the ecosystems of which they are a part. The MMPA
requires development and implementation of conservation plans for species designated as depleted,
minimizing bycatch of marine mammals in commercial fishing gear, the completion of marine mammal
assessments, and mitigation and monitoring during activities (other than commercial fishing) that result
in the incidental take of marine mammals. Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA allows for authorization of the
incidental taking of marine mammals that occurs during otherwise lawful activities.

While there is no specific Act enacted in the US to protect seabirds a number of statutes, strategic
initiatives, and multilateral agreements direct NOAA Fisheries to include seabirds as part of their efforts
to reduce bycatch and to support a variety of international agreements and Regional Fisheries
Management Organizations to mitigate bycatch associated with non-U.S. fisheries.

Also, US-flagged vessels, regardless of fishing location, are strictly required to follow all measures and
reporting requirements associated with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA), and binding seabird agreements. Vessel captains are required to report the interactions and
fate of all animals falling under the purview of the ESA, MMPA, and binding seabird agreements in
logbooks and NOAA Fisheries requires all captains/crew to regularly attend protected species workshop
to discuss current and proposed management measures and bycatch mitigation measures. The US has
designated scalloped hammerhead sharks as endangered, sea turtles and cetaceans fall under the purview
of the MMPA, and there numerous seabird agreements generally include all seabirds.

7.3.1.7 Habitat Impacts

Overview

When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, teams are required to consider the full
area managed by the local, regional, national, or international governance body(s) responsible for
fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates (this is called the “managed area” for
assessment purposes).

According to MSC FCPV2.1 GSA 3.13.3, the assessment team must determine and justify which habitats
are commonly encountered, vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), and minor (i.e., all other habitats) for
scoring purposes, [where]:

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 122 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

• “A commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat that regularly comes into contact
with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with
the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant
to the UoA; and

• A VME shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines
(definition provided in GSA 3.13.3.2 ) [as having one or more of the following characteristics:
4F

uniqueness or rarity, functional significance, fragility, life-history traits of component species that
make recovery difficult, and/or structural complexity]. This definition shall be applied both inside
and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth.”

The IATTC is responsible for fisheries management in the area where the UoAs operate. For the purposes
of this assessment, the ’habitat under consideration’ (SA3.13.5, MSC 2018a) is considered to include
habitats within the IATTC Convention Areas, which encompasses an enormous area of approximately
2,000 km2 (https://www.wwfca.org/en/the_eastern_tropical_pacific_ocean_/). Water depth in areas
fished usually exceeds 2000 m, and common deep-water habitats extend across the entire Pacific Ocean.

Two purse seine fishing strategies are employed by UoA vessels when fishing for tuna in the EPO, setting
on free schools and FADs. Therefore, as required by MSC FCPV2.1 GSA 3.13.1, the assessment team must
assess the effects of purse seine fishing activities by the UoA on the structure and function of commonly
encountered, VMEs, and minor habitats. For this assessment the shallow pelagic environment is the
commonly encountered habitat and the deep-sea or demersal habitat, encompassing continental shelves
and slopes, abyssal plaines, seamounts, canyons, and trenches, is the minor habitat. Following the FAO
Guidelines (FAO 2009), coral reefs and MPAs are considered VMEs. Justification for the designation of
commonly encountered, minor, and VME habitats follows.

Habitat Type: Commonly Encountered and Minor Habitats

Purse seine vessels fishing on the high seas operate in deep oceanic waters and do not physically contact
the seafloor during their operations. Any impacts of the fishery will therefore be confined to direct or
indirect effects on the surface waters (shallow pelagic environment) where the fishery operates. This
habitat is essentially open ocean waters whose ability to support the target fish populations is related to
temperature, salinity and nutrient levels which determines the productivity of the lower trophic levels.
These are primarily driven by variations in basin wide weather patterns through their effect on the
frequency, location and strength of upwelling events, eddy systems and thermal fronts. Purse seine fishing
is not considered capable of affecting these key habitat drivers at a broad scale or even at local levels. As
such, MSC ‘commonly encountered’ habitats (SA3.13.3, MSC 2018a), as defined in this assessment
(shallow pelagic environment) is not considered further, here.

As fishing occurs in deep-water habitats there is no possibility that the purse seine gear in use in the
fishery would routinely contact demersal habitats. However, the assessment team recognizes that lost
FADs may drift into shallow water and become beached or entangled on VMEs, or drift away from the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 123 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

fishing grounds and sink in deeper waters in either the EPO or WCPO, potentially encountering the deep
sea or benthic habitat. As noted by GSA3.13.2, if a benthic habitat is being assessed, the team shall
recognize habitat categories based on the following habitat characteristics:

• Substratum- sediment type

• Geomorphology – seafloor topography

• Biota – characteristic floral and/or faunal groups

Harris et al. (2014) mapped the geomorphology of the Pacific Ocean, identifying various features
throughout the region:
Abyssal + Hadal Seamount + Ridge Canyon + Trough
Ocean Shelf (km2) Slope (km2) (km2) + Guyot (km2) + Trench (km2)
North Pacific 6,145,000 4,752,000 71,017,000 6,471,000 2,214,000
South Pacific 2,547,000 3,201,000 81,394,000 5,135,000 2,557,000
Total 8,692,000 7,953,000 152,411,000 11,606,000 4,772,000

Given the total area of the geological features in the North Pacific and South Pacific are estimated at
90,599,000 km2 and 94,834,000 km2, respectively, that the fishery only interacts with these habitats if the
FADs sink and noting the relative scale of potential interaction between sunk gear and the deep-sea
habitat (a fraction of a percent of the area), the deep-sea habitat is treated in this assessment as the minor
habitat.

The operation of the purse seine net when fishing on FADs interacts with marine habitats in the same way
and to the same extent as described for free school sets. Therefore, it is appropriate that no particular
management measures exist which are designed to avoid or mitigate impacts of FADs on commonly
encountered and minor habitats during fishing operations.

However, consideration concerning potential impacts of lost FADs on habitats must be considered. For
this assessment, the evaluation of habitat impacts focuses on only manufactured FADs which have
potential impacts if they are lost and wash up on coastlines, especially those with coral reefs and MPAs,
which are defined as a VMEs. The potential impacts of FADs on VMEs are summarized below.

Habitat Type: Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME)

The Galápagos Islands and their surrounding waters form the Galápagos Province of Ecuador, the
Galápagos National Park, and the Galápagos Marine Reserve. Due to the Galapagos islands unique history
and biodiversity the Team considers it to be a VME. The Inter-Institutional Management Authority of the
Galapagos Marine Reserve, through Resolution No. 011-2000 of November 15, 2000, prohibited the
capture, landing and commercialization of shark in the Galapagos Archipelago. While direct fishing
activities are prohibited, there is a potential for indirect impacts from FAD purse seining on the VME due
to (1) ghost fishing by entanglement of animals in the net associated with FADs, especially sharks and sea

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 124 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

turtles, and (2) marine debris created by lost and abandoned FADs, which may wash onto coral reef areas.
With time the potential impact due to entanglement will be mitigated through the requirement to use
non-entangling FADs constructed with biodegradable materials in the UoA and the broader FAD fisheries
in the EPO (lesser entangling FADs are currently required).

Few studies have quantified the impact of FADs that are lost or abandoned (Maufroy et al. 2015; Escalle
et al. 2018; Zudaire et al. 2018). Fishers usually deactivate FADs that are drifting out of the fishing grounds
in order to avoid paying communication fees for FADs that are not productive, but also to activate a new
FAD within the fishing ground due to FAD limitation resolutions. These deactivations make it difficult to
quantify the loss of abandoned FADs, and thus their impacts.

Recognizing that information on lost and abandoned FADs is currently not available and there is a real
potential for FADs to drift into protected areas and become beached on coral reefs, TUNACONS recently
partnered with WWF to initiate a FAD recovery program in the Galapagos Reserve to provide provisional
data on the potential for beaching and feasibility of developing a FAD recovery program. Initial discussions
are underway with vessel captains and “jefe de flota”, people responsible for the fleet, to develop a robust
survey using TUNACONS vessels. Information generated by the program will provide a first glimpse of the
extent of beaching by abandoned FADs on VMEs in the region and requirements to mitigate impacts.

There are four main forms of manufactured dFADs, and the modifications in design effect the potential
impact they may have on coral reefs (Figure 31). These include: Highest Entanglement Risk FADs (HER
FAD), Lesser Entanglement Risk FADs (LER FAD), No Entanglement Risk FADs (NER FAD) and Biodegradable
No Entanglement Risk FADs (BNER FAD) (Banks and Zaharia 2020). All RFMOs have now adopted measures
to promote the use of non-entangling (NE) FADs in their purse seine fisheries. Most of the fleets are
currently using lesser entangling FADs which means that if mesh net is used for the tail, it must be tied as
tightly as practicable in the form of sausages or have a stretched mesh size less than 7 cm in a panel with
weight at the end (Res C-18-05; Murua et al. 2016). Such lesser entangling FADs are now required in all
Ecuadorian FAD fisheries. The more the amount of netting used, the greater the risk of entanglement with
corals and trapping of animals (Zudaire et al., 2018). The change to LER FADs is expected to reduce animal
entanglements, but given the large amount of netting, no reduction in beaching events or impact to coral
reefs is expected (Banks and Zaharia 2020).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 125 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 31. Drifting FAD types, figure from ISSF 2018.

Table 18. Drifting FADs deployed by vessels in the UoA

Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Number of
8,114 6,577 9,971 10,048 9,343
FADs deployed

One of the primary research areas in recent years has been to develop biodegradable FADs. Several tests
are ongoing or have been done using natural materials or fibers to build the rafts and tails of FADs
(coconut fiber, cotton, manila hemp, yute, sisal, bamboo, balsa wood, etc.) (Delgado de Molina et al.,
2004; Delgado de Molina et al., 2007; Franco et al., 2009, 2012; Lopez et al., 2016; Moreno et al. 2017a,b)
but still none have yielded a conclusive solution, either because the number of FADs deployed was not
enough to get significant results or because research has not finalized yet.

Discussions within the IATTC on FAD management and data needs have been facilitated through efforts
of the Ad hoc Permanent Working Group on FADs. While initial meetings of the working group focused on
procedure, recent Resolutions (C-17-01, C-17-02) concern conservation measures for tropical tuna in the
EPO, including measures that (1) limit the number of active fishing FADs based on vessel class, (2) establish
an annual FAD closure period of 72 days and a 30 day closure (9 October to 8 November) of the corralito
area (west of the Galapagos Islands), (3) requiring the retention of all caught bigeye, skipjack, and
yellowfin tuna, and (4) enhanced data collection protocols.

Management

We are unaware of any measures currently in place that are designed to promote the recovery of lost
FADs or to mitigate any potential impacts of beached FADs on sensitive coastal habitats such as coral reefs.
IATTC Resolutions relevant to management of the fishery with respect to habitats include:

Resolution C-19-01 (amendment to Resolution C-18-05 on the collection and analyses of data on fish-
aggregating devices) requirements include the following:

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 126 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

▪ Specifies that, from 1st January 2020, where observers are present they shall be responsible
for collecting data on FADs.
▪ Require the analysis of FAD data and the development of region-wide measures to manage
FADs and fishing on FADs to limit impacts on target and non-target species.
▪ Points to the requirements to use non-entangling FAD designs (equivalent to ‘lower-
entanglement risk’ designs as defined by ISSF 2019) as presented in Annex II of the
Resolution.

Resolution C-20-06 (Resolution on the Conservation Measures for Tropical Tunas in the Eastern Pacific
Ocean During 2021 Pursuant to Resolution C-20-05) requirements include the following:
▪ Limits the number of FADs that may be used by purse seiners – Class 6 (≥1,200 m3 hold
capacity) = 450 FADs, Class 5 (<1,200 m3 hold capacity) = 300 FADs, Class 4-5 = 120 FADs,
Class 1-2 = 70 FADs.
▪ Require that FADs are only activated aboard a purse seine vessel, where ‘activated’ means
deployed or starts transmitting its location.
▪ Requires that, within 15 days prior to the start of a closure period, all Class 6 purse seiners
recover a number of FADs equal to the number deployed during the same period.

IATTC staff has noted that additional reductions in the number of active FADs that may be used by purse
seine vessels fishing in the EPO during 2022-2024 were adopted at the October 2021 IATTC Commission
meeting. At this point in time the report of the meeting is undergoing internal review and the specifics of
additional measures are not publicly available.

7.3.1.8 Ecosystem Impacts

The MSC defines ‘key ecosystem elements’ as “the features of an ecosystem considered as being most
crucial to giving the ecosystem its characteristic nature and dynamics and are considered relative to the
scale and intensity of the UoA. They are features most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure
and functions and the key determinants of the ecosystem resilience and productivity” (SA3.16.3). Further
MSC guidance states that “key ecosystem elements may include trophic structure and function (in
particular key prey, predators, and competitors), community composition, productivity pattern (e.g.
upwelling or spring bloom, abyssal, etc.), and characteristics of biodiversity” (GSA3.18.1).

Fishing by the TUNACONS purse seine fishery occurs in the eastern equatorial regions of the Pacific Ocean,
within the cold tongue part of the warm pool – cold tongue system. The warm pool is an oligotrophic
system characterized by low salinity, low nitrates, high temperature, deep thermocline, low surface
chlorophyll and maximum chlorophyll located at 90m depth, while the cold tongue in the Eastern
equatorial Pacific is described as an upwelling system with high salinity, high nitrates, low temperature,
shallow thermocline, high surface chlorophyll and maximum chlorophyll at the surface. Potential
ecosystem interactions relevant to tuna fishing include impacts resulting fromthe removal of a large
biomass of top predators on the structure and function of the pelagic ecosystem. Removing upper-level
predators through fisheries that capture yellowfin, bigeye, and skipjack tuna, as well as incidental

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 127 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

retention of other large pelagics, bycatch of smaller scombrids (bullet tuna, black skipjack and juvenile
tunas), removals of sharks, billfish and larger pelagic piscivorous fish (e.g. billfish, dolphinfish etc.) can
potentially impact the dynamics and abundance of their prey populations, thereby also affecting prey
availability to other large pelagic predators at similar trophic levels. Research in the EPO region is ongoing
and its status, as well as management measures and available information, are summarized below.
Defining the key ecosystem elements that are applicable to the UoAs is not clear cut and for the purposes
of this assessment we have considered a broad range of features and measures from studies at a range
of scales. The pelagic ecosystems that support the skipjack and yellowfin tuna fisheries in the Pacific Ocean
are spread over very broad spatial scales and are influenced by oceanographic and climatic factors well
beyond the fishing boundaries of the UoA. Relevant studies include studies of trophic relationships (e.g.
Kitchell et al. 1999), studies at scales that are smaller than the whole fishery (e.g. modelling of the ‘warm
pool’ by Allain et al. 2015), and modelling of the whole Pacific Ocean (e.g. Sibert et al. 2006). Ocean
variability and its ecological impacts in the warm pool-cold tongue region has been studied through the
advancement of the SEAPODYM model (Lehodey 2001) which is actively pursued as an alternative
modelling platform in WCPFC through the multi-agency Project 62 which affiliates the independently
funded work on SEAPODYM into the SC’s work programme (Lehodey et al., 2013b). Modelling of the
trophic dynamics in the warm pool-cold tongue convergence zone noted that skipjack tuna appears to be
a very resilient species, and nearly impossible to eliminate it from the system due to fishing Sibert et al
2006; Allian et al, 2015). Griffiths et al. (2019) most recently used the ecosystem model of the western
Pacific Warm Pool Province to explore the potential ecological impacts of varying FAD fishing effort (±50%)
over 30 years. Their results indicated that reduction of FAD effort by at least 50% was predicted to increase
the biomass of tuna species and sharks and return the ecosystem structure to a pre‐industrial‐fishing
state within 10 years. The intrinsic resistance of the ecosystem to perturbation is likely related to the high
diversity of predators in the warm pool-cold tongue food web that consume a wide range of prey (Allain
et al 2015). In a recent analysis of fishing impacts on the EPO ecosystem, Griffiths and Fuller (2019) noted
that recent peer-reviewed literature provides strong evidence that large-scale changes in biological
production have occurred but that these have resulted from physical forcing in the subtropical and
tropical Pacific Ocean. Fisheries were not considered to be the main driver of such changes.

Status

The IATTC has annually reported on 7 ecological indicators derived from the “ETP7” ecosystem model
since 2019 as one of several strategies to facilitate an ecosystem approach to the management of tuna
fisheries in the EPO as mandated by the Antigua Convention (Griffiths and Fuller, 2019). The indicators
include mean trophic level of the catch (TLc), the Marine Trophic Index (MTI), the Fishing in Balance (FIB)
index, Shannon’s index, and the mean trophic level of the modelled community (TLMC) for trophic levels
2.0–3.25 (TL2.0), ≥3.25–4.0 (TL3.5), and >4.0 (TL4.0). The indicators TLc, MTI, and Shannon’s Index
generally describe changes in the exploited components of the ecosystem, while the community biomass
indicators (TLMC) describe changes in the structure of the ecosystem once biomass has been removed
due to fishing.

The model was recently restructured to contain multi-stanza delay-difference models for small and large
sizes of 10 taxa, and biological parameters of functional groups were updated where possible and the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 128 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

model rebalanced to ensure the model was thermodynamically stable and then fit to time series of
relative biomass or abundance, fishing mortality, and catch (retained and discards) for 26 groups (Griffiths
et al, 2021). Ecological indicator values from the updated model complemented results of previous
assessments that suggested the EPO ecosystem structure has changed substantially over the history of
the fishery. As a result of incorporating new data from the longline fishery, the fishing impacts on the
ecosystem appear more pessimistic than in the 2019 assessment with a significant decline in the mean
trophic level of the catch from 4.77 in 1991 to 4.65 in 2018, which coincided with an increase in the
number of floating object sets. Under fishing effort scenarios reflecting the possible tuna conservation
measures to be put in place on termination of Resolution C-20-06 in 2021, the model predicted declines
in the biomass of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tunas by 0.67–3% over the simulation period 2018–2024.
Small and large sharks were impacted more heavily, declining in biomass by 13.8% and 10.4%, respectively.
This decreased the predation mortality on predominant FAD-associated bycatch species (dorado, wahoo,
and marlins), which resulted in increases in their biomasses by up to 3.3%. Griffiths et al (2021) note that
perpetual increases in purse-seine fishing effort on FADs, coupled with the impacts of the industrial
longline and coastal fisheries and a changing climate, is likely to continue to alter the structure and
dynamics of the ETP ecosystem. Their results also indicated that a reduction of FAD effort by at least 50%
is predicted to increase the biomass of tuna species and sharks and return the ecosystem structure to a
pre-industrial-fishing state within 10 years. The authors also note the need for updated trophic
information to improve the ecosystem model and the reliability of forecast outputs.

The hypothesis that the extensive use of FADs acts as an ecological trap based on three related steps
(aggregation of small tunas under FADs is fast and consistent; FADs alter the migratory patterns of tunas
and other species; FADs negatively impact the growth and mortality of small tunas) has been reviewed
and in-situ studies to test the hypothesis proposed but the logistics and feasibility to conduct such studies
is daunting and likely would require an international research program (Marsac et al., 2000). Hallier and
Gaertner (2008) reported that tunas associated with FADs eat less than those in free schools, resulting in
differences in growth rates and condition (fitness) due to the consequence of altered feeding patterns
potentially related to the concept of the ecological trap. However, the authors noted the provisions nature
of the results and underlying uncertainties need for additional studies to investigate the long-term effect
of FADs on the entire life cycle of tunas to better understand the mechanisms underlying the relationship
between fitness and preference. Dagron et al (2012) reviewed issues surrounding the ecological trap
theory and noted that FAD sets in the WCPO were typically undertaken in areas where log sets were also
undertaken and that deployed FADs essentially increased the density of floating objects rather than
creating an entirely new habitat. Wang et al. (2019) considered habitat quality as a factor contributing to
the concept of the ecological trap but found no particular adverse effects between tuna caught in free
school and FAD sets. However, the authors noted that the habitat quality metric used did not consider
important biological factors, including foraging behavior, attraction to floating objects depending on food
availability, and body condition. The assessment team carefully considered the evidence presented on
FAD networks contributing to the concept of the ecological trap and concluded there is no unequivocal
evidence of irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. As a result, this was not included as a

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 129 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

key element of the underlying ecosystem in which the UoA operates. We note that ongoing research using
FADs equipped with echosounders to estimate FAD colonization rates and tuna residence time is occurring
in the Indian Ocean (Orue et al., 2019). While this work will contribute to the understanding of the fine
and mesoscale ecology and behavior of target and non-target species around FADs the application of
results to other ocean basins remains a challenging.

Based on the totality of available information and noting the MSC guidance provided by GSA3.18.1,(key
ecosystem elements may include trophic structure and function (in particular key prey, predators, and
competitors), community composition, productivity pattern (e.g. upwelling or spring bloom, abyssal, etc.),
and characteristics of biodiversity), the assessment team defines the EPO ecosystem as the cold tongue
part of the warm pool – cold tongue system and the ecosystem elements as (1) the physical factors driving
ecosystem productivity and high order predator dynamics within the ETP, and (2) the trophic structure
and function within the pelagic foodweb.

Management

The IATTC does not have measures that are specifically focused on ecosystem structure and function but
it does have a comprehensive range of resolutions that address all of the main components of the
ecosystem in which the fishery operates (catch, bycatch, ETP species). Ensuring that key components of
an ecosystem are maintained is the most effective way that wider ecosystem structure and function are
also maintained.

The identification of suitable ecosystem metrics and appropriate management systems that respond to
changes in such metrics is an area of continued research but very limited implementation. The IATTC-SAC
(SAC-10-04) has noted that several ecosystem metrics or indicators, including community size structure,
diversity indices, species richness and evenness, overlap indices, trophic spectra of catches, relative
abundance of an indicator species or group, and numerous environmental indicators, have been proposed.
Whereas there is general agreement that multiple system-level indicators should be used, there is concern
over whether there is sufficient practical knowledge of the dynamics of such metrics and whether a
theoretical basis for identifying precautionary or limit reference points based on ecosystem properties
exists. Ecosystem-level metrics are not yet commonly used for managing fisheries. Thus the situation for
assessment and management at the ecosystem level in the EPO is not unusual or necessarily undesirable.

The ability to predict responses of ecosystems to management interventions, even using the most
sophisticated ecosystem models currently available, is limited by both limits on data and the stochastic
responses often shown. For the EPO in particular, the complex climate-driven variability in basin and
regional-scale productivity adds to the management difficulties. Fulton (2010) considers that whole-of-
system models that seek to represent the dynamics of the ecosystems and their responses to natural and
anthropogenic changes to be most effective when used as strategic tools, to address questions that are

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 130 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

at scales where there is still a lot of uncertainty about how systems function. It is not yet clear whether
useful Performance Indicators based on ecosystem-level properties might be developed.

The Ecuadorian government has also included ecosystem considerations in the National Action Plans for
Sharks/Rays and Mahi Mahi, which are captured with the same gears as tunas. Ministerial Agreement 031,
R.O No.451 (27 Oct 2004) prohibits target capture, transporting, possession, processing, and
commercialization of specimens below the length of 80cm. The focus of this measure is to protect
incidentally caught juvenile tunas and dolphinfish. Executive Decree 486, RO No. 137 (30 June 2007),
Executive Decree 902 (reformed) applies to whale shark (Rhincodon typus), basking shark (Cetorhinus
maximus), great whiute shark (Carcharodon Carcharias), and sawfish (Pristis sp.), and establishes that in
case of incidental capture, live or dead, specimens must be returned to sea. Ministerial Agreement 093,
RO No. 273 (7 Sept 2010) prohibits targeted fishing on the giant manta ray (Manta birostris) and other
manta rays (Mobula japanica, M. thurstoni, M. munkiana and M. tarapacana). While all of these
regulations focus on bycatch mitigation they also protect the structure and dynamics of the ecosystem.

TUNACONS has taken the initiative to develop research programs to mitigate bycatch through the
development and testing of non-entangling FADs, and more recently through the development of
ecological FADs. The non-entangling research by TUNACONS prompted IATTC to implement a research
program that build-on and extends the initial research conducted by TUNACONS. Recognizing the
potential for FADs to become lost in purse seine fisheries TUNACONS initiated a research program
(EcoFAD) in 2017 to develop ecological FADs that are 100% biodegradable. IATTC recently partnered with
TUNACONS to advance further research on the development and implementation of biodegradable FADs
with financial support provided by the EU. Towards testing the integrity of the FAD designs, 20% of the
FADs deployed on TUNACONS vessels in 2021 will be biodegradable. The development and use of
biodegradable non-entangling FADs, along with the UoAs adoption of best fishing practices (Code of
Conduct), are measures aimed at mitigating bycatch.

Information

In addition to data collected on all the main targets of the EPO fishery, there has been and continues to
be collection of information and assessments on a wide range of other components of the EPO ecosystem:
▪ Data on the bycatches of large purse-seine vessels are being collected, and governments are urged
to provide bycatch information for other vessels.
▪ Data on the spatial distributions of the bycatches and the bycatch/catch ratios have been collected
for analyses of policy options to reduce bycatches.
▪ Information to evaluate measures to reduce the bycatches, such as closures, effort limits, etc., has
been collected.
▪ Assessments of habitat preferences and the effect of environmental changes have been made.

Information on how ecosystem structure and function might respond to fisheries, climate change or any
other agents of change is becoming increasingly sophisticated through the development of ecosystem
models. For the Pacific Ocean, an Ecopath-with-Ecosim (EWE) model has been developed to gain insight

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 131 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

into the relationships among the various species in the system, to explore the ecological implications of
alternative methods of harvesting tunas and how fishing and climate variation might affect the animals at
middle and upper trophic levels (Olson and Watters 2003, Hinke et a. 2004). Using this model, it has been
found that in general, animals with relatively low turnover rates were influenced more by fishing than by
the environment, and animals with relatively high turnover rates more by the environment than by fishing
(IATTC-SAC 2014c). It also found that the ecosystem showed wasp-waist-like structure, with short-lived
and fast-growing cephalopods and fishes in intermediate trophic levels comprising the vast majority of
the biomass. There were also complex responses whereby several waist groups and alternate trophic
pathways from primary producers to apex predators can cause unpredictable effects when the biomasses
of particular functional groups are altered.

Another ecosystem model, SEAPODYM has also been developed (Lehodey et al., 2003; Lehodey, 2005,
Lehodey et al. 2008). This consists of: a biogeochemical model, which acts as a forcing field, providing
hydrodynamic flows and low trophic level states; a box-model of forage components, representing
vertically structured mesopelagic fish, cephalopods and crustacean groups; and an age-structured fish
population model that can also include fishing pressure and multiple fleets. Predation dynamically links
the forage and top predator model, but the physical properties (e.g. water movements, oxygen,
temperature and primary production) supplied by the biogeochemical model contribute to the handling
of feeding, recruitment and movement dynamics (Fulton 2010). The model was developed with the
expectation that it could be used for management of tuna stocks in the context of climate and ecosystem
variability, and to investigate potential changes due to anthropogenic activities including global warming,
fisheries pressures and management scenarios (Lehodey et al. 2008). SEAPODYM has now been used to
investigate expected changes to fish populations under climate change scenarios (Lehodey et al. 2013).
As far as we are aware, however, it has not been used to estimate the level of impact on the structure or
function of the ecosystem from the combined removals of the fishery.

Ecosystem model are data intensive, and while good physical data describing the dynamics of the EPO are
available, biological information on most of the EPO species is scant. These data and their relationships
form the basis of ecosystem models. An alternative approach for such data-lim-ited situations is
Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA), a tool for prioritizing management action or further data collection and
research for potentially vulnerable species.

‘Vulnerability’ is defined here as the potential for the productivity of a stock to be diminished by direct
and indirect fishing pressure. The IATTC staff has applied an ERA approach called ‘productivity-suscepti-
bility analysis’ (PSA) to estimate the vulnerability of data-poor, non-target species caught in the EPO
purse-seine fishery by large (Class-6) vessels and in the longline fishery. PSA considers a stock’s vulnera-
bility as a combination of its susceptibility to being captured by, and incur mortality from, a fishery and its
capacity to recover, given its biological productivity (see IATTC-94-01). This analysis is routinely updated
and new species added as data become available.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 132 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

As a result, the overall impact of the purse seine fishery on the ecosystem structure and function is
believed to have been reduced in recent years and will continue to decrease after the latest resolutions
that aim to regulate FADs entering into force. While there remains uncertainty in the status of several
populations, including dolphin and sharks, the impacts are not considered to be sufficient to disrupt key
elements underlying the ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be serious or
irreversible harm.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 133 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

The MSC guidance indicates that the CAB should normally identify separate UoAs (and associated UoCs)
for each discrete gear type or fishing method that is to be assessed (MSC FCP v2.1). For the purposes of
scoring P2, two separate UoAs in the EPO have been established based on gear type and location of fishing
operations. The TUNACONS UoA is comprised of 46 purse seine vessels from 5 fishing companies (Eurofish,
NIRSA, Servigrup, Grupo Jadran, and Tri Marine) and three countries (Ecuador, Panama, and US). Fishing
vessel carrying capacities range from 270 t to 2,304 t and fishing generally occurs in high seas areas of the
EPO equatorial region. The U.S. California Coastal Small Purse Seine UoA is comprised of three small purse
seine vessels from the U.S. with carrying capacities ranges from 127 t to 145 t. Fishing is limited to free
school sets and conducted in waters adjacent to San Pedro, California U.S.A.

The different set types (FAD vs Free school) are considered different fishing methods and separate UoA
and separate scores are provided for FAD and Free School set types. When the assessment team identified
any discrete variations in impact between the different set types, the rationales are presented separately,
otherwise rationales for FAD and free school sets are presented jointly. The same approach was employed
for flag states, which were evaluated jointly, except for PIs where there were differences in management
arrangements.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 134 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome

PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment would be
impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main primary species stock status

Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of
post likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary
PRI. species are above the PRI
OR and are fluctuating around a
OR level consistent with MSY.
If the species is below the
PRI, the UoA has measures in If the species is below the
place that are expected to PRI, there is either evidence
ensure that the UoA does of recovery or a
not hinder recovery and demonstrably effective
rebuilding. strategy in place between all
MSC UoAs which categorise
this species as main, to
ensure that they collectively
do not hinder recovery and
rebuilding.
Met? TUNACONS free school set TUNACONS free school set TUNACONS free school set
UoA UoA UoA
Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: No

TUNACONS FAD set UoA TUNACONS FAD set UoA TUNACONS FAD set UoA
Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: No
Bigeye tuna: Yes Bigeye tuna: No Bigeye tuna: Not scored

US Small PS UoA: US Small PS UoA: US Small PS UoA:

Pacific bluefin tuna: Yes Pacific bluefin tuna: No Pacific bluefin tuna: Not
scored
Rationale

TUNACONS UoA:

Skipjack tuna is designated as a primary main species in both the free school and FAD fisheries. Bigeye tuna is
designated as a primary main species in the FAD fishery.

Skipjack Tuna (Free school and FAD sets):

There is no analytical stock assessment for skipjack tuna in the EPO due to its innate biological characteristics
that include rapid and variable growth, high natural mortality, and high and very variable recruitment (Maunder
2019). Additionally, there is no age compositional data for this species. Consequently, no estimates of MSY-
related reference points are available, and stock status determinations relative to exploitation levels are not
estimable. The assessment team determined that although analytical stock assessments are not available for
this species, there is evidence that an empirical approach using stock status indicators (SSIs) (i.e. CPUE relative

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 135 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

biomass) allows for inferences about stock status without drawing on mathematical model-based techniques,
and, as skipjack is not considered data-deficient, the use of RBF is not considered necessary at this time.

The methods used previously to compute the SSIs have been revised to mitigate possible bias introduced in the
allocation of fishing effort among purse-seine set types. The new SSIs: (a) include measures of catch, effort,
CPUE, and average length of the fish in the retained catch; (b) begin in 2000, the first year of species
composition sampling for the purse-seine fishery and shortly after the major offshore expansion of the floating-
object fishery; and (c) have reference levels set at the 10% and 90% percentiles (IATTC 2020). The situation in
2020 based on the floating-object fishery can be summarized as follows:

• fishing mortality has increased, mainly due to the increase in the number of floating-object sets;
• the catch of skipjack has increased since 2005 resulting from the increase in the number of floating-
object sets;
• catch-per-set and average length of skipjack has declined over time.

Consistent with the previous interpretation of skipjack SSIs described in Maunder (2019), inconsistencies
between some of the current SSIs persist and do not support the interpretation that fishing mortality has
increased as a result of an increase in the number of floating-object sets (IATTC 2020) (Figure 14- Figure 18). In
addition, IATTC staff note that catch-per-set for the floating-object fishery may not be a reliable indicator of
skipjack abundance. However, IATTC scientists note that there is concern over the substantial increase in
number of sets on floating objects in recent years. The low average weight may be an indicator of
overexploitation, but may also be caused by recent recruitments being greater than past recruitments or
expansion of the fishery into areas occupied by smaller skipjack (see Figure 14- Figure 18).

Overall, the SSIs have yet to detect any adverse impacts of the fishery and given the resilient life history
characteristics of skipjack tuna, IATTC scientists have indicated there is “no concern with EPO skipjack tuna”
(IATTC SAC 2020). Given available information it is highly likely that the stock is above the PRI, meeting SG80.

The lack of a recent full stock assessment means that it is not possible to determine with a high degree of
certainty that the stock is above the PRI with high certainty, so SG100 is not met.

Bigeye Tuna (FAD sets)

IATTC Resolution C-16-02 defines target and limit reference points, in terms of biomass and fishing mortality.
The SLIMIT adopted as interim by the IATTC (in the 87th meeting) is the spawning biomass that produces half of
the virgin recruitment (SB=0.5R0) given that the stock-recruitment relationship follows the Beverton-Holt
function with a steepness of 0.75. This spawning biomass is equal to 0.077 of the equilibrium virgin spawning
biomass (Maunder and Deriso (2014)

The limit reference point of fishing mortality (FLIMIT) is the fishing mortality threshold that should be avoided
because fishing harder could endanger the sustainability of the stock. The FLIMIT adopted as interim by the
IATTC (in its 87th meeting) is the fishing mortality rate that, under equilibrium conditions, maintains the
spawning population level at SLIMIT.

Two sources of information inform the status assessment of EPO bigeye tuna – the 2020 benchmark stock
assessment (Xu et al. 2020) and the stock status indicators (SSIs) that were developed to monitor the bigeye
tuna stock (IATTC-SAC 11-05, 2020). The recent benchmark stock assessment status relative to a reference point
was calculated as a weighted average of the point estimates of the ratio from each of the alternative stock
assessment models (N=44; 12 model configurations with four steepness (h) values (0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0) associated
with each configuration were test, four models did not converge), with weights equal to the relative model

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 136 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

probabilities (equal to the expected value under the normal distribution assumption made for each model). The
probability of exceeding a reference point was calculated using the cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) for
the ratios of Fcur and Scur relative to the reference points for each of the alternative models, which are then
combined using the model probabilities.

The combined distribution of Fcur/FLIMIT from the 44 models tested is bimodal, due to the substantial differences
in the estimates between the “short-term models” which are more pessimistic (Fcur/FMSY mostly above 1), and
the “medium-term” models that do not assume the recruitment shift (R) is real, which are more optimistic
(Fcur/FMSY mostly below 1). For the combined distribution, Fcur is at about 60% of FLIMIT and the probability
of (Fcur > FLIMIT is 5%. The probability distribution for Scur/SLIMIT is also bimodal. The combined ratio of
Scur/SLIMIT is estimated at approximately 3.07 and the probability of Scur < SLIMIT = 6%.

Estimates of relative annual recruitment are not sensitive to the value of steepness. During the 1980s
recruitment was generally below the long-term average, increasing to average levels through 2005, before
declining to levels below average through 2015. In recent years recruitment was variable with large confidence
intervals. Recruitment was variable throughout the approximate 40-year time series of recruitment, the
magnitude and timing of the recruitment shifts depending on the reference model.

IATTC has established Stock Status Indicators (SSIs) for bigeye tuna to be used for historical comparisons to
identify trends and can provide information that may be useful for stock management. These indicators do not
provide information on the state of the stock relative to the PRI but do provide additional information for
consideration. The purse-seine-based indicators include the number of sets, by set type, closure-adjusted
capacity, catch by set type, catch-per-set by set type, and average length of the fish in the retained catch, by set
type. Current trajectories of SSIs show an increasing trend in the number of purse seine floating object sets over
time, a decrease in catch per set of bigeye in the floating object fishery since 2000, and a decline in average
length of bigeye in both the unassociated (free school) and floating object fisheries (IATTC-SAC-11-05, 2020).
Declines in catch were also observed in the longline fishery since 2000, as was a declining trend in bigeye CPUE
over time. These results suggest an increase in fishing mortality for bigeye tuna, resulting from the observed
increase in the number of floating object sets. The benchmark assessment and risk analysis indicate that is likely
that Scurrent is above the PRI, meeting SG60 requirements.

The principal management measures for tropical tuna in the EPO is a purse seine temporal closure period of 72
days and Aires-da-Silva et al. (2020) examined the utility of various closure periods (0, 36, 70, 72, 88, and 100
days). However, if the pessimistic models for bigeye tuna represents the true state of nature the risk of
exceeding FLIMIT under the current closure at 72 days is 10%. which is the upper threshold above which
additional management would be required as specified in Res. C-16-02. Therefore, any reduction of the 72-day
closure would exceed the limit under the combined pessimistic models. However, the risk analysis to determine
the utility of different temporal closure periods assumed no uncertainty, which could significantly impact the
outcome. Also, given there are multiple fisheries catching bigeye tuna in the EPO, several of them being MSC
certified, and all subject to IATTC management measures, there does not appear to be a verifiable strategy in
place across all MSC fisheries that would ensure they do not hinder recovery of bigeye tuna if the stock is below
PRI. Based on this information SG 80 is not met.

SG100 is not scored as not all SG80 requirements are met (see MSC interpretation
https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Scoring-SG100-if-not-all-SG80-met-7-10-5-3-1527262010218).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 137 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

US Small PS UoA

Pacific bluefin tuna

Pacific bluefin tuna is categorized a main primary species. No biological reference points have been established
for Pacific bluefin tuna. The 2016 stock assessment concluded that spawning biomass had been reduced to 2.4%
of unfished levels and based on an evaluation of stock status relative common reference points (Fmax, F0.1, Fmed,
SPR10%, SPR20%, SPR30%, and SPR40%) the stock was considered overfished and subject to overfishing (ISC 2016).
Results from the 2020 stock assessment determined that spawning biomass had increased to 4.5% of unfished
levels and fishing mortality had decreased (ISC 2020). As there are still no established biological reference points
stock status was again evaluated relative to common reference points indicating the stock is likely overfished
and subject to overfishing (ISC 2020). . Based on this information the assessment team considers the stock to be
below the PRI.

As a result of the low spawning biomass levels voluntary domestic management measures were introduced by
Japan in 2011 to reduce fishing mortality. In 2016 a Pacific bluefin tuna rebuilding plan, with both targets and
catch limits, was implemented collaboratively by IATTC and WCPFC. The rebuilding plan was based on
simulation modelling that used the 2016 stock assessment model to project stock outcomes under varying
reductions in catch while assuming low and average recruitment to the population (ISC 2016). Based on results
of the simulation modelling exercise a rebuilding plan with two spawning biomass targets was established: (1)
by 2024 rebuild spawning biomass to 6.7%SSBF=0 (the median SSB estimated for the period 1952 through 2014)
with at least 60% probability and (2) rebuild spawning biomass to 20%SSBF=0 with at least 96% probability 10
years after the achievement of the initial rebuilding target or by 2034, whichever is earlier. All simulations were
initiated assuming low recruitment to the population, switching to average recruitment beginning in the year
after achieving the initial rebuilding target. Based on the simulation results the goal of meeting the first
rebuilding target with at least 60% probability by 2024 was achieved under all tested scenarios, assuming all
CMMs are fully implemented and there is a low magnitude of discards. Based on the spawning biomass targets
established by the rebuilding plan the assessment team considers PRI to be equivalent to 20%SSBF=0 , the second
rebuilding target.

As part of 2020 stock assessment, population projections conducted during the 2016 stock assessment were
undated and expanded to assess impacts to the rebuilding target stemming from increases in allowable catch
levels. The projection analysis also examined the potential population benefits of allowing increases in allowable
catch to be based on the size of fish (small ≤30 kg. and large > 30 kg.). Given the spawning locations and
migration route of Pacific bluefin tuna implementation of size-based management measures is possible. Given
the increase in spawning biomass indicated in the 2020 assessment the projection analyses concluded that
increases in catch were possible while still meeting the established recovery plan targets. It was also determined
that the population would benefit if the increase was limited to larger fish. Based on reviews of the 2020 stock
assessment and associated population projections that indicated a 100% chance of meeting the rebuilding
target by 2024, scientific committees of the WCPFC and IATTC endorsed a Pacific-wide increase in allowable
catch. The IATTC approved a 15 percent increase in the catch limit for adults (over 30 kilograms) and no change
for juveniles in 2021.

There are measures in place, as part of a rebuilding plan with targets and catch limits, which were implemented
collaboratively by IATTC and WCPFC beginning in 2011 (voluntary) and becoming stricter in 2013 (IATTC
Resolution C-13-02), 2016 (IATTC Resolution C-16-08), 2018 (IATTC Resolution C-18-01 and C-18-02), and 2020
(IATTC Resolution C-20-02. These resolutions provided clarification to management measures and set catch
allocations based on changes in stock status. IATTC Resolutions C-21-01 adopted in 2021 amended Resolution C-
18-02 and updated the long-term management framework for the conservation and management of Pacific
bluefin tuna in the EPO. IATTC Resolution C-21-05, also adopted in 2021, specified measures for the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 138 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

conservation and management of Pacific bluefin tuna in the EPO consistent with the approved 15% increase in
allowable catch levels.

In the US, NOAA Fisheries implemented strong management measures for the EPO in 2019 consistent with
IATTC Resolutions C-18-01 and C-18-02, capping the total allowable annual commercial catch of Pacific bluefin
tuna at 300 t. In 2022 NOAA Fisheries published a proposed rule (87 FR 12409) regarding domestic
implementation of IATTC Resolution C-21-05 which includes catch limits that would apply to U.S. commercial
vessels that fish for Pacific bluefin tuna in the EPO during 2022-2024. The catch limits may differ in each year
and NOAA Fisheries would impose an initial trip limit, an intermediate trip limit, and a lower trip limit on
individual fishing vessels that reduce as catch thresholds are met throughout the year.

Noting that (1) measures implemented by IATTC and NOAA Fisheries are in place and updated regularly, (2) the
2020 stock assessment indicates a continual recovery and rebuilding of the stock, (3) recent projection analyses
indicate that the adopted 15% increase in catch levels for the EPO will not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the
stock as specified in the rebuilding plan, and (4) the catch of Pacific bluefin tuna by the UoA relative to the total
Pacific-wide catch is extremely small (≈ 1.5% between 2015 and 2020), the assessment team considers the UoA
has measures in place that are expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of
Pacific bluefin tuna, thus meeting the SG60 level.

Recognizing there have been continuing improvements to the population of Pacific bluefin tuna over time
(increasing spawning biomass, reductions in F) which could be interpreted as potentially meeting the SG 80
requirements, we note the first rebuilding target has not been met and that will not be known until at least the
next stock assessment currently scheduled for 2022, and allowable caches have recently been increased. While
the IUCN recently upgraded the “status” of Pacific bluefin tuna from Vulnerable to Near Threatened based on
the observed recovery of the stock, spawning biomass is still at low levels. Based on a lack of evidence indicating
that the first rebuilding target has been met the assessment team invoked a precautionary approach and does
not consider there yet to be clear evidence of a recovery; SG 80 is not met.

SG100 is not scored as not all SG80 requirements are met (see MSC interpretation
https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Scoring-SG100-if-not-all-SG80-met-7-10-5-3-1527262010218).

b Minor primary species stock status≈

Guide Minor primary species are

post highly likely to be above the
PRI.

OR

If below the PRI, there is

evidence that the UoA does
not hinder the recovery and
rebuilding of minor primary
species.
Met? TUNACONS free school set
UoA:
Bigeye tuna: No

TUNACONS FAD set UoA:

NA

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 139 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONSs Free school set UoA:

Bigeye Tuna
Bigeye tuna is the only designated minor primary species categorized in the TUNACONS fishery and it is
associated with the free school fishery.

The rationale above in SIa applies here.

TUNACONS FAD set UoA :

As there are no primary minor species for this UoA. As stated in MSC Interpretation Log (P2-species-outcome-
PIs-scoring-when-no-main-or-no-minor-or-both-PI-2-1-1-1527262009344), scoring issue (b) does not apply
when there are no minor species. Using this guidance, a score of NA has been applied.

US Small PS UoA
Based on provided logbook data for this UoA no species have been classified as primary minor species. The
assessment team employed qualitative methods during the site visit to confirm that there are no primary minor
species. Nonetheless, given the limited information available the team took a more precautionary approach, as
per G7.10.2.e, the SG100 is not met.
References

ISC Pacific Tuna Working Group 2018, ISC 2019, ISC 2020, Maunder 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range TUNACONS free school set UoA: ≥ 80
TUNACONS FAD set UoA: 60-79
US Small PS UoA: 60-79
Information gap indicator No additional information is required

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score TUNACONS FAD set UoA: 70
TUNACONS free school set UoA: 80
US Small PS UoA: 60
Condition number (if relevant) 2-1 and 2-2

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 140 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy

PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of
primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate,
to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place
post for the UoA, if necessary, place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing
that are expected to necessary, that is expected main and minor primary
maintain or to not hinder to maintain or to not hinder species.
rebuilding of the main rebuilding of the main
primary species at/to levels primary species at/to levels
which are likely to be above which are highly likely to be
the PRI. above the PRI.

Met? TUNACONS free school set TUNACONS free school set TUNACONS free school set
UoA UoA UoA
Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: No

TUNACONS FAD set UoA TUNACONS FAD set UoA TUNACONS FAD set UoA
Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: No
Bigeye tuna: Yes Bigeye tuna: Yes Bigeye tuna: No

US Small PS UoA: US Small PS UoA: US Small PS UoA:

Pacific bluefin tuna: Yes Pacific bluefin tuna: Yes Pacific bluefin tuna: No

Rationale

TUNACONS free school and FAD set UoAs:

Skipjack and Bigeye
Skipjack and bigeye tuna are the only designated primary species categorized in the TUNACONS fishery; skipjack
tuna is designated as main primary species in the FAD and free school UoAs, while bigeye tuna is designated as
main primary species in the FAD UoA and minor primary species in the free school UoA. Bigeye and skipjack
tuna are subject to a suite of IATTC management actions adopted as Resolutions, supported by regular
assessments of stock status and an extensive monitoring and review framework. The Resolutions provide a
range of measures specific to management of tropical tuna in the EPO, including yellowfin, skipjack, and bigeye
tuna, and are summarized below:

• Resolution C-03-05 (Data Provision) requires that pertinent data are provided annually, including total
catch in numbers, and weight if available, as well as fishing effort.
• Resolution C-14-02 (Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) replaces C-04-06) requires tuna-fishing vessels >24
m operating in the EPO shall have an operational VMS that collects positional information at least once
every 6 hours.
• Resolution C-16-02 (Harvest Control Rule - for tropical tuna in the EPO) adopts an interim limit reference
point of F0.5R0 and S0.5R0 assuming steepness h = 0.75 and interim target reference points that should
be achieved and maintained as SMSY and FMSY, and establishes HCRs to restore the stocks in the greater
of two generations or five years, and confirms that efforts will be made to ensure compatibility with
WCPFC management of these species.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 141 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

• Resolution C-17-02 (Tuna Conservation in the EPO 2018-2020 and Amendment to Resolution C-17-01)
specifies that purse seine vessels must stop fishing in the Convention area for a period of 72 days
annually, establishes the ‘corralito’ closed area [to the west of the Galapagos Islands], and requires that
all skipjack tuna, bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna are retained except where they are deemed unfit for
human consumption or where there is insufficient well space available on the final set of a trip.
Additionally, this Resolution specifies the design of FADs, limits the number that may be used, and
requires that Class 6 purse seiners recover a number of FADs equal to the number deployed during the
same period.
• Resolution C-19-07 (Management Strategy Evaluation Workshops) specifies the Terms of Reference
(ToR) for management strategy evaluation workshops, including the priority species (bigeye, yellowfin
and skipjack tunas), as well as establishing goals and objectives for the management strategy evaluation
process and a process for proposing and reviewing management objectives.
• Resolution C-19-01 (Amendment to Resolution C-18-05 on the Collection and Analyses of Data on Fish-
Aggregating Devices – also amends Resolutions 16-01,15-03, and 13-04) requires observers to collect
data on FADs and specifies design criteria for FADs.
• Resolution C-21-04 (Conservation Measures for Tropical Tunas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean During 2022-
2024) specifies that purse seine vessels must stop fishing in the Convention area for a period of 72 days
annually, establishes the ‘corralito’ closed area [to the west of the Galapagos Islands], and requires that
all skipjack tuna, bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna are retained except where they are deemed unfit for
human consumption or where there is insufficient well space available on the final set of a trip.
Additionally, this resolution specifies decreasing limits on the number of active FADs deployed on all
purse seine vessels (Class 1-6), penalties for exceeding allowable purse seine and longline catches of
bigeye tuna, strengthening the monitoring and control system for tuna catches, including reporting
requirements for active FADs, and specifies the design of FADs.

In addition to the measures outlined above, TUNACONS has spearheaded a number of voluntary research
activities to mitigate bycatch and impacts of gear loss, including development and testing of sorting grids and
non-entangling FADs to reduce bycatch of non-target species, and development of biodegradable FADs to
minimize habitat/ecological impacts from lost or derelict FADs. In addition, the UoA has adopted good practices
for handling bycatch at sea that should increase survival of released non-target species, codified IATTC
Resolutions C-99-07, C-16-01, and C-17-02 as part of the Ecuadorian regulatory framework, implemented 100%
observer coverage of trips taken by small purse seine vessels (classes 3-5), and proposed a FAD management
plan aimed at maintaining the operational efficiency of the tuna purse seine fleet through the implementation
of standards, actions, and novel technologies (Garcia 2016).

Noting that skipjack tuna and bigeye tuna are both likely to be above PRI indicates that the measures together,
including the decreasing limits on the number of active FADs deployed on all purse seine vessels (Class 1-6)
operating in the IATTC Convention area, comprise a partial strategy that is in place for the UoA for managing
main primary species. On this basis SG 60 and SG 80 are met.. However, it is not clear if the strategy in place is
cohesive and effective given that the recent bigeye stock assessment and skipjack assessment suggests that the
stocks could be less than BMSY. SG100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
Pacific bluefin tuna:
Based on results of the 2016 Pacific bluefin tuna stock assessment which indicated extremely low spawning
biomass levels the stock is considered overfished and experiencing overfishing, and a Pacific bluefin tuna
rebuilding plan with targets and acceptable risk levels was put in place. The management strategy (rebuilding
plan), proposed and adopted at the joint WCPFC NC-IATTC WG meetings in 2016/2017 were guided by
projections conducted by the ISC to provide catch reduction options that would achieve the initial rebuilding
target of 6.5%SSBF=0 with at least 60% probability by 2024 and a second rebuilding target with at least 96%
probability by 2034 of achieving 20%SSBF=0. Projections were also conducted to provide relevant information for

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 142 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

a potential increase in catch if the probability of achieving the initial rebuilding target exceeds 75% by 2024 (ISC
2017).

The projections, conducted using the base-case model from the 2016 stock assessment that mimicked the
current management measures by the WCPFC (CMM 2017-08) and IATTC (C-16-08) under the low recruitment
scenario, resulted in an estimated 98% probability of achieving the initial rebuilding target by 2024. This
estimated probability is above the threshold (60% or above in 2024) prescribed by the harvest strategy. The low
recruitment scenario is more precautionary than the recent 10 years recruitment scenario. In the harvest
strategy, the recruitment scenario is switched from the low recruitment to the average recruitment scenario
beginning in the year after achieving the initial rebuilding target. The estimated probability of achieving the
second rebuilding target 10 years after the achievement of the initial rebuilding target or by 2034, whichever is
earlier, is 96%. This estimate is above the threshold (60% or above in 2034) prescribed by the harvest strategy
(ISC 2017).

The change in recruitment was reviewed by scientific staff of the two Pacific tuna RFMOs, determined to be a
direct response to the expected increase in spawning stock biomass (SSB), and adopted. Note the SSB of Pacific
Bluefin Tuna has steadily increased in the last 8 years (2011-2018) (see Table 3 in ISC 2020) and these changes
in biomass coincide with a decline in fishing mortality over the last decade (see Figure 8 in ISC 2020).

As part of 2020 stock assessment, population projections conducted during the 2016 stock assessment were
undated and expanded to assess impacts to the rebuilding target stemming from increases in allowable catch
levels. The projection analysis also examined the potential population benefits of allowing increases in
allowable catch to be based on the size of fish (small ≤30 kg. and large > 30 kg.). Given the spawning locations
and migration route of Pacific bluefin tuna implementation of size-based management measures is possible.
Given the increase in spawning biomass indicated in the 2020 assessment the projection analyses concluded
that increases in catch were possible while still meeting the established recovery plan targets. It was also
determined that the population would benefit if the increase was limited to larger fish. Based on reviews of the
2020 stock assessment and associated population projections that indicated a 100% chance of meeting the
rebuilding target by 2024, scientific committees of the WCPFC and IATTC endorsed a Pacific-wide increase in
allowable catch. The IATTC approved a 15 percent increase in the catch limit for adults (over 30 kilograms) and
no change for juveniles in 2021.

There are measures in place, as part of a rebuilding plan with targets and catch limits, which were implemented
collaboratively by IATTC and WCPFC beginning in 2011 (voluntary in Japan) and becoming progressively stricter
in 2013 (IATTC Resolution C-13-02), 2016 (IATTC Resolution C-16-08), 2018 (IATTC Resolution C-18-01 and C-18-
02), and 2020 (IATTC Resolution C-20-02. These resolutions provided clarification to management measures and
set catch allocations based on changes in stock status. IATTC Resolutions C-21-01 adopted in 2021 amended
Resolution C-18-02 and updated the long-term management framework for the conservation and management
of Pacific bluefin tuna in the EPO. IATTC Resolution C-21-05, also adopted in 2021, specified measures for the
conservation and management of Pacific bluefin tuna in the EPO consistent with the approved 15% increase in
allowable catch levels.

In the US, NOAA Fisheries implemented strong management measures for the EPO in 2019 consistent with
IATTC Resolutions C-18-01 and C-18-02, capping the total allowable annual commercial catch of Pacific bluefin
tuna at 300 t. In 2022 NOAA Fisheries published a proposed rule (87 FR 12409) regarding domestic
implementation of IATTC Resolution C-21-05 which includes catch limits that would apply to U.S. commercial
vessels that fish for Pacific bluefin tuna in the EPO during 2022-2024. The catch limits may differ in each year
and NOAA Fisheries would impose an initial trip limit, an intermediate trip limit, and a lower trip limit on
individual fishing vessels that reduce as catch thresholds are met throughout the year. On this basis there are

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 143 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

measures in place for the UoA that are expected to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary
species at/to levels which are likely to be above the PRI; SG60 is met.

Noting that (1) measures implemented by IATTC and NOAA Fisheries are in place and updated regularly, (2) the
2020 stock assessment indicates a continual recovery and rebuilding of the stock (increasing spawning biomass
and decreasing fishing mortality), (3) recent projection analyses indicate that the adopted 15% increase in catch
levels for the EPO will not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the stock as specified in the rebuilding plan, (4) the
projection assumptions (e.g., recruitment scenarios) is scientifically sound, (5) the catch of Pacific bluefin tuna
by the UoA relative to the total Pacific-wide catch is extremely small (≈ 1.5% between 2015 and 2020), and (6)
catch monitoring programs have been established for the UoA (logbooks and port monitoring), the assessment
team considers there is a partial strategy in place (rebuilding plan) that is expected to not hinder rebuilding of
the Pacific bluefin tuna to levels which are highly likely to be above the PRI. On this basis SG 80 is met.

The assessment team does not consider there to be a strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and
minor primary species. The lack of comprehensive logbooks and at sea observers for the UoA are issues that
imped a higher score. On this basis SG 100 is not met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high
post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial
based on plausible argument measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work,
(e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information
theory or comparison with information directly about directly about the fishery
similar fisheries/species). the fishery and/or species and/or species involved.
involved.
Met? TUNACONS free school set TUNACONS free school set TUNACONS free school set
UoA UoA UoA
Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: No

TUNACONS FAD set UoA TUNACONS FAD set UoA TUNACONS FAD set UoA
Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: No
Bigeye tuna: Yes Bigeye tuna: Yes Bigeye tuna: No

US Small PS UoA: US Small PS UoA: US Small PS UoA:

Pacific bluefin tuna: Yes Pacific bluefin tuna: Yes Pacific bluefin tuna: No

Rationale

TUNACONS free school and FAD set UoAs:

Bigeye Tuna
Building on the measures and partial strategy described above in Sia, the major measures in place for bigeye
tuna include MSY-based limit and target reference points based on a conservative assumption on stock-
recruitment steepness (0.75). The harvest strategy, as specified by C-16-02, is implemented by preventing the
fishing mortality rate (F) from exceeding the best estimate of the rate corresponding to the maximum
sustainable yield (FMSY) for the species that requires the strictest management. This provides the framework
for implementing measures based on stock conditions that are regularly determined through stock
assessments. Resolution C-17-02, the management measure for tropical tunas currently in force, states that “In
order to evaluate progress towards the objectives of these measures, in each year the IATTC scientific staff will

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 144 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

analyze the effects on the stocks of the implementation of these measures, and previous conservation and
management measures, and will propose, if necessary, appropriate measures to be applied in future years.”
Based on this information and given the history of measures already in place provides some objective basis for
confidence that the partial strategy will work; SG 60 and SG 80 is met.

The bigeye tuna assessment (Xu et al. 2020) determined that the stock is below MSY and there is uncertainty in
its true status. Analyses assessing the utility of various closure periods determined that the current 72-day
closure is the minimum threshold and any reductions in the number of days would increase risk to the stock.
Given that the underlying closure analyses assumed no uncertainty in the relationship between fishing mortality
and effort the results could be overly optimistic. On this basis SG 100 is not met.

Skipjack tuna
At the SG 60 level, the SI requires that the measures are likely to work based on prior experience or plausible
argument. The current measures restrict fishing effort of the entire fishery on the basis of stock status
determinations from stock assessments and/or stock status indicators for SKJ, YFT and BET, and the indicators
used to assess change are those that are generally incorporated into traditional stock assessment models. IATTC
Resolution C-16-02 provides a rebuilding framework should recovery of the stock be warranted based on stock
status determinations from regularly conducted stock assessments and/or stock status indicator analyses.
Therefore, the requirements for SG 60 are met.

Temporal purse seine closures are the main tool of the strategy, controlling exploitation rates through effort
controls; utilizing as input the F multiplier parameter representing the change in effort needed to keep stocks at
Fmsy or below Fmsy (IATTC 2007). The measures also ensure that the stock fluctuates around MSY by
maintaining F at a rate corresponding to the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) for the species that requires the
strictest management, in this case bigeye tuna. This approach is precautionary in that stricter management
measures would be applied then if management was based on the less vulnerable species, skipjack tuna. The
harvest strategy has not been fully tested but has been partially tested (Maunder et al, 2015) through the use of
MSE applied to bigeye tuna. On this basis SG 80 is met.

The measures have not been fully tested within an MSE framework and the IATTC has prioritized this research
in their current research plan. On this basis SG100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
Pacific bluefin tuna:
As explained above in SI(a), in 2016/2017 a rebuilding plan was adopted and implemented to rebuild Pacific
bluefin tuna based on results of the 2016 stock assessment and population projections tested under a suite of
management scenarios. In all cases the rebuilding targets were met A benchmark assessment with updated
projections was conducted in 2020 and results indicted an increase in spawning biomass, likely due to the catch
limits and size restrictions in place, and that allowable catches of Pacific bluefin tuna could be increased without
affecting the goals of the two rebuilding targets established in the rebuilding plan. Due to the recovery of the
stock between 2016 and 2020 (albeit small) the probability of meeting the first rebuilding target by 2024 was
now estimated at 100%. This finding provides an objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial
strategy will work, based on information directly about the species involved; SG60 and SG80 are met.

While testing was conducted in the form of projections, the assessment team contends that testing within an
MSE framework is necessary to provide the rigour to support a determination of high confidence. On this basis
SG 100 is not met. While the ISC has been tasked with completing an MSE by 2024 it is unlikely to meet this goal
given the inherent complexities of the species, fisheries, management bodies, and stakeholders. Required
complexity to account for the spatial structure and fisheries due to the it is unlikely to be completed given the
nuances surrounding this species.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 145 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that

post the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy
strategy is being is being implemented
implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving
its overall objective as set
out in scoring issue (a).
Met?
TUNACONS free school sets: TUNACONS free school sets:
Yes No

TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS free and FAD set UoAs:

Skipjack and Bigeye tuna
The IATTC requires an observer coverage rate of 100% on all purse seine fishing activities, and TUNACONS has
committed to achieving this through its Code of Good Practices (Garcia, 2016). In addition, TUNACONS has
implemented 100% observer coverage of trips taken by small purse seine vessels (classes 3-5) which currently
have no requirement to carry observers. Vessels are also required to operate with an operational VMS to aid in
monitoring fishing activity during closure periods and catch data is submitted to the IATTC annually. Some
evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully is indicated through the submission of catch data
from all vessel sectors of the TUNACONS fishery and the regular assessments of stock status. On this basis SG 60
and SG 80 is met.

At the SG 100 level there must be clear evidence the strategy is being implemented successfully and that the
overall objective set out in scoring issue (a) is achieved which we interpret to be healthy stocks with sustainable
levels of production. The bigeye tuna assessment (Xu et al. 2020) determined that the stock is below MSY and
there is uncertainty in its true status. Noting there is no stock assessment for skipjack tuna, the SSIs for average
length and catch-per-set have been below the 2000-2019 average values since 2007 and in recent years are at
their lower bounds. Based on this information there is no clear evidence that the strategy is achieving its
intended objective; SG 100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
Pacific bluefin tuna:
Update assessments by the ISC have shown slight increases in biomass since the adoption of the rebuilding plan
(ISC 2020). Additionally, the relative number and average size of Pacific bluefin tuna appear to be increasing.
Thus there is some evidence that the measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully; SG80 is met.

While there is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully, the assessment team
does not consider it to constitute clear evidence as noted in the scoring for Si-a; SG100 is not met.

d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of
post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is
not taking place.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 146 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Not scored. No primary species in the UoAs are sharks.

E Review of alternative measures

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of
post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness
practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of
measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to
related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related
unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch
primary species. of main primary species and of all primary species, and
they are implemented as they are implemented, as
appropriate. appropriate.
Met? TUNACONS free school sets: TUNACONS free school sets: TUNACONS free school sets:
NA NA NA
TUNACONS FAD sets: NA TUNACONS FAD sets: NA TUNACONS FAD sets: NA
US Small PS UoA: NA US Small PS UoA: NA US Small PS UoA: NA
Rationale

TUNACONS free and FAD set UoAs:

Skipjack and Bigeye tuna:
Resolution C-17-02 (and its predecessors) requires that “all purse-seine vessels to first retain on board and then
land all bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna caught, except fish considered unfit for human consumption for
reasons other than size”. A single exception is specified for when there is insufficient well space remaining to
accommodate all the tuna caught in the final set of a trip.

Consistent with GSA 3.5.3 the IATTC rules in place indicate that this scoring issue is not relevant to the UoA, as
there is no unwanted catch of primary species.

US Small PS UoA
Pacific bluefin tuna:
Bluefin tuna is the only main primary species and all catch is retained. This information was verified via
qualitative methods during the site visit. Thus, there is no unwanted catch and the ‘review of alternative
measures’ scoring issue e is not scored.
References

ISC 2017, Garcia 2016,

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range TUNACONS free school UoA>80

TUNACONS FAD set UoA >80
US Small PS UoA > 80

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 147 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Information gap indicator No additional information is required.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score TUNACONS free school UoA:80

TUNACONS FAD set UoA:80
US Small PS UoA: 80
Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 148 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information

PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk
posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is

post adequate to estimate the information is available and available and is adequate to
impact of the UoA on the is adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of
main primary species with impact of the UoA on the certainty the impact of the
respect to status. main primary species with UoA on main primary
respect to status. species with respect to
OR status.
OR
If RBF is used to score PI
2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI
Qualitative information is 2.1.1 for the UoA:
adequate to estimate Some quantitative
productivity and information is adequate to
susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and
main primary species. susceptibility attributes for
main primary species.
Met? TUNACONS free school set TUNACONS free school set TUNACONS free school set
UoA UoA UoA
Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: Yes Skipjack tuna: No

TUNACONS FAD set UoA TUNACONS FAD set UoA TUNACONS FAD set UoA
Skipjack tuna : Yes Skipjack tuna : Yes Skipjack tuna: No
Bigeye tuna: Yes Bigeye tuna: Yes Bigeye tuna: No

US Small PS UoA: US Small PS UoA: US Small PS UoA:

Bluefin Tuna: Yes Bluefin Tuna: Yes Bluefin Tuna: Yes
Rationale

Skipjack and bigeye tuna are the only designated primary species categorized in the TUNACONS fishery; skipjack
tuna is designated as main primary species in the FAD and free school UoAs, while bigeye tuna is designated as
main primary species in the FAD UoA and minor primary species in the free school UoA. Pacific bluefin tuna is
designated as a main primary species in the US small purse seine UoA.

TUNACONS FAD set & Free school UoA:

Skipjack and Bigeye tuna:
Quantitative information from the TUNACONS fishery is collected via the observer programs at a high level of
coverage and catch statistics submitted annually as required. The information is considered adequate as
specified by SA3.6.3.2 because it is quantitative, and the data deemed verifiable, comprehensive and
representative, extending across all vessel sectors (Category 3-6) for five years. Assessments are routinely
conducted and capable of assessing the impact of the UoA on skipjack and bigeye tuna (Maunder 2019, Xu et
al., 2020). Under Resolution C-17-02 (and its predecessors), purse seine vessels must “first retain on board and
then land all bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna caught, except fish considered unfit for human consumption

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 149 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

for reasons other than size”. The exception is for when insufficient well space remaining to accommodate all the
tuna caught in the final set of a trip exists. Therefore, the level of unobserved direct mortality is considered
negligible. On this basis some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the
UoA of the main primary species with respect to status; SG 60 and SG 80 is met.
The bigeye tuna assessment determined that the stock is below MSY and there is uncertainty in its true status
(Xu et al. 2020). Also, current bigeye tuna SSIs suggest an increase in fishing mortality for bigeye tuna, resulting
from the observed increase in the number of floating object sets which may contribute to the observed
uncertainty. Noting there is no stock assessment for skipjack tuna, the SSIs for average length and catch-per-set
have been below the 2000-2019 average values since 2007 and in recent years are at their lower bounds
regardless of set type (or UoA). On this basis SG 100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
Pacific bluefin tuna:
Catch reporting of Pacific bluefin tuna is mandatory in both WCPFC and IATTC. RFMO member are required to
submit annual catch statistics to the Joint WCPFC-IATTC Bluefin Tuna Working Group, as well as the ISC.
Reporting of catch statistics from domestic fisheries in Japan, Chinese Taipei, Korea, Mexico, and the US, are
also mandatory, and all catch data, including those of the UoA, are routinely incorporated into the stock
assessment and projections. On this basis some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess
the impact of the UoA on Pacific bluefin tuna with respect to status; SG 60 and SG 80 are met.

Size-at-catch information is routinely collected from all fisheries landing Pacific bluefin tuna, including the UoA,
and these data are incorporated into the stock assessment. Size-at-catch data tend to reduce uncertainty in
stock assessment. Since 2017 Pacific bluefin tuna tissue samples were collected from all fisheries to facilitate
Close-Kin analyses which allows for an independent estimate of spawning biomass. Based on the totality of
available information, and noting that the UoA accounts for approximately 1.5% of the total Pacific-wide catch
of Pacific bluefin tuna, available quantitative information is adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty
the impact of the UoA on Pacific bluefin tuna with respect to status; SG 100 is met.

While the UoA is not actively monitored by observers and only logbook data from two of the three UoA vessels
was available to monitor catches and identify primary species according to MSC guidelines, the CDFW conducts
port inspections of all three vessels to check fish tickets for accuracy of catch and take fish samples for scientific
purposes. Noting that the three UoA vessels operate cooperatively in the same area and conduct similar fishing
operations, we are confident that the available logbook data is sufficient to understand catch composition.
Evidence of visits to the port by CDFW staff has been provided and the vessels maintain an open-door policy
regarding information requests and access. We also note that NOAA has authorized CDFW staff to enforce
federal laws and regulations as described within the Cooperative Enforcement Program which aims to increase
living marine resource conservation, endangered species protection, and critical habitat enforcement while
strengthening state and territorial enforcement resources
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/enforcement/cooperative-enforcement). Evidence of a Cooperative
Enforcement Agreement between NOAA and CDFW, particularly as it relates to shark finning prohibition
measures, was provided in the form of correspondence between NOAA and CDFW. Noting the port sampling
measures in place and that no catch reporting infractions have been reported the Assessment Team contends
that the logbooks are sufficient to identify main primary species and can assess with a high degree of certainty
the impact of the UoA on main primary species with respect to status thus providing further evidence to
support the SG100 score.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

Guide Some quantitative

post information is adequate to

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 150 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

estimate the impact of the

UoA on minor primary
species with respect to
status.
Met?
TUNACONS free school sets:
Yes

TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes

US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS free school set UoA:

Bigeye tuna:
Bigeye tuna is the only designated minor primary species and is associated with TUNACONS free school set
fishery. There is 100% observer coverage in the TUNACONS fleet. Since the concern of unobserved mortalities of
bigeye does not exist for the free school sets, SG100 is met here. The same is true for any potential minor
species in the FAD fishery.

US Small PS UoA
No primary minor species were identified in the US Small PS fleet in logbook data. This was confirmed during
the site visit. Nonetheless, as observer data are not collected in this UoA quantitative data would not be
adequate to estimate any changes in catch composition, and thus would not be adequate to estimate the
impact of the UoA on any potential minor primary species with respect to status. The SG 100 level is not met.
c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to

post support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to
manage main primary manage main primary manage all primary species,
species. species. and evaluate with a high
degree of certainty whether
the strategy is achieving its
objective.
Met?
TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS free sets: No

TUNACONS free sets: Yes TUNACONS free sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

Skipjack and bigeye tuna are the only designated primary species categorized in the TUNACONS fishery; skipjack
tuna is designated as main primary species in the FAD and free school UoAs, while bigeye tuna is designated as
main primary species in the FAD UoA and minor primary species in the free school UoA.

TUNACONS free school and FAD set UoAs:

Catch data are submitted annually to IATTC and all vessel sectors of the TUNACONS fishery are observed, thus
providing a high level of detail on catches. Biological and ecological data is available from a wide range of

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 151 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

studies and TUNACONS actively participates in research programs both domestically and with IATTC scientists.
Vessels are tracked with VMS, while all landings are subject to dockside monitoring; 100% of all Ecuadorian
vessels landing catches within Ecuador are monitored and 10% of foreign vessels landing catches at Ecuadorian
ports are monitored. These data inform assessments of stock status and it is considered that information is
adequate to support at least a partial strategy to manage primary species. On this basis SG 60 and SG 80 are
met.
Given the uncertainties with the recent bigeye tuna stock assessment (Xu et al., 2020) and trajectories of
skipjack tuna SSIs (Maunder 2019) it cannot be clearly stated that information is adequate to support a strategy
to manage all primary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its
objective. On this basis SG 100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA

Mandatory catch monitoring of Pacific bluefin tuna in the EPO began in 2013 (IATTC Resolution C-13-02), and
was sequentially modified in 2016 (IATTC Resolution C-16-08), 2018 (IATTC Resolution C-18-01 and C-18-02),
2020 (IATTC Resolution C-20-02), and 2021 (IATTC Resolutions C-21-01 and C-21-05). NOAA Fisheries
established mandatory catch monitoring (logbooks) of Pacific bluefin tuna in all domestic fisheries in 2004,
including the US small purse seine UoA, under the Fishery Management Plan for West Coast Fisheries for Highly
Migratory Species. In 2019 NOAA Fisheries implemented additional management measures for the EPO
consistent with IATTC Resolutions C-18-01 and C-18-02, capping the total allowable annual commercial catch of
Pacific bluefin tuna at 300 t. In 2022 NOAA Fisheries published a proposed rule (87 FR 12409) regarding
domestic implementation of IATTC Resolution C-21-05 which includes catch limits that would apply to U.S.
commercial vessels that fish for Pacific bluefin tuna in the EPO during 2022-2024. The catch limits may differ in
each year and NOAA Fisheries would impose an initial trip limit, an intermediate trip limit, and a lower trip limit
on individual fishing vessels that reduce as catch thresholds are met throughout the year. Port sampling of the
commercial bluefin tuna catch by US vessels, including those in the UoA, is conducted by NOAA Fisheries.
Electronic landing receipts that include bluefin tuna landing in California are required to be submitted within 24
hours of landing. This submission deadline is intended to assist NOAA Fisheries in monitoring the catch limits
and anticipate when these limits will be reached. As this fishery uses spotter planes to find and direct fishing
activities, the fishery targets larger bluefin tuna, and bluefin tuna generally school by size, discarding of bluefin
tuna is likely minimal. On this basis the assessment team considers available information adequate to support
measures to manage Pacific bluefin tuna; SG 60 is met.

Bluefin tuna size sampling programs have been established for all fisheries, as well as programs to provide
independent measures of abundance (Close-Kin) to advance the assessments. A recruitment monitoring
program is ongoing and studies to assess exchange rates between the WCPO and EPO have been implemented.
Stock assessments (benchmark and updates) are routinely conducted using available data to assess
achievement of objectives and stock status. On this basis the assessment team considers available information
to be adequate to support a partial strategy to manage Pacific bluefin tuna; SG 80 is met.

However, as the UoA vessels are not required to carry observers and current logbooks do not necessarily
record the catch of non-tuna species, there is a potential that other species caught could be designated as
primary if data were available. The assessment team considers this potential to be minimal at best given how
fishing by UoA vessels is conducted (using spotter planes) and the absence of other primary main and minor
species being verified by interviews with stakeholders during the site visit. Nonetheless, without quantitative
evidence the team concluded that the available information is not adequate to support a strategy to manage all
primary species, in particular minor primary species. On this basis SG100 is not met.
References

Xu et al., 2020; Maunder 2019

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 152 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range TUNACONS free school and FAD set UoAs: ≥ 80

US Small PS UoA: 60-79

Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score TUNACONS free school: 85

TUNACONS FAD set UoA: 85

US Small PS UoA: 85
Condition number (if relevant)

PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome

PI 2.2.1 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does not
hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main secondary species stock status

Guide Main secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of
post likely to be above highly likely to be above certainty that main
biologically based limits. biologically based limits. secondary species are above
biologically based limits.
OR OR

If below biologically based If below biologically based

limits, there are measures in limits, there is either
place expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a
that the UoA does not demonstrably effective
hinder recovery and partial strategy in place such
rebuilding. that the UoA does not
hinder recovery and
rebuilding.
AND
Where catches of a main
secondary species outside of
biological limits are
considerable, there is either
evidence of recovery or a,
demonstrably effective
strategy in place between
those MSC UoAs that have
considerable catches of the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 153 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

species, to ensure that they

collectively do not hinder
recovery and rebuilding.
Met? TUNACONS Free sets: NA TUNACONS Free sets: NA TUNACONS Free sets: NA

TUNACONS FAD sets: NA TUNACONS FAD sets: NA TUNACONS FAD sets: NA

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

Based on provided observer data for these UoAs no species are classified as secondary main. As stated in MSC
Interpretation Log (P2-species-outcome-PIs-scoring-when-no-main-or-no-minor-or-both-PI-2-1-1-
1527262009344), scoring issue (a) does not apply when there are no main species. Using this guidance, a score
of NA has been applied.

US Small PS UoA
Eastern Pacific and Striped Bonito:
Eastern Pacific and striped bonito tuna were identified as main secondary species for this fleet. The catch of
Eastern Pacific and striped bonito from free school sets has represented approximately 12% of the total catch
on average from 2014 to 2017. The status of bonitos has not been assessed by the IATTC but they are short-
lived and productive species and are classified by the IUCN as being of least concern. They are therefore likely
to be within biologically based limits but, in the absence of any formal assessment, and given potential
complexity in stock structuring and probable relatively high susceptibility, this status could not be asserted to
be highly likely. The Risk Based Framework was employed, and a productivity-susceptibility analysis (PSA) was
carried out to assess their status (See Annex 8.9: Risk-Based Framework outputs). The output of the RBF table
for Eastern Pacific Bonito and Stiped Bonito was 95, thus meeting the SG80.

b Minor secondary species stock status

Guide Minor secondary species are

post highly likely to be above
biologically based limits.

OR

If below biologically based

limits’, there is evidence that
the UoA does not hinder the
recovery and rebuilding of
secondary species
Met? TUNACONS Free sets: No

TUNACONS FAD sets: No

US Small PS UoA: No
Rationale

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 154 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

TUNACONS (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

FADs and Free School Sets: There is a wide range of secondary-minor species that are caught in small numbers
(< 1%) regardless of fishing strategy (FAD or free school). For a list of all secondary minor species, please refer
to Tables 33 and 34.

MSC notes that when large numbers of species have been categorized as minor under P2 teams can use an 'all
or none' approach to scoring all minor species5. Following this interpretation, all minor species automatically
achieve at least SG80. To determine if all minor species achieve a score of SG 100, minor species have been
grouped and Pacific blue marlin chosen to represent the group. While the 2021 Pacific blue marlin stock
assessment indicated that under current conditions the stock is not overfished and not subject to overfishing
relative to MSY-based reference points (ISC 2021), there are no adopted target or limit reference points for this
stock in either the WCPFC or IATTC and the assessment team could not conclude that the stock of Pacific blue
marlin is highly likely to be above limit and target reference points. On this basis it cannot be concluded that all
secondary minor species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits; SG 100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA

There are no minor secondary species currently reported for this fleet. However, observer data is not available
from these vessels and current logbooks do not collect such data. The assessment team employed a qualitative
information-gathering process during the site visit to determine whether there are any secondary species
unaccounted for in the logbooks. No minor secondary species were identified during the site visit. However,
given the limited quantitative information on minor secondary species, the team took a precautionary
approach and concluded the SG100 is not met.
References

IATTC 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range TUNACONS Free sets >80

TUNACONS FAD sets >80

US Small PS UoA: ≥80

Information gap indicator
Qualitative information to be collected on any other
potential secondary species during site visit

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score TUNACONS Free sets: 80

TUNACONS FAD sets: 80

US Small PS UoA: 80

5
https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Minor-species-and-scoring-element-approach-at-SG100-7-10-7-
1527586956233

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 155 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 156 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to
not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements
measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place
post if necessary, which are place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing
expected to maintain or not UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary
hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder species.
secondary species at/to rebuilding of main secondary
levels which are highly likely species at/to levels which
to be above biologically are highly likely to be above
based limits or to ensure biologically based limits or to
that the UoA does not ensure that the UoA does
hinder their recovery. not hinder their recovery.
Met? TUNACONS Free sets: Yes TUNACONS Free sets: Yes TUNACONS Free sets: No

TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

Based on observer data from 2015-2018 there are no designated main secondary species in the TUNACONS UoA
purse seine fisheries. Therefore, following the explanation of the term ‘if necessary’ in Table GSA3, and
response in the MSC Fisheries and Standard interpretation log
(https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-necessary-in-P2-management-PIs-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-
2-5-2-PI-2-1-2-1527262011402 ), no measures or partial strategies are considered necessary; SG 60 and SG 80
are met. The MSC’s intent is that the ‘if necessary’ in scoring issue (a) also pertains to scoring issues (b) and (c).

Resolution C-04-05 (Rev 3) (IATTC 2019) is considered to represent a strategy that is in place to manage the
impact of the fishery on bycatch and to maintain the current very low level of impact. It contains the
requirements (among others)

▪ Require fishermen on purse-seine vessels to promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, all
sharks, billfishes, rays, dorado, and other non-target species and
▪ Encourage fishermen to develop and use techniques and equipment to facilitate the rapid and safe
release of any such animals.
Additionally, provisions in Resolution C-19-01 call for the design and deployment of non-entangling and
biodegradable FADs (EcoFADs) to reduce the entanglement of non-target species and ecological impact.
TUNACONS has voluntarily conducted research in these areas and is committed to replacing traditional FADs
with EcoFADs in their fleet. TUNACONS has also spearheaded research to minimize the catch of non-target
species during purse seining activities through development and placement of sorting grids in the nets and
implemented a program requiring 100% observer coverage of all trips taken by small purse seine vessels in the
fleet (classes 3-5).
These strategies have been designed to address impacts on bycatch and there is ongoing monitoring of bycatch
levels through the observer programs. Also, due to uncertainties in the tropical tuna stock assessments, limits

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 157 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

on the number of active FADs deployed at any time on purse seine vessels (vessel classes 3-6) operating in the
EPO have been adopted (Resolution C-17-02). While not necessarily directed at secondary species, this measure
will result in catch reductions of all species, including secondary species. However, to achieve SG 100 there
needs to be specific strategies in place that addresses secondary minor, and apart from the measures outlined
in C-04-05 there are no such strategies in place; SG 100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
Eastern Pacific and striped bonito tuna:
There are no measures adopted by the IATTC that are specifically directed at bonito tunas, and current
knowledge of their status is insufficient to determine whether any are required. There are measures directed at
tropical tunas that have been adopted by the IATTC, however these measures generally apply to the high seas
area, which is outside the area fished by the UoA. The catch of bonito tuna by the UoA is sporadic, and from
2016 to 2018 approximately 243 mt were landed which equates to an estimated annual catch of 81 mt. Given
that the annual catch of bonito tuna by the UoA represents 2% of the total reported catch of bonito tuna in the
EPO between 2016 and 2018, it is inconceivable that the UoA catch would hinder their recovery if required. The
process for regular updates of catches, overviews of fishery developments and the adoption of Resolutions for
species by the IATTC is indicative of a partial strategy that would be responsive and lead to appropriate
measures if they became required for bonito tunas. On this basis, SG 60 and SG 80 are met.

To achieve SG 100 there needs to be specific strategies in place that addresses all secondary species, and
currently there are no such strategies in place; SG 100 is not met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high
post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial
based on plausible argument measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work,
(e.g. general experience, will work, based on some based on information
theory or comparison with information directly about directly about the UoA
similar UoAs/species). the UoA and/or species and/or species involved.
involved.
Met? TUNACONS Free sets: Yes TUNACONS Free sets: Yes TUNACONS Free sets: No

TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

None of the bycatch species have been considered to be ‘main’ and therefore a strategy for main secondary
species is not necessary to meet SG60 and SG80 requirements which are met by default.

There is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy that is in place will work from the large amount of
information that has been collected showing that there is minimal catch of minor secondary species. Also,
preliminary results of the sorting grid research and development of non-entangling FADs show promise but
additional research is required. There has been no formal testing of the strategy, however, and in particular no
evaluation of the post-release survival of the discarded component of the catch. On this basis, requirements at
the SG100 level are not met.

US Small PS UoA

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 158 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Eastern Pacific and striped bonito tuna: The strategy identified for bonito tunas is the IATTC monitoring and
assessment framework that is considered to be able to identify the need for measures should they be required
and lead to their implementation. Experience with other tuna conservation measures in the EPO provides some
objective basis for confidence that this would work. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels.

As there has been no testing of partial strategies SG100 is not met.

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that

post the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy
strategy is being is being implemented
implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving
its objective as set out in
scoring issue (a).
Met? TUNACONS Free sets: Yes TUNACONS Free sets: No

TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

None of the bycatch species have been considered to be ‘main’ and therefore a strategy for main secondary
species is not necessary to meet SG60 and SG80 requirements which are met by default.
FADs and Free School: Resolution C-04-05 (Rev 3) (IATTC 2019) is considered to represent a strategy that is in
place to manage the impact of the fishery on bycatch and to maintain the current very low level of impact. It
contains the requirements (among others):
▪ Require fishermen on purse-seine vessels to promptly release unharmed, to the extent practicable, all
sharks, billfishes, rays, dorado, and other non-target species and
▪ Encourage fishermen to develop and use techniques and equipment to facilitate the rapid and safe
release of any such animals.
While data from the observer programs demonstrate the catch of minor secondary species is low (<1%), a
significant portion of the catch is retained regardless of flag (Ecuador, Panama, and US) or set type (FAD and
free school). For FAD sets, 95% of billfish caught are retained, while 78% and 7% of large fish and small fish
caught, respectively, are retained. Dolphinfish and wahoo comprise the majority of large fish retained, while
filefish and triggerfish comprise the majority of small fish retained. For free school sets, 88% of billfish caught
are retained, while 80% of large fish and 36% of small fish caught, respectively, are retained.
There is clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its
objective as set out in scoring issue (a).
At the moment there is no clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy to manage minor secondary species
(including sorting grid research and non-entangling FADs) are being implemented successfully, as there is no
research output available, thus the SG100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
The strategy outlined above to manage the impact of the fishery on bycatch, and to maintain the current very
low level of impact, apply to this UoA. While the catches are relatively small, totalling approximately 248 ST
from between 2016 and 2018, based on the logbooks provided, 100% of the catch is retained. On this basis,
requirements at the SG80 level are met.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 159 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Given the limited information available on catches of the fleet, there is no clear evidence that the partial
strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully for both main secondary bonito species and for all minor
secondary species, the SG100 is not met.
d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of
post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is
not taking place.
Met? TUNACONS UoAs (Free and TUNACONS UoAs (Free and TUNACONS UoAs (Free and
FAD sets) FAD sets) FAD sets)
Ecuador UoA:Yes Ecuador UoA: Yes Ecuador UoA: No
Panama UoA: Yes Panama UoA: Yes Panama UoA: No
USA UoA: Yes USA UoA: Yes USA UoA: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No US Small PS UoA: Not scored

Rationale

TUNACONS (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

Data available to the assessment team on the level of shark finning comes from observer programs, submitted
logbooks, port sampling, and reports of the Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted
by the Commission (IATTC). The TUNACONS UoA is comprised of 33 large purse seine vessels (Vessel class 6)
flagged to Ecuador, Panama, and the USA, and 10 smaller purse seine vessels (Vessel classes 3-5) flagged to
Ecuador. As required, there is 100% observer coverage of large purse seine vessels, and these data were
provided to the assessment team. While IATTC does not require observers on the smaller purse seine vessels,
TUNACONS monitored 100% of fishing activities on nine small purse seine UoA vessels and these data were
provided to the assessment team. The assessment team assumed that catches in the one unobserved vessel
would be similar to catches in the observed vessels. Also, as catch comparisons between large and small UoA
vessels were similar the assessment team pooled data across vessel classes. In all cases observers are required
to record any instances of shark finning and these data are archived in the databases held by IATTC and annually
documented in reports of the Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by the
Commission.

While MSC does not specify a particular level of external validation to demonstrate that shark finning is not
occurring, it does provided guidance on levels of external validation (e.g., observer coverage) required to
demonstrate the likelihood that shark finning is not taking place (GSA2.4.5). To meet SG 60 “some external
validation should be in-place and understood to indicate a validation level equivalent to a nominal observer
coverage of 5% of effort, although the CAB may accept other rates and alternative measures/evidence (e.g.,
dockside monitoring) with sufficient justification that the same scientific outcome (likely confidence that finning
is not taking place) is delivered. To meet SG 80 ”good external validation should be in-place and understood to
indicate a validation level equivalent to a nominal observer coverage of 20% of effort, although the CAB may
accept other rates and alternative measures/evidence with sufficient justification that the same scientific
outcome (highly likely confidence that finning is not taking place) is delivered. To meet the SG 100 scoring level,
requirements outlined for the SG 80 scoring level must be met, as well as imposed port measures and port
inspections to address shark finning. MSC Guidance also states that “the assessment team should use their
expert judgement concerning the actual validation methods available and their ability to confirm the likelihood
that shark finning in not taking place”.

Historical information on shark finning in the IATTC Convention area collected by at-sea observers document
significant shark finning incidents in 2006 (N=4526) followed by a precipitous decline (96%) through 2009

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 160 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

(IATTC-COR, 2009) (see Figure 24). In 2009 a total of 184 shark finning incidents on 14 fishing trips were
reported in the IATTC Convention area, of which 70 finning incidents were reported during 2 fishing trips on
Ecuadorian fishing vessels. In 2016 a single finning event was reported in the IATTC Convention area aboard a
Peruvian fishing vessel (IATTC-COR, 2017) and in recent years there appears to be a single reported finning
event in 2018 and no finning events in 2019 and 2020. As observers are required to report the occurrence of
shark finning on all observed fishing trips and IATTC requires 100% observer coverage of all purse seine fishing
trips in the EPO, the occurrence of finning on purse seine in the IATTC Convention area is extremely low and
approaching zero. Noting flag states may have different policies regarding shark finning, including monitoring
and enforcement, this Si is scored by flag for the TUNACONS UoA and separately for the US small purse seine
UoA.

Ecuador

While there is historical evidence of shark finning on Ecuadorian vessels, recent observer data (2015-2018)
reported no shark finning events. Of the 33 Ecuadorian flagged vessels 23 are Class-6 purse seiners, requiring
100% observer coverage of all fishing trips. The remaining 10 vessels are smaller purse seine vessels (vessel
classes 3-5) and not obligated to carry observers. However, TUNACONS has voluntarily required 100% observer
coverage of these vessels and observer data was provided for 9 of the 10 trips from 2015-2018. On this basis SG
60 is met.
Further evidence to assess the extent of shark finning on Ecuadorian fishing vessels operating in the IATTC
Convention area provided in reports of the Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted
by the Commission, In the 2010 report shark finning was observed on 3% of IATTC observed trips in 2009,
resulting in 184 sharks being finned, including 70 sharks finned on 2 trips by Ecuadorian-flagged vessels. Since
2009 the number of observed finning incidents by fishing vessels operating in the EPO has dropped significantly
and in 2016 a single incident aboard a Peruvian vessel was observed (IATTC COR, 2017). Since 2017 observed
finning incident on fishing vessels operating in the IATTC Convention area have remained low with only a single
incident reported in 2018. The assessment team verified that the only observed finning incident in recent years
occurred in 2018 and that it did not occur on vessels from the UoA (Ecuador, Panama, and US).

Other evidence to detect the occurrence of shark finning is gathered through port sampling programs. All
foreign vessels off-loading catch at Ecuadorian ports are inspected following established protocols to monitor
the overall catch and look for evidence of shark finning. Officers physically board the vessel and use blueprints
of the vessel to identify potential areas/holds to check for shark fins. A similar program has been established for
Ecuadorian vessels off-loading at domestic port, but only 10% of vessels are randomly inspected. No evidence of
finning was detected in either port sampling program, thus providing an additional independent measure of
shark finning incidence.

Domestically, Ecuador has banned fishing for sharks in all Ecuadorian waters, but sharks caught outside of their
EEZ may be landed if caught incidentally (bycatch). However, if a shark is landed it must have all fins attached.
The requirement for 100% observer coverage can be used to verify where landed sharks were captured and
compliance with shark finning regulations and port sampling provides additional measures to verify compliance
regulations on shark finning.

The team considered that the 100% observer coverage of large purse seine vessels (class size 6) and 100%
observer coverage of smaller purse seine vessels (class size 3-5), provides a level of good external validation to
demonstrate that shark finning is not occurring and reports of the Committee for the Review of Implementation
of Measures Adopted by the Commission provide supporting evidence. Additionally, there are regulations in
place requiring the landing of all sharks with fins naturally attached (MSC FCP v2.1 GSA2.4.5 – GSA2.4.7) and
established port sampling programs provide an additional measure to quantify shark finning incidents. Based on

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 161 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

the totality of the information and evidence the assessment team considers requirements at the SG 80 level to
be met.

While 10% of domestic vessels are inspected annually as part of Ecuador’s port sampling program, the statistical
power of the sampling program, which impacts detection rates, is presently unknown. On this basis the
assessment team does not consider there to be a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place;
SG 100 is not met.

Panama

There is no historical evidence of shark finning on Panamanian vessels, and the 2015-2018 observer data based
on 100% observer coverage of 4 Panamanian large purse seine vessels (vessel class 6) did not report any shark
finning activity. The assessment team considered that the 100% observer coverage of large purse seine vessels
(class size 6), provides some external validation to demonstrate that shark finning is likely not taking place; SG
60 is met.

As noted above, further evidence to assess the extent of shark finning on Panamanian fishing vessels operating
in the IATTC Convention area is described in reports of the Committee for the Review of Implementation of
Measures Adopted by the Commission. Since 2016 observed finning incident on fishing vessels operating in the
IATTC Convention area has remained low with only a single incident reported in 2016 and 2018, and in both
cases the finning incidents did not occur aboard Panamanian fishing vessels (IATTC COR, 2017). We verified that
the only observed finning incident in recent years occurred in 2018 and that it did not occur on vessels from the
UoA (Ecuador, Panama, and US).

Domestic regulations in Panama prohibit shark fishing in all Panamanian waters, while industrial fishers
operating outside their EEZ must land all sharks with fins attached naturally. Artisanal fishers may land the fins
separately, but the weight ratio must be no more than 5% fins to whole weight of sharks. While we note there
does not appear to be a domestic port sampling program in place, Panamanian vessels landing catches at ports
in Ecuador are subject to vessel inspections.

Based on the totality of the information, 100% observer coverage of large purse seine vessels (class size 6),
evidence provided by the reports of the Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by
the Commission, domestic regulations, and international port inspections, the assessment team considers it is
highly likely that shark finning is not taking place; SG 80 is met.

The apparent lack of a port sampling program precludes the assessment team from concluding there is a high
degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. On this basis SG 100 is not met.

US
There is no historical evidence of shark finning on US vessels, and contemporary (2015-2018) observer data
based on 100% observer coverage does not indicate shark finning activities. The assessment team considered
that the 100% observer coverage of large purse seine vessels (class size 6), provides some external validation to
demonstrate that shark finning is likely not taking place; SG 60 is met.

As noted above, further evidence to assess the extent of shark finning on US fishing vessels operating in the
IATTC Convention area is described in reports of the Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures
Adopted by the Commission. Since 2016 observed finning incident on fishing vessels operating in the IATTC
Convention area has remained low with only a single incident reported in 2016 and 2018, and in both cases the
finning incidents did not occur aboard US fishing vessels (IATTC COR, 2017). We verified that the only observed

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 162 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

finning incident in recent years occurred in 2018 and that it did not occur on vessels from the UoA (Ecuador,
Panama, and US).

Domestic regulations apply to US vessels in the UoA, and provisions enforced through the Shark Finning
Prohibition Act of 2000 prohibit shark finning in the United States. The Shark Conservation Act of 2010 requires
all sharks in the United States, with the exception of smooth dogfish in the Atlantic Ocean, to be brought to
shore with their fins naturally attached. Additionally, we note US vessels landing catches at ports in the US or
Ecuador are subject to vessel inspections as outlined in the Shark Conservation Act.

Based on the totality of the information, 100% observer coverage of large purse seine vessels (class size 6),
evidence provided by the reports of the Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by
the Commission, domestic regulations, and port sampling, the assessment team considers it is highly likely that
shark finning is not taking place; SG 80 is met.

While US vessels are subject to inspection through port sampling measures the statistical power of the sampling
program, which impacts detection rates, is presently unknown. On this basis the assessment team does not
consider there to be a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place; SG 100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
While observer coverage of this class of UoA vessels (vessel class 1) is not required by IATTC, as well as the US
due to safety reasons, MSC guidance (GSA2.4.5) allows the assessment team to use their expert judgement
concerning the actual validation method used to confirm the likelihood that shark finning is not taking place.
The US small purse seine UoA is comprised of three vessels targeting tuna schools in coastal waters adjacent to
Long Beach, California, and relies on spotter planes to direct fishing activities. Only schools with a low
probability that fishing will interact with non-tuna species are recommended to vessel captains (Tri-Marine, per.
comm.).

In the United States, shark finning has been prohibited since 2000 (Shark Finning Prohibition Act) and in 2011
the Shark Conservation Act further improved domestic and international shark conservation measures,
including additional measures against shark finning. In addition, as of 2011 California prohibited the possession,
sale, trade, or distribution of shark fins. Additionally, the California Department of Land and Natural Resources,
in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries, conducts inspections if necessary of catches from US small purse seine
vessel and there are no reports of UoA vessels conducting shark finning activities. Pursuant to the Shark Finning
Prohibition Act, NOAA Fisheries is required to regularly report on domestic and international finning activities
and there are no reports of these UoA vessels conducting finning activities. As NOAA Office of Law Enforcement
deems all infractions with current U.S. laws/statutes to be confidential, obtaining detailed information was not
possible. Nonetheless, NOAA Fisheries confirmed there were no finning activities by UoA vessels during
subsequent interviews to gather information on ETP interactions and fishing activities. We also note that NOAA
has authorized CDFW staff to enforce federal laws and regulations as described within the Cooperative
Enforcement Program which aims to increase living marine resource conservation, endangered species
protection, and critical habitat enforcement while strengthening state and territorial enforcement resources
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/enforcement/cooperative-enforcement). Evidence of a Cooperative
Enforcement Agreement between NOAA and CDFW, as it relates to shark finning prohibition measures was
provided in the form of correspondence between NOAA and CDFW and no finning infractions have been
reported. Also, during interviews with Tri Marine and UoA vessel captains it was reported that shark finning is
not occurring on any of the UoA vessels. Given the absence of records of any retention of shark species in this
fleet, combined with evidence of CDFW personnel regularly visiting the company receiving product from
vessels in the assessment team considers the totality of these activities, measures, and statements provides

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 163 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

sufficient justification that finning is likely not taking place and SG 60 is met. Because there is no observer data
the SG 80 level is not met.
SG100 is not scored as not all SG80 requirements are met (see MSC interpretation
https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Scoring-SG100-if-not-all-SG80-met-7-10-5-3-1527262010218).

e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of
post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness
practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of alternative
measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to measures to minimise UoA-
related mortality of minimise UoA-related related mortality of
unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch unwanted catch of all
secondary species. of main secondary species secondary species, and they
and they are implemented are implemented, as
as appropriate. appropriate.
Met? TUNACONS Free sets: Yes TUNACONS Free sets: Yes TUNACONS Free sets: No

TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

FADS and Free School: None of the bycatch species have been considered to be ‘main’ and therefore there are
no unwanted catch of main secondary species. SG60 and SG80 are met by default.

The IATTC Working Group on Bycatch meets annually to discuss results of ongoing bycatch mitigation research
conducted by CPCs, improvements in monitoring, and perspectives for future research. The working group also
provides recommendations to the SAC and Commission based on research findings.

IATTC staff and CPCs annually develop and update multi-year research plans that cover a variety of projects
aimed at reducing UoA related mortality of unwanted catch. Key projects include the development and testing
of sorting grids to reduce catches of juvenile bigeye tuna and other small fish, as well as the development and
testing of non-entangling and biodegradable FADs. TUNACONS recently entered into a strategic alliance with
IATTC for scientific and technical cooperation in projects that strengthen the sustainable management of tuna
populations in the EPO and for the implementation of a pilot test project of FADs built with degradable
materials.

To build capacity, promote communication, and review protocols to minimize mortality of unwanted catch,
TUNACONS hosts training workshops with fishers about the IATTC regulations, proper handling of bycatch, and
how to test the EcoFAD prototypes. The workshops provide a mechanism to gather input from fishers on
EcoFAD design and testing protocols. TUNACONS also hosts focused workshops to exchange experiences and
advance research, the most recent being the International Workshop On Experiences Of The Use Of The Sorting
Grid in April 2018.

The ISSF routinely host Skipper Workshops as a platform for scientists and fishers to openly discuss fishing
operations and for scientists to pass on information about best practices. Since the first workshop in 2009,
skippers and fisheries scientists have been engaging through workshops to improve the sustainability standards
in tropical tuna purse seine fisheries across the world. Over 100 workshops have taken place in 5 continents,

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 164 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

covering vessels from more than 25 flag states. Ecuador hosted its first workshop in 2010, and since 2012
hosted workshops annually. The 2019 workshop attracted 173 participants, 70 skippers, 96 crew members, and
7 fleet representatives/managers.

Similarly, TUNACONS hosts workshops with industry representative and vessels captains/crew to discuss new
international measures (IATTC, FAO, UN) or domestic policy that affect fishing operations. The workshops also
provide a platform for training as needed.

While there are regular reviews of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to
minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch, a score of SG 100 requires that the alternative measures
also be implemented as appropriate. While key research activities identified in the IATTC research plans to
reduce the catch of unwanted secondary species (sorting grids and EcoFADs) are moving forward,
recommended research to estimate post release mortality of secondary species is not conducted. On this basis
the SG 100 level is not met.

US Small PS UoA

Bonito tuna is the only main secondary species and based on logbook data the total catch is retained. This
species is opportunistically targeted and subject to a quasi-minimum size requirement when landing catches in
the State of California; no bonito “less than 24 inches fork length or 5 pounds in weight may be taken or
possessed except a load of bonito taken by a round haul net may contain 18 percent or less by number of
bonito smaller than the size limit”. As this fishery employs spotter planes to direct fishing operations (find tuna
schools, identify the species, and determine the approximate size of fish), and the accuracy of spotter plane
pilots constantly validated, there is generally no unwanted catch. The assessment team views the validation of
spotter pilots as a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to
minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of bonito; SG 60 and SG 80 are met.
As there is no biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise
UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of all secondary species SG 100 is not met.

References

IATTC-COR 2010, IATTC-COR 2012, IATTC-COR 2013, IATTC-COR 2014, IATTC-COR 2015, IATTC-COR 2016, IATTC-
COR2017, IATTC-COR 2018, IATTC-COR 2019, IATTC 2006, Hinton et al. 2014

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range TUNACONS Free sets
Ecuador - 60-79
Panama - 60-79
US – ≥80

TUNACONS FAD sets

Ecuador - 60-79
Panama - 60-79
US – ≥80

US Small PS UoA - 60-79

Information gap indicator Provide documentation supporting compliance with
shark finning regulations, including
Most recent report on compliance with IATTC
measures in 2020-2021

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 165 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Alternative measures to minimise UoA-related

mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary
species for the US-based fleet

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score TUNACONS Free sets: 80

TUNACONS FAD sets: 80

US Small PS UoA: 75
Condition number (if relevant) Condition 2-3

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 166 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information

PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine
the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is

post adequate to estimate the information is available and available and adequate to
impact of the UoA on the adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of
main secondary species with impact of the UoA on main certainty the impact of the
respect to status. secondary species with UoA on main secondary
respect to status. species with respect to
OR status.
OR
If RBF is used to score PI
2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI
2.2.1 for the UoA:
Qualitative information is
adequate to estimate Some quantitative
productivity and information is adequate to
susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and
main secondary species. susceptibility attributes for
main secondary species.
Met? TUNACONS Free sets: Yes TUNACONS Free sets: Yes TUNACONS Free sets: Yes

TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

There are no main secondary species but following SA3.3.1 the scoring issue is still required to be scored. There
is good information from the high level of observer coverage on vessels in the UoA (requirement is for 100%
observer coverage), and comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings records. This provides
quantitative data, that should there be a change in catch composition that leads to main secondary species
being identified in the future, it would be adequate to assess, with a high degree of certainty, the impact of the
UoA on them. Therefore, the requirements of SG 60, SG 80, and SG 100 levels are met.

US Small PS UoA
Eastern Pacific and striped bonito: The catch of Eastern Pacific and striped bonito is recorded in logbooks so
some quantitative information is available. There is adequate information to assess productivity and
susceptibility attributes for bonito tuna (see Appendix 8.9: Risk-Based Framework outputs). Much of the
information is summarized in recent publications (Ortega-Garcia and Jakes-Cota, 2019 and CDFG, 2010) as well
as on Fishbase (http://www.fishbase.de/summary/114). This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80
levels.

As there is no stock assessment for bonito the assessment team was unable to assess with a high degree of
certainty the impact of the UoA on main secondary species with respect to status; SG 100 is not met.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 167 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

Guide Some quantitative

post information is adequate to
estimate the impact of the
UoA on minor secondary
species with respect to
status.
Met? TUNACONS Free sets: Yes

TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes

US Small PS UoA: No
Rationale

TUNACONS (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

FADs and Free School: The TUNACONS UoA is comprised of 33 large purse seine vessels (Vessel class 6) flagged
to Ecuador, Panama, and the USA, and 10 smaller purse seine vessels (Vessel classes 3-5) flagged to Ecuador. As
required, there is 100% observer coverage of large purse seine vessels, and these data were provided to the
assessment team. While IATTC does not require observers on the smaller purse seine vessels, TUNACONS
monitored 100% of fishing activities on nine small purse seine UoA vessels and these data were provided to the
assessment team. The assessment team assumed that catches in the one unobserved vessel would be similar to
catches on the observed vessels. Catch information also comes from logbooks and landings records, and when
combined with observer data provides quantitative catch data for FAD and free school sets. Noting the high
level of observer coverage in the TUNACONS UoA the assessment team considers some quantitative
information is both available and adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with
respect to status. Therefore, the SG100 requirements are met.

US Small PS UoA
No at-sea information is collected for this fishery. Therefore, it cannot be said that some quantitative
information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.
SG100 is not met.
c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to

post support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to
manage main secondary manage main secondary manage all secondary
species. species. species, and evaluate with a
high degree of certainty
whether the strategy is
achieving its objective.
Met? TUNACONS Free sets: Yes TUNACONS Free sets: Yes TUNACONS Free sets: No

TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: Yes TUNACONS FAD sets: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 168 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

There is good information from the high level of observer coverage on vessels in the UoA (requirement is for
100% observer coverage on larger purse seine vessels and TUNACONS monitors 100% of the fishing effort
associated with the smaller purse seine vessels), and comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings
records. This provides adequate information to support a partial strategy to manage main secondary species: SG
60 and SG 80 are met.

Information on post release mortality of released secondary species is not available. On this basis, requirements
at the SG 100 level are not met.

US Small PS UoA
Bonito tuna is the only main secondary species in this UoA. While observer data is not collected from these
vessels (exempt due to vessel size), catch data from logbooks and landings records are available to support
existing management measures (minimum legal size). On this basis SG 60 is met.

Ortega-Garcia and Jakes-Cota (2019) conducted an exploratory analysis of available data on Pacific bonito
(Sarda chiliensis lineolata) in the North Pacific Ocean. While a number of uncertainties in available data were
identified and information required for formal stock assessment models is not available, the authors did
conclude that information to support development of simple indicators of stock status can proceed. The
assessment team views the development of stock status indicators, which has yet to proceed, as a necessary
step to support a partial strategy to manage bonito. The development and implementation of stock status
indicators provides a basis for determining the utility of current management measures (i.e., minimum size
limit) and need for additional measures. On this basis the SG80 is met.

References

IATTC 2019 Ortega-Garcia and Jakes-Cota 2019 (https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2019/SAC-

10/INF/_English/SAC-10-INF-J_Pacific%20bonito.pdf

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range TUNACONS Free sets >80

TUNACONS FAD sets >80

US Small PS UoA: 60-79

Information gap indicator More information on observer coverage rates of small
purse seine vessels is sought. Additionally,
information describing the observer program is
required. RBF will be used to assess scores for US
small PS.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score TUNACONS Free sets: 95

TUNACONS FAD sets: 95

US Small PS UoA: 80
Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 169 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

PI 2.3.1 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species
The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable

Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or
post international requirements international requirements international requirements
set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species,
effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the MSC there is a high degree of
population/ stock are known UoAs on the population certainty that the combined
and likely to be within these /stock are known and highly effects of the MSC UoAs are
limits. likely to be within these within these limits.
limits.
Met? Tunacons Free sets: NA Tunacons Free sets: NA Tunacons Free sets: NA

Tunacons FAD sets: NA Tunacons FAD sets: NA Tunacons FAD sets: NA

US Small PS UoA: NA US Small PS UoA: NA US Small PS UoA: NA

Rationale

Tunacons (Free and FAD sets) UoAs: Limits have not been established for ETP species caught by UoA vessels.
IATTC has international requirements for set limits regarding dolphin species in the RFMO. Based on observer
data no dolphins were caught by the UoAs. During the site visit it was verified by both IATTC and TUNACONS
that the UoAs meet the 100% observer coverage requirement and the provided observer data is correct,
confirming there are no marine mammal (dolphin) interactions.

Based on this information Si-a is considered not applicable.

US Small PS UoA
There are no limits established for ETP species.
b Direct effects

Guide Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA are There is a high degree of
post UoA are likely to not hinder highly likely to not hinder confidence that there are no
recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. significant detrimental direct
effects of the UoA on ETP
species.
Met? Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets:
Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets:

Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 170 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS UoAs

For the purposes of scoring, ETP species in the TUNACONS UoAs are those protected by IATTC resolutions (and
U.S. mandates for U.S. flagged vessels) and interacting with the UoA, including 5 species of sea turtles (green,
olive ridley, loggerhead, leatherback and hawksbill turtles), 4 species of sharks (silky shark, scalloped
hammerhead shark, whale shark, and oceanic whitetip shark), and 5 species of mobulid rays (giant manta ray,
Chilean devil ray, spinetail devil ray, smoothtail devil ray, and Munk’s devil ray). As no marine mammals or
seabird interactions were reported by UoA vessels from 2015 – 2018, scoring will only focus on sharks, rays, and
turtles. The reported catch of all ETP species by UoA vessels was consistently low, each species accounting for <
0.1% of the total UoA catch.

Sea Turtles:
TUNACONS (FAD and Free School Sets)
The waters of the eastern Pacific are important feeding and nesting areas for four sea turtle species: the
leatherback, the green turtle, the hawksbill, and the olive ridley. In addition, a fifth species, the loggerhead
turtle, feeds in the northern- and southern-limits of the eastern tropical Pacific, but nests on distant beaches in
the western Pacific. While the current knowledge regarding conservation, movements, and habitat use for each
of these five species was updated in 2017 (IAC Habitat Use Working Group, 2017) the status of turtles
encountered by fisheries in the EPO have not been specifically examined by IATTC. Currently it is estimated that
approximately 116,000 nesting female green turtle occur in the Pacific Ocean (Seminoff et al., 2015).
Approximately 11,725 nesting female hawksbill turtles occur in the Pacific Ocean (NMFS and FWS, 2013). It is
estimated that approximately 9,200 nesting female loggerhead turtles
(https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/loggerhead-turtle), and 4,000 nesting female leatherback turtles
(Benson et al., 2015) occur in the Pacific Ocean.

All sea turtle species are currently listed as vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Green, loggerhead, leatherback, hawksbill, and olive
ridley turtles are also listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), and recovery plans
developed. While the U.S. ESA generally prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species, incidental
takes are permitted provided such taking is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species.

While UoA FAD sets and free school sets interacted with all 5 species, more interactions were observed in FAD
sets (N=689) compared with and free school sets (N=148). Regardless of set type, approximately 50% of
interactions involved green turtles, olive ridley turtles, and loggerhead turtles, while 45% of the interactions
were not identified to the species level. Interactions with FAD sets resulted in 9 mortalities (1 green turtle, 1
leatherback turtle, 2 loggerhead turtles, 3 olive ridley, and 2 unidentified sea turtles) and interactions with free
school sets resulted in 4 mortalities (2 olive ridley turtles and 2 unidentified sea turtles).

Based on the observer data the potential effects of the fishery are considered known for all species and the
mortalities of one green turtle and two loggerhead turtles are likely not to hinder their recovery, meeting the
SG60. Green turtle nesting trends in the EPO have been increasing since the early 1990s, while nesting trends
for loggerhead in the Pacific Ocean have been relatively stable since the 1990s. Olive ridley turtles are the most
abundant sea turtle species in the EPO (> 6,000,000 animals; IATTC SAC-08-INF C (2017)) and the mortalities of
5 olive ridley turtles is likely not to hinder their “recovery”. Leatherback turtles are classified as critically
endangered on the IUCN Red List and while all nesting beach trends (number of nesting females) have similar

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 171 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

declining patterns since 2002, current abundance levels are low and vary by rookery (ranging from 20 to 150).
The mortality of one leatherback by the UoA over 4 years is likely not to hinder the recovery of this species.
Therefore, it cannot be said that direct effects are highly unlikely to hinder impacts of ETP species. On this
basis, the SG 60 and SG 80 levels are met.

We note there is the potential for sea turtles to be entangled in FADs and data to quantify this source of
mortality was not provided. The assessment team was unable to conclude there is a high degree of confidence
that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on sea turtle species. SG 100 is not met.

Silky Shark

TUNACONS (FAD and Free School Sets)

A stock assessment for silky shark in the EPO has not been conducted. Silky shark stock status indicators based
on bycatch-per-set data from EPO purse seine sets on floating objects was developed although confidence in
the assessment is somewhat limited because the size-category of released sharks may be estimated poorly
(Lennert-Cody et al. 2019).

Clarke et al. (2018) undertook a Pacific-wide stock assessment for silky shark and estimated the total catch of
silky shark based on trade-based catch records to be around 38,000 t, annually. In comparison, average annual
catch in the UoA FAD fishery was estimated at approximately 21, 000 individuals in FAD sets, roughly equivalent
to 350 tons6 or 0.009% of the total catch. In the free school fishery average annual catch was estimated at
approximately 683 individuals (30 t) or 0.0008% of the total catch. Information was not provided on the level of
post release mortality, taking a more precautionary approach the team assumed all catches to be equal to
100% mortality.

Based on the quantitative information on catch of the UoA the team concludes that the negligible catches of
the UoA provide confidence that known direct/direct effects of the UoA are likely (70 th percentile)/highly
likely (80th percentile) to not hinder recovery of silky shark if required; SG 60 and SG80 are met.

There is a risk of unobserved mortality due to animals entangled in FADs, this risk is based on information of
entanglement of silky sharks in other ocean basins. The magnitude of FAD entanglement mortality in the EPO
has not been assessed. During the site visit the assessment team received anecdotal information from IATTC
staff indicating that the risk of entanglement in FADs is negligible in the EPO, however there is no quantitative
or scientific evidence to support this observation. Measure C 19-01 requires the use of low-entanglement FADs
in all purse seine fisheries, beginning in January 2019. The majority of the TUNACONS fleet is employing low-
entanglement FADs. Low-entanglement FADs greatly reduce the likelihood of entanglement, but do not
eliminate unobserved mortality entirely. Given that there is no formal stock assessment for silky sharks in the
EPO and there is no scientific evidence to support the low risk of entanglements in FADs, there is not a high
degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on silky sharks, thus the
SG100 is not met.

6
The team only received information in number of indiviuals. During 2006-2011, the average length of silky sharks
caught by purse seines sets on floating objects (ranged from 113 to 126 cm), in unassociated sets the average
length was 170 cm ( Aires-da-Silva, et al, 2014). Length-weight relationships for silky sharks indicate that on
average silky sharks in FAD sets would be approximately 15 kg, while silky sharks caught in free school sets would
be close to 40 kg in weight (https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/SAC-04/Presentations/_English/SAC-
04-PRES_Silky%20shark.pdf)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 172 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Oceanic Whitetip Shark

TUNACONS (FAD and Free School Sets)

There is no direct estimate of stock status for oceanic whitetip shark in the EPO. Assessments have been
conducted in the WCPO (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2019). Considering this species has a clear preference for open
ocean environments (Rice and Harley, 2012) we consider it to be plausible that there is movement between the
WCPO and EPO and that the status of oceanic whitetip in the EPO can be inferred from their status in the
WCPO. We note there are no definitive movement studies demonstrating migration between the EPO and
WCPO.

The most recent assessment of WCPO oceanic whitetip shark was conducted in 2019 and all model runs
predicted depletion, SB/SB0,to be below 0.1, and most runs below 0.05 (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2019). F/FMSY is
predicted to have declined by more than half from 6.12 to 2.67 (median) for the last year of the assessment
(2016) following the adoption of conservation measures to protect oceanic whitetip shark (CMM 2011-04).

The total catch of oceanic whitetip shark in all WCPO fisheries is estimated to range from a few thousand to
several hundreds of thousands of individuals (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2019) and comparing this to the catch by
TUNACONS (N=11 in the free school fishery and N=104 in the FAD fishery) provides confidence that known
direct and direct effects of the UoA are likely/highly likely to not hinder recovery of oceanic whitetip shark if
required: SG60 and SG80 are met.

As with silky sharks, there is a risk of unobserved mortality due to animals entangled in FADs, this risk is based
on information of entanglement of silky sharks in other ocean basins. The magnitude of FAD entanglement
mortality in the EPO has not been assessed. During the site visit the assessment team received anecdotal
information from IATTC staff indicating that the risk of entanglement in FADs is negligible in the EPO, however
there is no quantitative or scientific evidence to support this observation. Measure C 19-01 requires the use of
low-entanglement FADs in all purse seine fisheries, beginning in January 2019. The majority of the TUNACONS
fleet is employing low-entanglement FADs. Low-entanglement FADs greatly reduce the likelihood of
entanglement, but do not eliminate unobserved mortality entirely. Given that there is no stock assessment for
oceanic whitetip sharks in the EPO and there is no scientific evidence to support the low risk of entanglements
in FADs, there is not a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the
UoA on silky sharks, thus the SG100 is not met.

Whale Shark

TUNACONS (FAD and Free School Sets)

Stock status for the Indo-Pacific whale shark was assessed by Rice and Harley (2012) and recently by Neubauer
et al. (2018) in a risk-based framework based on information from all purse seine fisheries in the Pacific Ocean.
Results from the risk-based analysis indicated that the risk of exceeding three F-based limit reference points
was generally less than 20% since 2009 and concluded that the risk from Pacific Ocean purse seine fisheries in
aggregate is moderate to low, with the risk posed to whale sharks from purse seine vessels operating in the EPO
being lower in comparison to those operating in the WCPO.

Between 2015 and 2018 a total of eight whale sharks were caught in TUNACONS FAD fishery and similarly eight
whale sharks were caught in the free school fishery. Average annual whale shark interactions in the TUNACONS
FAD and free school fisheries are relatively small, two sharks per year and all but one shark , during this time
period, were discarded alive. The impact of the TUNACONS fisheries on the Indo-Pacific whale shark population
is therefore considered to be negligible and requirements at the SG 60 SG 80, and SG 100 levels are met for
both set types.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 173 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Scalloped Hammerhead Sharks

TUNACONS (FAD and Free School Sets)

The Scalloped Hammerhead Shark is a coastal and semi-oceanic pelagic shark, found over continental and
insular shelves and nearby deep water, ranging from the intertidal and surface waters to 275 m depth, though
has been recorded to 1,043 m (Moore and Gates 2015). Adults spend most of the time offshore in midwater
and females migrate to the coastal areas to pup (Stevens and Lyle 1989). Two distinct population have been
identified in the Pacific Ocean, the Eastern Pacific DPS and the Indo-West Pacific DPS, and there are no data
available on population size The IUCN lists the species as critically endangered.

Based on observer data from 2015-2018, 263 Scalloped Hammerhead Shark was caught in the TUNACONS FAD
fishery, accounting for 0.004% of the total catch volume over the four years. In the free school fishery 19 sharks
were caught, accounting for < 0.001% of the total catch volume.

Considering the low level of interaction with Scalloped Hammerhead Sharks, and measures in place to minimize
the risk posed by these fisheries, including safe handling and release protocols, catch reporting requirements,
and workplan for completing a full stock assessment (Resolution C-16-05), as well as measures requiring all
FADs to be low-entanglement FADs (Resolutions C-18-05 and C-19-01), provides confidence that known
direct/direct effects of the UoA are likely/highly likely to not hinder recovery of scalloped hammerhead shark if
required: SG 60 and SG80 are met.

In the absence of more information on population status of Scalloped Hammerhead Sharks, the SG100 is not
met.

Mobulid Rays

TUNACONS (FAD and Free School Sets)

The population size of the giant manta rays and devil rays is difficult to assess, but abundance trajectories have
been estimated based on long time series of sightings at diving sites. Locally, abundance varies substantially and
may be based on food availability and the degree that they were, or are currently, being fished
(https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/198921/68632946#threats). In most regions, Giant Manta Ray population
sizes appear to be small ranging from 100 to 1,500 individuals (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/giant-
manta-ray). Photo-identification studies at specific aggregation sites have yielded minimum estimates of 42 to
500 individuals over almost a decade of monitoring in most locations, including: Mozambique, Thailand,
Myanmar, Indonesia (Holmberg and Marshall 2018), Japan (Kashiwagi et al. 2010), Brazil (Luiz et al. 2008), and
Mexico (Rubin 2002). A 6-year study has catalogued more than 2,000 individuals in a single site, off mainland
Ecuador (Holmberg and Marshall 2018). The trend of the number of individuals varies widely across the range of
the Giant Manta Ray, but trends appear stable where they are protected and declining rapidly where fishing
pressure is greater (Ward-Paige et al. 2013; Holmberg and Marshall 2018).

Devil rays are a bycatch component of many small and large-scale fisheries, and in some cases catch aggregated
and reported as Mobula spp. Based on a combination of declining sightings-per-unit-effort (SPUE) data from
monitored populations, catch landings data, and evidence of depletions, significant population declines have
been inferred (Fernando and Stevens 2011, Couturier et al. 2012, Hall and Roman 2013, Ward-Paige et al. 2013,
Lewis et al. 2015, Croll et al. 2016, Rohner et al. 2017). In areas where catch data is available population
declines of 50-99% over the last three generations (38 years; from 1980-2018) has been inferred, with a further
population reduction suspected over the next three generation lengths (2018–2056).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 174 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Based on observer data from 2015 to 2018 five species of mobulid rays were caught by the fishery: Giant Manta
Ray (Mobula birostris), Smoothtail Devil Ray (M. thurstoni), Spinetail Devil Ray (M. japonica), Chilean Devil Ray
(M. tarapacana), and Munk's Devil Ray (M. munkiana). While the total catch of mobulid rays by set type was
similar (145 vs 147), numbers caught at the species level differed significantly between set types. Catches of
mobula in free school sets comprised fifty-four M. birostris (12.85 mt), three M. tarapacana (0.27 mt), twenty-
three M. japonica (1.41 mt), three M. thurstoni (0.06 mt), and sixty-two unidentified mobula and mantas (3.33
mt). Catches of mobula in FAD sets over the four years comprised seven M. birostris (1.67 mt), three M.
tarapacana (0.27 mt), thirty-two M. japonica (1.97 mt), nine M. munkiana (0.17 mt), and ninety-five
unidentified mobula and mantas (5.66 mt).

Based on observer data from large purse seine vessels (Vessel class 6) operating in the EPO between 1993 and
2014, approximately 2,545 mobulid rays were captured annually. In comparison, approximately 73 mobulid rays
were captured annually based on observer data collected from the UoA between 2015 and 2018, Assuming
similar annual capture levels by the IATTC large purse seine fleet between 2015 and 2018 (N=2,545 animals),
the UoA accounts for approximately 3% of the total catch. The proportion attributed to the UoA would be less
since the UoA data also includes data from smaller purse seine vessels (Vessel classes 3-5) which are not
included in the IATTC fleet estimate. Thus, the annual catch of mobulid rays by the UoA is likely insignificant
compared to the overall IATTC purse seine catch.

Regardless of set type the catch of mobulid rays by the UoA over the four-year period represents a small
portion of the total catch volume, 0.01% for free school sets and 0.002% for FADs sets. While all mobulid were
returned to the water, post-release survival rates of mobulids from commercial purse seine gear are not
publicly available. Given the size and shape of mobulids there is likely a very low risk to mobulids from ghost
fishing or entanglement in FADs.

Considering the low level of UoA interactions with Mobulid rays based on observer coverage rates approaching
100% and measures in place to minimize the risk posed by these fisheries, including safe handling and release
protocols and catch reporting requirements (Resolution C-15-04), as well as research collaborations between
TUNACONS and Manta Trust to advance knowledge on the biology, ecology, and conservation of Mobulid rays
in the Galapagos Island region, this provides confidence that known direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to
not hinder recovery of all Mobulid rays if required: SG 60 and SG 80 are met for both set types. The fishery
provided improved information on the fate of mobulid rays, however, there are still some mobulid rays for
which information was not provided at the species level. This issue is addressed in PI 2.3.3 SIb

Noting that accurate population estimates of Mobulid rays are not readily available there is not a high degree of
confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on Mobulid rays. Also, while the
assessment team does not consider ghost fishing or entanglement in FADs to pose a serious risk to Mobulid
rays due to their size and body shape, there is no evidence to corroborate this assumption. On this basis SG 100
is not met.

US Small PS UoA

Observers are not required on UoA vessels and logbooks only record catches of tuna species. To gather request
information on direct effects, questionnaires were circulated to NGOs and UoA vessel captains to determine
the potential for ETP interactions. Follow-up interviews were conducted to review the results and finalize the
potential for direct effects. Results from the interviews indicated that due to the unique fishing strategies
employed by the UoA fishery there are no interactions with ETP species. As fishing operations in the US small
purse seine fishery rely on spotter planes to determine where and when fishing is conducted, only tuna schools
with no observable ETP species are fished. In many ways this is like a move-on-rule aimed at limiting
interactions with ETP species.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 175 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

We also note that NOAA Fisheries requires vessel captains to record all interactions with ETP as part of the
mandatory logbook program and the fishery is currently designated as a Category III fishery, indicating that the
annual mortality and serious injury of an ETP stock in a given fishery is less than or equal to 1% of its PBR level
(i.e., there is a remote likelihood of or no known incidental mortality and serious injury of marine mammals). In
the absence of reliable information indicating the frequency of incidental mortality and serious injury of marine
mammals by a commercial fishery, NOAA Fisheries will determine whether the incidental mortality or serious
injury is “occasional” by evaluating other factors such as fishing techniques, gear used, methods used to deter
marine mammals, target species, seasons and areas fished, qualitative data from logbooks or fishermen
reports, stranding data, and the species and distribution of marine mammals in the area. For the US small purse
seine UoA there are no known interactions https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-
protection/list-fisheries-summary-tables#table-1-category-iii). NOAA Fisheries periodically updates fishey
categories through collaborations with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Pacific Fishery
Management Council. While observers are not required to monitor the US small purse seine UoA due to safety
issue, there are domestic measures in place to conclude that the direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to
not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Based on the totality of the information the assessment team concludes SG 60 and SG 80 are met as direct
effects of the UoA are known and highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP Species. Without observer data we
cannot assert with a high degree of confidence that there are no significant impacts, thus the SG100 is not met.

c Indirect effects

Guide Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of

post considered for the UoA and confidence that there are no
are thought to be highly significant detrimental
likely to not create indirect effects of the UoA
unacceptable impacts. on ETP species.
Met? Tunacons Free school sets: Tunacons Free school sets:
Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets:

Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

Tunacons (Free and FAD sets) UoAs and US Small PS UoA

Indirect trophic effects of fishing for tuna on the tropical pelagic ecosystem have been considered through a
variety of modelling approaches (Kitchell et al. 1999, Sibert et al. 2006, Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015,
Lehodey et al. 2014) and, although the impacts are not negligible, they have not been considered irreversible
and no particular impacts on ETP species have been identified.

The warm pool ecosystem was found to be resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the
harvest of the surface fish community) a feature apparently related to the high diversity of predators in the
food web that consume a wide range of prey (Allain et al. 2015). The effect of fishing on the eastern tropical
Pacific Ocean ecosystem and species at different trophic levels has been investigated by Olson & Watters

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 176 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

(2003), Watters et al. (2003), Fernández-Álamo & Färber-Lorda (2006), Gerrodette et al. (2012), and Griffiths
and Fuller (2019). The results indicate that although the purse seine fishing in the EPO, including that conducted
by the TUNACONS, does impact the relative biomass of species at different trophic levels through direct
mechanisms (i.e., catching) and indirect mechanisms (i.e., catches at one trophic level affect species at other
trophic levels through changing predator-prey abundance), changes have been moderate thus far and are
reversible (Griffiths and Fuller 2019).

Overall, indirect effects have thus been considered for the UoA and given the congruency between results from
the various studies, which is considered to be consistent with meeting an 80% confidence level, are thought to
be highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts; SG80 is met.

Recent data on the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool suggests it is expanding and the impact of this (expansion) on
marine resources is unknown (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/warm-pool-indo-
pacific-ocean-has-almost-doubled-sizechanging-Global). The RFMOs have agreed to revisit the earlier modelling
work of Allain et al (2015) but it’s unclear when results will be available. On this basis, until updated modelling
results are available the assessment team concluded there is not a high degree of confidence that there are no
significant detrimental indirect effects of the UoA on ETP species; SG100 is not met.

References

Griffiths and Fuller 2019; Olson and Watters 2003; Watters et al. 2003; Fernández-Álamo and Färber-Lorda
2006; Gerrodette et al. 2012; Allain et al. 2007; Allain et al. 2015; Lehodey et al. 2014; Kitchell et al. 1999; Sibert
et al. 2006; Rice and Harley 2012; Neubauer et al. 2018; Román et al. 2018; Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2019; Clarke
et al. 2018; Hutchinson et al. 2015; Lennert-Cody et al. 2019 ; Clarke et al. 2018 ; Miller 2013 ; Griffiths et al.
2018 ; Aires-da-Silva et al. 2014

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range Tunacons Free sets : 60-79

Sea Turtles ≥80, Sharks 60-79, Mobuid 60-79

Tunacons FAD sets: 60-79

Sea Turtles ≥80, Sharks 60-79, Mobuid 69-70US Small

PS UoA: ≥80
Information gap indicator TUNACONS UoA:
More information sought on protected species
training requirements, quality assurance/quality
control protocols for observer data, and shark
retention policies.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score Tunacons Free sets: 80

(Sea Turtles 80, Sharks 80, Mobulid Rays 80)

Tunacons FAD sets: 80

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 177 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

(Sea Turtles = 80, Sharks 80, Mobulid Rays 80)

US Small PS UoA: 80
Condition number (if relevant)

PI 2.3.1 Scoring Calculation-FAD Sets

UoA Element SI a SI b SI c Element PI score
score
Sharks
Whale shark N/A 100 80 90
TUNACONS FAD Silky shark N/A 80 80 80
Sets
Oceanic whitetip shark N/A 80 80 80
Scalloped hammerhead shark N/A 80 80 80
Mobula
Giant Manta Ray N/A 80 80 80
Chilean Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80
Spinetail Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80 80
Smoothtail Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80
Marine turtles
Green turtles N/A 80 80 80
Loggerhead turtle N/A 80 80 80
Olive ridley turtle N/A 80 80 80
Hawksbill turtle N/A 80 80 80
Leatherback turtle N/A 80 80 80

PI 2.3.1 Scoring calculations – Free School Sets

UoA Element SI a SI b SI c Element PI

score score
Sharks
Whale shark N/A 100 80 90
TUNACONS
Silky shark N/A 80 80 80
Free school
Oceanic whitetip shark N/A 80 80 80
Sets
Scalloped hammerhead shark (USA only) N/A 80 80 80
Mobula
Giant Manta Ray N/A 80 80 80
Chilean Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80
Spinetail Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80 80
Munk’s Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80
Marine turtles
Green turtles N/A 80 80 80
Loggerhead turtle N/A 80 80 80
Olive ridley turtle N/A 80 80 80
Hawksbill turtle N/A 80 80 80
Leatherback turtle N/A 80 80 80

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 178 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy

PI 2.3.2 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:
- meet national and international requirements;
- ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the
mortality of ETP species
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

Guide There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive
post that minimise the UoA- for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for
related mortality of ETP impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact
species, and are expected to including measures to on ETP species, including
be highly likely to achieve minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise
national and international designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed
requirements for the to achieve national and to achieve above national
protection of ETP species. international requirements and international
for the protection of ETP requirements for the
species. protection of ETP species.
Met? Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets:
Sea Turtles: NA Sea Turtles: NA Sea Turtles: NA
Sharks: NA Sharks: NA Sharks: NA
Mobulid Rays: NA Mobulid Rays: NA Mobulid Rays: NA

Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets:

Sea Turtles: NA Sea Turtles: NA Sea Turtles: NA
Sharks: NA Sharks: NA Sharks: NA
Mobulid Rays: NA Mobulid Rays: NA Mobulid Rays: NA

US Small PS UoA: NA US Small PS UoA: NA US Small PS UoA: NA

Rationale

Limits have not been established for ETP species caught by either the large purse-seine fleet or the small US
purse-seine fleet.
b Management strategy in place (alternative)

Guide There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive
post that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure strategy in place for
the UoA does not hinder the the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to
recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not
hinder the recovery of ETP
species.
Met? Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets:
Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 179 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets:

Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

Tunacons (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

There are a range of established measures within IATTC that form a strategy for managing the fishery’s impact
on sharks, rays, turtles, sea birds and marine mammals. These measures include non-retention policies, 100%
observer coverage (on Class 6 vessels and class 1-5 vessels for the Tunacons fleet), skipper training, detailed
release procedures, requirements for the carriage and use of specific equipment to aid release, and formal
reporting requirement. Also, limits on the number of active FADs that can be deployed at any one time have
been established based on vessel size.

Also, US-flagged vessels, regardless of fishing location, are strictly required to follow all measures and reporting
requirements associated with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and
binding seabird agreements. Vessel captains are required to report the interactions and fate of all animals
falling under the purview of the ESA, MMPA, and binding seabird agreements in logbooks and NOAA Fisheries
requires all captains/crew to regularly attend protected species workshop to discuss current and proposed
management measures and bycatch mitigation measures. The US has designated scalloped hammerhead sharks
as endangered, sea turtles and cetaceans fall under the purview of the MMPA, and there numerous seabird
agreements generally include all seabirds.

The IATTC measures include:

Sea Turtles: IATTC Resolutions C-19-04, C-04-05 (Rev 3) and C-07-03 are designed to mitigate the impact of tuna
fishing vessels on sea turtles by requiring CPCs to implement a range of measures to reduce the incidental catch
and promote the survival of those that were caught.

Sharks: IATTC Resolutions C-21-06, C-19-05, C-19-06, C-16-04, C-11-10, and C-05-03 are designed to mitigate the
impact of tuna fishing vessels on sharks by requiring CPCs to implement a range of measures to reduce the
incidental catch, restrict retention and finning, collect scientific data, and promote the survival of those that
were caught.

Mobulid Rays: IATTC Resolution C-15-04 is designed to mitigate the impact of tuna fishing vessels on mobulid
rays by requiring CPCs to implement a range of measures to reduce the incidental catch, restrict retention,
collect scientific data, and promote the survival of those that were caught.

The activities and measures outlined in the resolutions specific to sea turtles, sharks, and mobulid rays, as well
as the US policy, constitute a strategy designed to provide protection consistent with national and international
requirements, while at the same time advancing our understanding of fishery interactions and ecological
requirements of ETP species. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG80 levels. Evidence of testing of
the strategy was not provided thus the SG100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
Measures outlined above for the TUNACONS UoA apply here when fishing in the IATTC Commission area. In
addition, UoA vessels are required to follow measures established through the NMFS in accordance with the
MMPA, MSA, and ESA (if applicable). Observers are not required on the UoA vessels and there is no information
of ETP interactions. Logbooks only record catches of tuna species and are insufficient to assess interactions with

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 180 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

non-tuna species. Based on interviews with NGOs and vessel captains it was determined that the fishery does
not interact with ETP species due to how the fishery operates; spotter planes direct all fishing activities. The
team considered the fishing operations and activities as well as measures outlined in the Resolutions constitute
a strategy that is expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species if necessary; the SG60
and SG 80 are met. Evidence of testing of the strategy was not provided thus the SG 100 is not met.

c Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy/comprehensive

post considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy is mainly based on
based on plausible argument measures/strategy will work, information directly about
(e.g., general experience, based on information the fishery and/or species
theory or comparison with directly about the fishery involved, and a quantitative
similar fisheries/species). and/or the species involved. analysis supports high
confidence that the strategy
will work.
Met? Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets:
Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets:

Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: Not scored
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

Tunacons (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

Established measures within the IATTC have been applied directly to the UoA, including non-retention policies,
100% observer coverage (on Class 6 vessels and Class 1-5 vessels), skipper training and workshops, detailed
release procedures, requirements for the carriage and use of specific equipment to aid release of ETP species,
and formal reporting requirement. In addition, limits on the number of active FADs that can be deployed at any
one time have been established based on vessel size and applied to the UoA. To reduce the entanglement of
sharks, sea turtles or any other species, as of 1 January 2019 CPCs shall ensure that the design and deployment
of FADs are based on the principles set out in Annex II of IATTC Resolution C-18-05.

Silky shark and oceanic whitetip shark

Information from observers and logbooks, and the IATTC Resolution measures detailed above in SIb that are
based on best practices and understanding of what works for the particular species and is practicable within the
constraints of purse seine operations constitute a series of measures considered likely to work, meeting the
SG60.

The quantitative analysis of Pacific-wide silky shark stock status (Clarke et al., 2018 and Clarke et al., 2018b),
which is based on information directly about the fishery and the species involved, provided some confidence
that previous fishing has not greatly depleted the stock. Furthermore, there evidence of compliance of vessels
in the UoA with Tunacons and ISSF voluntary code of conduct, as reported in the ISSF PVR - ProActive Vessel
Register.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 181 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

We note that Resolution C-21-04 continues to require spatiotemporal purse seine closures and increased
reporting, additional reductions in the number of FADs deployed at any one time have been implemented in all
vessel classes which will reduce F on silky sharks. Conservation measures for oceanic whitetip shark are
contained in Resolution C-11-10 which was adopted in 2011. While they have yet to be revised, measures
adopted in Resolutions C-21-04 and C-21-06 will reduce F on oceanic whitetip sharks.

As noted by MSC Guidance, “objective basis for confidence”, refers to the levels of information required to
evaluate the likelihood that the management partial strategy will work”, and to meet the SG80 level” expert
knowledge augmented by some information collected in the area of the UoA and about the specific
component(s) and/or UoA”, is required. The measures in place are likely to work, based on information
collected from the fishery via observer program, meeting the SG80.

The total catch of the UoA is relatively small for the entire catch of the silky sharks. Clarke et al. 2018 estimates
around one million landings of individual silky sharks in the EPO annually since 2007. The observer records
indicate that on average the UoA interacts with 5,000 silky sharks annually. The total annual catch of silky sharks
in the Tunacons UoA is estimated to be around 0.5% of the total EPO catch. Likewise for oceanic whitetip the
UoA catch is on average 30 individuals per year, which is considered to have no impact. Given the scale and
intensity of impact of the limited number of vessels in the UoA, the specific information gathered is considered
appropriate to meet the SG80.

However, there is no quantitative analysis on the effectiveness of the strategy in place through either a stock
assessment or stock indicators, the SG100 is not met for both silky and oceanic whitetip sharks.

Scalloped Hammerhead Shark and Whale Shark

Information from observers and logbooks, and the Resolution measures detailed above in SIb that are based on
best practice and understanding of what works for the particular species and is practicable within the
constraints of purse seine operations, provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place for
this shark species will be effective. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels. However, there
has not been a quantitative analysis supporting high confidence that the strategy will work; SG100 is not met.

Mobula and Sea Turtles

Information from observers and logbooks, and the Resolution measures detailed above in SIb that are based on
best practice and understanding of what works for the particular species and is practicable within the
constraints of purse seine operations, provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategies in place will
be effective. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels. However, there has not been a
quantitative analysis supporting high confidence that the strategy will work; SG100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
Conservation measures aimed at reducing ETP interactions with fisheries and ensuring their survival upon
release have been adopted internationally by all tuna RFMOs and form the basis for US policies. Reducing the
removal of animals from populations generally benefits the population and is the rationale behind many of the
conservation measures. These measures are considered likely to work based on theory, as well as past
experience; requirements for the SG60 level are met.

Noting that no protected species interactions were recorded in the logbooks provided for the years 2014-2018
and reporting of ETP species is mandatory, the assessment team sought independent verification of the
potential for zero interactions through interviews with NGOs (PEW and Monterey Bay Aquarium), vessel
captains fishery scientists, and fishery management organizations NOAA Fisheries and Pacific Fisheries
Management Council), and it was determined that the fishery likely does not interact with ETP species due to
how the fishery operates (e.g., spotter planes) and where the fishery operates (CA Bight). Pilots direct all fishing
activities and steer vessels away from fish schools with protected species present or other unwanted catch.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 182 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Additionally, the US Marine Mammal Protection Act mandates that all commercial fisheries be classified by the
level of incidental marine mammal death and serious injury. The level of marine mammal death and serious
injury that occurs incidental to each fishery is reported in the annual Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports
for each stock. Fishery classifications are based on observer/logbook data, information on fishing operations,
and other information deemed relevant, and NOAA Fisheries lists this UoA as a Category III fishery with no
reported interactions. Based on the totality of the information there is an objective basis for confidence that the
measures/strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved; SG80
is met.

Evidence of testing of the strategy was not provided thus the SG 100 is not met.
d Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that

post the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive
being implemented strategy is being
successfully. implemented successfully
and is achieving its objective
as set out in scoring issue (a)
or (b).
Met? Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets:
Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets:

Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

Tunacons (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

Sea Turtles, Sharks, and Mobulid Rays: Evidence that some elements of the strategy are being implemented
successfully includes the collection and submission of observer records from all large purse seine vessel (class 6)
trips and some trips associated with smaller purse seine vessels (class 3-5), as well as participation by UoA
vessel captains and crew at skipper workshops conducted annually in Ecuador by ISSF, and adoption of best
practices by the UoA. On this basis SG 80 is met.

Limited documentation was provided by the client as evidence that all measures and elements of the strategy
are being implemented successfully. Numerous infractions have been noted for Ecuador purse seine vessels and
discussed during meetings of the International Review Panel. These reports are no longer available which
speaks to the lack of transparency. In its 2017 Report to Congress, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
identified Ecuador as having been engaged in IUU fishing based on reported violations of international
conservation and management measures during 2014, 2015, and 2016. In its 2019 report to Congress, NMFS
identified Ecuador as undermining the effectiveness of conservation and management measures required by
IATTC by failing to comply with its measures. We note that during the 98th Meeting of the IATTC in October
2021, Ecuador, as well as other CPCs, agreed to provide IATTC with requisite information and data to ensure
compliance with established measures. We further note that CPCs also agreed to additional measures aimed at

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 183 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

strengthening existing FAD management measures. While the submission of these data and agreements to
strengthen FAD management in the IATTC Convention asea should provide clear evidence that the
comprehensive strategy is being implemented successfully there is no evidence at this time to determine
compliance. On this basis SG100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
Results of the interviews with NGOs (PEW and Monterey Bay Aquarium), vessel captains fishery scientists, and
fishery management organizations NOAA Fisheries and Pacific Fisheries Management Council)which determined
the fishery likely does not interact with ETP species provides some evidence that the measures/strategy is being
implemented successfully: SG 80 is met. The assessment team does not consider current practices to represent
a comprehensive strategy. For example, how would the fishery operate if spotter planes were not involved. On
this basis SG 100 is not met.
e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of
post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness
practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of alternative
measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to measures to minimise UoA-
related mortality of ETP minimise UoA-related related mortality ETP
species. mortality of ETP species and species, and they are
they are implemented as implemented, as
appropriate. appropriate.
Met? Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets:
Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets:

Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

Based on guidance provided in SA 3.5.3.2, “regular review” shall mean at least once every 5 years. Biennial
review means occurring every other year.

Tunacons (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

Sharks and Marine turtles

There is an ongoing IATTC research program to improve understanding of the interactions and implications of
the different EPO fisheries on non-target species. Ecosystem considerations is a standing item on the agenda of
the IATTC’s Science Advisory Committee (e.g. Griffiths & Fuller 2019b) and there is an annual meeting of the
IATTC Working Group on Bycatch (e.g., IATTC 2019f) to review and discuss the utility of ongoing bycatch
mitigation measures. Also, US flagged vessels also discusses actions and activities through regular meetings of
the U.S. Protected Species Workshops. On this basis SG60 and SG80 are met.

As there are no biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to
minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species, SG100 is not met.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 184 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Mobulas
There are no research programs for mobulas and mantas in the IATTC that is comparable to that for sharks.
There is ongoing attention to areas where interactions are considered a problem, such as the required
prohibition of setting on setting on mobula and manta rays as well as protocols for their release, and data on
interactions are collected by observers on all trips and presented annually to the relevant meetings. Bycatch is a
standing item on the agenda of the IATTC Science Advisory Committee and there is an annual meeting of the
IATTC Working Group on Bycatch to review and discuss the utility of ongoing bycatch mitigation measures. On
this basis SG60 and SG80 are met.

However, completed there is no biennial review of the (potential) effectiveness and practicality of alternative
measures to minimize UoA-related mortality of mobula and manta ray species. On this basis SG100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
The same processes described above for the TUNACONS UoA apply here. Additionally, regular reviews are
conducted within the US Government to assess utility and implementation requirements of alternative
measures; SG 60 and SG 80 are met.

As there are no biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to
minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species, SG100 is not met.
References

IATTC Resolution C-18-05.

Observer Data

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range Tunacons Free sets ≥ 80
Tunacons FAD sets ≥ 80
US Small PS UoA: ≥80
Information gap indicator Both UoAs: More information is sought on the
procedures and policies regarding infractions. Also,
protocols for the observer program and coverage
rates are requested.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score Tunacons Free sets: 80
Tunacons FAD sets: 80
US Small PS UoA: 80
Condition number (if relevant)

PI 2.3.2 Scoring Calculation – FAD Sets

UoA Element SI a SI b SI c SI d SI e Element PI score
score
Sharks
Whale shark N/A 80 80 80 80 80
TUNACONS
Silky shark N/A 80 80 80 80 80 80
FAD Sets
Oceanic whitetip shark N/A 80 80 80 80 80

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 185 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Scalloped hammerhead
N/A 80 80 80 80 80
shark
Mobula
Giant Manta Ray N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Chilean Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Spinetail Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Smoothtail Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Marine turtles
Green turtles N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Loggerhead turtle N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Olive ridley turtle N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Hawksbill turtle N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Leatherback turtle N/A 80 80 80 80 80

PI 2.3.2 Scoring calculations – Free School Sets

UoA Element SI a SI b SI c SI d SI e Element PI score
score
Sharks
Whale shark N/A 80 80 80 80 80
TUNACONS
Silky shark N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Free school Sets
Oceanic whitetip shark N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Scalloped hammerhead
N/A 80 80 80 80 80
shark (USA only)
Mobula
Giant Manta Ray N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Chilean Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80 80 80
80
Spinetail Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Munk’s Devil Ray N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Marine turtles
Green turtles N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Loggerhead turtle N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Olive ridley turtle N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Hawksbill turtle N/A 80 80 80 80 80
Leatherback turtle N/A 80 80 80 80 80

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 186 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information

PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP
species, including:
- Information for the development of the management strategy;
- Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and
- Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is

post adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a
UoA related mortality on ETP assess the UoA related high degree of certainty the
species. mortality and impact and to magnitude of UoA-related
determine whether the UoA impacts, mortalities and
OR may be a threat to injuries and the
protection and recovery of consequences for the status
If RBF is used to score PI the ETP species. of ETP species.
2.3.1 for the UoA:
Qualitative information is OR
adequate to estimate
productivity and If RBF is used to score PI
susceptibility attributes for 2.3.1 for the UoA:
ETP species. Some quantitative
information is adequate to
assess productivity and
susceptibility attributes for
ETP species.
Met? Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets:
Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets:

Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No US Small PS UoA: Not scored

Rationale

Tunacons (Free and FAD sets) UoAs:

Sea Turtles, Sharks, and Mobulid Rays: The information collected on ETP species from logbooks and by 100%
observer coverage of both set types from large purse seine vessels (Class 6) and observer data from small purse
seine (class 1-5) vessels is sufficient to assess the UoA related mortality and impact to sea turtles, sharks, and
mobulid ray, and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species.
On this basis, requirements for SG60 and SG80 are met.

While the UoA has adopt the use of lesser entangling FADs, supporting evidence has not been provided to
validate full adoption and implementation. Also, post release mortality estimates for released ETP species are

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 187 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

not available for the UoA; we note such estimates are generally fishery specific. On this basis available
quantitative information is not considered adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of
UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries, and consequences to the status of ETP species; SG100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
Due to the small size (length) of vessels in this UoA and potential at-sea safety issues, observer coverage is not
required by either IATTC or NOAA Fisheries. Based on interviews with NGOs and vessel captains it was
determined that the fishery does not interact with ETP species due to how the fishery operates; spotter plane
pilots direct all fishing activities with the goal of steering fishing operations away from schools with ETP species
present. Therefore, some qualitative information was provided, which is considered adequate to assess the UoA
related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of
the ETP species, This meets SG 60. However, the assessment team did not receive quantitative information to
assess the UoA related mortality and impact, thus the SG80 is not met.

SG100 is not scored as not all SG80 requirements are met (see MSC interpretation
https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Scoring-SG100-if-not-all-SG80-met-7-10-5-3-1527262010218).

b Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to

post support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive
manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts,
species. impacts on ETP species. minimize mortality and
injury of ETP species, and
evaluate with a high degree
of certainty whether a
strategy is achieving its
objectives.
Met? Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets: Tunacons Free sets:
Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No Mobulid Rays: No

Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets: Tunacons FAD sets:

Sea Turtles: Yes Sea Turtles: No Sea Turtles: No
Sharks: Yes Sharks: Yes Sharks: No
Mobulid Rays: Yes Mobulid Rays: No Mobulid Rays: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS (Free and FAD sets) UoA

Sharks

Catch data by species is collected by observers through the observer programs following established data
collection protocols. There is a requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels and based on
published information non-compliance with observer coverage requirements has not been raised against UoA
vessels operating in the EPO. The assessment team considers there is confidence in the representativeness of

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 188 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

the EPO catch data for sharks and that information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on
ETP shark species; SG 60 is met.

There are established IATTC annual data reporting “requirements” on bycatch, including the number caught,
discarded (dead/injured/alive) and retained (dead only) at the species level. Observer data for the TUNACONS
UoA includes the number of ETP sharks caught, as well their fate (discarded or retained), at the species level,
and these data are considered adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on these
ETP species. We also note there is an established shark research plan in the IATTC to advance information
adequacy in the convention area, measures to minimize the catch of sharks (modifications to gear), and best
handling and release practices, all aimed at advancing and supporting strategies to manage impacts on ETP
shark species. On this basis SG80 is met.

As there is no information on post release mortality for released sharks from the UoA or the potential for
entanglement in FADs, information is not considered adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage
impacts, minimize mortality and injury of ETP shark species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty
whether a strategy is achieving its objectives; SG100 is not met.

Mobulid Rays and Sea Turtles

Catch data for mobulid rays and sea turtles is collected by observers through the observer programs following
established data collection protocols. There is a requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels
and based on published information non-compliance with observer coverage requirements has not been raised
against UoA vessels operating in the EPO. The assessment team considers there is confidence in the
representativeness of the EPO catch data for mobulid rays and sea turtles and that information is adequate to
support measures to manage the impacts on these ETP species; SG 60 is met.

While trends can be developed for mobulid rays and sea turtles based on available information, a number of
individuals in both species’ groups caught by the UoA are not identified to the species level, precluding the
development of species-specific trends. For mobulid rays, 55% of the animals caught are unidentified and for
sea turtles 45% of caught animals are unidentified (Table 15 and 16). On this basis, the assessment team does
not consider current information to be adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts
on these ETP groups at the species level. While discussions within the IATTC have noted the need for an
established long-term research plan for mobulid rays and sea turtles (similar to that for sharks) to advance
information adequacy, research plans under the umbrella of IATTC do not appear to be in place at this time. The
recently established research collaborations with mobulid ray research groups in the Galapagos region will likely
advance the adequacy of the information for managing rays but the research is in the initial phases and the full
utility of the data has yet to be assessed. Based on the totality of the information SG 80 is not met for both set
types.

SG100 is not scored for sea turtles and mobulid rays as not all SG80 requirements are met (see MSC
interpretation https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Scoring-SG100-if-not-all-SG80-met-7-10-5-3-
1527262010218). We note that advancing the scoring of this Si to SG 100 will require information on post
release mortality for released mobulid rays and sea turtles from the UoA and the extent and impact of
entanglement in FADs.

US Small PS UoA
Due to the small size (length) of vessels in this UoA, IATTC and NOAA Fisheries do not require vessels to carry
observers. NOAA Fisheries requires all vessels to submit logbooks and to report all protected species (ETP)
interactions within the logbooks (per 50 CFR 229.6). There have been no reported noncompliance on the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 189 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

reporting requirements. On this basis information is adequate to support measures to manage the impacts on
ETP species: SG60 is met.

Noting that no protected species interactions were recorded in the logbooks provided for the years 2014-2018
the assessment team sought independent verification of the potential for zero interactions through interviews
with NGOs (PEW and Monterey Bay Aquarium), vessel captains fishery scientists, and fishery management
organizations NOAA Fisheries and Pacific Fisheries Management Council), and it was determined that the fishery
likely does not interact with ETP species due to how the fishery operates (e.g., spotter planes) and where the
fishery operates (CA Bight). Pilots direct all fishing activities and steer vessels away from fish schools with
protected species present.

Additionally, the US Marine Mammal Protection Act mandates that all commercial fisheries be classified by the
level of incidental marine mammal death and serious injury. The level of marine mammal death and serious
injury that occurs incidental to each fishery is reported in the annual Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports
for each stock. Fishery classifications are based on observer/logbook data, information on fishing operations,
and other information deemed relevant, and NOAA Fisheries lists this UoA as a Category III fishery with no
reported interactions. Based on the totality of the information there is adequate evidence to measure trends
and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species if necessary: SG80 is met.

As observers are not required to monitor the UoA, the assessment team does not consider the available
quantitative information adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, minimize mortality
and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its
objectives. On this basis SG 100 is not met
References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range Tunacons Free sets 60-79
Tunacons FAD sets 60-79
US Small PS UoA: ≥80
Information gap indicator TUNACONS UoA: More information is sought on the
observer program---administration, protocols,
coverage, vessel selection, training, etc.
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score Tunacons Free sets: 75

Tunacons FAD sets: 75
US Small PS UoA: 70
Condition number (if relevant)
Condition 2-4 (Tunacons)
Condition 2-5 (US Small PS UoA)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 190 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.3 Scoring calculations - FAD Sets

UoA Element SI a SI b Element PI score
score
Sharks
Whale shark 80 80 80
TUNACONS FAD
Silky shark 80 80 80
Sets
Oceanic whitetip shark 80 80 80
Scalloped hammerhead shark (USA
80 80 80
only)
Mobula
Giant Manta Ray 80 60 70
Chilean Devil Ray 80 60 70
75
Spinetail Devil Ray 80 60 70
Smoothtail Devil Ray 80 60 70
Marine turtles
Green turtles 80 60 70
Loggerhead turtle 80 60 70
Olive ridley turtle 80 60 70
Hawksbill turtle 80 60 70
Leatherback turtle 80 60 70

PI 2.3.3 Scoring calculations – Free School Sets

UoA Element SI a SI b Element PI score

score
Sharks
Whale shark 80 80 80
TUNACONS Free
Silky shark 80 80 80
School Sets
Oceanic whitetip shark 80 80 80
Scalloped hammerhead shark (USA
80 80 80
only)
Mobula
Giant Manta Ray 80 60 70
Chilean Devil Ray 80 60 70
75
Spinetail Devil Ray 80 60 70
Munk’s Devil Ray 80 60 70
Marine turtles
Green turtles 80 60 70
Loggerhead turtle 80 60 70
Olive ridley turtle 80 60 70
Hawksbill turtle 80 60 70
Leatherback turtle 80 60 70

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 191 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome

PI 2.4.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function,
considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for
fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Commonly encountered habitat status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the
post reduce structure and reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to
function of the commonly function of the commonly reduce structure and
encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a function of the commonly
point where there would be point where there would be encountered habitats to a
serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be
serious or irreversible harm.
Met? TUNACONS UoA TUNACONS UoA TUNACONS UoA
FADs: Yes FADs: Yes FADs: No
Free school: Yes Free school: Yes Free school: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

Two purse seine fishing strategies are employed by UoA vessels when fishing for tuna in the EPO, setting on free
schools and FADs. Therefore, as required by MSC FCPV2.1 GSA 3.13.1, the assessment team must assess the
effects of purse seine fishing activities by the UoA on the structure and function of commonly encountered, VMEs,
and minor habitats. For this assessment the shallow pelagic environment is the commonly encountered habitat
and the deep-sea or demersal habitat, encompassing continental shelves and slopes, abyssal plains, seamounts,
canyons, and trenches, is the minor habitat. Following the FAO Guidelines (FAO 2009), coral reefs and MPAs are
considered VMEs. Justification for the designation of commonly encountered, minor, and VME habitats is
described in section 7.3.1.7. The potential for the UoA to cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure
and function of the commonly encountered habitat (shallow pelagic environment) follows.

TUNACONS UoA
UoA purse seine vessels fishing on the high seas operate in deep oceanic waters and do not physically contact
the seafloor during their operations. Any impacts of the fishery will therefore be confined to direct or indirect
effects on the surface waters (shallow pelagic environment) where the fishery operates. This habitat is
essentially open ocean waters whose ability to support the target fish populations is related to temperature,
salinity and nutrient levels which determines the productivity of the lower trophic levels. These are primarily
driven by variations in basin wide weather patterns through their effect on the frequency, location and strength
of upwelling events, eddy systems and thermal fronts. On this basis free school and FAD purse seine fishing
operations are not considered capable of affecting these key habitat drivers of the commonly encountered
habitat at both broad and local scales. Therefore, the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of
the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm; SG60 and
SG80 are met.

To achieve SG100 for this scoring element evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and
function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm is

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 192 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

required. While the assessment team does not consider the UoA to impact the designated commonly
encountered habitat there is no available evidence. On this basis requirements at the SG100 level for free
school and FAD sets is not met.

US Small PS UoA
There is no possibility that this UoA, which only fishes free school sets in deep open oceanic waters, would
cause serious or irreversible harm to the shallow pelagic environment, designated as the commonly
encountered habitat. Again, the ability of this habitat to support target fish populations is related to
temperature, salinity and nutrient levels which determines the productivity of the system. On this basis free
school purse seine fishing operations by the UoA are not considered capable of affecting the commonly
encountered habitat at both broad and local scales. Therefore, the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure
and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible
harm; SG60 and SG80 are met.

To achieve SG100 for this scoring element evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and
function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm is
required. While the assessment team does not consider the UoA to impact the designated commonly
encountered habitat there is no available evidence. On this basis requirements at the SG100 level for free
school sets is not met.

B VME habitat status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the
post reduce structure and reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to
function of the VME habitats function of the VME habitats reduce structure and
to a point where there to a point where there function of the VME habitats
would be serious or would be serious or to a point where there would
irreversible harm. irreversible harm. be serious or ir
reversible harm.
Met? TUNACONS UoA: TUNACONS UoA: TUNACONS UoA:
FADs:Yes FADs: No FADs: No
Free school: NA Free school: NA Free school: NA

US Small PS UoA: NA US Small PS UoA: NA US Small PS UoA: NA

Rationale

The potential for the UoA to cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function of VME
habitats (coral reefs and MPAs) follows.

TUNACONS UoA
FADs: There is the potential for lost or derelict FADs becoming beached on coral reefs or drifting into marine
protected areas/marine reserves, both considered to be VMEs. The spatial footprint of FAD fisheries in the EPO
surrounds the Galapagos National Park and Marine Reserve, and also operate in the vicinity of other protected
areas and coral reefs (Figure 32Figure 32, Figure 33, and Figure 34). Annual FAD deployments and retrievals
recorded by observers up to 2017 in the EPO indicate a large increase in 2017 to well over 20,000. The number
of FADs recovered has increased, but not in direct proportion to the increase in deployments, so the difference
between deployments and recoveries has also grown significantly (Figure 35). This gap reflects a variety of
situations: lost FADs, abandoned FADs, active FADs (including those entering the Western Pacific). While the
exact number of lost FADs is unknown, the potential for them ending up in interacting with VMEs exists. hese

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 193 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

could be expected to cause some local damage at beaching sites, but these numbers would be unlikely to
reduce structure complexity, fragility, and function of any coral reefs to a point where there would be serious or
irreversible harm (meaning it would be unable to recover to at least 80% of its unimpacted structure, biological
diversity and function within 5-20 years, if the impact were to cease entirely). Nevertheless, this issue has not
been well studied, so evidence about the impact is minimal. Cumulative impacts over many years is a concern
for which there is also insufficient information, thus it cannot be said that it is highly unlikely that the UoA will
reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

This meets the requirements of the SG 60 level but not of the SG 80 level.

Free School: No VMEs are affected by Free school sets so this is scored as NA.

US Small PS UoA

As this UoA only makes free school sets and deployed purse seine nets do not make contact with the benthos,
no VMEs are encountered and this is scored as not applicable NA

Figure 32. The floating object fisheries (OBJ) defined by the IATTC staff for analyses of yellowfin, skipjack, and
bigeye in the EPO. The thin lines indicate the boundaries of the 13 length-frequency sampling areas, and the
bold lines the boundaries of the fisheries. OBJ-N is the northern floating object fishery, OBJ-S is the southern
floating object fishery, OBJ-C is the central floating object fishery, and OBJ-I is the inshore floating object
fishery.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 194 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 33. Map of the location of the Galapagos Islands, showing protected areas and areas used by humans
(mostly agricultural zones).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 195 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 34. Marine protected areas (MPAs) with coral reef in the equatorial eastern Pacific region. MPAs color-
coded by country. MPAs are marked with a cross inside the circle.

Figure 35. Number of FADs observed and retrieved annually in the EPO, 2005-2017 (Hall and Roman 2019).

C Minor habitat status

Guide There is evidence that the

post UoA is highly unlikely to
reduce structure and

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 196 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

function of the minor

habitats to a point where
there would be serious or
irreversible harm.
Met? TUNACONS UoA:
FADs: No
Free school: Yes
US Small PS UoA
Free school – Yes
Rationale

The potential for the UoA to cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function of the minor
habitat (deep-sea or demersal environment) follows.

As fishing occurs in deep-water habitats there is no possibility that the purse seine gear in use in the fishery would
routinely contact the minor habitat, deep-sea or demersal habitat. However, the assessment team recognizes
that lost FADs may drift away from the fishing grounds and sink in deeper waters in either the EPO or WCPO,
potentially encountering the deep sea or benthic habitat. As noted by GSA3.13.2, if a benthic habitat is being
assessed, the team shall recognize habitat categories based on the following habitat characteristics:

• Substratum- sediment type

• Geomorphology – seafloor topography

• Biota – characteristic floral and/or faunal groups

Scoring relative to each of the habitat characteristics follows.

Geomorphology

Harris et al. (2014) mapped the geomorphology of the Pacific Ocean, identifying various features throughout the
region:

Abyssal + Hadal Seamount + Canyon +

Ocean Shelf (km2) Slope (km2) (km2) Ridge + Guyot Trough +
(km2) Trench (km2)
North Pacific 6,145,000 4,752,000 71,017,000 6,471,000 2,214,000
South Pacific 2,547,000 3,201,000 81,394,000 5,135,000 2,557,000
Total 8,692,000 7,953,000 152,411,000 11,606,000 4,772,000

Given the total area of the geological features in the North Pacific and South Pacific are estimated at 90,599,000
km2 and 94,834,000 km2, respectively, that the fishery only interacts with these habitats if the FADs sink and
noting the relative scale of potential interaction between sunk gear and the deep-sea habitat (a fraction of a
percent of the area), it is highly unlikely (< 30%; MSC Table SA9) that the UoA could reduce structure and function
of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. However, there is no evidence
to support this and on this basis SG100 is not met.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 197 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Biota

Much of the information on biota in the demersal environment comes from ROV surveys in shallower
environments (continental shelves, continental ridges and seamounts) and deep-sea submersible dives in deeper
environments. However, information on biota and community structure in the demersal environments is scant.
For example, it is very rare that more than two or three ROV dives are conducted on any one seamount, so
variation in community composition based on depth (water mass characteristics), orientation to principle current
regime, and effects of species interactions are generally not known. Seamounts with multiple dives on the summit
and flanks include Davidson (McClain et al., 2010) and Cobb (Du Preez et al., 2016) in the Northeast Pacific and
Necker Ridge (Morgan et al., 2015) in the Central Pacific. Moreover, fewer than 300 out of 200,000 existing
seamounts have been explored (IUCN 2021).

As there is a potential for FADs to interact with the demersal environment, given the relative scale of potential
interactions between sunk gear and the deep-sea habitat it is not considered to be significant. Note FAO and IUCN
identify deep-sea bottom fishing (e.g., bottom longlines, bottom trawling, etc.) and deep-sea mining as major
threats to the demersal habitat. Based on this information the assessment team considers it is highly unlikely (<
30%; MSC Table SA9) that the UoA could reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where
there would be serious or irreversible harm. However, there is no evidence to support this and, on this basis,
SG100 is not met.

Substratum- sediment type

There has been some seafloor mapping of shallower regions (shelf areas) of the demersal environment,
including the categorization of sediment type. However, for the majority of the demersal environment’s
information on sediment type is lacking. Therefore, evidence to support this Si is not available and SG100 is not
met.

As there is no evidence that the UoA fishing FADs is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor
habitat, the demersal environment, to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm SG100 is not
met. As FADs are not used when fishing on free schools there is no potential for the free school portion of the
UoA to interact with the designated minor habitat. On this basis free school meets requirements at the SG100
level.

US Small PS UoA
As the US small PS UoA only targets free schools and does not use FADs, there is no possibility that this UoA
interacts with the demersal environment, the designated minor habitat. On this basis the SG100 requirements
are met.

References

Hall and Roman (2019), McClain et al. (2010), Du Preez et al. (2016), Brown 2016, Harris et al. (2014), Morgan et
al. (2015)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range TUNACONS UoA
FADs: 60-79
Free School: > 80

US Small PS UoA >80

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 198 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Information gap indicator Information on the number of FADs used, lost, and
their fates by the TUNACONS UoA is requested.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score TUNACONS UoA: FADs - 75
Free school - 90
US Small PS UoA - 90
Condition number (if relevant) Condition 2-6

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 199 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.2. Habitats Management Strategy

PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious
or irreversible harm to the habitats
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for
post place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all
expected to achieve the expected to achieve the MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries
Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of on habitats.
performance. performance or above.
Met? TUNACONS UoA: Commonly TUNACONS UoA: Commonly TUNACONS UoA:
Encountered Habitat Encountered Habitat Commonly Encountered
FADs: Yes FADs: Yes Habitat
Free school: Yes Free school: Yes FADs: No
Free school: No
VME Habitat VME Habitat
FADS: Yes FADS: No VME Habitat
Free School: Yes Free School: Yes FADS: No
Free School: Yes
Minor Habitat: Minor Habitat
Fads: Yes FADs: Yes Minor Habitat
Free school: Yes Free school: Yes Fads: No
Free school: Yes
US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes
US Small PS UoA: No
Rationale

AS noted in Section 7.3.1.7 the commonly encountered habitat is considered to be the EPO shallow pelagic
environment, shallow coral reefs and MPAs areVME habitats and the demersal environment the minor habitat.

UoA purse seine vessels fishing on the high seas operate in deep oceanic waters and do not physically contact the
seafloor during their operations. This habitat is essentially open ocean waters whose ability to support the target
fish populations is related to temperature, salinity and nutrient levels which determines the productivity of
trophic levels. These attributes are primarily driven by variations in basin wide weather patterns through their
effect on the frequency, location and strength of upwelling events, eddy systems and thermal fronts. Based on
this information there is no potential for FAD or free school purse seine fishing operations conducted by the
TUNACONS UoA to impact the commonly encountered habitat and this provides the basis for the SG80 score
reflected in PI2.4.1. Therefore, following the explanation of the term ‘if necessary’ in Table GSA3and response in
the MSC Fisheries and Standard interpretation log (https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-
necessary-in-P2-management-PIs-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2-5-2-PI-2-1-2-1527262011402), a management strategy is
not be required at SG60 or SG80 and no specific rationale need be given in order to achieve the SG60 and SG80
levels. As the assessment team does not know if there is a strategy in place for managing the impact of all MSC
UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on commonly encountered habitats SG100 is not met.
There is the potential for lost or derelict FADs becoming beached on coral reefs or drifting into marine protected
areas/marine reserves, both considered to be VMEs. A number of resolutions have been adopted by the IATTC to
address the conservation of tropical tuna in the EPO that implement measures directed at FAD fishing.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 200 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Resolution C-19-01 (amendment to Resolution C-18-05 on the collection and analyses of data on fish-aggregating
devices) requirements include the following:

▪ Specifies that, from 1st January 2020, where observers are present they shall be responsible for
collecting data on FADs.
▪ Require the analysis of FAD data and the development of region-wide measures to manage FADs
and fishing on FADs to limit impacts on target and non-target species.
▪ Points to the requirements to use non-entangling FAD designs (equivalent to ‘lower-entanglement
risk’ designs as defined by ISSF 2019) as presented in Annex II of the Resolution.

Resolution C-20-06 (Resolution on the Conservation Measures for Tropical Tunas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean
During 2021 Pursuant to Resolution C-20-05) requirements include the following:

▪ Limits the number of FADs that may be used by purse seiners – Class 6 (≥1,200 m3 hold capacity)
= 450 FADs, Class 5 (<1,200 m3 hold capacity) = 300 FADs, Class 4-5 = 120 FADs, Class 1-2 = 70
FADs.
▪ Require that FADs are only activated aboard a purse seine vessel, where ‘activated’ means
deployed or starts transmitting its location.
▪ Requires that, within 15 days prior to the start of a closure period, all Class 6 purse seiners recover
a number of FADs equal to the number deployed during the same period.

Resolution C-21-04 (Conservation Measures for Tropical Tunas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean During 2022-2024)
requirements include those outlined in Resolution C-20-06, as well as reductions in the number of allowable
active FADs deployed for each class of purse seine vessels, information on the location of deactivated FADs, and
daily reporting of the location of active FADs. We note these resolutions, in particular the measures recently
adopted in Resolution C-21-04, provide measures that are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of
performance. However, as Resolution C-21-04 is recently adopted and no information is available to determine
the utility; SG60 is met and SG 80 is not met.

As the impact of FADs on the minor habitat (demersal environment) was scored at SG80 in PI2.4.1 following the
explanation of the term ‘if necessary’ in Table GSA3 and response in the MSC Fisheries and Standard
interpretation log (https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-necessary-in-P2-management-PIs-
2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2-5-2-PI-2-1-2-1527262011402), a management strategy is not required at SG60 or SG80 and
no specific rationale need be given in order to achieve the SG60 and SG80 levels. As the assessment team does
not know if there is a strategy in place for managing the impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, including
gear loss, on minor commonly habitats SG100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
The UoA only fishes free school sets. There is no possibility that the fishery would routinely contact demersal
habitats and no potential for serious or irreversible harm to the commonly encountered habitat habitat.
However, given that the Habitat Outcome PI only meets the SG80 requirements, the SG80 score is met here by
default following the explanation of the term ‘if necessary’ in Table GSA3 and response in the MSC Fisheries and
Standard interpretation log (https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-necessary-in-P2-
management-PIs-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2-5-2-PI-2-1-2-1527262011402), a management strategy is not required at
SG60 or SG80 and no specific rationale need be given in order to achieve the SG60 and SG80 levels. As the
assessment team does not know if there is a strategy in place for managing the impact of all MSC UoAs/non-
MSC fisheries, including gear loss, on minor commonly habitats SG100 is not met.
and a higher score is not possible.
b Management strategy evaluation

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 201 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high
post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial
based on plausible measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work,
argument (e.g. general will work, based on based on information directly
experience, theory or information directly about about the UoA and/or
comparison with similar the UoA and/or habitats habitats involved.
UoAs/habitats). involved.
Met? TUNACONS UoA: TUNACONS UoA: TUNACONS UoA:
Commonly Encountered Commonly Encountered Commonly Encountered
Habitats Habitats Habitat
FADs- Yes FADs: Yes FADs: No
Free school - Yes Free school: Yes Free school: No

VME Habitats VME Habitats VME Habitats

FADs: Yes FADs: No FADs: No
Free School: Yes Free School: Yes Free School: No

Minor Habitat Minor Habitat Minor Habitat

FADs: Yes FADs: Yes FADs: No
Free school: Yes Free school: Yes Free school: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS UoA
Commonly Encountered and Minor Habitats
Given the location of fishing (high-seas deep-ocean environment) there is no evidence that the shallow pelagic
environment (commonly encountered habitat) is impacted by purse seine gear and given the location of fishing
(high-seas deep-ocean habitat) there is no possibility that the purse seine gear itself would come into contact
with the demersal habitat (minor habitat). While FADs from the UoA may become lost and sink the impact
would be minimal given the size of the fleet relative to the WCPFC purse seine fleet (≈ 3%) and the area of the
deep-ocean habitat, approximately 80,000,000 km2. As purse seine gear is expensive and held up with buoys,
there is very low possibility of gear loss. This information provides an objective basis for confidence that the
partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and the habitats involved. On this basis
SG 60 and SG 80 are met. As there has not been ‘testing’ of the partial strategy the SG 100 is not met.

VME Habitats

FADs
The team evaluated the measures in place described in SI a of this PI (gear type, temporal and spatial closures
on purse seine fishing, use of lesser-entangling FAD design and limits to the number of active FADs deployed).

The measures in place are likely to work based on plausible argument:

▪ Purse seine fishing nets would not come in contact with coral reefs given the location of fishing
activities in the EPO (high-seas deep-ocean habitat). As noted above purse seine gear is expensive
so there is little chance for the gear to drift ashore and impact coral reef habitats.
▪ Use of lesser-entangling FADs, spatial and temporal restrictions on purse seine fishing, and limits
on the number of ‘active’ FADs (N=300) are in place and implemented.
▪ There are measures in place to collect information on FADs observed at sea by both observers and
vessel captains, and CPCs are required to provide daily information on active FADs to the IATTC

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 202 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Secretariat. In addition, the UoA has voluntarily agreed to provide position data once a day to
IATTC. This information provides requisite data to model FAD trajectories to determine encounters
rates with coral reefs and potential impacts. While FAD movement models have yet to be
developed, drift trajectories of FADs deployed on either side of the equator in the eastern WCPO
are generally westward (being entrained in the North and South Equatorial Currents), and the
potential for dFADs impacting coral reefs occurs in areas around French Polynesia and in the WCPO
region (Banks & Zaharia, 2020; Escalle et al. 2019). The low number of vessels in the UoA (N=7)
provides a plausible argument that that given the negligible impact of the UoA on coral reefs, that
measures in place are likely to work, thus the SG60 is met.

However, as noted in SI a of this PI, the assessment team determined a partial strategy is not in place, the
following objective evidence is missing for the SG80 to be met:

▪ The limits on active FADs, do not directly limit the number of deployed FADs, only the number of
‘active’ FADs
▪ The FAD tracking program has yet to be fully developed in the IATTC Convention Area
▪ There is little evidence that lesser entangling FADs reduce impact on VMEs
▪ There is no evidence of progress on lesser-entangling FADs implementation.

Free school
Knowledge in relation to the way purse seine fishing gear is used as well as the sea areas where the fleet
operates (open ocean, deep waters) is sufficient to discount any significant impacts on seabed habitats from the
operation of the fishing gear and free school purse seine sets are not considered capable of affecting the
epipelagic habitat. The IATTC adopted measures for 100% coverage of large purse seine vessels and the UoA
places observers on smaller purse seine vessels. This enables monitoring of the reporting of catches by set type,
providing confidence on information from the fishery. On this basis SG 60 and SG 80 are met. As no testing has
been conducted SG 100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
The UoA only fishes free school sets. Knowledge in relation to the way purse seine fishing gear is used as well as
the sea areas where the fleet operates (open ocean, deep waters) is sufficient to discount any significant
impacts on seabed habitats from the operation of the fishing gear and free school purse seine sets are not
considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat. This meets requirements at the SG 60 level and SG80 as
there is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on information
directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. As no testing was conducted SG 100 is not met.
c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative

post evidence that the evidence that the partial
measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being
being implemented implemented successfully and
successfully. is achieving its objective, as
outlined in scoring issue (a).
Met? TUNACONS UoA: Commonly TUNACONS UoA: Commonly
Encountered Habitats Encountered Habitats
FADs: Yes FAD: No
Free school: Yes Free school: No

VME Habitats VME Habitats

FADs: Yes FADs: No
Free School: Yes Free School: No

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 203 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Minor Habitat Minor Habitat

FADs: Yes FADs: No
Free School: Yes Free School: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: No

Rationale

TUNACONS UoA-All elements

FADs
Information on the spatial extent and on the timing and location of use of the purse-seine fishing gear is
collected by at-sea observers and by VMS (100% coverage), and thus there is accurate monitoring that provides
quantitative evidence of successful implementation in that all purse seine sets are correctly classified and
required data are reported. Measures were passed requiring use of Lesser Entangling FADs (Resolution C-18-05
in the IATTC), and the UoA has provided evidence that they comply with this requirement. The ROPs have
established collection protocols to ensure compliance with the use and deployment of low-entanglement-risk
FADs and this information is currently being collected. The commitment to use low-entanglement-risk FADs is
reviewed annually by the UoA. On this basis there is some quantitative evidence that the existing
measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully and SG80 is met. There has not been a definitive
study to determine if the implemented strategy is achieving objectives outlined in Sia. On this basis SG100 is not
met.

Free School
Purse seine free school sets do not interact with any seafloor habitat during fishing operations and free school
purse seine sets are not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat. Information on the spatial
extent and on the timing and location of use of the purse-seine fishing gear is collected by at-sea observers
(100% Observer coverage) and by VMS (100% coverage), and thus there is accurate monitoring that provides
quantitative evidence of successful implementation in that all purse seine sets are correctly classified and
required data are reported. However, there has not been a definitive study to determine if the implemented
strategy is achieving objectives outlined in Sia. On this basis SG100 is not met.

US Small PS UoA
The UoA only fishes free school sets. Knowledge in relation to the way purse seine fishing gear is used as well as
the sea areas where the fleet operates (open ocean, deep waters) is sufficient to discount any significant
impacts on seabed habitats from the operation of the fishing gear and free school purse seine sets are not
considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat. Given that the purse-seine gear is known to not make
contact with the sea floor, it can be considered that some quantitative evidence to assess if the measures are
being implemented successfully; SG 80 is met. However, there has not been a definitive study to determine if
the implemented strategy is achieving objectives outlined in Sia. On this basis SG100 is not met.

d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to
protect VMEs
Guide There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative
post evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA
complies with its complies with both its complies with both its
management requirements management requirements management requirements
to protect VMEs. and with protection and with protection measures
measures afforded to VMEs afforded to VMEs by other
by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries,
where relevant.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 204 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

MSC fisheries, where

relevant.
Met? TUNACONS UoA: VME TUNACONS UoA: VME TUNACONS UoA: VME Habitat
Habitat Habitat FADs - No
FADs - Yes FADs - Yes

Rationale

TUNACONS UoA
The only potential impacts from the UoA on VMEs is from lost FADs beaching on coral reefs.

The assessment team did not find evidence of protection measures afforded to coral reefs from impacts of
FADs, thus the focus of the assessment of this PI is on UoA compliance with its management requirements that
may indirectly mitigate impact of FADs on coral reefs. There is qualitative and some quantitative evidence that
the UoA complies with these management requirements:
▪ UoA vessels comply with IATTC time-area closures and because purse seine fishing gear does not
interact with the benthos, move on rules have not been established.
▪ The UoA is complying with the use of lesser-entanglement -risk FAD, as evidenced by the ISSF audit
reports.
▪ Compliance with existing Resolutions and National regulations (if relevant (e.g., Galapagos Islands
Reserve) are monitored regularly.

On this basis the SG60 and SG80 levels are met.

There is no clear quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with
protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. On this basis
SG100 is not met.
References

FAD Management Plan-Ecuador (http://iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2018/IATTC-

93/Presentations/_English/FAD-03b-PRES_Ecuador%20FADs%20Management%20Plan.pdf), IATTC 2018
(https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2018/IATTC-93/Docs/_English/IATTC-93-MINS_93rd-Meeting-of-the-
IATTC.pdf), Burke et al. 2011; Burke et al. 2012 ; Escalle et al. 2018

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range TUNACONS UoA FAD: 60-79
TUNACONS UoA free school: ≥80
US Small PS UoA: ≥80
Information gap indicator TUNACONS UoA: Provide information explaining why
requested information on FADs was not provided to
the IATTC. Provide documentation indicating the
status of Ecuadors FAD management plan and how
TUNACONS supporting and complying with the plan.
If available provide documentation and evidence that
TUNACONS complies with requirements to protect
VMEs.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 205 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score TUNACONS UoA: FADs - 75

Free school - 85
US Small PS UoA - 85
Condition number (if relevant) Condition 2-7

PI 2.4.2 Scoring Calculation – FAD Sets

Element SI a SI b SI c SI d Element PI Score

score
Commonly encountered Habitat 80 80 80 NA 80 75
VME 60 60 80 80 70
Minor 80 80 80 NA 80

PI 2.4.2 Scoring Calculation – Free School Sets

Element SI a SI b SI c SI d Element PI Score

score
Commonly encountered Habitat 100 80 80 NA 85 85
VME 100 80 80 NA 85
Minor 100 80 80 NA 85

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 206 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information

PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the
effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all
post the main habitats are vulnerability of the main habitats is known over their
broadly understood. habitats in the UoA area are range, with particular
known at a level of detail attention to the occurrence
OR relevant to the scale and of vulnerable habitats.
intensity of the UoA.
If CSA is used to score PI
2.4.1 for the UoA: OR
Qualitative information is
adequate to estimate the If CSA is used to score PI
types and distribution of the 2.4.1 for the UoA:
main habitats. Some quantitative
information is available and
is adequate to estimate the
types and distribution of the
main habitats.
Met? TUNACONS UoA: TUNACONS UoA: TUNACONS UoA:
Commonly Encountered Commonly Encountered Commonly Encountered
Habitats Habitats Habitats
FADs: Yes FADs: Yes FADs: No
Free School: Yes Free School: Yes Free School: Yes

VME Habitats VME Habitat VME Habitat

Free school - Yes Free school: Yes Free school: Yes
FADs: Yes FADs: Yes FADs: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes US Small PS UoA: Yes Minor Habitats

FADs: No
Free School: Yes

US Small PS UoA: Yes

Rationale

For this assessment the commonly encountered habitat is considered to be the pelagic region and shallow coral
reefs is considered to be a VME habitat in the WCPO and EPO; following GSA3.13.3 both are considered main.
The deep-sea or demersal environment is considered to be the minor habitat. The North and South Pacific
Oceans have been mapped, and the distribution of reef and deep-sea habitats are known (UNEP-WCMC,
WorldFish Centre, WRI and TNC 2018).

TUNACONS UoA

Commonly encountered habitats

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 207 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

FAD sets take place in the epipelagic habitat and so purse seines themselves do not interact with benthic habitat
during their operation. The distribution of the pelagic habitat is known over the spatial range within which the
fishery operates from widely available sea charts and bathymetric maps of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. There are
no vulnerable pelagic habitats.
On this basis, requirements of the SG 60, SG 80, and SG 100 levels are met.

VMEs
As described above, derelict FADs potentially impact coral reefs. However, coral reefs are vulnerable to a wide
range of potential threats. As outlined in PI 2.4.1, the vulnerability specifically to derelict FADs can be estimated
at a level that is appropriate to limited scale of the likely impact. The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the
main habitats including coral reefs in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and
intensity of the UoA. On this basis SG80 is met.

However, the distribution of all habitats that might be impacted by the FAD fishery is not well known. Given that
the spatial distribution and resolution of potentially impacted VMEs can occur at small scales (10s of meters),
far less than scales of main reefs (100 of meters), finer resolution maps of VMEs would be required to
understand the distribution of all vulnerable habitats and potential impacts. On this basis SG100 is not met

Free school
Free school sets take place in the epipelagic habitat and so do not interact with benthic habitat during their
operation. The distribution of the pelagic habitat is known over the spatial range within which the fishery
operates from widely available sea charts and bathymetric maps of the Eastern Pacific Ocean. There are no
vulnerable pelagic habitats.

On this basis, requirements of the SG 60, SG 80, and SG 100 levels are met.

Minor Habitats
As FAD sets take place in the epipelagic habitat, purse seines themselves do not interact with demersal
environment during their operation. FADs can potentially impact the demersal environment when they sink and
encounter the benthos. While the distribution of the demersal environment is known the occurrence of small-
scale vulnerable habitats (e.g., deep sea coral beds) are not explicitly known. On this basis SG100 is not met.

Free school
Free school sets take place in the epipelagic habitat and so do not interact with benthic habitat during their
operation. Thus there is no vulnerable habitat and SG100 is met.

US Small PS UoA
The UoA only fishes free school sets. Free school sets take place in the epipelagic habitat and so do not interact
with benthic habitat during their operation. The distribution of the pelagic habitat is known over the spatial
range within which the fishery operates from widely available sea charts and bathymetric maps of the Eastern
Pacific Ocean. There are no vulnerable pelagic habitats.

On this basis, requirements of the SG 60, SG 80, and SG 100 levels are met.
b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the

post broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats have
nature of the main impacts main impacts of the UoA on been quantified fully.
of gear use on the main the main habitats, and there
habitats, including spatial is reliable information on the
spatial extent of interaction

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 208 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

overlap of habitat with and on the timing and

fishing gear. location of use of the fishing
gear.
OR
OR
If CSA is used to score PI
2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI
Qualitative information is 2.4.1 for the UoA:
adequate to estimate the Some quantitative
consequence and spatial information is available and
attributes of the main is adequate to estimate the
habitats. consequence and spatial
attributes of the main
habitats.
Met? TUNACONS UoA: Commonly TUNACONS UoA: Commonly TUNACONS UoA: Commonly
Encountered Habitats Encountered Habitats Encountered Habitats
FADs – Yes FADs – Yes FADs: No
Free School:Yes Free School: Yes Free School: No

VME Habitats VME Habitats FADs:No VME Habitats

Free school- Yes Free school - Yes FADs: No
FADs: Yes Free school - No
US Small PS UoA: Yes
US Small PS UoA: Yes Minor Habitats
FADs: No
Free School: No

US Small PS UoA:Yes
Rationale

Commonly Encountered Habitats

FAD and Free School Sets

Information on the spatial extent and on the timing and location of use of the purse seine fishing gear is collected
by at-sea observers and by VMS (100% coverage) and thus there is accurate, near real-time monitoring of the
spatial extent of potential interactions, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. FAD purse seine
sets are not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat and does not interact with benthic habitat
during its operation; SG60 and SG80 are met.

As the physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have not been quantified fully SG100 is not met.

VMEs

FAD Sets
In the EPO FADs deployed above and below the equator move westward potentially becoming beached on reefs
of French Polynesia or drift into the WCPO area. The potential impacts of such beaching are also broadly
understood, and the impacts of other marine debris (that would have similar impacts) has been incorporated in
an analysis of risks to coral reefs (Burke et al. 2012). There is reliable information on the spatial locations of fishing,
but there is still uncertainty on the number of active FADs per vessel per month, the number of new FADs
deployed per year, locations of FADs that are lost and become beached. This limited reliable information on the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 209 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

spatial extent, timing, and location of FAD interactions with coral reefs hinders a full understanding of the nature
of the impacts of the gear on these habitats.

This meets the requirements of the SG 60 level but not of the SG 80 level.

Free school

Information on the spatial extent and on the timing and location of use of the purse seine fishing gear is
collected by at-sea observers (100% Observer coverage of large purse seine vessels and observer coverage of
smaller purse seine vessels) and by VMS (100% coverage) and thus there is accurate, near real-time monitoring
of the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Free school purse
seine sets are not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat and does not interact with benthic
habitat during its operation.

This set type meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80. However, the physical impacts of the gear on all
habitats have been quantified fully, SG100 is not met.

Minor Habitats
As the physical impacts of FAD and free school fishing on the demersal habitat has not been fully quantified
SG100 for FAD and free school sets is not met.

US Small PS UoA
The UoA only fishes free school sets. Free school sets take place in the epipelagic habitat and so do not interact
with benthic habitat during their operation. The distribution of the pelagic habitat is known over the spatial
range within which the fishery operates from widely available sea charts and bathymetric maps of the Eastern
Pacific Ocean. Free school purse seine sets are not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat. This
information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats and SG
60, SG80, and SG100 are met.
c Monitoring

Guide Adequate information Changes in all habitat

post continues to be collected to distributions over time are
detect any increase in risk to measured.
the main habitats.
Met? TUNACONS UoA: Commonly TUNACONS UoA: Commonly
Encountered Habitats Encountered Habitats
FADs – Yes FADs – No
Free School: Yes Free School: No

VME Habitats VME Habitats

FADs: Yes FADs: No
Free school - Yes Free school - No

US Small PS UoA: Yes Minor Habitats

FADs – No
Free School: No

US Small PS UoA: Yes

Rationale

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 210 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

TUNACONS UoA

Commonly Encountered and VME Habitats

FAD and Free School Sets

Information collected by observers and through VMS can be used to detect changes in risk to the main habitats
(commonly encountered and VME habitats). Collecting VMS information eliminates the possibility that fishing
could occur in an area where the purse seine gear might contact the seabed or in closed areas, and observers
limit the potential for vessels to operate more than the maximum of 450 FADs with activated instrument buoys.
The new requirement to report the daily position of active FADs also provides a level of validation on the
number of FADS in use as well as the requisite data to model the trajectory and FATE of derelict FADs.
Performance against the TUNACONS Good Practice Guide including the use of lesser entangling FADS (or other
FAD construction requirements) provides a basis to assess changes in risk to the main habitats. On this basis
adequate information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats and SG80 is
met.

Changes in all habitat distributions is not monitored, thus the SG100 is not met.

Minor habitats

As changes in all habitat distributions are not monitored, thus the SG100 is not met for both FAD and free
school sets.

US Small PS UoA

The client vessels all operate under a VMS scheme and thus there is accurate, near real-time monitoring of the
spatial extent, timing, and of use of the fishing gear to eliminate the possibility that fishing could occur in an
area where the purse seine gear might contact the seabed or in closed areas. On this basis adequate
information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats; SG 80 is met.

As changes in all habitat distributions is not monitored, thus the SG100 is not met.
References

Burke et al. 2012, IATTC 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range TUNACONS UoA: Free school sets ≥ 80, FAD sets 60-
79
US Small PS UoA: ≥ 80
Information gap indicator Provide documentation regarding compliance of C-
18-05. Provide documentation on compliance with
Ecuadors FAD management plan. Provide
documentation on observer coverage for vessel
class 3-5 vessels of the UoA from 2015-2018.
Document the number of “lost” FADs by vessel class
and geographic zone from 2015-2018.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 211 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score TUNACONS UoA: FADs = 75
Free school = 90

US Small PS UoA - 95
Condition number (if relevant) Condition 2-8

PI 2.4.3. Scoring Calculation

FAD Sets
Element SI a SI b SI c Element PI Score
score
Commonly encountered Habitat 80 80 80 80 75
VME 80 60 80 70
Minor 80 80 80 85

Free School Sets

Element SI a SI b SI c Element PI Score
score
Commonly encountered Habitat 100 80 80 85 90
VME 100 80 100 95
Minor 100 80 80 85

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 212 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome

PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem
structure and function
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Ecosystem status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to disrupt The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the
post the key elements underlying disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to
ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements
function to a point where structure and function to a underlying ecosystem
there would be a serious or point where there would be structure and function to a
irreversible harm. a serious or irreversible point where there would be
harm. a serious or irreversible
harm.
Met?
EPO: EPO:
Yes – All elements EPO: Yes - Oceanographic
Yes - All elements element
No – Food web
Rationale

The MSC defines ‘key ecosystem elements’ as “the features of an ecosystem considered as being most crucial to
giving the ecosystem its characteristic nature and dynamics and are considered relative to the scale and intensity
of the UoA. They are features most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure and functions and the key
determinants of the ecosystem resilience and productivity” (SA3.16.3).

Further MSC guidance states that “key ecosystem elements may include trophic structure and function (in
particular key prey, predators, and competitors), community composition, productivity pattern (e.g. upwelling or
spring bloom, abyssal, etc.), and characteristics of biodiversity” (GSA3.18.1).

The UoA fishery occurs primarily in the equatorial region of the EPO in the warm pool-cold tongue oceanographic
feature. The interface (convergence zone) between the of the warm pool and cold tongue is found in the WCPO,
while the cold tongue extends throughout the EPO. Allain et al. (2007) describe the warm pool as an oligotrophic
system characterized by low salinity, low nitrates, high temperature, deep thermocline, low surface chlorophyll
and maximum chlorophyll located at 90m depth. The cold tongue in the equatorial region of the EPO is described
as an upwelling system with high salinity, high nitrates, low temperature, shallow thermocline, high surface
chlorophyll and maximum chlorophyll at the surface.

The trophic structure of the warm pool-cold tongue ecosystem has been characterised using Ecopath and Ecosim
models based on diet data (Allain et al. 2007). Skipjack tuna occupied a central position in the system as a key
predator and prey species, with high biomass, high production, and high consumption and cannibalism. Juvenile
skipjack tuna was a major source of food for all the top predators. The trophic structure of the cold tongue
ecosystem has also been characterized using Ecopath and Ecosim models first by Olson and Watters (2003) and
more recently updated by Griffiths et al (2021) using new time series of catch data to calculate updated values
for a range of ecological indicators as a means of assessing the historic and recent (2018) status of the ecosystem.

The hypothesis that the extensive use of FADs acts as an ecological trap based on three related steps (aggregation
of small tunas under FADs is fast and consistent; FADs alter the migratory patterns of tunas and other species;

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 213 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

FADs negatively impact the growth and mortality of small tunas) has been reviewed and in-situ studies to test the
hypothesis proposed but the logistics and feasibility to conduct such studies is daunting and likely would require
an international research program (Marsac et al., 2000). Hallier and Gaertner (2008) reported that tunas
associated with FADs eat less than those in free schools, resulting in differences in growth rates and condition
(fitness) due to the consequence of altered feeding patterns potentially related to the concept of the ecological
trap. However, the authors noted the provisions nature of the results and underlying uncertainties need for
additional studies to investigate the long-term effect of FADs on the entire life cycle of tunas to better understand
the mechanisms underlying the relationship between fitness and preference. Dagron et al (2012) reviewed issues
surrounding the ecological trap theory and noted that FAD sets in the WCPO were typically undertaken in areas
where log sets were also undertaken and that deployed FADs essentially increased the density of floating objects
rather than creating an entirely new habitat. Wang et al. (2019) considered habitat quality as a factor contributing
to the concept of the ecological trap but found no particular adverse effects between tuna caught in free school
and FAD sets. However, the authors noted that the habitat quality metric used did not consider important
biological factors, including foraging behavior, attraction to floating objects depending on food availability, and
body condition. The assessment team carefully considered the evidence presented on FAD networks contributing
to the concept of the ecological trap and concluded there is no unequivocal evidence of irreversible harm to
ecosystem structure and function. As a result, this was not included as a key element of the underlying ecosystem
in which the UoA operates. We note that ongoing research using FADs equipped with echosounders to estimate
FAD colonization rates and tuna residence time is occurring in the Indian Ocean (Orue et al., 2019). While this
work will contribute to the understanding of the fine and mesoscale ecology and behaviour of target and non-
target species around FADs the application of results to other ocean basins remains a challenge.

For this assessment, the ecosystem in the EPO is defined as the cold tongue pelagic ecosystem. The key ecosystem
elements are then defined as 1) the EPO cold tongue pelagic ecosystem and the factors driving productivity, and
2) trophic structure and function of the cold tongue pelagic food web as it relates to tropical tuna.

EPO Pelagic ecosystem physical features

The ocean environment changes on a variety of time scales, from seasonal to inter-annual, decadal, and longer.
The dominant source of variability in the upper layers of the EPO is the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), an
irregular fluctuation involving the entire tropical Pacific Ocean and the world’s atmosphere (Fiedler 2002). El Niño
events occur at two- to seven-year intervals, and are characterized by weaker trade winds, deeper thermoclines,
and higher sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) in the equatorial EPO. El Niño’s opposite phase, commonly called La
Niña, is characterized by stronger trade winds, shallower thermoclines, and lower SSTs. The changes in the
biogeochemical environment caused by ENSO have an impact on the biological productivity, feeding, and
reproduction of fishes, seabirds, and marine mammals (Fiedler 2002), as well as the availability of commercially
important tunas for capture.

Noting that the warm pool-cold tongue pelagic ecosystem comprises a large oceanographic feature, the UoA
fishery would not disrupt the physical factors driving ecosystem productivity in the EPO cold tongue pelagic
ecosystem to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. For these elements, requirements at
the SG 60, SG 80, and SG 100 levels are met.

EPO - Trophic structure and function of the cold tongue pelagic food web

Since 2017, the Ecopath-Ecosim modelling platform has been used to identify changes in the structure and
internal dynamics of the EPO ecosystem through the development of seven ecological indicators that are updated
annually, and the outcomes reported in the IATTC Ecosystem Considerations report. The indicators include mean
trophic level of the catch (TLc), the Marine Trophic Index (MTI), the Fishing in Balance (FIB) index, Shannon’s
index, and the mean trophic level of the modelled community (TLMC)for trophic levels 2.0–3.25 (TL2.0), ≥3.25–4.0
(TL3.5), and >4.0 (TL4.0). Note that the indicators TLc, MTI, and Shannon’s Index generally describe changes in

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 214 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

the exploited components of the ecosystem, while the community biomass indicators (TL MC) describe changes in
the structure of the ecosystem once biomass has been removed due to fishing. Additionally, simulations were
updated and rebalanced in as part of the research conducted in 2021 to assess potential impacts of the FAD
fishery on the structure of the ecosystem (Griffiths et al., 2021). Significant changes to the re-classification of
catch data were implemented as part of the updated modelling in 2021 resulting in a greater influence of longline
catches on ecosystem dynamics.

Ecological indicators showed that values for TLc and MTI decreased from their peak of 4.77 and 4.83 in
1991 to 4.64 and 4.65 in 2018, respectively, as the purse-seine fishing effort on FADs significantly increased along
with the catches of higher trophic level bycatch species (e.g., sharks, billfish, wahoo and dorado) that generally
aggregate around floating objects. TLc peaked in 1991 and since then has declined by 0.05 of a trophic level in the
subsequent 28 years, or 0.04 trophic levels per decade. The expansion of the FAD fishery is also seen in the FIB
index that exceeds zero after 1990, as well as the continual change in the evenness of biomass of the community
indicated by Shannon’s index. The biomass of the TL MC4.0 community was at one of its highest values (4.493) in
1986 but has continued to decline to 4.470 in 2018. As a result of changes in predation pressure on lower trophic
levels, between 1993 and 2018 the biomass of the TL MC3.25 community increased from 3.801 to 3.829, while
interestingly, the biomass of the TLMC2.0 community also increased from 3.092 to 3.107.

Together, these indicators show that the ecosystem structure has likely changed over the 40-year analysis period.
The reductions in TLc, MIT and TLmc4.0 since the early 1990s were not considered detrimental, and Griffith and
Fulller (2019) concluded that limiting the number of purse seine floating-object (FAD) and free school sets to the
2016-2018 average would maintain the ecosystem structure in its present state and slightly increase the biomass
of most target tuna species. It was noted that a significant reduction in both purse-seine and longline fishing effort
would be needed to restore the EPO ecosystem to its state prior to the expansion of the FAD fishery.

Based on observer data from 2015-2018 the UoA catch of yellowfin, bigeye, and skipjack tuna, as well as billfishes
amounted to less than 8% of the total catch of each species/group in the EPO, which results in a minor impact to
the cold tongue food web. (https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2021/SAC-12/Docs/_English/SAC-12-
03_The%20tuna%20fishery%20in%20the%20Eastern%20Pacific%20Ocean%20in%202020.pdf). This is not
surprising considering the UoA is comprised of only 43 vessels which amounts to approximately 3% of all purse
seine and longline vessels registered to fish in the in the EPO.

Based on the totality of the information there is evidence that changes in trophic structure and function resulting
from all fishing activities have not been detrimental, and that recovery of ecosystem structure to its pre-FAD
condition is plausible although significant reductions in purse seine and longline fishing effort would be required.
Also, given the negligible catches of the key species (tropical tunas and billfishes) by the UoA it is highly unlikely
(< 30th percentile probability – MSC Table SA9) to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and
function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. On this basis SG60 and SG80 are met.

As there is no evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem
structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm, SG100 is not met. Note
that derivation of the ecological indicators is based on stomach content data from fish collected in 1992–1994;
clearly more contemporary data are required. Also, there are other approaches that could be explored (i.e.,
stable isotope analysis) to assess fishing impacts on the pelagic food web.
References

Allain et al. 2007; Griffiths et al. 2019 ; Griffiths et al. 2021 ; Fiedler 2002; Olson and Watters 2003

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 215 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range

≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score 90

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 216 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy

PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible
harm to ecosystem structure and function
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that
post if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place
account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to
impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of
elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem,
UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these
to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place.
Outcome 80 level of
performance.
Met? EPO:
EPO: No - Oceanographic element
Yes - Oceanographic element EPO: No – Food web
Yes – Food web Yes - Oceanographic element
Yes – Food web

Rationale

EPO Pelagic ecosystem physical features

Noting that the warm pool-cold tongue pelagic ecosystem comprises a large oceanographic feature, the UoA
fishery would not impact the physical factors driving ecosystem productivity in EPO cold tongue pelagic
ecosystem. On this basis a partial strategy to mitigate impacts of the UoA are not necessary, and SG60 and SG80
are met. To meet SG100 requires a strategy, that consists of a plan, be in place, and that is not the case; SG100
is not met.

EPO - Trophic structure and function of the cold tongue pelagic food web

At the regional level, the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is used as the framework for
sustainable fisheries for an “Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM)”. Tuna are important
predatory species in the Pacific Ocean. The IATTC’s application of the FAO code extends to the highly migratory
fish species including tuna through Conservation and Management Measures such as Resolution C-20-06 on the
management of tropical tuna (bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna), as well as to the management of non-target
species, in particular through Resolution C-03-08 on Bycatch and Resolutions to improve the protection of
sharks.

Managing fishing impacts on different components within the ecosystem is recognized in Articles of the Antigua
Convention (IATTC 2010), including:

Article IV (Application of the Precautionary Approach)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 217 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

▪ Where the status of target stocks or non-target or associated or dependent species is of concern,
the members of the Commission shall subject such stocks and species to enhanced monitoring in
order to review their status and the efficacy of conservation and management measures. They
shall revise those measures regularly in the light of new scientific information available;

Article VII (Functioning of the Commission)

▪ Adopt, as necessary, conservation and management measures and recommendations for species
belonging to the same ecosystem and that are affected by fishing for, or dependent on or
associated with, the fish stocks covered by this Convention, with a view to maintaining or restoring
populations of such species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously
threatened;
▪ Adopt appropriate measures to avoid, reduce and minimize waste, discards, catch by lost or
discarded gear, catch of non-target species (both fish and non-fish species) and impacts on
associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species;

Tuna fisheries are thought to exert major influences on pelagic food webs and in the Pacific Ocean these
fisheries generally target tropical tuna including, yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack tuna. In the EPO these stocks are
managed through Resolution C-20-06 using a suite of temporal, spatial, and technical controls, as well as regular
reviews of stock status (stock assessments) that is focused on maintaining F at FMSY. To support the
development of effective management measures and stock assessment research, data collection and
monitoring programs have been established to collect biological and physical data. Since 2017, the IATTC has
annually published Ecosystem Considerations reports that tracks the status of 7 ecological indicators. Findings
are discussed during regular meeting of the IATTC SAC and Commission.

The UoA also engages in practices to minimize ecosystem impacts through the use of lesser entangling FADs as
stipulated in Resolution C-19-01, as well as the mandatory conservation measures for sharks (C-11-10, C-19-05,
C-19-06), rays (C-15-04), turtles (C-19-04), and non-target species (Resolution C-03-08), which includes using
best handling and release protocols for released animals.

Collectively these measures manage fishery impacts on trophic structure and function and are considered to
constitute a partial strategy which considers available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the
UoA on the ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance; SG60 and SG80 are
met.

Following the definition of a strategy outlined in Table SA8, the assessment team does not consider a strategy to
be in place to specifically address ecosystem impacts and on this basis SG100 is not met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high
post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial
based on plausible argument measures/ partial strategy strategy/ strategy will work,
(e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information
theory or comparison with information directly about directly about the UoA
similar UoAs/ ecosystems). the UoA and/or the and/or ecosystem involved.
ecosystem involved.
Met?
EPO: EPO:
EPO: Yes - Oceanographic element No - Oceanographic element
Yes - Oceanographic element Yes – Food web No – Food web
Yes – Food web

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 218 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

EPO Pelagic ecosystem physical features

Noting that the warm pool-cold tongue pelagic ecosystem comprises a large oceanographic feature, the UoA
fishery would not impact the physical factors driving ecosystem productivity in the EPO cold tongue pelagic
ecosystem. On this basis a partial strategy to mitigate impacts of the UoA is not necessary, and SG60 and SG80
are met. To meet SG100 requires testing of the partial strategy/strategy and since there is no partial strategy in
place testing cannot conducted; SG100 is not met.

EPO - Trophic structure and function of the cold tongue pelagic food web

Modelling of the Eastern Tropical Pacific pelagic food web by Olson and Watters (2003) laid the foundation for
assessing impacts of large-scale tuna fisheries operating in the pelagic ecosystem of the Eastern Tropical Pacific
Ocean. Recent updates by Griffiths and Fuller (2019) and Griffiths et al. (2021) extended the seminal work of
Olson and Watters (2003) through the development of 7 ecosystem indicators to assess impacts and
recalibration of longline catch data back to 2003 and incorporation of these data into the model. Additionally,
the model was restructured to contain multi-stanza delay-difference models for small and large sizes of 10
taxa, and biological parameters of functional groups were updated where possible and the model rebalanced
to ensure the model was thermodynamically stable. Finally, a simulation module was added to the current
model to forecast potential consequences of increasing and decreasing fishing effort on FADs over the next 10
years on the biomass of target tuna species, bycatch species, and the structural integrity of the ecosystem.

Griffiths & Fuller (2019) demonstrated that the pelagic ecosystem has been impacted by increasing levels of
purse seine effort and FAD fishing since 1993, and that the ecosystem condition was not significantly impacted
and would be relatively stable at current levels of effort. Griffiths et al (2021) demonstrated that with the
recalculation and incorporation of longline there has likely been a change in the ecosystem structure over the
40-year analysis period. The consistent patterns of change in each ecological indicator, particularly in the mean
trophic level of the communities since 1993, were consistent with increases in FAD fishing effort since 1993.
Testing of various management measures indicated that the ecosystem would stabilize following significant
reductions in purse seine and longline fishing effort. As results of the 2021 analysis are considered preliminary
the assessment team considers the results of Griffiths and Fuller (2019) to indicate there is some objective
basis for confidence that the measures/ partial strategy will work; SG60 and SG80 are met. As a result of the
differences in outcomes between the two recent analyses the assessment team considers testing to be
inadequate to support high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work; SG100 is not met.
c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that

post the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy
strategy is being is being implemented
implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving
its objective as set out in
scoring issue (a).
Met?
EPO: EPO:
Yes - Oceanographic element No - Oceanographic element
Yes – Food web No – Food web

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 219 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

EPO Pelagic ecosystem physical features

Noting that the warm pool-cold tongue pelagic ecosystem comprises a large oceanographic feature, the UoA
fishery would not impact the physical factors driving ecosystem productivity in the EPO cold tongue pelagic
ecosystem. On this basis a partial strategy to mitigate impacts of the UoA is not necessary, and SG80 is met. As
there is no partial strategy in place SG100 cannot be met.

EPO - Trophic structure and function of the cold tongue pelagic food web

The IATTC requires 100% observer coverage for large purse seine vessels (Vessel Class 6) operating in the EPO and
all UoA vessels classified as Vessel Class 6 are monitored. Additionally the UoA fished 10 smaller purse seine
vessels (Vessel Class 3-5) and all fishing activities (100%) on these vessels is voluntarily monitored. Compliance
with required observer coverage rates is accomplished through regular participation of UoA vessels in U.S.
Protected Species Workshops (for U.S. flagged vessels), as well as VMS tracking data. The assessment team is not
aware of any UoA noncompliance matters associated with measures and regulations of the IATTC.

Recent ecosystem modelling by Griffiths and Fuller (2019) demonstrated that the EPO pelagic ecosystem has been
impacted since 1993 due to increasing FAD fishing effort, but that the ecosystem was not significantly impacted
and was relatively stable under current levels of fishing effort. Thus, there is some evidence that the
measures/partial strategy is being implemented successfully; SG80 is met. Even though the results of Griffiths et
al (2021) are considered preliminary and require additional scrutiny the assessment team could not conclude
there is clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its
objective as set out in scoring issue (a); SG100 is not met.

References

Griffiths and Fuller 2019Griffiths et al., 2021; Olson and Waters 2003

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range EPO: ≥80

Information gap indicator Information is sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 220 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to

post identify the key elements of the broadly understand the key
ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem.
Met? EPO: EPO:
Yes - Oceanographic element Yes - Oceanographic element
Yes – Food web Yes – Food web
Rationale

A number of organizations are collecting data to improve the knowledge of the structure of the Pacific Ocean
pelagic ecosystem. This occurs through observer programs (e.g. bycatch composition and quantities), trophic
analyses (e.g. stomach contents, stable isotopes), movement studies, mid-trophic level sampling (e.g.
acoustics and net sampling of micronekton and zooplankton), ecosystem modelling, and stock assessments on
non-target species. The adoption of 100% observer coverage for the purse seine fleet provides relevant catch
or removal data. However, trophic analyses, movement studies, ecosystem modelling, and mid-trophic level
sampling are conducted on a project-by-project basis and are not continuous in space and time.

For this assessment, the ecosystem in the ecosystem in the EPO is defined as the cold tongue pelagic
ecosystem. The key ecosystem elements are then defined as 1) the EPO cold tongue pelagic ecosystem and
the factors driving productivity, and 2) trophic structure and function of the cold tongue pelagic food web as
it relates to tropical tuna.

EPO - Pelagic ecosystem physical features

The cold tongue in the equatorial region of the EPO is described as an upwelling system with high salinity, high
nitrates, low temperature, shallow thermocline, high surface chlorophyll and maximum chlorophyll at the
surface. The dominant source of variability in the upper layers of the EPO is the El Niño-Southern Oscillation
(ENSO), an irregular fluctuation involving the entire tropical Pacific Ocean and the world’s atmosphere (Fiedler
2002). El Niño events occur at two- to seven-year intervals, and are characterized by weaker trade winds,
deeper thermoclines, and higher sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) in the equatorial EPO. El Niño’s opposite
phase, commonly called La Niña, is characterized by stronger trade winds, shallower thermoclines, and lower
SSTs. The changes in the biogeochemical environment caused by ENSO have an impact on the biological
productivity, feeding, and reproduction of fishes, seabirds, and marine mammals (Fiedler 2002), as well as the
availability of commercially important tunas for capture.

There has been considerable research effort focused on understanding changes in ocean temperature, salinity,
stratification, circulation and production (e.g., Lehodey et al. 2003, Watters et al. 2003, Fiedler & Talley 2006)
and on potential future changes in response to global climate change (e.g., Miller 2007, An et al. 2012,
Ganachaud et al. 2012, Tascheto et al. 2014). The assessment team considers information is adequate to
broadly understand this key element of the ecosystem; SG60 and SG80 are met.

EPO - Trophic structure and function of the cold tongue pelagic food web

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 221 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Initial modelling of trophic dynamics in the EPO were conducted by Watters et al. (2003) and Olson and
Watters (2003). Watters et al. (2003) concluded that physical effects on predator recruitment were the
dominant source of interannual variability in pelagic ecosystems, and that these effects likely dampen top-
down control of fisheries. Olson and Watters (2003) concluded that changes in two species groups,
cephalopods (squids) and Auxis spp. (bullet and frigate tunas), exerted the greatest influence on the pelagic
ecosystem of the eastern tropical Pacific. Griffiths and Fuller (2019) and Griffiths et al. (2021) extended the
research using an Ecopath-Ecosim model platform to explore the potential ecological impacts of the EPO
tuna fishery on the structure and function of the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean since 1970 through use of 7
ecosystem indicators, and to simulate the potential effects on the biomass of target and key non-target
species to increasing and decreasing levels of fishing effort on FADs. Information is considered adequate to
broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem and SG80 is met.
b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guide Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main
post these key ecosystem elements these key ecosystem elements interactions
can be inferred from existing can be inferred from existing between the
information, but have not been information, and some have UoA and these
investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. ecosystem
elements can
be inferred
from existing
information,
and have been
investigated in
detail.
Met? EPO: EPO: EPO:
Yes - Oceanographic element Yes - Oceanographic element Yes -
Yes – Food web Yes – Food web Oceanographic
element
No – Food web
Rationale

EPO - Pelagic ecosystem physical features

There does not appear to be any main interactions between the UoA and physical factors influencing
ecosystem productivity in the EPO cold tongue ecosystem. On this basis SG60 and SG80 are met. Impacts of
the UoA on this key ecosystem element can be inferred from existing information and some have been
investigated in detail; SG100 requirements are met.

EPO - Trophic structure and function of the cold tongue pelagic food web

Watters et al. (2003) and recent studies by Griffiths and Fuller 2019 and Griffiths et al. (2021) explored the
potential ecological impacts of the EPO tuna fishery on the structure and function of the Eastern Tropical
Pacific Ocean since 1970 through use of 7 ecosystem indicators and simulated the potential effects on the
biomass of target and key non-target species to varying levels of FAD fishing effort. It is considered that
impacts of the UoA on this key ecosystem element can be inferred from existing information, and some have
been investigated in detail. On this basis SG60 and SG80 are met. While some main interactions between the
UoA and ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, say managing the effect of the UoA
on the ecosystem, other elements have not been investigated in detail and SG100 is not met.
c Understanding of component functions

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 222 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Guide The main functions of the The impacts of

post components (i.e., P1 target the UoA on P1
species, primary, secondary and target species,
ETP species and Habitats) in the primary,
ecosystem are known. secondary and
ETP species and
Habitats are
identified and
the main
functions of
these
components in
the ecosystem
are understood.
Met? EPO: EPO:
Yes - Oceanographic element Yes -
Yes – Food web Oceanographic
element
Yes – Food web
Rationale

EPO

Tuna fishing in the EPO is a large-scale fishery and as such considerable research is conducted annually to
understand drivers of the warm pool-cold tongue ecosystem and the consequences of fishing. Main
functions of the target species (yellowfin, skipjack, and bigeye tuna), primary species (bigeye tuna),
secondary species (billfish), ETP species (sharks, rays, cetaceans, turtles, and seabirds), and habitats (pelagic,
coastal, and reef) are understood and known. On this basis SG80 and SG100 are met.
d Information relevance

Guide Adequate information is Adequate

post available on the impacts of the information is
UoA on these components to available on the
allow some of the main impacts of the
consequences for the ecosystem UoA on the
to be inferred. components
and elements
to allow the
main
consequences
for the
ecosystem to
be inferred.
Met? EPO: EPO:
Yes - Oceanographic element Yes -
Yes – Food web Oceanographic
element
Yes – Food web
Rationale

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 223 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

EPO
As detailed in SIa, considerable research has been conducted to understand the physical drivers of the cold
tongue pelagic ecosystem within the EPO, as well as complex modelling (Lehodey et al. 2003, Olson & Watters
2003, Watters et al. 2003, Fiedler & Talley 2006, Miller 2007, An et al. 2012, Ganachaud et al. 2012, Tascheto
et al. 2014, Griffiths & Fuller 2019, Griffiths et al., 2021) to understand the consequences of fishing and allow
the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. On this basis SG 80 and SG 100 are met.

e Monitoring

Guide Adequate data continue to be Information is

post collected to detect any increase adequate to
in risk level. support the
development of
strategies to
manage
ecosystem
impacts.
Met? EPO: EPO:
Yes - Oceanographic element Yes -
Yes – Food web Oceanographic
element
Yes – Food web
Rationale

EPO
Within the EPO extensive data (logbooks, observer programs, and independent research) continue to be
collected that allow an increase in risk to be detected. On this basis SG 80 is met

Tuna fishing in the EPO is extensive and as such there is an ongoing research program to improve
understanding of the interactions and implications of the different EPO fisheries on target species, and
ecosystem considerations is a standing item on the agenda of the IATTC’s annual meeting of the Science
Advisory Committee. There is also an annual meeting of the IATTC Working Group on Bycatch where bycatch
mitigation is considered explicitly. The utility of data and sampling programs (i.e., stomach analysis) to
support and advance ecosystem modelling in the EPO are routinely discussed during the Scientific Advisory
Committee and Bycatch Working Group meetings. As such, information is adequate to support the
development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts; SG100 is met

References

Griffiths and Fuller 2019; Allain et al. 2007; Allain et al. 2015; Lehodey et al. 2014; (Lehodey et al. 2003,
Olson and Watters 2003, Watters et al. 2003, Fiedler and Talley 2006, Miller 2007, An et al. 2012, Ganachaud
et al. 2012, Tascheto et al. 2014; Lehodey 2001; Lehodey et al., 2013Lehodey et al., 1997; Griffiths et al.,
2021

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range EPO:
≥80
Information gap indicator Information is sufficient to score PI

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 224 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 95

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 225 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

7.1 Principle 3
7.1.1 Principle 3 background

7.1.1.1 Regional Level Management

Management of the UOAs has international and national components. There is a formalized framework
and legal basis for regional management of tuna stocks in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) through the
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) that is the regional fisheries management organization
(RFMO) mandated with the conservation and management of the fisheries for tunas (including yellowfin
and skipjack tuna) and other species taken by tuna-fishing vessels in the EPO. The IATTC was established
in 1949. Current members are Belize, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, the
European Union, France, Guatemala, Japan, Kiribati, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Republic of Korea,
Chinese Taipei, United States, Vanuatu, and Venezuela. Bolivia, Honduras, Indonesia, and Liberia are
cooperating non-members.

The objective of the IATTC is to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of tuna and tuna-
like species and other species of fish taken by vessels fishing for tunas and tuna like species in the Eastern
Tropical Pacific Ocean, in accordance with the relevant rules of international law. In 1976, the IATTC's
responsibilities were broadened to address the problems arising from the interaction of dolphin with tuna
fisheries in the EPO. Defined policy objectives were to maintain a high level of tuna production while
minimizing the incidental catch of dolphin, the stocks of which were to be kept at or above levels that
ensure their survival. “The Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservation Program” (AIDCP)
(1999), is implemented by the IATTC and it provides the Program secretariat.

The adoption of resolutions requires agreement of all attending members. Agreed management measures
are binding on parties to the Convention. The original Convention has been strengthened by the Antigua
Convention (IATTC 2003), which has an objective to “ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable
use of the fish stocks in the Convention area in accordance with the relevant rules of international law”.
The Convention entered into force on August 27, 2010.

The international laws mentioned in the Antigua Convention are the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982); the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21
adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (1992); the Johannesburg
Declaration and Plan of Implementation adopted by the World Summit on Sustainable Development
(2002); the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
1995; the Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management
Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas, 1993 and International Plans of Action, both of which fall
within the framework of the Code and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA).

The IATTC brings together participant members to reach agreements through consensus to make
management decisions and oversee the implementation of agreed measures, which currently include

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 226 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

seasonal closures. The Commission is also responsible for supporting cooperation related to gathering and
interpreting data to facilitate management of tuna stocks in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean at levels
permitting maximum sustainable yields. Observer information and vessel registration are also
coordinated through the IATTC in collaboration with nation states.

Decisions adopted by the Commission are binding for all members 45 days after their notification. The
“Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission” was established
in the Antigua Convention “to monitor compliance with management measures, as well as to share
information on the actions taken by the Members to ensure compliance by their vessels with measures
agreed pursuant to the Convention” (Antigua Convention, Annex 3). The Committee also has duties to:

“Analyse information by flag and other necessary information; provide information, technical
advice and recommendations relating to the implementation of, and compliance with,
conservation and management measures; recommend means of promoting compatibility of the
fisheries management measures of the members of the Commission; recommend means of
eliminating fishing that undermines management measures; and recommend the priorities and
objectives of the program for data collection and monitoring”.

The Antigua Convention creates a formal scientific committee with objectives including:

“review plans, proposals and research programs, and provide advice; review assessments,
analyses, research or other work and recommendations prepared by the scientific staff prior to
their consideration by the IATTC; recommend specific issues and items to be addressed by the
scientific staff; recommend the priorities and objectives of the program for data collection and
monitoring; and develop and promote cooperation between and among the members of the
Commission through their research institutions”.

To ensure that the IATTC management framework is consistent with national laws, each contracting state
must take the measures necessary for the implementation of and compliance with the Convention and
related conservation and management measures including the adoption of the necessary laws and
regulations.

In terms of long-term objectives, the Antigua Convention has the responsibility to “to ensure the long-
term conservation and sustainable use of the fish stocks covered by this Convention, in accordance with
the relevant rules of international law”. As emphasised in the 2005 plan for the management of regional
fishing capacity (IATTC, 2005), the management of fishing capacity should:

“facilitate the conservation and sustainable use of tuna stocks in the EPO and the conservation
of the marine environment. It should be consistent with the precautionary approach, the need to
minimize by catch, waste, and discards, and ensure selective and environmentally safe fishing
practices and the protection of biodiversity in the marine environment”.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 227 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The Convention has an explicit provision regarding the precautionary approach and ecosystem-based
management. Objectives with respect to Endangered Threatened or Protected (ETP)species are also
provided by the IATTC Convention and for dolphins directly by the AIDCP.

Table 19. IATTC Active resolutions of particular relevance to the Units of Assessment
Purpose Management measures
Bigeye, yellowfin & skipjack C-16-02, C-17-02, C-21-04
(longline and purse seine fisheries)
Pacific Bluefin C-16-03, C-18-01, C-18-02, C-21-05
Silky shark
Oceanic whitetip shark
C-05-03, C-11-10, C-15-04, C-16-04, C16-06, C-18-05,
Sharks
C-19-05, C-19-06, C-21-06
Whale sharks (purse seines)
Mobulid rays
Sea turtles C-04-05, C-19-04
Dolphins Addressed under Agreement on the International
Dolphin Conservation Program
Seabirds C-11-02
Scientific observers C-18-07
Monitoring, control and surveillance activities C-04-03, C-11-07, C15-011C-14-02, C-19-02, C-21-07
Data, data processing and availability C-15-01, C-03-04, C-04-10, C-15-07
FADs C-99-07, C-19-01

IATTC has the longest-established regional scientific and enforcement program and is unusual in that it
has a regional observer program fully coordinated by the Secretariat, with its own observers, but also with
the participation of national programs. There is 100% coverage for purse seiners above 363 mt capacity
which has been mandatory since 2000. The main purpose of this observer program is to monitor the
incidental catch of dolphins in the purse-seine fishery. The observer program is also used for scientific and
research purposes, as well as for monitoring compliance with IATTC management and conservation
measures.

Weekly reports from observers are transmitted to the Secretariat of the IATTC via e-mail, fax, or radio.
The International Review Panel is responsible for reviewing IATTC observer reports and determining
infractions. The observer reports from both the programs constitute highly valuable collections of
fisheries data.

All vessels over 24m length catching tuna within the region must have VMS (Resolution C-14-02). IATTC
uses its vessel registers to establish a ‘positive list’ and identify IUU vessels (Resolution C-19-02),
information which is shared with other RFMOs. Vessels not entered into the record are deemed to be
unauthorized to fish for, retain on board, transship or land tuna and tuna-like species.

Members and co-operating non-Members (CPCs) of the IAATC report annually on compliance with a list
of IATTC resolutions listed in Resolution C-11-07 and as updated periodically. These reports are reviewed

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 228 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

by Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures adopted by the Commission. The
Committee also reviews information compiled by the Director of the IATTC on possible non-compliance
with IATTC resolutions from the reports of the IATTC observers for purse-seine fishing vessels and at-sea
transshipment as well as other available information. Alleged infractions reported by observers on vessels
flagged to CPCs are reported by the Director of the IATTC to the respective national government bodies.
CPCs are required to respond to these notices. At the end of each Committee meeting, for each CPC, the
compliance record, areas of possible improvement as well as any recommended actions are recorded in
the report of the Committee, which is then sent to the IATCC. The compliance information discussed by
Committee meetings is confidential and not released publicly making it challenging to assess the actual
compliance records CPCs.

With reference to interactions with dolphins, it is relevant to note that the International Review Panel
(IRP) under the IATTC is responsible for reviewing observer data, examining potential infractions against
AIDCP requirements and issuing infractions to offending vessels when violations are reported. Infractions
include “major violations” such as using explosives during fishing or fishing without an observer, and
“other violations” such as lack of appropriate gear on board or failing to perform a dolphin rescue
procedure.

The IATTC is subject to regular internal review. This is demonstrated by the various committees and
working groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission and which are published.
including:
▪ Comprehensive review functions and responsibilities of the Scientific Advisory Committee
established under Antigua Convention Article XI);
▪ Review functions and responsibilities of the Committee for the Review of Implementation of
Measures (established under Antigua Convention Article XVIII) are set forth in Annex 3 of the
Antigua Convention;
▪ The Commission may engage external scientific experts to carry out periodic peer reviews of
scientific information and advice provided by the Commission may; and
▪ The business and meetings of the IATTC are transparent and conducted annually and as a
consequence, the status of conservation and management objectives are the subject of review of
public opinion and subsequent political ramifications.

The IATTC has also carried out an external performance review in 2016 (Moss-Adams 2016) Aspects of
IATTC work, such as stock assessment are subject to assessment by CPC scientific advisors. In the USA the
Science and Statistical Committee of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council may review of stock
assessments conducted or commissioned by the IATTC. Independent academic or other recent reviews
of Regional Fishery Management Organization performance that include the IATTC have been conducted
by Ewell et al. (2020), McCluney et al. (2019) and Medley et al. (2021).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 229 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

7.1.1.2 National/Flag State Management

Ecuador

Ecuador’s Constitution of 2008 provides the legal foundations for the management of its fisheries. Article
14 declares as a public interest the preservation of the environment and the conservation of ecosystems.
Article 395 declares "The State will ensure a sustainable model of development, environmentally balanced
and respectful of cultural diversity, which preserves biodiversity and the natural regeneration of
ecosystems, and ensures that the needs of present and future generations are met." This article together
with article 396 also gives effect to the precautionary approach in natural resource management. Article
281 states: "Food sovereignty constitutes a strategic objective and an obligation of the state to ensure
that individuals, communities, peoples, and nationalities achieve the self-sufficiency of healthy and
culturally appropriate foods on a permanent basis.

Ecuador has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (2012), the UN Fish Stocks agreement (2016),
and the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and
Unregulated Fishing (2019). Until 2020, fisheries were managed and regulated under the Fisheries and
Fisheries Development Law, first passed in 1974 it was amended in 1985, 2005, and 2016. The 2016
amendments were made to give effect to the National Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing and included administrative sanctions and penalties. The
objective of this Plan is to define the national policies for fighting IUU fishing in the jurisdictional waters
of Ecuador and the adjacent high seas. The 1974 law was replaced in April 2020 by the Organic Law for
the Development of Aquaculture and Fishing7 which consolidated and updated national law to ensure
compliance with the international and regional rules applying to the conservation and management of
fishing resources.

The Under Secretariat for Fishery Resources (SRP) of the Ministry of Production, Exterior, Investment and
Fisheries (MPCEIP) is responsible of the supervision and implementation of the national fisheries policy,
ensures compliance with fisheries laws and regulations, elaborates fisheries development plans and
programs, coordinates the activities of the public and private sectors, manages fisheries financial credit,
approves reports and plans of companies in the fisheries sector, and commissions studies on the activity,
management, and development of the fishing sector. Other agencies associated with the regulation of
fisheries include the Servicio Nacional de Aduana del Ecuador (SENAE) that addresses international trade
and customs for the import and export of seafood. The National Directorate of Aquatic Spaces (DIRNEA)
is the national maritime police authority and is responsible for on-the water fisheries enforcement and
for satellite monitoring that it carries out in coordination with SRP.

7
https://www.oficial.ec/ley-organica-desarrollo-acuicultura-pesca

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 230 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The 2020 Organic Law for the Development of Aquaculture and Fishing creates the Advisory Council of
Aquaculture and Fisheries. It is part of the National Aquaculture and Fisheries System providing support,
consultation and advice for the formulation, observation, monitoring, oversight and evaluation of public
policies in aquaculture and fisheries. The recommendations of the Advisory Council are not binding and
are advisory to institutions that make up the National Aquaculture and Fisheries System. It consists of
government officials and representatives of producer organizations, aquaculturists, fishermen,
marketers, economic agents, and related representatives.

The tuna fishery in Ecuador’s EEZ and on the adjacent high seas is managed within the IATTC framework.
The Resolutions and Recommendations made by the IATTC for the conservation of tunas in the EPO are
formally adopted by the Ecuadorian government. Resolutions are translated into regulations through
Ministerial agreements issued by the Under Secretariat for Fishery Resources. Ministerial Agreement 174
adopts and adapts all IATTC’s conservation measures and includes them in the Ecuadorian legal system.
This allows for national level sanctions to be applied. Agreement MPCEIP-SRP-2019-0027-A is the latest
regulation that adopts and adapts all IATTC’s conservation measures and includes them in the Ecuadorian
legal system.

In October 2019, Ecuador received a yellow card from the European Union over shortcomings in the
mechanisms that the country has put in place to ensure compliance with its international obligations as a
flag, port and market state. The shortcomings noted by the European Union include:
▪ The legal framework in place is outdated and not in line with the international and regional rules
applying to the conservation and management of fishing resources.
▪ Law enforcement is hampered by this outdated legal framework, inefficient administrative
procedures and a lenient approach towards infringements. As a result, the sanctioning system is
neither depriving the offenders from the benefits accruing from IUU fishing, nor deterrent.
▪ There are serious deficiencies in terms of control, notably over the activity of the tuna fishing and
processing industries.

In particular the EU noted that the sanctioning scheme:

“[…] remains based on a weak and outdated legal framework, which lacks a definition
of IUU activities and provides for a level of sanctions which fails to ensure deterrence
of these sanctions. The maximum fine imposed in Ecuador for industrial vessels in
2018, irrespective of the gravity of the infringement and the value of the fishery
products. involved, did not exceed 4 500 USD. In addition, Ecuadorian authorities also
acknowledged that they face legal and practical issues to recover the fines, and
cumbersome administrative procedures often result in practical impossibility to
address recidivism. Information provided by Ecuadorian authorities also suggests
uneven approach in relation to the application of sanctions, notably as regards the
confiscation of illegal catches.”

The EU goes on to state:

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 231 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

“[…] failure to enforce deterrent sanctions also resulted in recidivism by Ecuadorian

vessels operating in the IATTC area and therefore additional breaches of the
conservation and management measures adopted by this organisation. The absence
of a structured and risk-based strategy for the management of inspection activities
also results in a failure to ensure that the main compliance risks are addressed […] ”

The yellow card triggers a formal dialogue in which the Commission and the third country work together
to solve all issues of concern. The Commission identified eight actions that Ecuador should take:
▪ Revising of the legal framework in order to ensure compliance with the international and regional
rules applying to the conservation and management of fishing resources.
▪ Ensuring effective implementation and enforcement of revised national legislation
▪ Strengthening the effective implementation of international rules and management measures
through an adequate regime of sanctions effectively enforced and followed-up
▪ Rectifying identified shortcomings in Monitoring, Control and Surveillance systems with regard to
requirements laid down in international and regional regulations as well as in the framework of the
catch certification scheme;
▪ Strengthening and improving of the registration and fishing licence systems and management.
▪ Improving traceability of fishery products and taking all steps necessary, consistent with
international law, to prevent fish caught by vessels engaged in IUU fishing being traded or imported
into its territory.
▪ Strengthening and improvement of cooperation with other States (in particular coastal States in the
waters of which vessels flagged to Ecuador may operate) in line with international obligations.
▪ Ensure compliance with reporting and recording obligations within RFMOs.

In response, Ecuador is undertaking an extensive series of fisheries reforms to address the issues raised
by the European Commission. Most notable has been the 2020 passage Organic Law for the Development
of Aquaculture and Fishing bringing fisheries governance and management into line with the international
and regional rules applying to the conservation and management of fishing resources. It updates the
6F

monitoring, control and surveillance regime that includes fisheries enforcement and sanctions. Specific
action to strengthen national regulations include:
▪ Implementing internal procedures to improve control in the traceability of fishery products
of Ecuadorian origin and imported fishery products.
▪ Implementing interinstitutional technical standards establishing clear procedures, to
ensure the control and traceability of fishery products, involving fish products authorities
involved directly and indirectly in fishing.
▪ Establishing technological mechanisms that allow sharing of information with others
government institutions.
▪ Strengthening the institutional capacity of the Ecuadorian Fisheries Authority to comply
with its obligations to regulate and monitor fishing activity throughout its chain.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 232 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Other related actions involving Ecuador’s government agencies include: 8 7F

▪ Ensuring implementation and effective compliance with the revised fisheries legislation.
▪ Strengthening the administrative sanctions regime.
▪ Improving Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) systems with respect to in
international and regional regulations.
▪ Strengthening systems for the registration of fishing licences.
▪ Improving the traceability of fishery products to prevent fish caught by vessels engaged in
illegal fishing from being marketed or imported.
▪ Strengthening and improve cooperation with other States; and
▪ Ensuring compliance with reporting and recording obligations to the IATTC and other
RFMOs.

The United States has also previously raised concerns about the effectiveness of Ecuador’s MCS regime. 9 8F

Specifically, NOAA fisheries identified Ecuador for failing to comply with IATTC Resolution C-11-07
(Resolution on the Process for Improved Compliance of Resolutions Adopted by the Commission).
Resolution C-11-07 requires IATTC Members to investigate possible cases of non-compliance with IATTC
resolutions involving fishing vessels flagged to them and report the results of their investigations to the
IATTC Director. Records from IATTC and correspondence between NMFS and Ecuador indicate that in
2016 and 2017, Ecuador failed to fully investigate numerous alleged violations of IATTC resolutions by
fishing vessels flagged to Ecuador.

Ecuador opened administrative investigations for all the cases identified by the US for 2016 and 2017. The
Government of Ecuador concluded that all but one case warranted punitive actions. Ecuador imposed
monetary sanctions in those cases that warranted punitive action and provided the United States with
documentation of these sanctions. Thirteen cases reached final resolution with sanctions imposed,
corroborated with documentation. For the case that did not warrant punitive action, Ecuador determined,
following an investigation, that the vessel did not commit an infraction of the conservation and
management measure.

The United States was concerned with Ecuador’s failure to fully investigate allegations of noncompliance
with IATTC resolutions by Ecuador’s purse-seine fleet. The US was specifically concerned about recurrent
vessel-specific issues, which have been the basis for Ecuador’s repeated identifications for IUU fishing in
NOAA Fisheries’ Biennial Reports to Congress (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2019). However, in the August
2021 Biennial Report to Congress, NOAA concluded that Ecuador’s responses to new cases of potential
noncompliance presented by IATTC and its constructive participation in the Compliance Committee
demonstrate that Ecuador is now adequately fulfilling its obligations under Resolution C-11-07

8 http://nube.acuaculturaypesca.gob.ec:85/index.php/s/wS9I2QfhHfBaGQF
9 https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/identification-iuu-fishing-activities#findings-and-analyses-of-
foreign-iuu-fishing-activities

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 233 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Ecuador’s government adopted as public policy the National Tuna Action Plan in December 2019. The
plan is a management tool for ensuring the sustainability of tuna fisheries. It includes objectives for:
reducing bycatch; strengthening the monitoring and management of environmental impacts;
strengthening traceability; developing environmental education programs and improving scientific
research. The plan was developed as a coordinated effort between the national fishing authority, tuna
industry association, civil society organizations and other stakeholders. The plan is also part of
government and industry efforts to respond to the yellow card issued by the European Union.

Private sector stakeholders in the industrial tuna fishery tend to be members of one or more of three
organizations: (i) the Association of Tuna Boat Owners (ATUNEC), (ii) the National Chamber of Fisheries
(CNP), and (iii) the Chamber of Tuna Processors (CEIPA). ATUNEC integrate independent tuna boat owners,
CNP incorporate mainly processors that have their own tuna fleets, and CEIPA integrate most tuna
processors. The tuna industry is vertically integrated, and these organizations include most of the
producers, processors, exporters and traders related to the Ecuadorian fishery (e.g., Starkist, NIRSA,
SALICA). Key NGOs engaged with the fishery are WWF, Conservation International and the International
Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). WWF has been advocating sustainable tuna fisheries in the EPO
and works directly with the Ecuadorian tuna industry. Conservation International has minor direct
involvement with the industrial tuna sector. ISSF promotes improvement of global tuna fisheries to
become MSC certified. ISSF actively work with the Ecuadorian tuna industry and participates in the
meetings of the IATTC. Major players of the Ecuadorian tuna industry are members of ISSF.

Ecuador’s constitution provides for public participation. It guarantees civil and political rights and
emphasizes participative democracy. Article 95 provides for participation as leading players in decision
making, planning and management of public affairs. The Organic Law of Citizen Participation of 2010,
regulates mechanisms of direct democracy established in the Constitution, determining process,
requirements, times, and effects of each mechanism. The right to public is provided for in the Organic
Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information enacted on in 2004. The National Tuna Action Plan
was developed with stakeholder input and consultative meetings. However, processes for regular input
into fisheries management are less clear. Public meetings of the National Council for Fisheries
Development are one mechanism for stakeholder engagement, however the frequency of these meetings
and means of stakeholder participation is not readily apparent.

Panama

Panama’s legislation and regulations related to fisheries were, until the passage of a new March 2021,
unconsolidated and dated. The previous fishing law dated to 1959 (Law decree 17 of July 9, 1959) and
additional laws, executive decrees and administrative resolutions were promulgated to manage different
components of Panama’s fisheries.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 234 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama (Autoridad de los Recursos Acuáticos de Panamá; ARAP) is
the main authority for managing fisheries. It was created in 2006. Other institutions with a role in sector
include the Vice-Ministry of Foreign Affairs. the General Accounting Office, and the Maritime Authority.

Panama has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (in 1995), the UN Fish Stocks agreement (in
2008) and the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and
Unregulated Fishing (in 2016). Executive decrees 160, 161 and 162 address administrative sanctions,
mechanisms for the monitoring, control and surveillance, and the permitting of fishing and fishing support
vessels respectively. Fishing and fishing support vessels licensed to operate in international waters are
available online (https://arap.gob.pa/listado-embarcaciones-apoyo-y-captura/). In 2019, Panama signed
an agreement with Global Fishing Watch to make the real-time position of its distant water fishing fleet
from its vessel monitoring system publicly available 10. Each year (or as appropriate), Panama formally
9F

adopts the recommendations of the IATC through Administrative Resolutions.

In 2017, the government of Panama approved the Action Plan for Sustainable Fisheries. The Plan is
intended to guide the reform of the outdated legal framework and improve coordination at the sectoral
and inter-institutional levels. It guides the work of ARAP and the National Commission for Responsible
Fisheries. The plan has four key areas:
▪ Develop and strengthen institutional capacity and inter-agency coordination for the sustainable
development of fisheries and aquaculture.
▪ Increase the benefits of fisheries and aquaculture production based on improving quality,
diversification, innovation and traceability in the value chain.
▪ Develop the fisheries and aquaculture sectors, promoting a culture of responsible use that allows
equitable exploitation and permanence for future generations.
▪ Improve management based on information analysis and participatory management, strengthening
the control of use and access to fishery and aquaculture resources.

The Action Plan was published following extensive stakeholder consultation. ARAP provides regular on-
line updates of progress against action items in the plan grouped by these key areas. The last update
available covered the period to April 2019 11.
10F

The Action Plan for Sustainable Fisheries also guides the work of the National Responsible Fisheries
Commission that can recommend initiatives to achieve sustainable development of fisheries sector, as
well as policies and measures that are necessary, in order to regulate fishing activity in Panama’s EEZ. This
Commission has 17 members, of which seven are representatives of fisheries stakeholders. One position
is open to a representative of the purse seine fishery. The role of the Commission with respect to
international tuna fisheries is unclear at this time.

10
https://arap.gob.pa/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Memora%CC%81ndum-de-entendimiento-entre-ARAP-y-
Global-Fishing-Watch-Inc..pdf
11
https://arap.gob.pa//avances-plan-de-accion-pesca-sostenible-en-panama/

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 235 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

In October 2019, Panama received a yellow card from the European Union over shortcomings in the
mechanisms that the country has put in place to ensure compliance with its international obligations as
flag, port and market state. The shortcoming reported by the European Union include:
▪ Serious deficiencies in terms of control, notably over the activities of the fishing and fishing related
activities of vessels flying the flag of Panama.
▪ These deficiencies undermine the reliability of the traceability system upon which the certification
of the legality of the catches is based.
▪ Law enforcement is affected by inefficient administrative procedures and a lenient approach
towards infringements. As a result, there are significant delays in the imposition of sanctions and
the sanctioning system is not depriving the offenders from the benefits accruing from IUU fishing or
acting as a deterrent.
▪ Serious deficiencies in the implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement in order to
prevent fish stemming from IUU fishing activities reaching national and international markets and
to effectively prevent IUU vessels from receiving port services.

The following actions were requested of Panama by the European Commission:

1. Revise the legal framework, in particular the draft Fisheries Law, in order to ensure compliance with
the international and regional rules applying to the conservation and management of fishing
resources.
2. Ensure that legislation, including the three Executive Decrees adopted in 2013, is fully and
effectively implemented and in line with the new Fisheries Law.
3. Strengthen the effective implementation of international rules and management measures through
an adequate regime of sanctions effectively enforced and followed up.
4. Address the shortcomings identified in relation to the MCS systems with regard to the requirements
laid down in its national legislation, international and regional instruments as well as in the
framework of the Catch Certification Scheme (CCS).
5. Improve the registration of vessels as well as the management of fishing licences.
6. Improve cooperation with other States in a bilateral context or in the framework of RFMOs in line
with international obligations.
7. Ensure compliance with reporting obligations within RFMOs.

Panama had already received a yellow card in November 2012, which was then lifted in October 2014.
According to the European Union, the second card was based on the identification of various shortcomings
that constitute significant backtracking compared to improvements observed from 2012 to 2014. It is the
first country to be given a yellow card by the European Union twice.

Law No. 204 regulating fishing and aquaculture in Panama was passed in March 2021 replacing the
Fisheries Act of 1959. The new law incorporates ecosystem approaches to fisheries management and co-
management to give effect to sustainability, the precautionary approach, citizen participation,
cooperation and modernized fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance provisions including sanctions.
It also gives effect to the international conventions to which Panama is party.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 236 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The industrial fisheries sector is organized through the National Association of the Panamanian Fisheries
Industry (ANDELAIPP), the Panamanian Association of the Tuna Industry (APIA) and the Association of
Producers, Processors and Exporters of Seafood (APPEXMAR). These three belong to the National Council
of Private Enterprise (CONEP) and the Panamanian Exporters Association (APEX). There are several NGOs
participate in fisheries issues. These include the MarViva Foundation; the Development and Sustainable
Fisheries Center (CeDePesca); and the International Fisheries Foundation (FIPESCA). There is evidence
that ARAP consults annually with interested stakeholders about conservation and management proposals
for tuna and related species fisheries in the IATTC. It is not clear that there are formal mechanisms for
incorporating stakeholder input the Panamanian Governments position and there is limited information
about which stakeholders are invited to ARAP technical meetings.

Panama has several regulatory instruments in place that relate to transparency of the public sector. Law
No. 6 of 22 January 2002, which handles transparency of the public sector (Panama’s Freedom of
Information legislation). Law No. 33 of 25 April 2013, which makes provision for an Information Officer to
exist within each public institution with responsibility for proactive transparency, open data and
information requests. According to the OECD (2019), there is a gap between the intent of these legal
frameworks and the practice of institutions across Panama. Panama appears to lack instruments such as
guidance on the governance and use of data, as well as support for publishing government data. 12 ARAP
12F

has a transparency webpage, apparently meeting statutory requirements. It is unclear how and to what
extent stakeholders and the public can seek information that is not otherwise available on the ARAP
website, including for example, meeting minutes and documentation of reasons for decisions made by
ARAP.

United States

The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1976 is the primary law governing marine
fisheries management in USA federal waters. It was enacted to promote the USA fishing industry's optimal
exploitation of coastal fisheries by “consolidating control over territorial waters” and establishing eight
regional councils to manage fish stocks. The Act has been amended several times in response to continued
overfishing of major stocks. In 1996, it was amended to mandate the use of annual catch limits and
accountability measures to end overfishing, provide for widespread market-based fishery management
through limited access privilege programs, minimize by catch, establish fishery information monitoring
systems, protect fish habitat and promote increased international cooperation. As part of this reform, it
was renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA).

The reforms to the MSFCMA occurring in 1996 called on the Secretary of Commerce to work multilaterally
through various fora, such as Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs), to address illegal,

12
OECD 2019. Digital Government Review of Panama: Enhancing the Digital Transformation of the Public Sector,
OECD Publishing, Paris

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 237 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and bycatch of protected living marine resources. The most
recent version of the MSFCMA was authorized in 2007.

The most recent version, authorized in 2007, includes seven purposes:

1. Acting to conserve and manage fishery resources.
2. Supporting implementation and enforcement of international fishing agreements.
3. Promotion of domestic commercial and recreational fishing under sound conservation and
management principles.
4. Providing for the preparation and implementation of fishery management plans (FMPs) which
achieve optimal yield.
5. Establishing Regional Fishery Management Councils to steward fishery resources through the
preparation, monitoring, and revising of plans which; (a) enable stakeholders to participate in the
establishment and administration of such plans; and (b) take into account social and economic needs
of states.
6. Developing underutilized fisheries.
7. Promotion of the protection essential fish habitats.

The USA has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It has ratified the UN Fish Stocks
agreement (1996), and the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal,
Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (2016).

The MSFCMA extends to USA fleets operating on the high seas. The US purse seine fleet operating in the
EPO is also subject to the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, which governs the conduct
of USA fishing vessels on the high seas, and under which a high seas fishing permit is required for a USA
fishing vessel to be used for commercial fishing anywhere on the high seas.

NOAA Fisheries implements the legally binding resolutions that the IATTC adopts by drafting regulations
for U.S. fisheries operating in the IATTC Convention Area under the Tuna Conventions Act. The West Coast
Region’s Highly Migratory Species program also regularly engages with NOAA Fisheries’ Southwest
Fisheries Science Center, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, and Pacific Islands Regional Office to
coordinate IATTC data reporting requirements for the U.S. fleet fishing in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Clear
guidance is provided to all US flagged vessels operating in the IATTC area as set out in several documents
including:
▪ The NOAA Fisheries IATTC Vessel Register Compliance Guide; and
▪ The Compliance Guide Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2021
and FAD Construction Requirements.

Regulations implemented under the Tuna Conventions Act are made in accordance with resolutions of
the IATTC and apply to U.S. fishing vessels targeting or pursuing highly migratory species within the IATTC
area. Proposed regulations are posted on the Federal Register for public comment. Also, the U.S.
Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Department of State appoints a General Advisory
Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Section to the IATTC and a Scientific Advisory Subcommittee (SAS) that
advises the GAC. The U.S. Section consists of the four U.S. Commissioners to the IATTC and representatives

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 238 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

of the State Department, NOAA, Department of Commerce, other U.S. Government agencies, and
stakeholders. The GAC advises the U.S. Section on the development of U.S. policies, positions, and
negotiating tactics at upcoming IATTC meetings. The purpose of the SAS is to advise the GAC on scientific
matters. NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region staff provide administrative support for the GAC and SAS. The
meetings of the GAC and SAS are open to the public. The nature of public comment is up to the Chairs for
the GAC and SAS to decide.

7.1.1.3 Area of Operation and Relevant Jurisdictions

The UoA fleet (flagged to Ecuador, Panama and USA) fishes in the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zones
(EEZ) of Ecuador and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) management area (Figure 36)
The IATTC boundaries established by the Antigua Convention are East of 150°W, South of 50°N, and North
of 50°S) and therefore all client tuna fishing activities are regulated under the jurisdiction of the IATTC. As
a condition of their voluntary membership in this multilateral agreement, member countries must adhere
to the Commission’s regulations. The key components of the governance and fishery management
framework for the fishery: Are the IATTC and the Ecuadorian, Panamanian and United States National
Government.

Figure 36. IATTC management area. Source ISSF 2019.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 239 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

7.1.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework
which ensures that it:
- Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s);
- Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people
dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and
- Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework
Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

Guide There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective

post legal system and a legal system and organised national legal system and
framework for cooperation and effective cooperation binding procedures
with other parties, where with other parties, where governing cooperation with
necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver other parties which delivers
management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes
consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC
Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No

Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: No
US: Yes US: Yes US: No
Rationale

We assess 3.1.1a based on the totality of the legal framework as per SA4.3.4.3 that states that an: “effective
national legal system” means that the client can provide objective evidence that most of the essential features
and elements needed to deliver sustainable fisheries are present in:
▪ A coherent, logical set of practices or procedures, or
▪ Within a coherent, logical supporting ‘rule-making’ structure

We then consider this in the context of SA 4.3.2 and SA 4.3.3 for fisheries subject to international cooperation.

SG 60 scoring consistent with laws and standards for a UoA subject to international cooperation requires:
▪ The existence of national and international laws, agreements and policies governing the actions
of the authorities and actors involved in managing the UoA,
▪ That effective regional and/or international cooperation creates a comprehensive cooperation
under the obligations of UNCLOS Articles 63(2), 64, 118, 119, and UNFSA Article 8,
▪ That cooperation shall at least deliver the intent of UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs relating to the
collection, sharing and dissemination of scientific data, the scientific assessment of stock status
and development of scientific advice
▪ That the flag state of fishery participants in the UoA shall have at least cooperating non-member
status within a relevant sub-regional or regional fisheries management organisation or other
bilateral/ multilateral arrangement, if such exists.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 240 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

SG 80 scoring of consistency with laws and standards for a UoA subject to international cooperation requires
evidence of SG 60 elements and:

▪ That cooperation shall at least deliver the intent of UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs relating to the
collection, sharing and dissemination of scientific data, the scientific assessment of stock status
and development of management advice, the agreement and delivery of management actions
consistent with this sustainable management advice, and on monitoring and control, and
▪ That the flag state of fishery participants in the UoA shall be members of the relevant
organisation or participants in the arrangement or agree to apply the conservation and
management measures established by the organisation or arrangement if such organisation or
arrangement exists.

Which is further informed by GSA43.3.2:

At SG80, organized and effective cooperation with other parties extends to UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs a, h, and
j, and could include for example the establishment of appropriate cooperative mechanisms for effective
monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement. Also, at SG80 and SG100 the flag state(s) of vessels from the
UoA should be participating with a relevant RFMO or other arrangement as Members or, if Membership is
prohibited for political reasons, as cooperating non-contracting party or cooperating non-member.
IATTC
The Antigua Convention of 2003 governs fishing for tuna and tuna like species on the high seas and in zones of
national jurisdiction (Medley et al. 2021). The objective of the Antigua Convention is to ensure the long-term
conservation and sustainable use of the fish stocks in the Convention area in accordance with the relevant rules
of international law.

The Antigua Convention explicitly recognizes the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development and Agenda 21, the Johannesburg Declaration
and Plan of Implementation adopted by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (2002), the FAO Code
of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995), including the 1993 FAO Compliance Agreement and International
Plans of Action adopted by FAO within the framework of the Code of Conduct, and the 1995 UN Fish Stocks
Agreement (UNFSA). This promotes the implementation of these international agreements within its area of
jurisdiction to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. However, although
Conservation and Management Measures adopted by the Commission are binding, agreement is by consensus
and therefore co-operation is effectively not binding, so SG 100 is not met.

Ecuador
Ecuador’s Constitution of 2008 provides the legal foundations for the management of its fisheries. Article 14
declares as a public interest the preservation of the environment and the conservation of ecosystems. Article
395 declares "The State will ensure a sustainable model of development, environmentally balanced and
respectful of cultural diversity, which preserves biodiversity and the natural regeneration of ecosystems, and
ensures that the needs of present and future generations are met." This article together with article 396 also
gives effect to the precautionary approach in natural resource management. Article 281 states: "Food
sovereignty constitutes a strategic objective and an obligation of the state to ensure that individuals,
communities, peoples, and nationalities achieve the self-sufficiency of healthy and culturally appropriate foods
on a permanent basis.
Ecuador has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (2012), the UN Fish Stocks agreement (2016), and
the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing (2019). Until 2020, fisheries were managed and regulated under the Fisheries and Fisheries
Development Law, first passed in 1974 it was amended in 1985, 2005, and 2016. The 2016 amendments were

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 241 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

made to give effect to the National Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and
Unregulated fishing and included administrative sanctions and penalties. The objective of this Plan is to define
the national policies for fighting IUU fishing in the jurisdictional waters of Ecuador and the adjacent high seas.
The 1974 law was replaced in April 2020 by the Organic Law for the Development of Aquaculture and Fishing
which consolidated and updated national law to ensure compliance with the international and regional rules
applying to the conservation and management of fishing resources. Specific changes and actions to strengthen
national regulations include:
▪ Implementing internal procedures to improve control in the traceability of fishery products of
Ecuadorian origin and imported fishery products.
▪ Implementing interinstitutional technical standards establishing clear procedures, to ensure the
control and traceability of fishery products.
▪ Establishing technological mechanisms that allow sharing of information with others government
institutions.
▪ Strengthening the institutional capacity of the Ecuadorian Fisheries Authority to comply with its
obligations to regulate and monitor fishing activity.
▪ Ensuring implementation and effective compliance with the revised fisheries legislation.
▪ Strengthening the administrative sanctions regime.
▪ Improving Monitoring, Control and Surveillance systems with respect to in international and
regional regulations.
▪ Strengthening systems for the registration of fishing licences.
▪ Strengthening and improve cooperation with other States.
▪ Ensuring compliance with reporting and recording obligations to the IATTC and other RFMOs.

The Resolutions and Recommendations made by the IATTC for the conservation of tunas are formally adopted
by the Ecuadorian government. Resolutions are translated into regulations through Ministerial agreements
issued by the Under Secretariat for Fishery Resources. Ministerial Agreement MPCEIP-SRP-2019-0027-A is the
latest regulation that adopts and adapts all IATTC’s conservation measures and includes them in the Ecuadorian
legal system.
Ecuador’s national legal framework for fisheries and the management of fisheries subject to international
cooperation meets SG 80 referencing GSA4.3 Legal and/or Customary Framework PI (PI 3.1.1a). Specifically,
organized and effective cooperation with other parties extends to UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs a, h and j
(SA4.3.3.2). Our assessment confirms that there is an effective legal system and organised and effective
cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC
Principles 1 and 2 thereby meeting SG 80. SG 100 is not met because although Conservation and Management
Measures adopted by the IATTC are binding, agreement is by consensus and therefore co-operation is
effectively not binding.

Panama
Panama has ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (in 1995), the UN Fish Stocks agreement (in 2008)
and the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing (in 2016). Law No. 204 regulating fishing and aquaculture in Panama was passed in March 2021
replacing the Fisheries Act of 1959. The new law incorporates ecosystem approaches to fisheries management
and co-management to give effect to sustainability, the precautionary approach, citizen participation,
cooperation and modernized fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance provisions including sanctions. It
also gives effect to the international conventions to which Panama is party. Each year (or as appropriate),
Panama formally adopts the recommendations of the IATC through Administrative Resolutions.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 242 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

In October 2019, Panama received a second yellow card from the European Union over shortcomings in the
mechanisms that the country has put in place to ensure compliance with its international obligations as flag,
port and market state. The European Union documented:
▪ Serious deficiencies in terms of control, notably over the activities of the fishing and fishing
related activities of vessels flying the flag of Panama.
▪ That these deficiencies undermine the reliability of the traceability system upon which the
certification of the legality of the catches is based.
▪ Law enforcement is affected by inefficient administrative procedures and a lenient approach
towards infringements. As a result, there are significant delays in the imposition of sanctions and
the sanctioning system is not depriving the offenders from the benefits accruing from IUU fishing
or acting as a deterrent.
▪ Serious deficiencies in the implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement in order to
prevent fish stemming from IUU fishing activities reaching national and international markets
and to effectively prevent IUU vessels from receiving port services.
Steps taken since 2019, most especially the passing of Law 204, together with various administrative resolutions
are evidence of substantial progress in alleviating the issues raised by the EU.

Panama’s national legal framework for fisheries and the management of fisheries subject to international
cooperation meets SG 60 referencing GSA4.3 Legal and/or Customary Framework PI (PI 3.1.1a). Specifically, that
cooperation shall at least deliver the intent of UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs relating to the collection, sharing
and dissemination of scientific data, the scientific assessment of stock status and development of scientific
advice (SA4.3.2.2). Our assessment confirms that there is an effective national legal system and a framework for
cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC
Principles 1 and 2 thereby meeting SG 60.
With passage of Law 204, the national legal framework for fisheries and the management of fisheries subject to
international cooperation meets SG 80 referencing GSA4.3 Legal and/or Customary Framework PI (PI 3.1.1a).
Specifically, organized and effective cooperation with other parties extends to UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs a, h
and j (SA4.3.3.2). Our assessment confirms that there is an effective legal system and organised and effective
cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC
Principles 1 and 2 thereby meeting SG 80. SG 100 is not met because although Conservation and Management
Measures adopted by the IATTC are binding, agreement is by consensus and therefore co-operation is
effectively not binding.

United States
The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1976 is the primary law governing marine fisheries
management in USA federal waters. The MSFCMA extends to USA fleets operating on the high seas.

The USA has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. It has ratified the UN Fish Stocks agreement
(1996), and the Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and
Unregulated Fishing (2016).

The US purse seine fleet operating in the EPO is subject to the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance
Act, which governs the conduct of USA fishing vessels on the high seas, and under which a high seas fishing
permit is required for a USA fishing vessel to be used for commercial fishing anywhere on the high seas.
Regulations implemented under the Tuna Conventions Act are made in accordance with resolutions of the
IATTC and apply to U.S. fishing vessels targeting or pursuing highly migratory species within the IATTC area.
More widely, NOAA Fisheries participates in various fisheries organizations to achieve effective and responsible
marine stewardship and ensure sustainable fisheries management. This include RFMOs covering the Atlantic,
Indian, Pacific, and Southern Oceans, as well global and other multilateral living marine resource agreements.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 243 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The arrangements in these Acts and agreements provide a comprehensive suite of management and
enforcement powers designed to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. They
also provide for organized and cooperation with other parties with the MSFCCA making specific reference to the
management of international fisheries and the Tuna Conventions Act providing specific mechanisms
arrangements to participate in the IATTC and cooperate with other CPCs. In particular they create mechanisms
to
▪ Agree on and comply with conservation and management measures to ensure the long-term
sustainability of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks;
▪ Establish appropriate cooperative mechanisms for effective monitoring, control, surveillance and
enforcement; and
▪ Agree on decision-making procedures which facilitate the adoption of conservation and management
measures in a timely and effective manner

The USA’s national legal framework for fisheries and the management of fisheries subject to international
cooperation meets SG 80 referencing GSA4.3 Legal and/or Customary Framework PI (PI 3.1.1a). Specifically,
organized and effective cooperation with other parties extends to UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs a, h and j
(SA4.3.3.2). Our assessment confirms that there is an effective legal system and organised and effective
cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC
Principles 1 and 2 thereby meeting SG 80. SG 100 is not met because although Conservation and Management
Measures adopted by the IATTC are binding, agreement is by consensus and therefore co-operation is
effectively not binding.

We conclude that for all UoAs, the compatibility of laws or standards with effective management:

▪ Meet SG 60 as there is an effective national legal system and a framework for cooperation with
other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles
1 and 2.
▪ SG 80 is met since, our assessment confirms that there is an effective national (and local) legal
system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver
management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2
▪ SG 100 is not met since although management measures adopted by the IATTC are binding,
agreement on measures is by consensus. We cannot conclude that binding procedures
governing cooperation with other parties are in place.

b Resolution of disputes

Guide The management system The management system The management system
post incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by
law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent
resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the mechanism for the
arising within the system. resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes
which is considered to be that is appropriate to the
effective in dealing with context of the fishery and
most issues and that is has been tested and proven
appropriate to the context of to be effective.
the UoA.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: No
US: Yes US: Yes US: No

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 244 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

IATTC
Several mechanisms exist for dealing with legal disputes at the international level. Part VII of the Antigua
Convention establishes a framework for dispute resolution. Although this does not specify a concrete
mechanism, it does define an avenue for arriving at a solution in the case of a difference between two or more
members of the Commission. Disputes can be dealt with at the IATTC annual meetings of the Parties through
consultation and conciliation. Technical disputes might be resolved by an appropriately composed expert or
technical panel. As a last step, disputes might be resolved through either the International Court of Justice or
the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), though this recourse is most likely to be used by states
which have ratified the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA).

The system of adoption of resolutions and recommendations proposed by members of the Commission is
transparent. Members are fully informed of the issues under consideration and are able to participate in
informed discussion. Independent observers, including NGO and IGOs, are present at such meetings and would
observe any resolutions and justifications that are presented. Observers are allowed to make presentations to
members, though this is only available if members and the chairperson do not object. Disputes resolved in this
way would still not necessarily be entirely transparent in the sense that how a resolution is reached may not be
fully reported. Non-parties to the convention can apply to become Co-operating Non-parties, which also
implement the measures and requirements set by IATTC, even if not becoming a full member of the
Commission. There is no formal system of arbitration or conciliation where differences arise among parties over
recommendations.

There are explicit and transparent decision-making and dispute resolution mechanisms defined and in place,
meeting SG60. The system appears to be generally effective. There are no outstanding disputes among
members for the fisheries considered here, but no disputes have been referred to ICJ/ITLOS. Overall, available
evidence suggests the system is meeting SG80. The effectiveness of the other informal IATTC mechanisms is
unclear and overall the mechanisms have yet to be tested and proven effective. These issues mean the IATTC
dispute resolution mechanisms do not meet SG100.

Ecuador
There is no mechanism for the resolution of disputes apparent in Ecuador’s fisheries laws and related
instruments. The Ecuadorian judicial system is governed by statutory law, not by common law or judicial
precedents. The General Organic Code of Procedures which came into force in 2016 and instituted a new
procedural system for all trial proceedings, except criminal and constitutional matters. The Organic
Administrative Code, entered into force in 2018 and regulates administrative procedures, including appeals and
extraordinary challenges before all public entities. Discussions with Ecuadorian authorities did not provide
instances of the Organic Administrative Code being applied to fisheries in general and the UoA specifically.
However, the Organic Administrative Code is the mechanism through which disputes in Ecuador’s fisheries law
would be resolved.

SG 60 is met as the management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of
legal disputes arising within the system. SG 80 is also met because there is a transparent mechanism for the
resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is
appropriate to the context of the UoA. SG 100 is not met because there is no evidence that the mechanism has
been tested and proven to be effective in the context of the fishery.

Panama
There is no mechanism for the resolution of disputes apparent within Panama’s fisheries laws and related
instruments. The Panamanian judicial system is governed by statutory law, not by common law or judicial
precedents. Disputes are resolved under the Law 38 The Administrative Procedures Law of 2000 that provides

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 245 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

an appeal process if a responsible party believes that their right has been violated due to the imposition of an
administrative sanction.

SG 60 is met as the management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of
legal disputes arising within the system. SG 80 is also met because there is a transparent mechanism for the
resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is
appropriate to the context of the UoA. SG 100 is not met because there is no evidence that the mechanism has
been tested and proven to be effective in the context of the fishery.

United States
At the domestic level, legal disputes are handled under the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the
process by which federal agencies (e.g. NOAA/NMFS) develop and issue regulations. Opportunities are provided
for the public to comment on notices of proposed rulemaking. The US court system follows well-established
procedures that have been tested and proven effective in resolving legal disputes. In the case of lawsuits filed
against the management agency, the public “administrative record” (the basis for decision making—including
everything in the public record on all fisheries related issues) is used to demonstrate how NMFS made its
decisions. NMFS also has legal responsibility for reviewing and approving fisheries management plans,
implementing and enforcing regulations, and administering supporting programs.

The US legal system at all levels is acknowledged to be transparent and considered to be effective in dealing
with most issues as appropriate for the context of the UoA and SG 80 is met. However, since SG 100 is not met
for the IATTC, no part of the UOA can be scored higher than SG 80 because this SI is interpreted to mean dispute
resolution at the national and international levels must be considered together.

We conclude that for all UoAs:

▪ SG 60 is met where the management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism
for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system.
▪ SG 80 is met where management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent
mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with
most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the UoA.
▪ SG100 is not met since while the management system incorporates or is subject by law to a
transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of
the fishery they have not been tested and proven to be effective, at either national (UoAs 1 and
2) and or regional (IATTC) levels (UOAs 1, 2 and 3).
c Respect for rights

Guide The management system has The management system has The management system
post a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the has a mechanism to formally
respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights
created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or
established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of
people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing
for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a
manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the
objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles
1 and 2. 1 and 2.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: No
US: Yes US: Yes US: No

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 246 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

IATTC
The IATTC Antigua Convention (Part VI Article XXIII) states that the Commission will adopt measures to assist
developing countries to carry out their responsibilities to carry out their obligations under the Convention and
will improve the capacity for fisheries development in national jurisdictions.

Legal rights of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood are protected through national interests of
Parties to the Convention. The Convention deals with the rights of a State’s access to resources rather than
individuals.

Smaller vessels and more artisanal gears are excluded from many measures. Pole-and-line, troll, and sport
fishing vessels, and purse-seine vessels less than 182 metric tons carrying capacity and longline vessels less than
24m length are exempt from various measures designed to limit fishing activity on bigeye and yellowfin tuna
stocks. Furthermore, purse-seine vessels with between 182 and 272 metric tons carrying capacity are provided
for higher fishing effort provided that they carry an observer for the International Dolphin Conservation
Program (AIDCP). These exemptions are clearly designed to protect some artisanal fleet.

IATTC has an intention and has a management system that observe the legal rights created explicitly or
established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the
objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Therefore the international management system meets the requirement
for SG60 and SG80. However, such mechanisms are not formal commitments and SG100 is not met.

Ecuador
Article 281 of Ecuador’s constitution states: "Food sovereignty constitutes a strategic objective and an
obligation of the state to ensure that individuals, communities, peoples, and nationalities achieve the self-
sufficiency of healthy and culturally appropriate foods on a permanent basis. Its fisheries laws enshrine this
concept as does a clear recognition and protection of artisanal fishing in regulation and management actions.
SG 100 would be met as the management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights
created explicitly or established by custom on people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner
consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. However, since SG 100 is not met at the regional level
it cannot be met at the flag state level.

Panama
Panama’s Fishery Law of 1959 recognizes subsistence fishing but not artisanal fishing. When vessels greater
than 10 GRT were classified as industrial fishing, vessels less than 10GRT effectively became effectively classified
as artisanal. The Action Plan for Sustainable Fisheries addresses artisanal fisheries management and
development and provides mechanisms to observe the legal rights thereby meeting SG 80. It does not commit
Panama to legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and
livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2 so SG 100 is not met.

United States
The MSFCMA requires a provision in all fishery management plans to: “… assess, specify, and analyze the likely
effects, if any, including the cumulative conservation, economic, and social impacts, of the conservation and
management measures on, and possible mitigation measures for:
▪ Participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the plan or amendment;
▪ Participants in the fisheries conducted in adjacent areas under the authority of another Council,
after consultation with such Council and representatives of those participants;”

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 247 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The make-up of the regional fishery management councils and their advisory panels, together with public
meetings, assure that existing arrangements will be taken into account in the development of fishery
management plans. These provisions of the law do not guarantee that existing legal or customary rights will be
incorporated into a management plan but fishery management plans can formally commit to the legal rights
created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner
consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Any failure to recognize existing legal rights would be
subject to challenge in the courts and the law is written so as to encourage consideration of customary rights.
The nature of the consultative process of FMP development means that customary rights will be given
consideration.

SG100 is met as the management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created
explicitly or established by custom on people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner
consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. However, since SG 100 is not met at the regional level
it cannot be met at the flag state level.

In conclusion, all UoAs meet:

• SG 60 since he management system has a mechanism to generally respect the legal rights
created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or
livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.
• SG 80 since the management system has a mechanism to observe the legal rights created
explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a
manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.
All UoAs do not meet:
▪ SG 100 since the IATTC management system does not have a mechanism to formally commit to
the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for
food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.

References

Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama 2017. Action Plan for Sustainable Fisheries
https://arap.gob.pa/avances-plan-de-accion-pesca-sostenible-en-panama/
Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama. Laws and Administrative Resolutions https://arap.gob.pa/legislacion/
European Commission 2019. Questions and Answers – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and
issues at stake in Ecuador
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/sl/QANDA_19_6037
European Commission 2019. Questions and Answers – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and
issues at stake in Panama https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_19_6756
IATTC 1990. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Rules of Procedure
IATTC 2003. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Convention for the Strengthening of the
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Established by The 1949 Convention Between The United States of
America and the Republic of Costa Rica (“Antigua Convention”). June 2003
IATTC 2019/ Compendium of active resolutions and recommendations (in force, January 2019).
FAO 2018 National Aquaculture Sector Overview: Panama
http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_panama/en

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 248 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

FAO 2018 National Aquaculture Sector Overview: Ecuador

http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_ecuador/en
Medley, PAH, J. Gascoigne and G. Scarcella. 2021. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks
Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 8). ISSF Technical Report 2021-01. International
Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA
Ministry of Production, Exterior, Investment and Fisheries (Ecuador) 2017. Report of the Ecuadorian Tuna
Sector. http://www.produccion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Reporte-del-sector-atunero-
ingles.pdf
Ministry of Production, Exterior, Investment and Fisheries (Ecuador) 2019. National Tuna Action Plan.
McCluney, J. K., Anderson, C. M., & Anderson, J. L. 2019. The fishery performance indicators for global tuna
fisheries. Nature communications, 10(1), 1641.
Political Data Base of the Americas, Republic of Ecuador: Constitution of 2008
http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html
NOAA Fisheries 2017 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/magnuson-stevens-fishery-conservation-and-
management-act
UNCLOS 1999. Signatory to the migratory stocks agreement – 1999
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982)
United Nations Fisheries Agreement (UNFA) 1995

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range Ecuador: 60-79
Panama: 60-79
US: ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score rationale.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score Ecuador: 80
Panama: 80
US: 80
Condition number (if relevant) Condition

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 249 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested
and affected parties
The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the
management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Roles and responsibilities

Guide Organisations and Organisations and individuals Organisations and

post individuals involved in the involved in the management individuals involved in the
management process have process have been identified. management process have
been identified. Functions, Functions, roles and been identified. Functions,
roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are explicitly roles and responsibilities are
generally understood. defined and well understood explicitly defined and well
for key areas of understood for all areas of
responsibility and responsibility and
interaction. interaction.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: No
US: Yes US: Yes US: Yes
Rationale

IATTC
Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined at the international level. The IATTC was established to
define roles and responsibilities for its contracting parties and co-operating non-contracting parties. The
performance of the Secretariat is sound and well regarded as both efficient and effective by the Parties.

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and
responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction meeting
SG100.

Ecuador
The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are
clearly defined and understood by all relevant parties, particularly at the national level. The Under Secretariat
for Fishery Resources of the Ministry of Production, Exterior, Investment is responsible of the supervision and
implementation of the national fisheries policy, ensures compliance with fisheries laws and regulations,
elaborates fisheries development plans and programs, coordinates the activities of the public and private
sectors, manages fisheries financial credit, approves reports and plans of companies in the fisheries sector, and
commissions studies on the activity, management, and development of the fishing sector. The Public Institute
for Research in Aquaculture and Fisheries provides scientific services to the fisheries sector. The National
Council for Fisheries Development is responsible for the development of the national fisheries policy, the
approval of the fisheries development plans and programmes, and the yearly assessment of the results to allow
authorities to make necessary changes. The non-statutory National Tuna Plan establishes roles, responsibilities,
and accountability against actions.

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified and functions, roles
and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction
meeting SG80. However, European Union have provided evidence of deficiencies in terms of control, notably

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 250 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

over the activity of the tuna fishing and processing industries and in the reporting to the IATTC of possible
infractions and taking action against infractions. Though the US has now positively certified Ecuador as
compliant with resolution C-11-07, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused delays in the administrative timeline for
Ecuador to finalize implementing regulations, including a National Control and Inspection Plan and the
Procedural Guide for the opening of Administrative Fisheries Records associated with the new legislation.
There is therefore insufficient evidence to conclude that functions, roles and responsibilities are well
understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction and therefore SG100 is not met.

Panama
The Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama (ARAP) is the main authority for managing fisheries. Other
institutions with a role in sector include the Vice-Ministry of Foreign Affairs. the General Accounting Office, and
the Maritime Authority. Panama’s Action Plan for Sustainable Fisheries is intended to improve coordination at
the sectoral and inter-institutional levels. It guides the work of ARAP and the National Commission for
Responsible Fisheries. The plan establishes clear roles, responsibilities and accountability against actions.

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified and functions, roles and
responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction meeting
SG80. However, the European Union has found that there are serious deficiencies in terms of control, notably
over the activities of the fishing and fishing related activities of vessels flying the flag of Panama and in
implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement. In particular, the EU documents evidence of significant
delays in the imposition of sanctions and deficiencies in the implementation of the Port State Measures
Agreement that mean Panama is not taking sufficient action to deter IUU fishing. This suggests that functions,
roles and responsibilities are not well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction and therefore
SG100 is not met.

United States
In the USA there is a General Advisory Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Section to the IATTC and a Scientific
Advisory Subcommittee (SAS) that advises the GAC. The U.S. Section consists of the U.S. Commissioners to the
IATTC and representatives of the State Department, NOAA, Department of Commerce, other U.S. Government
agencies, and stakeholders. Clear guidance is provided to all US flagged vessels operating in the IATTC area as
set out in several documents including:
▪ The NOAA Fisheries IATTC Vessel Register Compliance Guide; and
▪ The Compliance Guide Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2018-2020
and FAD Construction Requirements.
The Tuna Conventions Act (1950) establishes responsibilities for record keeping and reporting requirements,
prohibitions, tuna management measures, vessel monitoring system requirements, incidental catch
requirements, and FAD restrictions and other matters. NOAA Fisheries’ West Coast Highly Migratory Species
program provides policy advice, scientific and technical and administrative support for international fisheries
agreements and related issues in the eastern Pacific Ocean.

Collectively, these actions, measures and guidance indicates that organisations and individuals involved in the
management process have been identified and functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and
well understood for all areas of responsibility. SG100 is therefore met.

In conclusion, all UoA management systems:

▪ Meet SG 60 since organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been
identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood.
▪ Meet SG 80 since organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been
identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key
areas of responsibility and interaction.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 251 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

▪ UOA 1 (Ecuador) and UoA 2 (Panama) do not meet:

▪ SG 100 since there is insufficient evidence to conclude that functions, roles and responsibilities
are not well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction and therefore SG100 is not
met.
▪ UoA 3 (USA) meets:
▪ SG 100 since organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been
identified, functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all
areas of responsibility and interaction for the UoA.
b Consultation processes

Guide The management system The management system The management system
post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation
processes that obtain processes that regularly seek processes that regularly
relevant information from and accept relevant seek and accept relevant
the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local
including local knowledge, knowledge. The knowledge. The
to inform the management management system management system
system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration
of the information obtained. of the information and
explains how it is used or
not used.
Met? Ecuador Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: No
US: Yes US: Yes US: No
Rationale

IATTC
The IATTC holds a meeting every year, and specialist working groups (comprising scientists and specialists from
the contracting parties) convene meetings on a regular (usually annual) basis. Information from these meetings
is used by decision-makers and forms the basis of the management advice provided by IATTC. “Local knowledge”
at the international level is assumed to refer to national information and experience. IATTC allows for
participation by non-members and observers, including NGOs and ensures they have timely access to relevant
information.

The IATTC management system demonstrates consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant
information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information
obtained demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. SG 80 is therefore met. However, information
used by management other than the scientific information is not so clearly reported. Although much of this
information can be inferred from various sources, it is not necessarily clear how different sources of information
are weighted. This includes information on compliance, economics and social issues. Therefore SG 100 is not met.

Ecuador
Ecuador’s constitution provides for public participation. It guarantees civil and political rights and emphasises
participative democracy. The organizations that participate in tuna-related consultation process are the fishing
associations (ATUNEC, CNP, CEIPA), the Fishery authority (SRP), and national scientists. Through a series of
formal and informal mechanisms (i.e., emails, phone calls, official letters, bilateral meetings), actions of SRP
taken at the national level are coordinated with IATTC.

Ecuador’s government adopted as public policy the National Tuna Action Plan in December 2019. It includes
objectives for: reducing bycatch; strengthening the monitoring and management of environmental impacts;

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 252 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

strengthening traceability; developing environmental education programs and improving scientific research.
The plan was developed as a coordinated effort between the national fishing authority, tuna industry
association, civil society organisations and other stakeholders. The right to public participation is provided for in
the Organic Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information enacted on in 2004. The National Tuna
Action Plan was developed with stakeholder input and consultative meetings. Stakeholders are invited to
participate in meetings that inform the Ecuadorian position on mater being discussed at IATTC meetings.

Ecuador’s fisheries management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant
information, including local knowledge and the management system demonstrates consideration of the
information obtained meeting SG 80. SG 100 is not met since there is no evidence of an explanation of how
information obtained is used or not used by Ecuadorian officials.

Panama
In 2017, Panama approved the Action Plan for Sustainable Fisheries. The Action Plan was published following
extensive stakeholder consultation. A formal process of consultation and representation for the development of
regulations under Law 204 was established in April 2021 by Administrative Resolution 022. There is evidence
that the Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama consults annually with interested stakeholders about
conservation and management proposals for tuna and related species fisheries in the IATTC. Stakeholders are
invited to ARAP technical meetings and there is evidence that the management system demonstrates
consideration of the information obtained.

Panama’s fisheries management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant
information, including local knowledge and the management system demonstrates consideration of the
information obtained meeting SG 80. SG 100 is not met since there is no evidence of an explanation of how
information obtained is used or not used by Panamanian officials.

United States
The USA consultative arrangements consist of a General Advisory Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Section to the
IATTC and a Scientific Advisory Subcommittee (SAS) that advises the GAC. The U.S. Section consists of the U.S.
Commissioners to the IATTC and representatives of the State Department, NOAA, Department of Commerce,
other U.S. Government agencies, and stakeholders. The GAC and SAS meet before IATTC meetings each year.
Additionally, proposed regulations are regularly (as appropriate) posted on the Federal Register for public
comment and explicit consideration of submissions is demonstrated and reasons for final decisions are routinely
given.

SG100 would be met for the USA since management mechanisms include consultation processes that regularly
seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge and explains how the information is used or
not used. However, since SG 100 is not met at the regional (IATTC) level, SG 100 cannot be reached for any
component of the UOA.

In summary,
▪ SG 60 requirements are met for all UoAs since regional and national management systems
include consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including
local knowledge.
▪ SG 80 requirements are met for all UoAs since regional and national management systems
include consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including
local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information
obtained.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 253 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

▪ SG 100 requirements are not met for UoA 1 (Ecuador) and UoA 2 (Panama) because national and
IATTC management systems cannot demonstrate that they explain how they use or not use such
information in decisions.
▪ SG 100 requirements are not met for UoA 3 (USA) because although the national management
system demonstrates that they explain how they use or not use such information in decisions,
this does not occur at the IATTC regional level.

c Participation

Guide The consultation process The consultation process

post provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and
interested and affected encouragement for all
parties to be involved. interested and affected
parties to be involved, and
facilitates their effective
engagement.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: No
US: Yes US: Yes
Rationale

IATTC
Consultation occurs at several levels within the IATTC management system. The opportunity to become a
Contracting Party or Co-operating Non-contracting Party is open to all, including non-states. Membership has
increased over time and there is a high level of participation.

The Commission may be joined by any government that is a member of the United Nations (UN) and that is a
member of a Specialized Agency of the United Nations. In addition, any inter-governmental economic
integration organization constituted by States that have transferred to it competence over the matters
governed by the IATTC Convention, such as the EU. The Convention is open to accession by any State or regional
economic integration organization (e.g. EU) that had already acceded to the previous 1949 Convention, has
coastline in the Convention Area, has vessels fishing stocks covered by this Convention or is invited to accede on
the basis of a decision by the Parties. Interested NGOs have an opportunity to observe at meetings.

A special fund, which is administered by the IATTC has been created for strengthening the institutional capacity
of developing countries for the sustainable development of fisheries for highly migratory species (Resolution C-
14-03).

A number of stocks are shared with WCPFC. There is a memorandum of understanding that governs the co-
operation between the two RFMOs. The Secretariats have representatives at each other’s meetings where
appropriate, as well as a specific WCPFC-IATTC consultative meeting. There is also an agreement over the
endorsement of regional high-seas observers.

There is sufficient evidence that the IATTC consultative process provides opportunity and encouragement for all
interested and affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective engagement meeting SG100.

Ecuador
Private sector stakeholders in the industrial tuna fishery tend to be members of one or more of three
organizations: (i) the Association of Tuna Boat Owners (ATUNEC), (ii) the National Chamber of Fisheries (CNP),
and (iii) the Chamber of Tuna Processors (CEIPA). The tuna industry is vertically integrated, and these

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 254 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

organisations include most of the producers, processors, exporters and traders related to the Ecuadorian
fisheries. Key NGOs engaged with the fishery are WWF, Conservation International and the International
Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF).

Ecuador’s constitution provides for public participation. It guarantees civil and political rights and emphasises
participative democracy. Article 95 provides for participation as leading players in decision making, planning
and management of public affairs. The Organic Law of Citizen Participation of 2010, regulates mechanisms of
direct democracy established in the Constitution, determining process, requirements, times and effects of each
mechanism. The right to public is provided for in the Organic Law on Transparency and Access to Public
Information enacted on in 2004.

The National Tuna Action Plan was developed with stakeholder input and consultative meetings. However,
processes for regular input into fisheries management are less clear. Public meetings of the National Council for
Fisheries Development are one mechanism for stakeholder engagement, however the means of stakeholder
participation is not readily apparent.

Consultation processes provide an opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved meeting
SG80. There is insufficient evidence to concluded that Ecuador facilitates the effective engagement of all
interested and affected parties and therefore SG100 cannot be awarded.

Panama
The industrial fisheries sector is organized through the National Association of the Panamanian Fisheries
Industry (ANDELAIPP), the Panamanian Association of the Tuna Industry (APIA) and the Association of
Producers, Processors and Exporters of Seafood (APPEXMAR). These three belong to the National Council of
Private Enterprise (CONEP) and the Panamanian Exporters Association (APEX). There are several NGOs
participate in fisheries issues. These include the MarViva Foundation; the Development and Sustainable
Fisheries Center (CeDePesca); and the International Fisheries Foundation (FIPESCA).

There is evidence that ARAP consults with interested stakeholders about conservation and management
proposals for tuna and related species fisheries in the IATTC as well as for wider legislative and policy matters
related to fisheries management. It is not clear that there are formal mechanisms for incorporating
stakeholder input the Panamanian Governments position and there is limited information about which
stakeholders are invited to ARAP technical meetings.

Consultation processes provide an opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved meeting
SG80. It cannot be concluded that Panama facilitates the effective engagement of affected parties and
therefore SG100 cannot be awarded.

United States
The USA consultative include a General Advisory Committee (GAC) to the U.S. Section to the IATTC and a
Scientific Advisory Subcommittee (SAS) that advises the GAC. The U.S. Section consists of the U.S.
Commissioners to the IATTC and representatives of the State Department, NOAA, Department of Commerce,
other U.S. Government agencies, and stakeholders, such as WWF and ISSF. Proposed regulations implementing
IATTC resolutions and recommendations are posted on the Federal Register for public comment. At the national
fishery management level, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council hold meetings that are open to the public.
If closed meetings may be held upon occasion, but minutes are taken and shared.

There is evidence that the US consultative process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested
and affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective engagement meeting both SG 80 and SG
SG100.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 255 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

In summary:
▪ SG 80 is met for all UoAs since the consultation process provides opportunity for all interested
and affected parties to be involved
▪ SG 100 is not met for UoA 1 (Ecuador) and UoA 2 (Panama) since there is insufficient evidence to
conclude that they facilitate the effective engagement of all affected parties.
▪ SG 100 is met for UoA 3 (USA) since there is sufficient evidence to show that the consultation
process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be
involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.
References
Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama 2017. Action Plan for Sustainable Fisheries
https://arap.gob.pa/avances-plan-de-accion-pesca-sostenible-en-panama/
Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama. Laws and Administrative Resolutions https://arap.gob.pa/legislacion/
IATTC 1990. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Rules of Procedure
Medley, P.A.H, J. Gascoigne and G. Scarcella. 2021. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks
Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 8). ISSF Technical Report 2021-01. International
Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA
Ministry of Production, Exterior, Investment and Fisheries (Ecuador) 2017. Report of the Ecuadorian Tuna
Sector. http://www.produccion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Reporte-del-sector-atunero-
ingles.pdf
Ministry of Production, Exterior, Investment and Fisheries (Ecuador) 2019. National Tuna Action Plan.
McCluney, J. K., Anderson, C. M., & Anderson, J. L. 2019. The fishery performance indicators for global tuna
fisheries. Nature communications, 10(1), 1641.
NOAA Fisheries 2017 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/magnuson-stevens-fishery-conservation-and-
management-act.
NOAA Fisheries n.d. IATTC Vessel Register Compliance Guide.
https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/wcr/publications/fisheries/migratory_species/iattc-rvr-compliance-
guide.pdf
NOAA Fisheries n.d. The Compliance Guide Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for
2018-2020 and FAD Construction Requirements.
https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/wcr/publications/fishery_management/hms_program/hms_compliance
guide_fads-tropicaltuna2019.pdf
Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range Ecuador: 60-79

Panama: 60-79
US: ≥80
Information gap indicator
Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score Ecuador: 80

Panama: 80
US: 95
Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 256 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are
consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives

post guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making,
consistent with the MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC
Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the
precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are
implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required
policy. policy. by management policy.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: Yes
US: Yes US: Yes US: Yes
Rationale

GSA 4.5 states that

“The emphasis of this PI is on the presence or absence of long-term objectives at the broader management
level, i.e., the objectives of the management agency for all UoAs under its control. Where UoAs fall under dual
control (e.g., internationally managed UoAs where management falls to both a national agency and a
bilateral/multilateral agreement or organisation, or federally managed UoAs which have some provincial or
state management component), the subject of PI 3.1.3 should be the wider organization”. Furthermore, GSA 4.5
also states: “This PI forms an important part of the overall understanding of the use or otherwise of a
precautionary approach in the UoA but is not concerned with the operational implementation of the
precautionary approach within the ‘day-to-day’ management of the UoA itself.”

IATTC

The IATTC Antigua Convention, Article II has the states a clear long-term objective to “…ensure the long-term
conservation and sustainable use of the fish stocks covered by this Convention, in accordance with the relevant
rules of international law.” In addition, Article IV states that the members of the Commission:

1. … shall apply the precautionary approach, as described in the relevant provisions of

the Code of Conduct and/or the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, for the
conservation, management and sustainable use of fish stocks covered by this
Convention.

2. In particular, the members of the Commission shall be more cautious when

information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate. The absence of adequate
scientific information shall not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take
conservation and management measures.

3. Where the status of target stocks or non-target or associated or dependent species

is of concern, the members of the Commission shall subject such stocks and species
to enhanced monitoring in order to review their status and the efficacy of conservation

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 257 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

and management measures. They shall revise those measures regularly in

the light of new scientific information available.
The IATTC Convention provides clear, long-term objectives that guide decision making under Principle 1. The
long-term objectives for each stock are clear enough that the science-based advice and management of these
stocks can be evaluated. Artive VII: Functions of the Commission, paragraph (c) states that the Commission
shall:

adopt measures that are based on the best scientific evidence available to ensure the long-
term conservation and sustainable use of the fish stocks covered by this Convention and to
maintain or restore the populations of harvested species at levels of abundance which can
produce the maximum sustainable yield, inter alia, through the setting of the total allowable
catch of such fish stocks as the Commission may decide and/or the total allowable level of
fishing capacity and/or level of fishing effort for the Convention Area as a whole

Protection for all resources within the same ecosystem is provided for, consistent with Principle 2. In Article VII
paragraph 1(f), the functions of the Commission provide for measures to protect all species belonging to the
same ecosystem as the target stocks, to reduce bycatch (specifically co-ordinate with the AIDCP), develop more
“environmentally safe” fishing gears and apply the precautionary approach, all of which meet requirements
under Principle 2. In addition, the Convention explicitly requires that the Commission promote the application
of the provisions under the FAO Code of Conduct, which includes the ecosystem approach to fisheries
management as well as many of the same requirements as the MSC Principles and Criteria.

Articles II, IV and VII of the Antigua Convention which is the overarching management policy for the UoAs
collectively demonstrate that clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC
Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management policy for
all UoAs. Each of these articles unequivocally states that the members of the Commission, directly and through
the Commission, are required to establish clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent
with MSC Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach, are explicit within and required by management
policy.

In summary, for all UoAs:

▪ SG 60 is met since long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC
Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy.
▪ SG 80 is met since clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC
Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach are explicit within management policy.
▪ SG 100 is met since clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC
Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach, are explicit and required by management
policy,
References

IATTC 2003. Antigua Convention. https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/IATTC-

Instruments/_English/IATTC_Antigua_Convention%20Jun%202003.pdf
Medley, P.A.H, J. Gascoigne and G. Scarcella. 2021. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks
Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 8). ISSF Technical Report 2021-01. International
Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., US.
McCluney, J. K., Anderson, C. M., & Anderson, J. L. 2019. The fishery performance indicators for global tuna
fisheries. Nature communications, 10(1), 1641.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 258 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range Ecuador: ≥80

Panama: ≥80
US: ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score Ecuador: 100
Panama: 100
US: 100
Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 259 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives

PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the
outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2
Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100
Issue
a Objectives

Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term objectives, Well defined and measurable short
post broadly consistent with which are consistent with and long-term objectives, which are
achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes demonstrably consistent with
expressed by MSC’s expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 achieving the outcomes expressed
Principles 1 and 2, are and 2, are explicit within the by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are
implicit within the fishery- fishery-specific management explicit within the fishery-specific
specific management system. management system.
system.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Partial
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: Partial
US: Yes US: Yes US: Partial
Rationale

The IATTC Convention offers guidance and principles on which management plans might be based. This includes
objectives which not only apply to target stocks, but also the ecosystem. These objectives have been used in
developing scientific advice and are covered under PI 3.1.3.

There is a long-term management plan to limit fishing capacity to sustainable levels (C-02-03). Short-term
objectives are clearly laid out and are measurable for purse seine at least. IATTC now has a closed vessel registry
which should help prevent increases in capacity, if not reduce it, and.

Each resolution has short-term objective which are explicit and well defined. Resolution c-16-02 sets out harvest
control rules for yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack. Resolution C-21-02 establishes conservation measures for the
tropical tunas for 2022 to 2024, including measures for fishing on fish aggregating devices (FADs). Resolution C-
19-01 includes additional measures addressing the deployment and monitoring of FADs and resolution C 21-02
places explicit measurable limits on the number of FADs that may be deployed by a purse seine vessel.

However, explicit long and short-term objectives are not necessarily always well-defined or precisely
measurable, particularly in relation to achieving MSC Principle 1. Stock assessments are not available for all
species (e.g. skipjack} but are for others (yellowfin tuna). Therefore, stock-status related objectives are not
always well defined or measurable with respect to precise status determination using reference points, for
example. Thus, while there is evidence of explicit, well defined and measurable short and long-term objectives,
which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, there is
insufficient evidence to conclude that this is always the case and therefore a partial score of 90 is awarded.

For all UoAs:

▪ SG 60 is met since objectives, which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes
expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the fishery-specific management
system.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 260 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

▪ SG 80 is met as Short and long-term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the
outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific
management system.
▪ SG 100 is partially met since well-defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which
are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2,
are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. However, they are not uniformly well
defined or always precisely measurable for all components of the fishery-specific management
system.
▪
References

IATTC 2019. Compendium of active resolutions and recommendations (in force, January 2019).
Medley, P.A.H, J. Gascoigne and JG. Scarcella. 2021. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks
Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 8). ISSF Technical Report 2021-01. International
Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA
McCluney, J. K., Anderson, C. M., & Anderson, J. L. 2019. The fishery performance indicators for global tuna
fisheries. Nature communications, 10(1), 1641.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range Ecuador: ≥80
Panama: ≥80
US: ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score Ecuador: 90
Panama: 90
US: 90
Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 261 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that
result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate
approach to actual disputes in the fishery

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Decision-making processes

Guide There are some decision- There are established

post making processes in place decision-making processes
that result in measures and that result in measures and
strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the
fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes
US: Yes US: Yes
Rationale

In this fishery this Scoring Issue relates primarily to the role and operations of the IATTC as it is the body tasked
with developing and implementing management arrangements. Decision-making processes are in place, which
are established, responsive and largely transparent. Information used for decision-making is published.
Decisions are made by consensus and there is no objection or opting out procedure. Resolutions are binding,
but recommendations are non-binding. All management measures apply equally inside EEZ and on high seas.
Parties enforce management measures within their own EEZ.

Decision making functions of the IATTC are set out in Article IX of the Antigua Convention that came into force
in 2010. IATTC requires that decisions are made through consensus. Members can in theory veto resolutions.
Members can vote, but cooperating non-members are not entitled to take part in voting. While there is no
evidence that a lack of consensus has prevented necessary conservation measures being adopted, it is possible
that the requirement for consensus slows up decisions while negotiations may take place.

Clear evidence of the established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve
the fishery-specific objectives is provided by a record evolving IATTC resolutions and recommendations as
shown in the following table:
IATTC Active resolutions of particular relevance to the Units of Assessments
Purpose Management measures
Bigeye, yellowfin & skipjack C-16-02, C-17-02, C-21-04
(longline and purse seine fisheries)
Pacific Bluefin C-16-03, C-18-01, C-18-02, C-21-05
Silky shark
Oceanic whitetip shark
C-05-03, C-11-10, C-15-04, C-16-04, C16-06, C-18-05,
Sharks
C-19-05, C-19-06, C-21-06
Whale sharks (purse seines)
Mobulid rays
Sea turtles C-04-05, C-19-04
Dolphins Addressed under Agreement on the International
Dolphin Conservation Program

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 262 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Seabirds C-11-02
Scientific observers C-18-07
Monitoring, control and surveillance activities C-04-03, C-11-07, C15-011C-14-02, C-19-02, C-21-07
Data, data processing and availability C-15-01, C-03-04, C-04-10, C-15-07
FADs C-99-07, C-19-01

In summary, for all UoAs decision-making processes meet:

▪ SG 60 since there are some decision-making processes in place that result in measures and
strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.
▪ SG 80 since there are established decision-making processes that result in measures and
strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

b Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Guide Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes

post respond to serious issues respond to serious and other respond to all issues
identified in relevant important issues identified identified in relevant
research, monitoring, in relevant research, research, monitoring,
evaluation and consultation, monitoring, evaluation and evaluation and consultation,
in a transparent, timely and consultation, in a in a transparent, timely and
adaptive manner and take transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take
some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider
implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions.
implications of decisions.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: No
USA: Yes USA: Yes USA: No
Rationale

IATTC
Each national section has one vote (Rules of Procedure Rule III). All decisions, resolutions, recommendations,
and other official actions of the Commission are taken only by a unanimous vote of all of the High Contracting
Parties to the Convention (Rule IV). This allows some activities of the Commission to be blocked\
Consultation includes trying to ensure participants are aware of their responsibilities. Training workshops are
provided to captains authorized to fish in IATTC waters. Meetings include AIDCP Seminars for fishermen and an
ETP Captain's Training Workshop, which are required for inclusion in the list of qualified captains.
The decision-making is transparent. IATTC resolves most disputes by consensus at its annual meetings. While
the outcome of such decisions is transparent as it is published as a resolution from the annual meetings, and
initial positions and the information used for the basis of the decision is available (as technical reports provided
to the meeting or as proposals for resolutions from some Parties), exactly how a decision is reached is not
always evident. The system makes sure that all Commission members are fully informed of the issues under
consideration and are able to participate in informed decision-making.

The decision-making is adaptive in that decisions are evaluated by the various specialist meetings and feedback
is provided to the Commission. The Commission responds appropriately by approving new resolutions
addressing serious and other important issues. For example, in 2021, new resolutions were passed by the
Commission to Tuna conservation for the period 2022-2024 and address the conservation of sea turtles, silky

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 263 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

shark and Pacific bluefin tuna. Serious issues associated with the lack of stock assessments for Skipjack tuna
were also addressed at IATTC in 2021 and actions undertaken to address the absence of a stock assessment.13

It can be shown that it deals with serious and important issues in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner
meeting SG80. Consensus decision-making may not deal with all issues with contentious issues being sideline
and management action delayed and therefore all issues may not be addressed. SG100 is not met.

In summary, for all UoAs:

▪ SG 60 is met since they respond to serious issues identified in relevant research, monitoring,
evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some
account of the wider implications of decisions; and
▪ SG 80 is met since they respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant
research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner
and take account of the wider implications of decisions.
▪ SG 100 is not met since the IATTC does not have decision-making process that demonstrably
respond to “all” issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation

c Use of precautionary approach

Guide Decision-making processes

post use the precautionary
approach and are based on
best available information.
Met? Ecuador: Yes
Panama: Yes
US: Yes
Rationale

Article IV of the IATTC Antigua Convention requires that the members of the Commission, directly and through
the Commission, apply the precautionary approach, as described in the relevant provisions of the Code of
Conduct and/or the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Specifically, the Convention requires that Commission be
more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate and does not use the absence of
adequate scientific information as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management
measures.

Article VII of the Convention requires that the Commission adopts measures that are based on the best scientific
evidence available to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the fish stocks covered by this
Convention. The Commission is also tasked to determine whether, according to the best scientific information
available, a specific fish stock covered by this Convention is fully fished or overfished and, on this basis, whether
an increase in fishing capacity and/or the level of fishing effort would threaten the conservation of that stock.

Based on the above information there is clear evidence that decision-making processes for the IATTC use the
precautionary approach and are based on best available information, meeting SG80.
d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

13
https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2021/IATTC-97/Docs/_English/IATTC-97-
01_Recommendations%20of%20the%20Scientific%20Advisory%20Committee%20(SAC)%20to%20the%20Com
mission%20(corrigendum).pdf

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 264 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Guide Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all
post fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders
management action is management action is provides comprehensive
generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s
request to stakeholders. explanations are provided performance and
for any actions or lack of management actions and
action associated with describes how the
findings and relevant management system
recommendations emerging responded to findings and
from research, monitoring, relevant recommendations
evaluation and review emerging from research,
activity. monitoring, evaluation and
review activity.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: No
US: Yes US: Yes US: No
Rationale

The highest level of accountability for this fishery rests with the IATTC as the body responsible for the overall
management of the resource and as the “decision making” entity. Article XVl of the Antigua convention requires
the IATTC to promote transparency in the implementation of this Convention in its decision making processes
and other activities. Paragraph 2 mandates that:

… representatives of non-Parties, relevant intergovernmental organizations, and

non-governmental organizations, including environmental organizations with
recognized experience in matters pertaining to the Commission and the tuna industry
of any of the members of the Commission operating in the Convention Area,
particularly the tuna fishing fleet, shall be afforded the opportunity to take part in the
meetings of the Commission and of its subsidiary organs, as observers or otherwise,
as appropriate, in accordance with the principles and criteria established in Annex 2
of this Convention as well as others that the Commission may adopt. Such
participants shall have timely access to relevant information, subject to the rules of
procedure and of confidentiality on access to such information that the Commission
may adopt.

Recommendations from research, monitoring, evaluation, and performance review are published formally on
the IATTC web site (https://www.iattc.org/MeetingsENG.htm). Similarly, reports of the plenary sessions of
meetings are published formally and are publicly available. All information available for the decision making is
published, allowing any stakeholder to draw their own conclusions, and there is frequent feedback from NGOs,
scientists and other stakeholders via participation in IATTC standing committees and working groups.

However, while reports are available, it is not clear that they provide comprehensive information on the
fishery’s performance and management actions and describe how the management system responded to
findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.
There is no formal, detailed explanation linking the information provided to the decision that results. Decisions
of the IATTC are presented in the resolutions, with minimal justification (Medley et al. 2021)

With detailed formal public reporting of decisions and information on which those decisions are based, the
IATTC fisheries meet SG80. Overall, SG 100 is not met because insufficient evidence exists to conclude that that

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 265 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

all stakeholders receive information that describes how the management system responded to findings and
relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

With respect to the accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process for all
UoAs:
▪ SG 60 is met since some information on the fishery’s performance and management action is
generally available to stakeholders via SC and TCC associated with the WCPFC.
▪ SG 80 is met since there is evidence that information on the UoA’s performance and
management action is available domestically on request, and explanations are given for any
actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from
research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.
▪ SG 100 is not met because it cannot be demonstrated that all stakeholders receive information
that describes how the management system responded to findings and relevant
recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

e Approach to disputes

Guide Although the management The management system or The management system or
post authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to
subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or
challenges, it is not with judicial decisions arising rapidly implements judicial
indicating a disrespect or from any legal challenges. decisions arising from legal
defiance of the law by challenges.
repeatedly violating the
same law or regulation
necessary for the
sustainability for the fishery.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: Yes
US: Yes US: Yes US: Yes
Rationale

The primary management system in relation to this Scoring Issue is the IATTC. The Commission is the
overarching management authority; it sets management arrangements and seeks to assess compliance by
Members with the arrangements. Article XXV of the Antigua Convention sets out clear mechanisms for the
resolution of disputes.
The IATTC is not subject to any court challenges as of 2020. It does not indicate any disrespect or defiance of the
law through repeated violations. There is no evidence that other entities flout the law, with the notable
exception of particular fishing companies and fishing vessels, which are listed on the IUU fishing list. Therefore,
excluding these, IATTC and its Parties meet SG60.
Given that there are no current outstanding judicial disputes and that so far members have avoided resorting to
using international law to settle disputes, the management system meets SG80. By resolving disputes through
IATTC meetings the Parties have pro-actively avoided legal disputes meeting SG100 (Medley et al. 2021).

In summary, for all UoAs:

▪ SG 60 is met as there is not any indication of disrespect or defiance of the law by repeatedly
violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 266 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

▪ SG 80 is met since the management system or fishery is attempting to comply in a timely fashion
with judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges.
▪ SG 100 is met since the management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or
rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges.
References

Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama 2017. Action Plan for Sustainable Fisheries
https://arap.gob.pa/avances-plan-de-accion-pesca-sostenible-en-panama/
European Commission 2019. Questions and Answers – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and
issues at stake in Ecuador
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/sl/QANDA_19_6037
European Commission 2019. Questions and Answers – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and
issues at stake in Panama https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_19_6756
IATTC 2019. Compendium of active resolutions and recommendations (in force, January 2019).
Medley, P.A.H, J. Gascoigne and G. Scarcella.. 2021. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks
Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 8). ISSF Technical Report 2021-01. International
Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA
McCluney, J. K., Anderson, C. M., & Anderson, J. L. 2019. The fishery performance indicators for global tuna
fisheries. Nature communications, 10(1), 1641.
Ministry of Production, Exterior, Investment and Fisheries (Ecuador) 2019. National Tuna Action Plan.
NOAA Fisheries n.d. The Compliance Guide Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for
2018-2020 and FAD Construction Requirements.
https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/wcr/publications/fishery_management/hms_program/hms_compliance
guide_fads-tropicaltuna2019.pdf

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range Ecuador: ≥80
Panama: ≥80
US: ≥80
Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score Ecuador: 85
Panama: 85
US: 85
Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 267 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the
fishery are enforced and complied with

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a MCS implementation

Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive

post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has been monitoring, control and
exist, and are implemented implemented in the fishery surveillance system has
in the fishery and there is a and has demonstrated an been implemented in the
reasonable expectation that ability to enforce relevant fishery and has
they are effective. management measures, demonstrated a consistent
strategies and/or rules. ability to enforce relevant
management measures,
strategies and/or rules.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: No Panama: No
US: Yes US: Yes US: No
Rationale

IATTC
At the regional level, the IATTC seeks to improve compliance mainly via vessel registration, but procedures also
include catch and effort monitoring and diplomatic and other pressures applied to nation states.

Most information on compliance comes and observer programs. The IATTC has the longest-established regional
scientific and enforcement program. The regional observer program is fully coordinated by the Secretariat, with
its own observers, but also with the participation of national programs Administered by the IATTC for the
International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP), purse-seine vessels greater than 363 metric tons carrying
capacity must carry an observer and has been mandatory since 2000 (Agreement on the International Dolphin
Conservation Program Annex II). The data collected helps determines whether a Dolphin Mortality Limit (DML)
has been exceeded, and is also used for scientific and research purposes, as well as for monitoring compliance
with IATTC management and conservation measures (Medley et al. 2021).

Resolution C 21-07 establishes an IATTC scheme for minimum standards for Inspection in port for foreign fishing
carrying fish caught in the Convention area. From first January 2022 CPC are encouraged to declare designated
ports and ensure that it has sufficient capacity to conduct inspections in every designated port pursuant to this
Resolution to the greatest extent possible. The resolution further sets standards for the percentage of vessels to
be inspected, inspection procedures, and establishes infringement procedures in the event of infringements. Flag
CPCs must consider and act on reports of infringements from inspectors of a port CPC on a similar basis as the
reports from their own inspectors, in accordance with their domestic laws. These port state measures have yet
to come into effect or be implemented, however.

IATTC member vessels over 24m length catching tuna within the region must have VMS. This is particularly
important for time-area closure for bigeye. Other resolutions include measures to reduce bycatch mortality of
dolphins, seabirds, sea turtles and sharks. These resolutions on bycatch of sharks and turtles have been
effective, but there is some evidence that not all vessels comply with requirements.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 268 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

IATTC uses its vessel registers to establish a ‘positive lists’ and identify IUU vessels, information which is shared
with other RFMOs (Resolutions C-11-05, C-14-01). This record is based on information submitted by parties and
cooperating non-parties. Importantly, vessels not entered into the record are deemed to be unauthorized to
fish for, retain on board, tranship or land tuna and tuna-like species. There is also a shared IUU vessel list.

CPCs of the IAATC report annually on compliance with a list of IATTC resolutions listed in Resolution C-11-07
(and as updated periodically). These reports are reviewed by Committee for the Review of Implementation of
Measures adopted by the Commission. The Committee also reviews information compiled by the Director of
the IATTC on possible non-compliance with IATTC resolutions from the reports of the IATTC observers for purse-
seine fishing vessels and at-sea transhipment as well as other available information. Alleged infractions by
vessels flagged to CPCs are reported by the Director of the IATTC to the respective national government bodies.
CPCs are required to respond to these notices. At the end of each Committee meeting, for each CPC, the
compliance record, areas of possible improvement as well as any recommended actions are recorded in the
report of the Committee, which is then sent to the IATCC. The compliance information discussed by Committee
meetings is confidential and not released publicly making it challenging to assess the actual compliance records
CPCs.

Ultimately, flag States are responsible to the relevant RFMO for any failure to ensure that measures are
implemented and for the resulting violations of those measures by States’ vessels.

A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated an
ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules meeting SG 60 and SG 80. MCS
arrangements at the regional level do not demonstrate a consistent ability to enforce relevant management
measures, strategies and/or rules by all CPCs as indicated by reports on MCS effectiveness by the EU and the US.
This is in large part because flag States are responsible to the IATTC for any failure to ensure that measures are
implemented and for the resulting violations of those measures by States’ vessels meaning SG 100 at the
regional IATTC level is not met.

Ecuador
An important role for all Flag States is implementation of IATTC MCS requirements under their commitment to
IATTC and this reflected in Ecuador’s fisheries legislation. Fisheries are managed and regulated under the 2020
Organic Law for the Development of Aquaculture and Fishing. It gives effect to the National Plan of Action to
Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing. The objective of this Plan is to define
the national policies for fighting IUU fishing in the jurisdictional waters of Ecuador and the adjacent high seas.
The National Directorate of Aquatic Spaces (DIRNEA) is the national maritime police authority and is responsible
for on-the water fisheries enforcement and for satellite monitoring that it carries out in coordination with SRP.

There is a system of land-based control of vessel landings by inspectors. Inspectors are present at each landing
point to check the catch and whether it conforms to the declaration made by the master or owner of the vessel.
If there was an irregularity, penalty proceedings would be initiated, and the catches would be confiscated.
There is a total of 167 inspectors nationwide. Landing control coverage at authorized points is 100%. Fishing
control is coordinated from the Directorate of Control of Fishing Resources belonging to the Undersecretary of
Fishing Resources. Its mission is to control fisheries management through the systematic and permanent
evaluation of compliance with the laws, regulations, standards, fisheries and environmental policies in force.
This administrative body is represented by the Director of Fisheries Resources Control.
In October 2019, Ecuador received a yellow card from the European Union over shortcomings in the
mechanisms that the country has put in place to ensure compliance with its international obligations as a flag,
port and market state. The shortcomings noted by the European Union included that law enforcement is
hampered by an outdated legal framework, inefficient administrative procedures and a lenient approach
towards infringements.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 269 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The yellow card triggers a formal dialogue in which the Commission and the third country work together to
solve all issues of concern. Ecuador is undertaking a series of fisheries reforms to address the issues raised by
the European Union. Most notable has been the new national fisheries legislation that brings Ecuador into line
with the international and regional rules applying to the conservation and management of fishing resources.
Also updated has been the monitoring, control and surveillance regime that includes fisheries enforcement and
sanctions.

The United States was previously concerned with Ecuador’s failure to fully investigate allegations of
noncompliance with IATTC resolutions by Ecuador’s purse-seine fleet. This MCS issue was the basis for Ecuador’s
repeated identifications for IUU fishing in NOAA Fisheries’ Biennial Reports to Congress (2011, 2013, 2015, 2017,
and 2019). However, in the August 2021 Biennial Report to Congress, NOAA concluded that Ecuador’s responses
to new cases of potential noncompliance presented by IATTC and its constructive participation in the Compliance
Committee demonstrate that Ecuador is now adequately fulfilling its obligations under Resolution C-11-07. It
states (p.13):

The 2018 and 2019 annual IATTC compliance questionnaires show that Ecuador had been
responsive to all new identified cases of potential noncompliance. Ecuador reports the
majority of cases as under investigation and subject to administrative proceedings by the
Fisheries Authority. For cases in which it was determined that no infraction was committed,
Ecuador provided a detailed rationale for why the activity was not in contravention of a
conservation and management measure (CMM). Ecuador’s reporting in these cases relied
on review of observer reports and appropriate post-deployment follow-up with the
observer. These responses demonstrate an improvement in Ecuador’s active participation
in the IATTC compliance process and fulfilment of the requirements outlined in Resolution
C-11-07.

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist, and are implemented in the fishery and there is a
reasonable expectation that they are effective meeting SG 60. The monitoring, control and surveillance system
has been implemented in the fishery and Ecuador is now demonstrating an ability to enforce relevant
management measures, strategies and/or rules meeting SG 80. New regulations associated with Ecuador’s
Organic Law for the Development of Aquaculture and Fisheries (April 2020) have not yet promulgated.
Therefore, Ecuador has not yet implemented a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance system in
the fishery and has not demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies
and/or rules so SG 100 is not met.

Panama
In 2009, a National Action Plan to prevent, discourage and eliminate Illegal Undeclared and Unregulated Fishing
(INDNR) was produced containing comprehensive MCS actions. It identified the implementing authorities as
the Maritime Authority of Panama, through the Directorate of Merchant Marine, the National Air Service, the
National Customs Authority, the Ministry of Health, through the Directorate of Public Health, Department of
Food Protection, and the Ministry of Foreign Relations through the Directorate-General for International
Economic Relations.

In October 2019, Panama received a yellow card from the European Union over shortcomings in the
mechanisms that the country has put in place to ensure compliance with its international obligations as flag,
port and market state. These shortcomings include:
▪ Deficiencies in terms of control, notably over the activities of the fishing and fishing related
activities of vessels flying the flag of Panama.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 270 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

▪ Deficiencies in the implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement in order to prevent
fish stemming from IUU fishing activities reaching national and international markets and to
effectively prevent IUU vessels from receiving port services.
Panama had already received a yellow card in November 2012, which was then lifted in October 2014. It is the
first country to be given a yellow card by the European Union twice.

Comprehensive MCS mechanisms are established the recently passed Law 204. The NOAA 2021 Biennial Report
to the US Congress, did not report any negative fishing certifications with respect to IUU fishing by vessels
flagged to Panama. We can conclude that monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist for Panama
and that there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective meeting SG 60. However, there is insufficient
evidence to conclude that Panama has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures,
strategies and/or rules so SG 80 is not met. SG 100 is not met because Panama has yet to demonstrate a
consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules

USA
The US purse seine fleet operating in the EPO is subject to the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act
(https://gov.ecfr.io/cgi-bin/text-
idx?SID=dcd6b143e127c00dc90cb4f25c328e3f&mc=true&node=pt50.11.300&rgn=div5), which governs the
conduct of USA fishing vessels on the high seas, and under which a high seas fishing permit is required for a USA
fishing vessel to be used for commercial fishing anywhere on the high seas. MCS related mechanisms specific to
the IATTC region are set out in several documents including:
The NOAA Fisheries IATTC Vessel Register Compliance Guide; and
The Compliance Guide Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for 2018-2020 and FAD
Construction Requirements.

The NOAA website provides evidence of fisheries enforcement cases in relation to USA vessels (from 2010)
including Enforcement Decisions and Orders (see http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office6.html) and
Enforcement Charging Information (see http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office7.html). It also provides
information on prohibitions, landing restrictions, and catch documentation schemes.

The USA monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented and has demonstrated an ability to
enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules meeting SG80 levels. Since IAATC MCS
measures are not sufficiently comprehensive to meet SG 100, US MCS measures cannot meet SG100.

In summary:
▪ All UoAs meet SG 60 since monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist, and are
implemented in the fishery and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective.
▪ UoA 1 (Ecuador) and UOA 3 (USA), meet SG 80 because a monitoring, control and surveillance
system has been implemented in the fishery and have demonstrated an ability to enforce
relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.
▪ UoA 2 (Panama) does not meet SG 80 since insufficient evidence exists to conclude that a
monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and has
demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.
▪ For all UoAs SG 100 is not met because it cannot be determined that a comprehensive
monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fisheries and has
demonstrated a consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or
rules. This is in large part because flag States are responsible to the IATTC for any failure to
ensure that measures are implemented and for the resulting violations of those measures by
States’ vessels meaning SG 100 at the regional level is not met for any of the UoAs.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 271 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

b Sanctions

Guide Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non-
post compliance exist and there compliance exist, are compliance exist, are
is some evidence that they consistently applied and consistently applied and
are applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide
deterrence. effective deterrence.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: No Panama: No
US: Yes US: Yes US: No
Rationale

IATTC
IATTC established conservation management measures and related resolutions and enforcement is carried out
by the national authorities. Blacklisting of non-member vessels (IUU lists) has become a widespread practice
among all RFMOs including IATTC There no trade sanctions against nation states, although theoretically these
may be possible. Sanctions are only applied to fishing entities, such as IUU vessels and vessels that are detected
as being non-compliant with resolutions).

On the whole, sanctions appear to be applied among countries consistent with their involvement in IATTC. IUU
fishing remains a problem. Some non-compliance has been detected by the observer programmes, which is
used as the basis for routinely reviewing compliance. Some non-compliance appears persistent. The reason for
this non-compliance is unclear. However, seeing that this non-compliance is reported by observers on board,
and there is little effort to hide these activities, the fishers in these cases are most likely unaware of their
responsibilities. Overall, non-compliance is measured, it does not appear substantial, and efforts are being
undertaken to reduce it.

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is evidence that they are applied, meeting SG60.
evidence suggests that they are probably an effective deterrent, which meets the SG80, but does not meet
SG100.

Ecuador
A new system of sanctions is included in the 2020 Organic Law for the Development of Aquaculture and Fishing.

Ecuadorian authorities acknowledge that until recently they faced legal and practical issues to recover the fines,
and cumbersome administrative procedures often result in practical impossibility to address recidivism.
Information provided by Ecuadorian authorities to the European Commission indicates a previous uneven
approach in relation to the application of sanctions, notably as regards the confiscation of illegal catches. As a
result, the previous sanctioning system neither deprived the offenders from the benefits accruing from IUU
fishing, nor deterrent.

In the August 2021 Biennial Report to Congress, NOAA concluded (p.13):

Ecuador reports the majority of cases as under investigation and subject to administrative proceedings
by the Fisheries Authority. For cases in which it was determined that no infraction was committed,
Ecuador provided a detailed rationale for why the activity was not in contravention of a conservation
and management measure. Ecuador’s reporting in these cases relied on review of observer reports
and appropriate post-deployment follow-up with the observer.

The EU in its reasoning for awarding Ecuador a yellow card, noted that while sanctions existed and were on
occasion applied, application was inconsistent and did not provide effective deterrence. We conclude that

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 272 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist in Ecuador and there is some evidence that they are applied
meeting SG60. However, due to newness, there is no evidence that the sanctions outlined in the 2020 Organic
Law for the Development of Aquaculture and Fishing are consistently applied and o rare yet to provide effective
deterrence, so SG 80 is not met.

Panama
A new, comprehensive system of sanctions is included in the Law 204 Regulating fishing and aquaculture in
Panama. In addition, the Panamanian agencies have implemented inter-institutional cooperation and now
exchange information on fishing vessels and national and international fishery inspections. The automation of
catch certificates has been regulated; fishing license information can now be verified online.

Despite measure take from 2012 to 2014 in response to the EU’s first yellow card, Panama received a second
yellow card in 2019. The European Commission determined that law enforcement is affected by inefficient
administrative procedures and a lenient approach towards infringements. The EU concluded there are
significant delays in the imposition of sanctions and the sanctioning system is neither depriving the offenders
from the benefits accruing from IUU fishing, nor deterrent.

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist in Panama and there is some evidence that they are applied
meeting SG60. However, there is insufficient effort to conclude that they are consistently applied and thought
to provide effective deterrence so SG80 is not met.

USA
There is clear evidence of legal requirements being enforced by USA authorities and transcripts of legal
proceedings provide evidence of the sanctions that have been implemented. The NOAA website provides
evidence of fisheries enforcement cases in relation to USA vessels (from 2010) including Enforcement Decisions
and Orders (see http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office6.html) and Enforcement Charging Information (see
http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office7.html). It also provides information on prohibitions, landing
restrictions, and catch documentation schemes. The USA also independently reviews all its vessels’ IATTC
observer records, beyond those flagged for potential non-compliance by the IATTC.

SG60 and SG80 requirements are met in the case of the USA but it cannot be concluded that the available
information demonstrably indicates effective deterrence so SG100 is not met .

In summary:

▪ For all UOAs SG 60 is met since sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some
evidence that they are applied
▪ For UoA 1 (Ecuador) and UOA 2 Panama SG 80 is not met since while sanctions to deal with non-
compliance exist, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that they are consistently applied and
thought to provide effective deterrence.
▪ For UoA 3 (USA) SG 80 is met since sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently
applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.
▪ For all UOAs SG 100 is not met since while sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and are
consistently applied, there is insufficient evidence to conclude they demonstrably provide
effective deterrence.

c Compliance

Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of
post thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 273 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

management system for the with the management comply with the
fishery under assessment, system under assessment, management system under
including, when required, including, when required, assessment, including,
providing information of providing information of providing information of
importance to the effective importance to the effective importance to the effective
management of the fishery. management of the fishery. management of the fishery.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: No
USA: Yes USA: Yes USA: No
Rationale

IATTC
The IATTC has a permanent working group on compliance that reviews and monitors compliance with IATTC
management measures (IATTC-COR 2014). As well as undertaking analysis of information on compliance and
reporting the findings to the IATTC, the working group also recommends measures to promote compatibility
among the national fisheries management measures, addressing matters related to compliance with fisheries
management measures. Unfortunately, reports of these meetings do not go into detail on possible infractions
and more detailed information discussed at the meetings is treated as confidential.

Available information suggests there is some evidence to demonstrate fishers comply with the management
system. However, the confidential nature of much of the information in relation to this Scoring Issue means that
there is not a high degree of confidence in relation to compliance, preventing SG 100 being met. SG 60 and SG
80 requirements are met.

Ecuador
Available information from the NOAA’s 2021 finding of a positive certification with respect to IUU and that
Ecuador has taken appropriate corrective action to address the IUU fishing activities for which it was identified
in 2019 (inadequate compliance with IATTC Resolution C-11-07) provides evidence to demonstrate fishers
comply with the management system including, when required, providing information of importance to the
effective management of the fishery. However, the confidential nature of much of the information in relation to
this Scoring Issue and concerns documented by the EU in its awarding of the yellow card mean that there is not
a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, preventing SG
100 being met. SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met.

Panama
Available information from information contained in various IATTC committee and working group reports and in
the information summarized in the EU yellow card provides some evidence to conclude that fishers comply with
the management system including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective
management of the fishery. However, the confidential nature of much of the information in relation to this
Scoring Issue, and the deficiencies noted by the EU in its awarding of a yellow card mean that there is not a high
degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing
information of importance to the effective management of the fishery preventing SG 100 being met. SG 60 and
SG 80 requirements are met.

USA
There is clear evidence of legal requirements being enforced by USA authorities and transcripts of legal
proceedings provide evidence of the sanctions that have been implemented. The NOAA website provides
evidence of fisheries enforcement cases in relation to USA vessels (from 2010) including Enforcement Decisions
and Orders (see http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office6.html ) and Enforcement Charging Information (see
http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office7.html ). It also provides information on prohibitions, landing
restrictions, and catch documentation schemes.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 274 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including,
when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery meeting SG60
and SG80. It cannot be concluded whether the available information demonstrate a high degree of confidence
that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of
importance to the effective management of the fishery so SG100 is not met.
In summary, for all UoAs:
▪ SG60 is met because there is evidence to show that fishers are generally thought to comply with
the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing
information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.
▪ SG 80 is met because evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management
system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the
effective management of the fishery.
▪ SG100 is not met since there is not enough evidence to conclude that there is a high degree of
confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including,
providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.
d Systematic non-compliance

Guide There is no evidence of

post systematic non-compliance.
Met? Ecuador: Yes
Panama: Yes
US: Yes
Rationale

IATTC
Non-compliance with conservation measures is likely opportunistic or possibly down to ignorance of the
resolutions and/or the lack of sanctions. Non-compliance does not appear to be systematic and does not
threaten the sustainability of the fishery.

Ecuador
Non-compliance with conservation measures is likely opportunistic or possibly down to ignorance of the
resolutions and/or the lack of sanctions. Non-compliance does not appear to be systematic and does not
threaten the sustainability of the fishery. The reported infractions in US and EU documents is a small
percentage of the Ecuadorian tuna fleet.

Panama
Non-compliance with conservation measures is likely opportunistic or possibly down to ignorance of the
resolutions and/or the lack of sanctions. Non-compliance does not appear to be systematic and does not
threaten the sustainability of the fishery.

USA
A review of fisheries enforcement cases in relation to USA vessels including Enforcement Decisions and Order
and Enforcement Charging Information shows no evidence of systematic non-compliance by US flagged vessels.

In summary: SG80 is met for all UOAs. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.
References

Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama. Laws and Administrative Resolutions https://arap.gob.pa/legislacion/

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 275 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

European Commission 2019. Questions and Answers – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and
issues at stake in Ecuador https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/sl/QANDA_19_6037
European Commission 2019. Questions and Answers – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and
issues at stake in Panama https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_19_6756
IATTC, 2018. Document COR-09-01, Compliance with IATTC Resolutions in 2017, IATTC Committee for the
Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission, 9th Meeting, August 21-22, 2018.
Medley, P.A.H, J. Gascoigne and G. Scarcella. 2021. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks
Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 8). ISSF Technical Report 2021-01. International
Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA
NOAA Fisheries 2021. Report to Congress: Improving International Fisheries Management August 2021.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/identification-iuu-fishing-activities#findings-
and-analyses-of-foreign-iuu-fishing-activities
NOAA Fisheries 2015. Report to Congress: Improving International Fisheries Management February 2015.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/identification-iuu-fishing-activities#findings-
and-analyses-of-foreign-iuu-fishing-activities
NOAA Fisheries n.d. IATTC Vessel Register Compliance Guide.
https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/wcr/publications/fisheries/migratory_species/iattc-rvr-compliance-
guide.pdf
NOAA Fisheries n.d. The Compliance Guide Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean for
2021 and FAD Construction Requirements. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-
02/508_ComplicanceGuide_FADs-tropicaltuna2021.pdf?null

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range Ecuador: 60-79
Panama: 60-79
US: ≥80
Information gap indicator More information sought for SI 3.2.3 c and SI 3.2.3d for
Ecuador and Panama and from the IATTC for SI 3.2.3d

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score Ecuador: 75
Panama: 70
US: 80
Condition number (if relevant) 3-1 (Panama)
3-2 (Ecuador)
3-3(Panama)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 276 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

PI 3.2.4 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific
management system against its objectives
There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Evaluation coverage

Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in
post place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts of
of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific
management system. management system. management system.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: No
US: Yes US: Yes US: No
Rationale

The IATTC has mechanisms in place to evaluate the management system as demonstrated by the various
committees and working groups of IATTC that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission. As
well as the annual Commission meetings, regular meetings include those for the Scientific Advisory Committee,
the Committee for the Review of Implementation Measures and the International Review Panel. Reports from
meetings of the various groups are available on the IATTC website.

The fishery does not have mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system. For example, catch
control rules. Although progress is being made in this direction, formal mechanisms have not yet been fully
adopted by regional fisheries management organizations including the IATTC.

SG60 and SG80 requirements are met as there are mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-
specific management system. SG100 is not met as it is not clear that these arrangements cover all parts of the
fishery-specific management system.

For all UoAs:

▪ SG 60 is met since there are mechanisms in place to evaluate some parts of the fishery-specific
management system.
▪ SG 80 is met because mechanisms are in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific
management system
▪ SG 100 is not met because there is insufficient evidence of mechanisms in place to evaluate all
parts of the fishery-specific management system.
b Internal and/or external review

Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific

post management system is management system is management system is
subject to occasional internal subject to regular internal subject to regular internal
review. and occasional external and external review.
review.
Met? Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: Yes Ecuador: No
Panama: Yes Panama: Yes Panama: No
US: Yes US: Yes US: No

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 277 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

The focus of this Scoring Issue is the IATTC. The Commission has overall responsibility for developing and
implementing a fishery specific management system, Members are bound by the arrangements in the
management system and required to implement these in domestic legislation and policy.

The IATTC is subject to regular internal review. This is demonstrated by the various committees and working
groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission and which are published. including:
▪ Comprehensive review functions and responsibilities of the Scientific Advisory Committee established
under Antigua Convention Article XI);
▪ Review functions and responsibilities of the Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures
(established under Antigua Convention Article XVIII) are set forth in Annex 3 of the Antigua Convention;
▪ The Commission may engage external scientific experts to carry out periodic peer reviews of scientific
information and advice provided by the Commission may; and
▪ The business and meetings of the IATTC are transparent and conducted annually and as a consequence,
the status of conservation and management objectives are the subject of review of public opinion and
subsequent political ramifications.

The IATTC has carried out an external performance review in 2016 (Moss-Adams 2016). This implies that the
RFMO meets SG80 with respect to “occasional external” review. However, the management system is not
subject to regular internal and external review, thus SG 100 is not met.

For all UOAs:

▪ SG 60 is met as the fishery-specific management system is subject to occasional internal review.
▪ SG 80 is met as the fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and
occasional external review.
▪ SG 100 is not met because the fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal
but not external review.

References

Ewell, C., Hocevar, J., Mitchell, E., Snowden, S., & Jacquet, J. (2020). An evaluation of Regional Fisheries
Management Organization at-sea compliance monitoring and observer programs. Marine Policy, 115,
103842
IATTC 2003. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Convention for the Strengthening of the inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission Established By The 1949 Convention Between The United States of America and
the Republic of Costa Rica (“Antigua Convention”). June 2003
IATTC CM Review 2014. Committee for the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission.
5th Meeting. Lima, Peru, 9-10 July 2014
IATTC Resolution Review 2019. Committee for the review of implementation of measures adopted by the
Commission, 10th Meeting, Bilbao, Spain, 17-18 July 2019.
McCluney, J. K., Anderson, C. M., & Anderson, J. L. 2019. The fishery performance indicators for global tuna
fisheries. Nature communications, 10(1), 1641.
Medley, P.A.H, J. Gascoigne and G. Scarcella. 2021. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks
Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 8). ISSF Technical Report 2021-01. International
Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 278 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Moss-Adams 2016. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and Agreement on rhe International Dolphin
Conservation Program: Performance Review June 20, 2016. http://www.tuna-org.org/Documents/IATTC-
AIDCP-Performance-Review-Final-ReportENG.pdf

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report
Draft scoring range Ecuador: ≥80
Panama: ≥80
US: ≥80
Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report
Overall Performance Indicator score Ecuador: 80
Panama: 80
US: 80
Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 279 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8 Appendices
8.1 Assessment information
8.1.1 Previous assessments
This fishery has not been subject to any previous assessments.

8.1.2 Small-scale fisheries

This fishery is not classified as a small-scale fishery.

8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques

8.3 Site Visit

The remote site visit was held over a period of 7 days between December 7th to January 7th 2021. Travel
restrictions due to COVID-19 prevented onsite visits. The assessment team selected interviewees based
on information needed to assess management operations of the unit of assessment. The client group and
other relevant stakeholders helped identify and contact fisheries management, research, compliance, and
habitat protection personnel and agency representatives. The assessment team met with management
officials from the IATTC, Panama, Ecuadorian and US. Before the meetings were conducted, an audit plan
was provided to the client and relevant stakeholders.

The RBF was announced prior to the site visit and was used to score the Principle 2 (PI 2.2.1) components
for the US-based fleet because of the lack of status information for bonito species. More details for RBF
can be found in. Additionally, given the limited at-sea information for non-target and ETP species the team
reviewed literature of potential ETP species in the area, and spoke to US National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), IATTC management and science officials and vessel captains regarding potential non-target
species captured by the fishery along with ETP interactions by the US small-purse seine fleet during the
onsite visit.

An additional remote site visit will be held June 2021 to coincide with the IATTC annual meeting. This is
necessary for the assessment team to evaluate information planned to be presented during this meeting,
particular related to skipjack. The timeline for the assessment was extended via a Variation Request.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 280 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 23. Audit Plan: Key Meetings for remote site visit.
Day Meeting
Topic Attendees
Date
1 December Opening meeting Client & SCS Assessment team
7 2020
1 December IATTC observer program
7 2020 Principle 2 topics SCS assessment team

Jon Lopez, Head of Bycatch

Mitigation and Gear Technology,
IATTC

Shane GRIFFITHS, - Head of

Ecosystem Program

Martin Hall,

Nick Vogel, Head of Data

Collection and Database
Program

ALTAMIRANO NIETO, Ernesto

2 December SCS assessment team
9 2020 Panama- Fishery Specific Management.
Personal de ARAP
Meeting with Panamanian Fisheries Management
agency personnel to review: Fisheries Management
Legal Framework, Dispute resolution mechanisms,
Representantes de:
Responsiveness of decision-making process, and
Consultation processes.
DIRECCIÓN DE INSPECCIÓN,
VIGILANCIA Y CONTROL
Panama- Monitoring, Compliance & Surveillance Panama, Autoridad Portuaria,
Systems Guardacostas, etc

Meeting with Panama Fisheries Management

Compliance and Enforcement agency personnel to
review: Compliance and Enforcement, Monitoring and
Management Evaluation

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 281 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

3 December SCS assessment team

10 2020 Meeting with Panamanian Fisheries Management
agency personnel to review management measures to
manage Ecosystem Impacts Personal de ARAP

4 December SCS assessment team

11 2020 Ecuador- Fishery Specific Management.
Ecuador National Fisheries
Meeting with Ecuadorian Fisheries Management agency
Management Agency
personnel to review: Fisheries Management Legal
representatives
Framework, Dispute resolution mechanisms,
Responsiveness of decision-making process and
Consultation processes.
- Ecuador Federal Law
Enforcement Agency
Ecuador- Monitoring, Compliance & Surveillance
- Port Inspection
Systems
- Coast Guard
Meeting with Ecuador Fisheries Management
Compliance and Enforcement agency personnel to
- Administration of sanctions
review: Compliance and Enforcement, Monitoring and
Management Evaluation

5 December SCS assessment team

14 2020 Meeting with Ecuadorian Fisheries Management agency
personnel to review management measures to manage Ecuadorian National Fisheries
Ecosystem Impacts Management Agency
representatives
6 December Stock status and harvest strategy for target species SCS assessment team
15 2020
IATTC Staff
7 December SCS assessment team
16 2020 USA- Fishery Specific Management.
NFMS Officials
Meeting with USA Fisheries Management agency Barry Thom
personnel to review: Fisheries Management Legal Steve Teo
Framework, Dispute resolution mechanisms,
Responsiveness of decision-making process and
Consultation processes.

USA- Monitoring, Compliance & Surveillance Systems

Meeting with USA Fisheries Management Compliance

and Enforcement agency personnel to review:
Compliance and Enforcement, Monitoring and
Management Evaluation

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 282 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8.3.1 Stakeholder Participation:

In addition to the meetings and attendees list above (Section 4.4.1), consultations have included large
numbers of email exchanges. A number of key organizations were contacted in advance of the fishery’s
formal entry into public full assessment by the team leader. SCS has compiled an extensive stakeholder
list used for emailing announcements and assessment progress to stakeholders. This list contained over
100 individuals from approximately 20 organizations spanning the government, private, and non-profit
sectors.

Comments submitted by stakeholders at the ACDR stage can be found in Section 8.5 Stakeholder input.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 283 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8.3.2 Evaluation techniques

Documentation and Information Gathering

One of the most critical aspects of the MSC certification process is ensuring that the assessment team gets
a complete and thorough grounding in all aspects of the fishery under evaluation. In even the smallest
fishery, the assessment team typically needs documentation in all areas of the fishery from the status of
stocks, to ecosystem impacts, through management processes and procedures.

Under the MSC program, it is the responsibility of the applying organizations or individuals to provide the
information required proving the fishery or fisheries comply with the MSC standards. It is also the
responsibility of the applicants to ensure that the assessment team has access to any and all scientists,
managers, and fishers that the assessment team identifies as necessary to interview in its effort to
properly understand the functions associated with the management of the fishery. Last, it is the
responsibility of the assessment team to make contact with stakeholders that are known to be interested
or actively engaged in issues associated with fisheries in the same geographic location.

The IATTC and national fisheries agencies were key in providing many of the scientific analyses, figures
(IATTC) as well as operational and regulatory information: both were helpful and cooperative throughout
the process.

Scoring and Report Development Process

ACDR: The Announcement Comment Draft Report was completed on February 21, 2020. The client
decided to continue with the full assessment.

Publication of ACDR: Publication of the Announcement Comment Draft Report was published on
September 24 2020.

Remote Site Visit: Scoring was initiated during the 7-day remote site visit and completed iteratively
through phone calls, emails and skype teleconferences between January through March 2021. A second
remote site visit was conducted during the IATTC meetings in June 2021 to consider new/updated
information that was delayed due to COVID-19.

Client Draft: Rationales and associated background was developed by respectively assigned assessment
team members, and then cross read by team members and SCS staff for production of the client draft
report. Scoring was completed by consensus through this review process and team meetings by phone
and email. Following the initial receipt of the client draft of the report, comments/new and relevant
information for the assessment process was submitted by the client group. Considering the evidence
presented, the team made relevant corrections to performance indicators. The client fishery worked with
SCS to generate an acceptable client action plan.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 284 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Peer Review: Based on comments from peer reviewers, the team modified content in rationales and
provided responses. The Client and Peer Review Draft Report was submitted to the client and the peer
review college to review prior to the PCDR. The PCDR was prepared and subject to a 30-day stakeholder
comment period that.

Stakeholder Comment on PCDR: Several submissions stakeholder comments were received, including
Technical Oversight from MSC and follow up from one Peer Reviewer. The team updated the report as
necessary The Final report was submitted to MSC for publication on June 13th , 2022.

Scoring Methodology

The assessment team followed guidelines in MSC FCP v2.1 Section 7.10 “Scoring the fishery”. Scoring in
the MSC system occurs via an Analytical Hierarchy Process and uses decision rules and weighted averages
to produce Principle Level scores. There are 28 Performance Indicators (PIs), each with one or more
Scoring Issues (SIs). Each of the scoring issues is considered at the 60, 80, and 100 scoring guidepost levels.
The decision rule described in Table 20 determines the Performance Indicator score, which must always
be in an increment of 5. If there are multiple ‘elements 14’ under consideration (e.g. multiple main primary
13F

species), each element is scored individually for each relevant PI, then a single PI score is generated using
the same set of decision rules described in Table 20.
Table 20. Decision Rule for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores based on Scoring Issues, and for Calculating
Performance Indicator Scores in Cases of Multiple Scoring Elements. (Adapted from MSC FCPV2.1 Table 4)

Score Combination of individual SIs at the PI level, and/or combining multiple element PI
scores into a single PI score.
<60 Any scoring element/SI within a PI which fails to reach SG60 shall not be assigned a score as this is a
pre-condition to certification.
60 All elements (as scored at the PI level) or SIs meet SG60 and only SG60.
65 All elements/SIs meet SG60; a few achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but most do
not meet SG80.
70 All elements/SIs meet SG60; half* achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but some do
not meet SG80 and require intervention action to make sure they get there.
75 All elements/SIs meet SG60; most achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80; only a few fail
to achieve SG80 and require intervention action.
80 All elements/SIs meet SG80, and only SG80.
85 All elements/SIs meet SG80; a few achieve higher performance, but most do not meet SG100.
90 All elements/SIs meet SG80; half achieve higher performance at SG100, but some do not.
95 All elements/SIs meet SG80; most achieve higher performance at SG100, and only a few fail to
achieve SG100.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 285 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

100 All elements/SIs meet SG100.

*MSC FCPV2.1 uses the word ‘some’ instead of half. SCS considers ‘half’ a clearer description of the methodology
utilized.

When calculating the Principal Indicator scores based on the results of the Scoring Issues (SI), SCS
interprets the terms in Table 20as follows:
1. Few: Less than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, one SI out of 3 is considered few.
2. Some: Equal to half. Ex: if there are a total of four SIs, two SIs out of 4 is considered some.
3. Most: More than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, two SIs out of 3 is considered most.

8.3.3 Modified assessment tree

The Standard Default Assessment tree was used.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 286 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8.4 Peer Review reports

Peer Reviewer A
General Comments

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included
Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR)
explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table,
summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and
RBF tables.
Is the scoring of the Yes In general, I agree with the score given to this fishery, The specific comments for each PI have been addressed.
fishery consistent with however, I consider that some PI had some confusing Certain information about FADs is not available, for this
the MSC standard, and justifications that sometimes contradict between them. reason conditions are issued.
clearly based on the Additionally, within the PRDR I suggest new
evidence presented in the information/references that should be incorporated and
assessment report? others have to be adjusted to better support the
justifications of the performance indicator evaluated. This
Review is focused on the fisheries in free-school and
FADS, is relevant to include more details about the
fisheries on FADS, how many FADs have been deployed,
the number of the recovery, and the percentage of those
that are active.
Are the condition(s) Yes All the conditions raised in some of the SI of the PI have The activities are part of the Client Action Plan and were
raised appropriately clear milestones for each specific year in most of them but not included in the draft of the report submitted to Peer
written to achieve the could be better if detailed information is included about Reviewers.
SG80 outcome within the the activities they intend to do to meet each milestone.
specified timeframe? This suggestion would give more clarity to the process of
[Reference: FCP v2.2, how to reach them.
7.18.1 and sub-clauses]

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 287 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI Comments

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res-
stock gear Infor Scoring Cond Review stage) comments (as included in the ponse Code
matio ition Public Comment Draft Report -
n PCDR)
Yello Free 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. But I suggest including in the We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin school rationale that it is demonstrated that uncertainty comments. The rationale for SI-a (no score
Tuna and that although there is evidence that the stock is has been modified to address change,
FAD
above the PRI it is necessary to consider whether the comment. change to
sets
the recommendations previously established by the rationale)
CIAT staff are accepted is likely to decrease the
uncertainty by lying at current stock levels or
allowing the stock to increase even further above
the PRI.
Yello Free 1.1.2 NA (PI NA (PI not NA
wfin school not scored)
Tuna and scored
FAD )
sets
Yello Free 1.2.1 Yes Yes NA SIa. Score agreed. All the strategies used have been We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin school worked on together to allow the stock assessment comments. The rationale for SI-a (no score
Tuna and of yellowfin tuna to be healthy. However, I consider has been modified to address change,
FAD
they fall short when they mention the control the comment. change to
sets
measures related to catch limits but do not go into a rationale)
little more detail on this. Therefore, I suggest adding
a little more detail on how this management
measure has allowed supporting this catch strategy
for this species to collaborate with the management
objectives previously stated.
Yello Free 1.2.1 Yes Yes NA SIb. Scoring agreed. However, I suggest underlining We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin school in the justification that a temporal closure is one of comments. The rationale for SI- (no score
Tuna and the best measures for Yellowfin tuna because the b has been modified to address change,
FAD
area closure only helps the small bigeye tuna that the comment. change to
sets
have higher abundances in this area and not rationale)
Yellowfin tuna.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 288 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Yello Free 1.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. NA (No

wfin school response
Tuna and needed)
FAD
sets
Yello Free 1.2.3 Yes Yes NA SIa. Scoring agreed. In the first paragraph of the We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin school rationale when mentioned the information record in comments. The rationale for SI-a (no score
Tuna and each fishing operation one of the topics is has been modified to address change,
FAD
environmental interactions. What kind of the comment. change to
sets
interactions does mean to refer? because this rationale)
information does not found in the report. In the last
paragraph, one of the points that do not allow to
meet the SG100 is the scarce environmental
information. Therefore I suggest clarifying this point
in the rationale
Yello Free 1.2.4 Yes No NA SIe. To start the report should incorporate more We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin school (change information about the references such as the comments. The rationale for SI-e (no score
Tuna and to benchmark 2020 assessment for YFT and references has been modified to change,
FAD rationale
from Aires-da-Silva et al., 2020 and Minte-Vera et incorporate additional change to
sets expected,
al., 2020. These studies have been evaluated by references. While we recognize rationale)
not to
scoring) other reviewers when had been submitted to the some scientific journals may
journals, this could be considered as an external actually impose a rigorous
review and every SAC (2019-2021) each year could review process, that is not
be an internal review. necessarily the norm. Also, even
with a rigorous review, the focus
is not as directed as when a
formal review has been
sanctioned (by the RFMO) with
specified Terms of Reference.
Yello Free 2.1.1 Yes No (non- Yes SIa. The score has to be reduced. The rationale text We thank the reviewer for their Not
wfin school material states " The species is likely below the PRI, and comments, however, it’s not accepted
Tuna sets score measures are in place that is expected to ensure clear to what species this (no
Ecuador reduction
that the UoA does not hinder recovery and comments is referring to as no change)
, expected)
rebuilding". But the score reached was SG 100. To species in the Free school sets
Panama
& USA get this score requires that there is "a high degree of meet SG100.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 289 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

certainty" that the main primary species are above

the PRI. Therefore, the SG 100 cannot be reached.
Yello FAD 2.1.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed including condition. NA (No
wfin sets response
Tuna Ecuador needed)
,
Panama
& USA
Yello USA 2.1.1 Yes No Yes SIb. Pacific Bluefin tuna. Taking into account that We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin small (change the measures implemented indicate that the fishery comments. As Pacific bluefin (no score
Tuna fleet to carried out for bluefin tuna does not prevent the tuna is a primary main species change,
rationale
stock from recovering and that it may reestablish the comments noted here have change to
expected,
itself, it is necessary to include in the rationale one been addressed in the rationale rationale)
not to
scoring) of the major concerns that the scientific committee for PI2.1.1 Si-a.
had is that there is an agreement between the two
RFMOs IATTC and WCPFC to increase the catch
quotas for this species, which will possibly prevent
its recovery within the target reference limits.

On the other hand, it is necessary to adjust in the

PRDR that currently, category that has bluefin tuna
considering the last assessment made from the
IUCN in January of 2021 is Near Threatened not
Vulnerable, so apparently the global status
improved compared with the previous assessment
Yello Free 2.1.2 Yes No SIa. Scoring agreed. But. some justifications of the We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin school (change assigned scores are confusing with what was comments and note the (no score
Tun and to previously justified in PIa 2.1.1. specifically for rationale for bigeye tuna under change,
a FAD rationale Bigeye tuna, because in the previous PI the PI2.1.2 Si-a has been updated to change to
sets expected justification that this species met the requirements address the comments. We rationale)
Ecuado , not to for SG60 but not for SG80 in the FADS fishery. The consider the combination of
r, scoring) benchmark assessment and risk analysis indicate measures to be a 'partial
Panam that is likely that Scurrent is above the PRI, meeting strategy' that is expected to not
a and SG60 requirements. but not to met SG80 hinder rebuilding of the bigeye
USA requirements. Therefore, how could be possible for tuna to levels which are highly
this PI to mention that with a partial strategy of likely to be above the PRI; on

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 290 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

some measures working together expected to this basis the SG 80 score is

maintain or to not hinder the rebuilding of the main appropriate.
primary species at/to levels which are highly likely
to be above the PRI; SG 80 is met. This is
contradictory, I suggest adjusting this rationale,
Yello USA 2.1.2 No Yes NA Scoring agreed. But recent regulations issued by the We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin small (chan Ecuadorian government were not included in the comments and note that the US (no score
Tun fleet ge to PRDR or in the rationales. One of these is Ministerial Small fleet operates exclusively change,
a ration Agreement No. 116 of 2013, which prohibits the within the US EEZ and is not change to
ale retention on board, transhipment, landing, storage, subject to Ecuadorian rationale)
expec and sale of sharks. the retention on board, legislation. We have noted that
ted, transhipment, landing, storage, and sale of within the US EEZ, NOAA
not to hammerhead sharks, whole or in parts, of the Fisheries develops catch limits
scorin species red hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) and white for the US small purse seine
g) hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena) on industrial fishing fleet.
vessels, mother boats, and sport and recreational
fishing vessels.

The most recent was Ministerial Agreement 0084 of

2020 which prohibits the external commercialization
or export of the 5 shark species (Carcharhinus
longimanus, Sphyrna zygaena, Sphyrna mokarran,
Sphyrna tiburo, and Sphyrna lewini) species that
have been identified as vulnerable, in accordance
with the guidelines established by the Government
of Ecuador. guidelines established by the
Government of Ecuador for the conservation of
sharks and manta rays, in accordance and manta
rays, as defined in the National Action Plan for the
Conservation of Sharks 2020-2024. of Sharks 2020-
2024
Yello Free 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. NA (No
wfin school response
Tun and needed)
a FAD
sets

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 291 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Ecuado
r,
Panam
a and
USA
Yello USA 2.1.3 Yes No NA Scoring agreed. We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin small (change comments. The rationale for (no score
Tun fleet to SIa. But the rationale contradicts other information PI2.1.2-a and PI2.1.2-b have change,
a rationale within the PIa 2.1.2 regarding Pacific Bluefin Tuna been modified to address the change to
expected where according to WCPFC CMM 2017-08 and IATTC potential contradiction. rationale)
, not to Resolution C-16-08 the measures catch limits and
scoring) minimum size restrictions have been implemented
met the requirements SG80, but due to limited
information available on the catches of the fleet,
outside of logbook data, the SG 100 is not met. in
the same way in the same PIb the assessment team
does not consider it to be rigorous the assessment
made for this species to support high confidence to
SG100 could be met.
Yello Free 2.2.1 Yes No NA SIb. It is a little confusing. The rationale as written We thank the reviewer for Accepted
wfin school (change appears to make the case for PSAs justifying the SG pointing out the confusion and (no score
Tun and to 100 as met, but the text does not clearly link the note that the rationale has been change,
a FAD rationale rationale to the decision not to score at the SG100, appropriately modified. change to
sets expected which does appear to be the decision, rationale)
Ecuado , not to as it is consistent with results in the scoring table.
r, scoring) Please change or clarify the rationale.
Panam
a and
USA
Yello USA 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. NA (No
wfin small response
Tun fleet needed)
a
Yello Free 2.2.2 No Yes Yes Scoring agreed including condition. But the We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin school (chan Information about the gestation period for silky comments and pointing out the (no score
and ge to shark has been published since 1987 (Branstetter, references. The background has change,

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 292 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Tun FAD ration 1987). Therefore, refer this biological aspect as been updated to reflect this additional
a sets ale unknown is a mistake. Recent studies in Nort Pacific information. evidence
Ecuado expec have reported that the gestation time for this presented)
r, ted, species is between 11 and 12 months (Hoyos-Padilla
Panam not to et al. 2012 and Galvan-Tirado et al. 2015). Please
a and scorin include those references in the report.
USA g)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edgar-Hoyos-
Padilla/publication/313313888_Reproductive_biolo
gy_of_silky_shark_Carcharhinus_falciformis_off_the
_west_coast_of_Baja_California_Sur/links/5895737
7aca2721f0da1e529/Reproductive-biology-of-silky-
shark-Carcharhinus-falciformis-off-the-west-coast-
of-Baja-California-Sur.pdf

Galvan-Tirado DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315414001970
Yello Free 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. NA (No
wfin school response
Tun and needed)
a FAD
sets
Ecuado
r,
Panam
a and
USA
Yello Free 2.3.1 No Yes Yes Scoring agreed including condition. However, It is We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin school (chan necessary to review the rationale because the comments. The reference to (no score
Tun and ge to paragraph about the oceanic whitetip met the SG 60 depletion levels has been change,
a FAD ration and 80 but not SG100. in the section about the clarified for oceanic whitetip change to
sets ale scalloped hammerhead shark in the last lines where shark and reference to oceanic rationale)
Ecuado expec it concludes that they meet the requirements of whitetip shark in the scalloped
r, ted, SG60 and SG80, the name of oceanic whitetip shark hammerhead shark section
Panam not to appears. Please adjust this. adjusted. Finally, the CITES
Listing for Mobula birostris in

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 293 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

a and scorin By another hand, in Table14 where is the list of ETP Table 14 has been corrected to
USA g) species, the giant manta ray Mobula birostris is reflect Appendix 2.
listed in Appendix I, and this species is listed in
Appendix II. The only elasmobranch in Appendix I
are the species of the genus Pristis. Please correct
this
Yello USA 2.3.1 Yes No (non- Yes Sib. The data collected for the UoA was only We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin small material recorded in the logbooks record catches of tuna comments. The rationale has (no score
Tun fleet score species. So, the other information was inferred from been updated with additional change,
a reductio the results of interviews, this not could be taken as a evidence to conclude the initial additional
n certain way to confirm that any of another species score of SG 80 is achievable. evidence
expected (could be part of the ETP species) could be caught presented)
) during the fishing sets. Without observer data we
cannot assert with a high degree of confidence that
there are no significant impacts, for that, I don't
think that SG 80 could be achieved, I agree that
SG60 but not more beyond.
Yello Free 2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. NA (No
wfin school response
Tun and needed)
a FAD
sets
Ecuado
r,
Panam
a and
USA
Yello USA 2.3.2 Yes Yes NA SId. The strategy presented using the interviews to We thank the reviewer for their NA (No
wfin small get information about the possibility to know if this comment and note that the use response
Tun fleet UoA could include other species (perhaps ETP of EM may also provide needed)
a species) in the fishing activities could support beneficial.
getting the SG 80. However, this should be taken
with caution because the only way to be sure that if
the reported results are as reported is that in the
medium-term observers can either be incorporated
into these fleets or that additional information on

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 294 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

other species caught as bycatch can actually be

recorded in the logbooks
Yello Free 2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed including condition. NA (No
wfin school response
Tun and needed)
a FAD
sets
Ecuado
r,
Panam
a and
USA
Yello USA 2.3.3 Yes No Yes Scoring agreed including condition. We thank the reviewer for their
wfin small (change comments and note the
Tun fleet to Sib. Very confusing rationale, please review it. The rationale has been modified
a rationale score, states that it complies with SG60 but not with appropriately.
expected SG80 but the justification does not reflect that.
, not to
scoring)
Yello Free 2.4.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed including condition. NA (No
wfin school response
Tun and needed)
a FAD
sets
Ecuado
r,
Panam
a, USA
and
USA
small
fleet
Yello Free 2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed including condition. NA (No
wfin school response
Tun and needed)
a FAD

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 295 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

sets
Ecuado
r,
Panam
a, USA
and
USA
small
fleet
Yello Free 2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed including condition. NA (No
wfin school response
Tun and needed)
a FAD
sets
Ecuado
r,
Panam
a, USA
Yello USA 2.4.3 Yes No NA Scoring agreed. SIc Very confusing rationale, please Thank you for your comments Accepted
wfin small (change review it. The score, states that complies with SG and the rationale has been (no score
Tun fleet to 100 but the justification it mentions the opposite modified to remove any change,
a rationale confusion. change to
expected rationale)
, not to
scoring)
Yello Free 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
wfin school comment and agree there are (no score
Tun and SIa. The rationale mentioned that the food web other approaches that could be change,
a FAD reaches the SG60 and 80 but the score mentioned implemented to assess fishing change to
sets nothing about that. By another hand, I agree that impacts on the foodweb; we rationale)
Ecuado this indicator could reflect other results if have noted this in the rationale.
r, incorporated other approaches such as stable
Panam isotopes analyses, this tool could give information in
a, USA different temporal scales depending on the tissue
and analyzed and the species, allow inferring how the
USA

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 296 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

small trophic status of the environment and include the

fleet fisheries in the models.
Yello Free 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. NA (No
wfin school response
Tun and needed)
a FAD
sets
Ecuado
r,
Panam
a, USA
and
USA
small
fleet
Yello Free 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. NA (No
wfin school response
Tun and needed)
a FAD
sets
Ecuado
r,
Panam
a, USA
and
USA
small
fleet
Yello Ecuado 3.1.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed including condition During the extended site visit NA (No
wfin r, period, in March 2021 Panama response
Tun Panam passed Law No. 204 regulating needed)
a a& fishing and aquaculture in
USA Panama. With passage of Law
204, the national legal
framework for fisheries and the
management of fisheries subject

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 297 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

to international cooperation
meets SG 80 referencing GSA4.3
Legal and/or Customary
Framework PI (PI 3.1.1a).
Specifically, organized and
effective cooperation with other
parties extends to UNFSA Article
10 paragraphs a, h and j
(SA4.3.3.2). Our assessment is
now that there is an effective
legal system and organised and
effective cooperation with other
parties, where necessary, to
deliver management outcomes
consistent with MSC Principles 1
and 2 thereby meeting SG 80.
This means the rationale
provided for the original
condition is no longer valid and
it has been removed from
assessment.
Yello Ecuado 3.1.2 No Yes NA Scoring agreed Thank you for highlighting the Accepted
wfin r, (chan role of IPIAP in the fisheries (no score
Tun Panam ge to SIa. In the entities or institutions from Ecuador why management regime of change,
a a& ration does not include the PUBLIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE Ecuador. The rationale is not change to
USA ale OF AQUACULTURE AND FISHERIES (IPIAP in intended to describe rationale)
expec Spanish), this is one of the scientific authorities of comprehensively all the
ted, marine resources of this country. national agencies involved in the
not to management process, only to
scorin provide sufficient evidence to
g) support the scoring gudepost
for that scoring issue. Moreiver
as an interbational fisheries we
looked at the totality of the
Ecuadorian organizations and
individuals involved in the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 298 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

management of the fishery,

rather than each specific
organization or stakeholder.
Yello Ecuado 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed.
wfin r,
Tun Panam
a a&
USA
Yello Ecuado 3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed.
wfin r,
Tun Panam
a a&
USA
Yello Ecuado 3.2.2 Yes No NA SIc. I consider it important to underline the rationale Sic considers whether decision- Not
wfin r, (change that there are other alternative mechanisms such as making processes use the accepted
Tun Panam to stock status indicators that indirectly allow inferring precautionary approach and are (no
a a& rationale (depending on the type and amount of data based on best available change)
USA expected available) whether a specific UoA is operating information. It does not require
, not to without harming or affecting the population, as was a detailed explanation of how
scoring) done for Skipjack. this is achieved. The matters
raised here, though related, are
a matter of detail more
appropriately addressed under
Principle 1 than Principle 3.
Yello Ecuado 3.2.2 Yes No NA SId. I suggest proposing some mechanism that It is not the role, (nor is it Not
wfin r, (material provides comprehensive information on the permitted) for the CAB to accepted
Tun Panam score fishery’s performance and management actions and suggest alternative or preferred (no
a a& reductio describing how the management system responded mechanisms to meet SGs. The change)
USA n to findings and relevant recommendations emerging role of the CAB is to assess
expected from research, monitoring, and evaluation whether the available evidence
to <80) is sufficient to meet the SGs for
each SI. For this international
fishery, the available evidence
as outline in the rationale
supports the SG awarded.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 299 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Yello Ecuado 3.2.3 Yes No (non- Yes SIc. The NOAA’s 2021 finding of a positive Panama was not identified in Not
wfin r, material certification with respect to IUU and that Ecuador recent NOAA reports as being accepted
Tun Panam score has taken appropriate corrective action to address non-compliant with IATTC (no
a a& reductio the IUU fishing activities for which it was identified resolution C-11-07 where as change)
USA n in 2019. Did the NOAA, 2021 report find a positive Ecuador was. The NOAA
expected certification for Panama? Therefore, if this is the positive certification in 21 of
) second yellow card for this country, indicating there Ecuador provided sufficient
is not a high degree of confidence that fishers evidence that compliance issues
comply with the management system under have been remedied. We
assessment, therefore, it does not appear that the considered very carefully
SG80 level is reached. Panama's compliance record
and concluded that there was
evidence that there was some
evidence exists to demonstrate
fishers comply with the
management system under
assessment meeting SG 80 for SI
3.2.3c. However conditions
were set for Panama under SIs
3.2.3a and 3.2.3b.to address
other deficiencies in compliance
and enforcement.
Yello Ecuado 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. The external reviews that are We recognize the spirit of this
wfin r, occasional, why couldn't be scheduled every specific comment and note it is one that NA (No
Tun Panam time for example each 4 year as been raised for RFMOs response
a a& generally, not just the IATTC. needed)
USA

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 300 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

RBF Comments
UoA stock UoA PI RBF RBF Peer Reviewer Justification (as given CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res-
gear Scoring Information at initial Peer Review stage) comments (as included in the Public ponse
Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code
Yellowfin USA 2.2.1 Yes Yes SIa. Scoring agreed. I could suggest in Dates of consultation for fishbase Accepted
Tuna small (RBF) the rationale of the PSA include the page are now included (no score
fleet date of consultation of the fishbase change,
page, which is one of the references change to
of the information used for this rationale)
analysis.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 301 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Peer Reviewer B
General Comments
Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as
Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR)
explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table,
summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and
RBF tables.
Is the scoring of the fishery No The team has done a very good job assessing this The inconsistencies in scoring PI 2.1.3 and PI 2.3.3 have
consistent with the MSC complex fishery against the standard. The bycatch issues been addressed and rationales corrected. Scores have
standard, and clearly based were separated and handled in logical format. been verified in table 7
on the evidence presented However, there are inconsistencies between the
in the assessment report? rationale and scoring in PI 2.1.3 and PI 2.3.3. Not sure if
they need rescoring or an edit to the rationale to
support current scoring? The scores also need checking
as presented in Table 7.1.

Are the condition(s) raised No Some suggested re-wording of conditions is offered to We've re-worded conditions milestones. However,
appropriately written to render the condition milestones more auditable. wording of conditions needs to follow language of the
achieve the SG80 outcome scoring guidepost
within the specified
timeframe?
[Reference: FCP v2.2,
7.18.1 and sub-clauses]
Optional: General NA The use of FADs is a major issue for this assessment, We've expanded the background section to include a
Comments on the Peer particularly in the 2.4 performance indicators. It is description of FADs and numbers of deployed FADs
Review Draft Report suggested that the report (probably 7.3.1.7) include a deployed by the UoA(See Figure 31 and Table 18).
(including comments on description of the size of FADs in use and the materials Information on de-actived FADs was not available.
the adequacy of the that make up FADs. TUNACON has done some great
background information if work in their voluntary code of conduct to implement
necessary). Add extra rows new materials but it would be helpful to the reader to
if needed below, including get an idea of the volume of material that is de-
the codes in Columns A-C. activated but still floating and threathening coastal coral
habitats.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 302 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Optional: General NA It is suggested that Section 8.10 be updated with scoring Section has been updated
Comments on the Peer of the current draft.
Review Draft Report
(continued)

PI Comments
UoA UoA gear PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res-
stock Information Scoring Condition (as given at initial Peer comments (as included in the ponse
Review stage) Public Comment Draft Report - Code
PCDR)
EPO YFT All Gear 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed NA (No
response
needed)
EPO YFT All Gear 1.1.2 NA (PI not NA (PI not NA Not scored. NA (No
scored) scored) response
needed)
EPO YFT All Gear 1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed NA (No
response
needed)
EPO YFT All Gear 1.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed NA (No
response
needed)
EPO YFT All Gear 1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed NA (No
response
needed)
EPO YFT All Gear 1.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed NA (No
response
needed)
EPO YFT TUNACON 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA b: It would help to provide We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
FAD an MSC reference for comments and have provided the (no score
assigning a pass score at MSC reference. change,
SG100 where there are no change to
primary minor species rationale)
listed. ( perhaps SA3.2.1)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 303 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

EPO YFT TUNACON 2.1.1 No Condition 2.1 Milestone We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
FAD year 1: Suggest removing comments and have made the (no score
the words "develop and" to suggested change in the condition. change,
clarify that the plan must be change to
presented, not merely rationale)
under development.
EPO YFT US Small 2.1.1 No Condition 2.2: Milestone We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
PS year 1: Suggest removing comments and have made the (no score
the words "develop and" to suggested change to the change,
clarify that the plan must be condition. change to
presented, not merely rationale)
under development.
EPO YFT All UoA 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed for all three NA (No
UoA response
needed)
EPO YFT All UoA 2.1.3 Yes No (score NA a: US Small PS met SG100 in We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
increase the rationale but not comment and the scoring (no score
expected) reflected in the score. inconsistency has been retified. change,
change to
rationale)
EPO YFT All UoA 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. See RBF for NA (No
additional comments. response
needed)
EPO YFT All UoA 2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed for three NA (No
UoA. response
needed)
EPO YFT All UoA 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed for all three NA (No
UoA response
needed)
EPO YFT All UoA 2.3.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed for all three NA (No
UoA response
needed)
EPO YFT All UoA 2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring aagreed for all three NA (No
UoA response
needed)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 304 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

EPO YFT US Small 2.3.3 Yes Yes b SG80: US Small PS: Met? We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
PS states "no" whereas comment and the scoring (no score
rationale states "yes" with inconsistency has been retified. change,
score of 75. change to
rationale)
EPO YFT TUNACON 2.3.3 No Condition 2.5: Suggest We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
FAD and Milestone Year 1: Suggest comments and have made the (no score
Free replacing "Develop" with suggested change to the change,
"Present" a plan to ensure a condition. change to
plan is complete at the time rationale)
of the audit.
EPO YFT US Small 2.3.3 No Condition 2.6: Suggest We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
PS Milestone Year 1: Suggest comments and have made the (no score
replacing "Develop" with suggested change to the condition change,
"Present" a plan to ensure a change to
plan is complete at the time rationale)
of the audit.
EPO YFT All UoA 2.4.1 Yes Yes No Condition 2.7: Suggest We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
Milestone Year 1: Suggest comments and have made the (no score
replacing "Develop and suggested change to the condition change,
present" with "Present" a change to
plan to ensure a plan is rationale)
complete at the time of the
audit.
EPO YFT All UoA 2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed for all three NA (No
UoA response
needed)
EPO YFT TUNACON 2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. NA (No
FREE and response
US Small needed)
PS

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 305 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

EPO YFT TUNACON 2.4.3 No Condition 2.9: Suggest We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
FAD Milestone Year 1: Suggest comments and have made the (no score
replacing "Develop and suggested change to the condition change,
present" with "Present" a change to
plan to ensure a plan is rationale)
complete at the time of the
audit.
Scoring table: Insert
condtion number 2.9
EPO YFT All UoA 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. NA (No
response
needed)
EPO YFT All UoA 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Table 7.1 indicates a score We thank the reviewer for their Accepted
of 85 for Ecuador Free comment and the scoring (no score
School Sets. Should be 80 inconsistency in Table 7.1 has change,
been rectified. change to
rationale)
EPO YFT All UoA 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. NA (No
response
needed)
EPO YFT USA and 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Table 7.1 indicates a score Correction to table updated Accepted
Ecuador of 85 for USA. Should be 80. (no score
change,
additional
evidence
presented)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 306 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

EPO YFT Panama 3.1.1 Yes Yes No Since this Condition requires During the extended site visit NA (No
introduction of laws, it period, in March 2021 Panama response
would provide some passed Law No. 204 regulating needed)
confidence of success within fishing and aquaculture in
the time frame if the letters Panama. With passage of Law 204,
of support included one the national legal framework for
from judicial authorities. fisheries and the management of
fisheries subject to international
cooperation meets SG 80
referencing GSA4.3 Legal and/or
Customary Framework PI (PI
3.1.1a). Specifically, organized and
effective cooperation with other
parties extends to UNFSA Article
10 paragraphs a, h and j
(SA4.3.3.2). Our assessment is
now that there is an effective legal
system and organised and
effective cooperation with other
parties, where necessary, to
deliver management outcomes
consistent with MSC Principles 1
and 2 thereby meeting SG 80. This
means the rationale provided for
the original condition is no longer
valid and it has been removed
from assessment.
EPO YFT All UoA 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed NA (No
response
needed)
EPO YFT All UoA 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed NA (No
response
needed)
EPO YFT All UoA 3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed NA (No
response
needed)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 307 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

EPO YFT All UoA 3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed NA (No
response
needed)
EPO YFT All UoA 3.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. NA (No
response
needed)
EPO YFT All UoA 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed NA (No
response
needed)
RBF Comments
UoA UoA PR PI RBF RBF Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer CAB Res-
stock gear (A/B/C) Scoring Information given at initial Peer Review stage) Reviewer's comments (as ponse
included in the Public Comment Code
Draft Report - PCDR)
YFT All PR B 2.1.1 NA (PI not NA (PI not NA (No
UoAs (RBF) scored) scored) response
needed)

Peer Reviewer C
General Comments

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in
Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR)
brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in
this table, summarising the detailed comments
made in the PI and RBF tables.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 308 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Is the scoring of the Yes This is a complex and difficult assessment and I Comments for specific Pis are addressed in the 'PI comments'
fishery consistent with think that the team did a satisfactory analysis of the section
the MSC standard, and information, drafting a good report. Overall, the
clearly based on the assessment complies with the relevant MSC
evidence presented in General Certification Requirements the Fishery
the assessment report? Certification Process Requirements and scoring of
the fishery is consistent with the MSC standard.
However In some cases I would request some
clarifications (see PI comments). I think one of the
main issue is related to P3, because the team did
not systematically score IATTC.
Are the condition(s) Yes The team raised 13 conditions P2 and P3, and as No comments necessary
raised appropriately they are structured in term of milsestones I think
written to achieve the they will help to achieve the SG80 or higher in
SG80 outcome within future within the specified timeframe.
the specified
timeframe?
[Reference: FCP v2.2,
7.18.1 and sub-clauses]
Optional: General NA I found the following mistakes/inconsistencies to be See comments below
Comments on the Peer fixed or clarified in the background section:
Review Draft Report
(including comments on
the adequacy of the
background information
if necessary). Add extra
rows if needed below,
including the codes in
Columns A-C.
Optional: General NA 1 - Page 7, revise the ref page in figures 26-30; The list of figures in Table 7 is now updated
Comments on the Peer
Review Draft Report
(continued)
Optional: General NA 2 - Page 9, Glossary need to be revised and put in Glossary revised and expanded
Comments on the Peer alphabetic order;

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 309 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Review Draft Report

(continued)

Optional: General NA 3 - Page 13-14, Clarify if someone of the Audit Now included team member who completed RBF training
Comments on the Peer team performed RBF training;
Review Draft Report
(continued)
Optional: General NA 4 - Pages 17-18, in table 3 the UoAs1 and 2 are This is because UoA7 has only one set type (Free School sets)
Comments on the Peer repeated. Also is not clear the reason why UoA7 is and does not set on FADs, Table 4 has been corrected to reflect
Review Draft Report only one UoA and is not divided in two as the this.
(continued) previous ones;
Optional: General NA 5 - Page 19, P3 scoring should be done also for The assessement team evaluated the IATTC management under
Comments on the Peer IATTC; P3 as an integral part of management for each flagstate,
Review Draft Report however, an independent score is not awareded to IATTC as a
(continued) stand-alone UoA
Optional: General NA 6 - Page 21, Not clear what EUROFISH and NIRSA Section updated
Comments on the Peer are;
Review Draft Report
(continued)
Optional: General NA 7 - Page 27, the following text is not clear: Thank you pointing this out and the section has been claried.
Comments on the Peer "Yellowfin tuna is a highly gregarious species that
Review Draft Report has a tendency to form free-swimming schools of
(continued) the same size range (85% less than 85 cm). This
behaviour is modified when the fish schools
associate with dolphins. In this case, the size
distribution is less homogenous and individuals are
generally larger (70% larger than 85 cm)." I assume
85% of the number of tuna in the free-swimming
schools are less than 85cm in length…. Is
understanding this correct?

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 310 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Optional: General NA 8 - Page 28, is there any reason for this about M: Thanks for your question/comment. In the current YFT stock
Comments on the Peer "The curve for males declines sharply from 0.7 to assessment it is assumed that, as YFT grow older, the natural
Review Draft Report 0.2 in the first two years and stays at that level until mortality rate (M) changes and varies based on sex. This is
(continued) the oldest age. Female mortality declines together based on observations in which the ratio of male to female YFT
with males but soon after they reach 0.2 it in the catch changes in favor of males as the size of the fish in
increases logistically until at about 5 years it the catch increases. This trend can be interpreted in at least
stabilizes at around 0.6"; three ways. First, it is possible that large females are less
vulnerable to fishing than large males (perhaps because large
females do not occur in the main fishing areas). Second, it is
possible that females grow more slowly than males. Third, it is
possible that large females die at a more rapid rate than do
large males (perhaps because the physiological costs of
reproduction are higher for females). Maunder and Watters
(2001) assumed that the mortality curve is composed of three
phases. In the first phase of the mortality curve, M is assumed
to be high because yellowfin tuna of both sexes are small and
vulnerable to predation by other fishes. As the fish grow
through the first phase, they become less vulnerable to
predation, and the natural mortality rate is assumed to decline;
tagging data from the WCPO supported the M trajectory in
phase 1. In the second phase of the natural mortality curve,
after the onset of sexual maturity, and into the third phase (post
maturity) of the mortality curve, decreases in the proportion of
females in the catch are observed. This observation was
interpreted to result from higher physiological costs of
reproduction for females. Assuming that the three phases of the
mortality curve are correct quarterly estimates of M are
calculated by fitting to observed sex ratio data. For a more
generalized and simpler model to estimate age-structured M
based on changes in sex ratio see Harkey and Maunder (2003).
Maunder, M. N., and Watters, G. M. 2001. Status of yellowfin
tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. In Stock Assessment Report 1:
status of the tuna and billfish stocks in 1999. IATTC, pp. 5–86

Harley, S., and M. Maunder. 2003. A simple model for age-

structured natural mortality based on changes in sex ratios

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 311 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

(https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2003/SAR-
04/Docs/_English/SAR-
04_Age%20structured%20natural%20mortality.pdf)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 312 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Optional: General NA 9 - Page 31, it is stated that 4 values of steepness While there may be information to suggest recruitment is
Comments on the Peer have been tested. However, at page 29 it is stated independent of stock size this was tested by varying steepness
Review Draft Report that recruitment has strong dependence on as part of the 48 reference models. Clarification has beeen
(continued) environmental conditions and is reasonable provided.
support to assume recruitment is independent of
stock size. Please clarify;
Optional: General NA 10 - Page 56, I think this description is not correct: Section updated
Comments on the Peer "2. This includes species that are retained for sale
Review Draft Report or personal use (assessed under Performance
(continued) Indicator 2.1), bycatch species that are discarded
(Performance Indicator 2.2),...",;
Optional: General NA 11 - Page 94, Figure 25 repeated twice; Repetition deleted
Comments on the Peer
Review Draft Report
(continued)
Optional: General NA 12 - page 59-67 provide the source of tables 12-19 Sources now included in captions
Comments on the Peer in captions;
Review Draft Report
(continued)
Optional: General NA 13 - Page 73, provide the source of figure 12 in source now included in the caption
Comments on the Peer captions;
Review Draft Report
(continued)
Optional: General NA 14 - Page 80-81, provide the source of figure 20-21 Sources have been provided
Comments on the Peer in captions;
Review Draft Report
(continued)
Optional: General NA 15 - Page 82, there is a figure without captions; Caption now included
Comments on the Peer
Review Draft Report
(continued)
Optional: General NA 16 - Page 95, provide the source of figure 25 in Source has been provided.
Comments on the Peer captions;
Review Draft Report
(continued)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 313 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Optional: General NA 17 - Page 102, provide the source of figure 27 in Source has been provided.
Comments on the Peer captions;
Review Draft Report
(continued)
Optional: General NA 18 - Page 106 provide the source of figure 28 in Source has been provided.
Comments on the Peer captions;
Review Draft Report
(continued)
Optional: General NA 19 - Page 117 provide the source of figure 30 in Source has been provided.
Comments on the Peer captions;
Review Draft Report
(continued)
Optional: General NA 20 - Page 128, it is stated that for UoA7 fishing is This has been corrected to indicate only free school sets are
Comments on the Peer limited to free school sets and conducted in waters used in UoA 7
Review Draft Report adjacent to San Pedro, California U.S.A. while in
(continued) table 3 it is stated that UoA7 use both free and FAD,
please clarify.;
Optional: General NA 21 - Page 216, Management of UoAs and not UoA. Corrected
Comments on the Peer
Review Draft Report
(continued)

PI Comments
UoA UoA gear PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer CAB Res-
stock Informat Scoring Conditi initial Peer Review stage) Reviewer's comments (as ponse
ion on included in the Public Code
Comment Draft Report -
PCDR)
Yellow Purse 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA The scoring in P1.1.1a and b is probably We thank the reviewer for Accepted
fin seine (Free correct. However, the team has to provide their comment and have (no score
tuna school and also the absolute values of current biomas expanded the rationale to change,
FAD sets) and ref points rather than the relative values include all available change
and the probabilities to better justify the management qualities. to
scoring. I also agree with the defintion of PRI rationale)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 314 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

as 20% S0 rarther than 0.077S0, but again the

use of relative term can be confusing. I
suggest to clarify.

Yellow Purse 1.1.2 NA (PI NA (PI NA Not scored. NA (No

fin seine (Free not not response
tuna school and scored) scored) needed)
FAD sets)
Yellow Purse 1.2.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. However the We thank the reviewer for Accepted
fin seine (Free reference to the lack of MSE in 1.2.1a is out their comments. If a robust (no score
tuna school and of contecxt to determine if the HS is MSE is developed and change,
FAD sets) designed. Reference to the lack of MSE is applied, incorporating all change
correctly considered in 1.2.1b instead. I think aspects of the management to
that the tools used to reduce the exploitation process (e.g., systems rationale)
(temporal fishing closure period) are approach), the assessment
determing that the HS is not designed team believes an MSC can
because are clearly less effective than an identify appropriate final
output control as TAC. reference points leading to
an effective harvest strategy.
Yellow Purse 1.2.2 No No NA In 1.2.2a the team should score the fishery Unfortunately, the stock NA (No
fin seine (Free (material (material against the PRI (20%S0) which is higher than assessment does not provide response
tuna school and score score the Slim used in the management. This has to probability outcome in needed)
FAD sets) reductio reductio be considered as a weak part of the HCR and relation to 20%B0. Results
n n a condition has to be raised here. are provided for Scurrent/S0
expected expected for each of the model
to <80) to <80) combinations. Average
values for each of the
steepness parameters used
(h=1.0, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7) are
0.22, 0.21, 0.20 and 0.17
with an average of 0.2 and a
90% confidence interval of
0.017. This is interpreted as
keeping the stock fluctuating

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 315 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

at or above a target level

consistent with MSY.

Yellow Purse 1.2.3 No No NA In 1.2.3b the team has to make references to We thank the reviewer for Accepted
fin seine (Free (change (change the index of abundance available (e.g. CPUE) their comments and the (no score
tuna school and to to rather than the stock assessment outputs of rationale has been modified change,
FAD sets) rationale rationale BET YFT and SKJ. Also there is not reference in to address the comments. change
expected expected the rationale on how accurate are the statics to
, not to , not to of UoA removals. rationale)
scoring) scoring)
Yellow Purse 1.2.4 Yes Yes NA I agree with scoring. However, the sentence We thank the reviewer for Accepted
fin seine (Free in 1.2.4a "The updated risk analysis approach their comments and note (no score
tuna school and allows for an improved consideration of the rationale now clearly change,
FAD sets) uncertainty by testing plausible states of indicates that the change
nature, and explicitly evaluates stock status in assessment takes into to
a probabilistic way consistent with the HCR of account the major features rationale)
the Commission. The 2020 yellowfin relevant to the biology of
assessment, as well as the risk-based the species and the nature
approach in general, was reviewed at the of the UoA.
2020 IATTC SAC and Commission Meetings,
the 2021 IATTC SAC Meeting, and numerous
IATTC Extraordinary Meetings spanning 2020-
2021." is not relevant here but in 1.2.4c. In
1.2.4a the team has to justify if the
assessment takes into account the major
features relevant to the biology of the species
and the nature of the UoA to score 100.
Yellow Purse 2.1.1 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the scoring. The references to Thank you for your Accepted
fin seine (Free figures in SKJ need to be updated. comment; references to (no score
tuna school and figures have been updated. change,
FAD sets) change
to
rationale)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 316 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Yellow Purse 2.1.2 No No NA In 2.1.2b the team score 80 for BET in We thank the reviewer for Accepted
fin seine (Free (scoring (scoring TUNACONS free school and FAD set UoAs. their comments and note (no score
tuna school and implicati implicati However, the rationale used is not providing the rationale has been change,
FAD sets) ons ons some objective basis for confidence that the modified accordingly. change
unknown unknown measures/partial strategy will work. to
) ) rationale)
Yellow Purse 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. The references to Thank you for the comments Accepted
fin seine (Free figures need to be updated. and the rationale is updated. (no score
tuna school and change,
FAD sets) change
to
rationale)
Yellow Purse 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. The references to Thank you for the comments Accepted
fin seine (Free figures need to be updated. and the rationale is updated. (no score
tuna school and change,
FAD sets) change
to
rationale)
Yellow Purse 2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the scoring. In 2.2.2d (shark Thank you for your Accepted
fin seine (Free finning) USA UoA is not meeting 80. Also it is comments. While the (no score
tuna school and not so clear why US is repeated twice. rationale has been updated change,
FAD sets) we note there are two USA change
UoAs, one under TUNACONS to
UoA and the other under the rationale)
US Small Purse Seine UoA.
Yellow Purse 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. NA (No
fin seine (Free response
tuna school and needed)
FAD sets)
Yellow Purse 2.3.1 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the scoring. NA (No
fin seine (Free response
tuna school and needed)
FAD sets)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 317 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Yellow Purse 2.3.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. NA (No
fin seine (Free response
tuna school and needed)
FAD sets)
UoA1-6
Yellow Purse 2.3.2 No No NA In relation to 2.3.2b I suggest that the team We thank the reviewer for Accepted
fin seine (Free (scoring (scoring has to consider also the management their comments. Both the (no score
tuna school and implicati implicati strategy implemented by US on ETP species. background and rationale change,
FAD sets) ons ons has been updated to include change
UoA7 unknown unknown US policy on ETP. to
) ) rationale)
Yellow Purse 2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the scoring and the condition NA (No
fin seine (Free raised. response
tuna school and needed)
FAD sets)
Yellow Purse 2.4.1 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the scoring and the condition NA (No
fin seine (Free raised. response
tuna school and needed)
FAD sets)
Yellow Purse 2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the scoring. I would suggest to Thank you for your comment Accepted
fin seine (Free consider also gear loss in the rationale 2.4.2a and the rationale has been (no score
tuna school and for not scoring 100. updated appropriately. change,
FAD sets) change
to
rationale)
Yellow Purse 2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the scoring and the condition NA (No
fin seine (Free raised. response
tuna school and needed)
FAD sets)
Yellow Purse 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. NA (No
fin seine (Free response
tuna school and needed)
FAD sets)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 318 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Yellow Purse 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. NA (No
fin seine (Free response
tuna school and needed)
FAD sets)
Yellow Purse 2.5.3 No (non- No (non- NA In 2.5.3e a score of 100 is too high, due to We thank the reviewer for Not
fin seine (Free material material the lack of quantitavie stock assessment for their comments and note accepted
tuna school and score score many of the stocks. that in order to achieve SG (no
FAD sets) reductio reductio 100 information is change)
n n considered adequate to
expected expected support the development of
) ) strategies to manage
ecosystem impacts.
Considerable research has
been undertaken to
understand the cold tongue
ecosystem in the EPO and
impacts to this feature from
fishing. As detailed in P!
there is an ongoing research
program to advance our
understanding of the
impacts and of the EPO
fisheries on target species.
Finally, we note ecosystems
considerations is regularly
discussed at the annual
meeting of the IATTC Science
Advisory Committee and
during , annual meeting of
the IATTC’s Working Group
on Bycatch (e.g.,, IATTC
2019f) where bycatch
mitigation is considered
explicitly, e.g.,:
https://www.iattc.org/Meeti
ngs/Meetings2019-

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 319 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2020ENG.htm and
https://www.iattc.org/Meeti
ngs/Meetings2014-
2018ENG.htm). ON this basis
the assessment teams
considers there to be
adequate information to
support the development of
strategies to manage
ecosystem impacts.
Yellow Purse 3.1.1 No No Yes The scoring has to be carried out also for The MSC is not prescriptive Not
fin seine (Free (scoring (scoring IATTC and not only for the 3 countries about how CABs should accepted
tuna school and implicati implicati involved in the fishery, considering also that score multi-level (no
FAD sets) ons ons the rationale sections for IATTC are available management and do not change)
unknown unknown and scored. require independent scores
) ) for each jurisdictional level.
GSA4.1.1 Assessment of
multi-level management
systems states: "In order to
effectively assess multi-level
the management systems
against Principle 3, the
assessment team should
determine which biological
and/or jurisdictional levels
apply to the management
system of this UoA. These
levels of management
should then be considered
for all PIs within the relevant
P3 component." In scoring
3.1.1 the regional (IATTC) is
considered in conjunction
with and not seperate from
the three UoAs.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 320 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Yellow Purse 3.1.2 No No NA The scoring has to be carried out also for The MSC is not prescriptive Not
fin seine (Free (scoring (scoring IATTC and not only for the 3 countries about how CABs should accepted
tuna school and implicati implicati involved in the fishery, considering also that score multi-level (no
FAD sets) ons ons the rationale sections for IATTC are available management and do not change)
unknown unknown and scored. require independent scores
) ) for each jurisdictional level.
GSA4.1.1 Assessment of
multi-level management
systems states: "In order to
effectively assess multi-level
the management systems
against Principle 3, the
assessment team should
determine which biological
and/or jurisdictional levels
apply to the management
system of this UoA. These
levels of management
should then be considered
for all PIs within the relevant
P3 component." In scoring
3.1.2 the regional (IATTC) is
considered in conjunction
with and not seperate from
the three UoAs.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 321 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Yellow Purse 3.1.3 No No NA In the present PI long term objectvies should The MSC is not prescriptive Not
fin seine (Free (scoring (scoring be reported also for the 3 countries and not about how CABs should accepted
tuna school and implicati implicati only for IATTC. score multi-level (no
FAD sets) ons ons management and do not change)
unknown unknown require independent scores
) ) for each jurisdictional level.
GSA4.1.1 Assessment of
multi-level management
systems states: "In order to
effectively assess multi-level
the management systems
against Principle 3, the
assessment team should
determine which biological
and/or jurisdictional levels
apply to the management
system of this UoA. These
levels of management
should then be considered
for all PIs within the relevant
P3 component." GSA 4.5
further state for PI
3.1.3states that “The
emphasis of this PI is on the
presence or absence of long-
term objectives at the
broader management level,
i.e., the objectives of the
management agency for all
UoAs under its control.
Where UoAs fall under dual
control (e.g., internationally
managed UoAs where
management falls to both a
national agency and a
bilateral/multilateral

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 322 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

agreement or organisation,
or federally managed UoAs
which have some provincial
or state management
component), the subject of
PI 3.1.3 should be the wider
organization”. Furthermore,
GSA 4.5 also states: “This PI
forms an important part of
the overall understanding of
the use or otherwise of a
precautionary approach in
the UoA but is not
concerned with the
operational implementation
of the precautionary
approach within the ‘day-to-
day’ management of the
UoA itself.” Following ths
guidanance we assess 3.1.1
at the regional IATTC level
given that the resoulations
of the IATTC are binding on
its members.

Yellow Purse 3.2.1 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. NA (No
fin seine (Free response
tuna school and needed)
FAD sets)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 323 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Yellow Purse 3.2.2 Yes Yes NA I agree with the scoring. NA (No
fin seine (Free response
tuna school and needed)
FAD sets)
Yellow Purse 3.2.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the scoring and conditions raised. NA (No
fin seine (Free response
tuna school and needed)
FAD sets)
Yellow Purse 3.2.4 No No NA In 3.2.4b it is considered only the revision Foolwing GSA 4.1.2 Accepted
fin seine (Free (scoring (scoring carried out at IATTC level. However, to be reference above, the focus (no score
tuna school and implicati implicati consistent with fishery-specific governance of this Scoring Issue is at the change,
FAD sets) ons ons also the revision at country level has to be regional (IATTC) level. The change
unknown unknown considered. Commission has overall to
) ) responsibility for developing rationale)
and implementing a fishery
specific management
system, Members are bound
by the arrangements in the
management system and
required to implement these
in domestic legislation and
policy. This was the
jurisdictional level used to
score PI 3.2. 1 fisheries
specific objectives.
However, a reference to
how each UoA reviews its
own fishery-specific
management system in
response to regional level
has now been provided.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 324 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

RBF Comments
UoA stock UoA PI RBF RBF Peer Reviewer Justification (as given CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res-
gear Scoring Information at initial Peer Review stage) comments (as included in the Public ponse
Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code
Northern US 2.1.1 Yes Yes Scoring agreed. However the score Table 26 is now updated to include Accepted
sub stock of small (RBF) should be reported in table 26 rather the actual score rather than the (no score
the Eastern purse than score range (>= 80) score range change,
Pacific seine change to
Bonito UoA7 rationale)
Tuna (Sarda
chiliensis
lineolata)
Stripped US 2.1.1 Yes Yes Scoring agreed. However the score Table 26 is now updated to include Accepted
Bonito small (RBF) should be reported in table 26 rather the actual score rather than the (no score
Tuna (Sarda purse than score range (>= 80) score range change,
orientalis). seine change to
UoA7 rationale)

Peer Reviewer B PCDR Follow-up

UoA stock UoA gear PI PR Comm- Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at Public CAB response to Peer CAB Res-ponse
ent Code Comment Draft Report (PCDR) stage) Reviewer's comments (as Code
included in the Final Draft
Report)

EPO YFT TUNACON 2.3.3 No (change The Condition 2.5 still includes in milestone 1 the Thank for your comment Accepted (no
FAD and to rationale original wording of "Develops a plan" whereas my and Condition 2-5 has score change,
Free expected, not PCDR comment suggested "presents a plan" and the been revised. change to
to scoring) CAB indicated acceptance of the comment and an rationale)
edit to the condition.

8.5 Stakeholder input

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 325 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8.5 Stakeholder input

Table 25. Summary of Stakeholder Submissions
Stakeholder Name & Quote/Summary Medium of Evidence Input Date
Organization submission
Fundación Pesca Limpia See Table 32 and Written- ACDR See Table 32 and November 2020
Table 35 consultation Table 35
ISSF See Tables Table Written- ACDR See Tables Table November 2020
23Table 24 consultation 23 Table 24

Pew See Table below Written- ACDR Included in table January 2021
MSC- Technical Oversight Table 27 Written- PCDR Table 27 April 2022
ISSF Table 28 Written- PCDR Table 28 April 2022
Pew Table 29 and Table Written- PCDR Table 29 and April 2022
30 Table 30
Fundación Pesca Limpia Table 31 Written- PCDR Table 31 April 2022

Fundación Pesca Limpia ACDR Comments

Table 21. Stakeholder Input Fundación Pesca Limpia- General Comments
Evidence
CAB response to stakeholder CAB Response
General comments or
input Code
references
Objective
evidence or The CAB should respond in this
General comments on the assessment. references column.
The CAB shall assign
should be
a response code to
Stakeholders should note that input is most useful for assessment teams when attributed to an provided in CAB responses should include
each row completed
MSC Performance Indicator or Principle, and when objective evidence and references are provided support of details of where different changes
by the stakeholder.
in support of any claims or claimed errors of fact. any claims or have been made in the report
claimed (which section #, table etc).
errors of fact.
There will be a new opportunity for
It would be very useful if the deadline for comments is extended after December 4 so we can
registered stakeholders to provide
incorporate comments on any new measures or agreements that take place at the IATTC annual Not accepted (no
comments after the publication of
meeting which will take place on a virtual format from November 30 to December 4, 2020. Any new change)
the PCDR for a 30 day period
decisions or resolutions will have a direct impact on this particular assessment.
consultation.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 326 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Dolphin sets are not included in the

Assessment. This fishery was
Under Fishery Operations Overview it is mentioned that the 43 purse seine vessels set both on free evaluated prior to the effective date
schools and FADS. The question is: Do any of these vessels have a Dolphin Mortality Limit and do of FCP v2.2, and is evaluated
they set on dolphins? If this is the case, why is it not mentioned in the assessment? If any of these under FCP v2.1m which does not Not accepted (no
vessels have or had a DML over the last years, why are sets on dolphins not being assessed? My require all set types to be change)
understanding is that new MSC regulations don´t allow for compatamentalization of different fishing assessed. All fisheries will need to
methods in a single fishery. All fishing methods should be assessed. apply Unit of Assessment found in
FCP v2.2. requirements by March
2023.
Table 7 mentions "Vessels only target tuna using purse-seine gear. No gear types not included in
the UoC would be used. However, some vessels use set types that are not covered in the
assessment, though these sets are permitted in the IATTC. For this reason, chain of custody is Not accepted (no
Please refer to response above.
expected to begin at the point of capture." Which additional set types are being used by these change)
vessels? My understandint is that new MSC rules don´t allow the exclusion of a certain type of
fishing method in a single fishery or unit of asssessment. It would be great if you could clarify

Table 22. Stakeholder Input Fundación Pesca Limpia- PI Input

Performance Input Evidence or Stakeholder CAB response

Input detail CAB response to stakeholder input
Indicator (PI) summary references input code code
Please assign
an input code
to describe
Performance
the suggested
Indicator - Objective
change based The CAB shall
please copy evidence or The CAB shall respond in this column.
on your input assign a
and insert rows references should
Summary and evidence. response code to
to raise more Detail of stakeholder input be provided in CAB responses should include details of where
sentence Optional. each row
than one input support of any different changes have been made in the
completed by the
against a claims or claimed report (which section #, table etc).
See the stakeholder.
Performance errors of fact.
Codes section
Indicator
for a
description of
the codes.
Principle 1 - Sustainable fish stocks

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 327 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

If the YFT by the TUNACONS

groups is mostly caught by
FADS, then their catch is
composed mostly of juveniles.
The average weight is reducing.
The fact that YFT appears in
good condition is because a big
part of the catch is obtained in
dolphin associated sets. The
portion of juvenile YFT being We thank the reviewer(s) for their comments
caught in FAD associated sets and note that IATTC Resolution C-21-04 calls
has increased over the past years for (1) further reduces in the number of active
with a significant decrease in FADs (below that established in Resolution C-
YFT score average weight and an increase Document SAC 20-06) as requested by IATTC staff, (2) the
1.2.1 - Harvest Not accepted (no
should be in the number of individuals being 11-05 stock status submission of the location of deactivated
strategy change)
revised captured. This has a direct indicators FADs, and (3) daily reporting of the location of
negative impact in yield per active FADs. We also note harmonisation
recruit. Harvest strategy for YFT discussions for this fishery have been ongoing
should include a commitment to since the publication of the ACDR and the
prevent further increases in FAD agreed score for PI1.2.1 YFT is now 80.
deployments and FAD sets for
the next few years as suggested
by the IATTC staff and the SAC.
Until there is a conservation
measure in place that prevents
further increase in FAD related
fishing effort, the harvest strategy
score should not be above 80 for
any of the three tropical species
There is no proper
assessment for
The Harvest control rules for SKJ We thank the reviewer(s) for their comments
SKJ. The only
are not very effective as they and note skipjack tuna is no longer a fishery
way to determine
require a full assessment and an target, and therefore not subject to
its status is
F multiplier. For SKJ requirements pertaining to PI1.2.2. While we
through stock
1.2.2 - Harvest SG80 management, stock status are also concerned with the lack of a skipjack
status indicators. Not accepted (no
control rules should not indicators should be used and stock assessment, the IATTC is scheduled to
The harvest change)
and tools be met appropriate actions should be complete a interim assessment in 2022 and a
control rules and
taken if the SSI suggest that benchmark assessment in 2023. Note that the
tools available do
complementary conservation IATTC staff has determined that the SSI, while
not respond to
measures should be providing some insights into fishery and stock
stock status
implemented. conditions do not relate directly to stock status.
indicators in an
efficient way.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 328 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

There is not enough information

on fleet composition and other We thank the reviewer(s) for their comments
IATTC staff
data are available to support the and note that IATTC Resolution C-21-04 calls
recommendations
harvest strategy. IATTC staff has for (1) further reduces in the number of active
for 2019 and
insisted that they need high FADs (below that established in Resolution C-
1.2.3 - SG80 2020. FAD-05-
resolution FAD buoy data to 20-06) as requested by IATTC staff, (2) the Not accepted (no
Information should not PRES_Review of
understand fishing effort and submission of the location of deactivated change)
and monitoring be met data provided
strategy for FAD related fisheries. FADs, and (3) daily reporting of the location of
under Resolution
Unfortunately the Units of active FADs. The new reporting requirements
C-19-01 and C-
Assessment analyzed here are associated with this Resolution are consistent
17-02
not supplying this information to with the IATTC staff recommendations.
IATTC.
A score of 85 seems high for the
asessment of BET. The models
used in the latest assessment
have a binomial distribution with
an optimistic and a pesimistic We are also concerned with the outcome of the
probability. This is the main 2020 BET stock assessment and note IATTC
Assessment
reason why the IATTC staff staff has developed a new three year workplan Accepted (no
1.2.4 - of stock
recommends additional (2021-2023) that recommends research to score change -
Assessment of status for
conservation measures that advance the BET stock assessment. We also change to
stock status BET should
prevent further increases in the note that BET tuna is no longer a fishery rationale)
be revised
FAD associated fishing effort. On target, and therefore not subject to
the other hand the BET requirements pertaining to PI1.2.4.
assessment hasn´t been
externally reviewed yet so a
score of 100 in section e is not
appropriate
Principle 2 - Minimising environmental impacts
In the TUNACONS UoA, skipjack tuna is
designated as a primary main species in both
the free school and FAD fisheries and bigeye Accepted (no
2.1.1 - Primary Not sure why if there are no tuna is designated as a primary main species score change -
species primary species identified then a in the FAD fishery. In the US Small PS UoA, additional
outcome score of 100 is granted. Pacific bluefin tuna is designated as a main evidence
primary species. Both the background and presented)
rationales in the report have been expanded to
refLect these designations.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 329 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Tunacons are investing a lot on

various experimental initiatives to
reduce the impact on secondary
species (biodegradable fads, non We agree that the number of FADs may be
entangling fads) and this should excessive and note the IATTC has
be recognized. However, there is recommended reductions in the number of
still a problem with an excess of deployed FADs in the EPO. Resolution C-21-
FAD deployments which 04, adopted in October 2021, calls for (1)
according to IATTC exceeded further reductions in the number of active Accepted (no
2.1.2 - Primary 25.000 in 2019 and each time FADs (below that established in Resolution C- score change -
review
species there are less FADS being 20-06), (2) the submission of the location of additional
score
management recovered. All these FADS that deactivated FADs, and (3) daily reporting of evidence
remain in the water will certainly the location of active FADs. The measures presented)
have a strong impact on the contained in Resolution C-21-04 addresses the
ecosystem. IATTC in general or FADs limitation. Please note that we've place
at least TUNACONS vessels conditions on Habitat PIs relevant to
need to implement further implementation of these new management
restrictions on the number of measures
FADS that can be deployed per
vessel each year. Until then a
score of 100 is not appropriate

ISSF ACDR Comments

Table 23. Stakeholder Input ISSF – General Comments

Evidence or references CAB response to stakeholder input CAB
General comments Response
Code
General comments on the assessment. Objective evidence or references should be CABs should respond in this column. The CAB shall
provided in support of any claims or claimed assign a
Stakeholders should note that input is most useful for errors of fact. CAB responses should include details of where response code
assessment teams when attributed to an MSC different changes have been made in the report to each row
Performance Indicator or Principle, and provided with (which section #, table etc). completed by
objective evidence and references in support of any the stakeholder.
claims or claimed errors of fact.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS We thank the reviewer(s) for their comments and Accepted (no
ISSF is concerned the ACDR does not address - https://fisheryprogress.org/directory note that SCS, as well as other CABs, are score change)
cumulative impacts on Principle 2 components. concerned about the cumulative impacts of EPO
fishing activities on bycatch. This concern has
Although some fisheries do not meet the MSC been brought to the attention of MSC in hopes of
guidance requirements that trigger the evaluation of providing a coordinated path forward via the
cumulative impacts, this does not mean that existing standard.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 330 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

cumulative impacts are not significant. This is

especially evident in terms of ETP species, as current
guidance considers that the combined impact needs to
be evaluated “only in cases where either national
and/or international requirements set catch limits for
ETP species”. However, we consider that cumulative
impacts to ETP species mortality should be assessed in
reference to the species’ biological limits, stock
assessment results, and management advice,
regardless of whether catch limits are in place or not
(e.g. when management advice requests to reduce
catches but catch limits are not agreed).
Additionally, there are currently several Eastern Pacific
Ocean purse seine and longline tuna fisheries involved
in Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs), some of them
with prospects to proceed to a full MSC assessment in
the near future. Although the MSC standard only
requires cumulative effects to be evaluated and
managed for MSC-certified fisheries (including those in
evaluation) under overlapping UoAs, we believe these
should be carefully assessed (for ETP species, as well
as other P2 components such as habitats) and
managed for all tuna fisheries with MSC aspirations.
All currently certified and prospective MSC tuna
fisheries should conduct a joint assessment for
cumulative impacts on ETP species in the Eastern
Pacific Ocean and prepare a joint management
strategy. The fishery client could coordinate with
already certified fisheries, fisheries under assessment,
and also seek support on this task from Eastern Pacific
Ocean FIPs.
FISHERY DESCRIPTION AND FAD MANAGEMENT '- ISSF non- entangling and Accepted (no
ISSF suggests the client provides complete background biodegradable FADs guide All of the detailed information, such as number of score change)
information in the assessment report covering the https://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/guides- FADs deployed annually and number of FAD
following: best-practices/non-entangling-fads/download- tracking bouys purchased annually were not
info/non-entangling-and-biodegradable-fads- available to the assessment team. The data
GENERAL FISHERY DESCRIPTION guide-english/ limitations on FADs resulted in several conditions
A complete dFAD fishery description section must on the Habitat PIs.
include information on all fishery’s operations, including - ISSF Technical Report 2019-11
the use of FADs. For example, information required to https://iss-foundation.org/knowledge- We thank the reviewer(s) for their suggestions
correctly evaluate impacts would include: number of tools/technical-and-meeting-reports/download- /recommendations and will discuss them with
FADs deployed annually, design and materials of info/issf-2019-11-recommended-best-practices- TUNACONS. We note that some of the
FADs, FAD marking system used (if any), number of for-fad-management-in-tropical-tuna-purse-seine- suggestions surrounding FADs have been
FAD tracking buoys purchased annually and/or average fisheries/ adopted in Resolution C-21-04 and voluntary
number of buoys active. research programs, and that TUNACONS has
- ISSF Technical Report 2018-19 implemented best practices for the handling and
FAD MANAGEMENT STRATEGY https://iss-foundation.org/knowledge- release of vulnerable bycatch species (e.g.,
ISSF recommends that the PCDR includes a tools/technical-and-meeting-reports/download- sharks, rays, and ETP).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 331 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

description of the fishery’s FAD management strategy. info/issf-2018-19a-workshop-for-the-reduction-of-

A comprehensive FAD management plan would the-impact-of-fish-aggregating-devices-structure-
comprise data collection and analysis to address FAD on-the-ecosystem/
impacts on habitat and P2 species, including
cumulative effects with other tuna fisheries in the - ISSF Technical Report 2020-11
Eastern Pacific Ocean (see comment on cumulative https://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-
impacts). Such FAD management plan could be tools/technical-and-meeting-reports/download-
informed by, and developed to comply with all best info/issf-2020-11-recommended-best-practices-
practices identified in, ISSF´s Technical Report 2019- for-tropical-tuna-purse-seine-fisheries-in-
11 on Recommended Best Practices For FAD transition-to-msc-certification-with-an-emphasis-
Management In Tropical Tuna Purse Seine Fisheries. on-fads/
Moreover, the fishery’s FAD management plan could
be further informed by ISSF Technical Report 2018- - C.M. 3.7.
19A Workshop for the Reduction of the Impact of Fish https://iss-foundation.org/what-we-
Aggregating Devices' Structure on the Ecosystem. do/verification/conservation-measures-
Please see below the six elements of FAD commitments/bycatch-mitigation-3-7-transactions-
management that ISSF considers to be of utmost with-vessels-or-companies-with-vessel-based-
importance, as well as some practical examples the fad-management-policies/
fishery could adopt to implement them. For further
examples and recommendations, please see ISSF
Technical reports 2019-11 and 2020-11.
Moreover, ISSF recommends that the client fishery
develops a public FAD Management Plan in the line of
what is required by ISSF Conservation Measure 3.7
Transactions with Vessels or Companies with Vessel-
Based FAD Management Policies (effective June
2021).
(1) Comply with flag state and RFMO reporting
requirements for fisheries statistics by set type
Provision to IATTC of routine FAD fishery statistics
(e.g. activity on FADs, number of active FADs, etc.) as
per IATTC Resolutions (e.g. C-19-01, C-17-02)
requirements is essential to assess and manage the
impacts of FAD fisheries. ISSF suggests that
information on FAD fishery statistics as well as
information on observer data (100 % coverage) as per
IATTC requirements are provided to flag States and
IATTC.
(2) Voluntarily report additional FAD buoy data for use
by RFMO science bodies
In order to meet ISSF´s best practices on this aspect,
ISSF recommends the client fishery provides
information on position and acoustic record for the
whole track or, alternatively, at least one position and
echosounder record per day to scientific research
institutes or to IATTC.
(3) Support science-based limits on the overall number
of FADs used per vessel and/or FAD sets made

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 332 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

In order to meet IATTC’s Recommendations and

ISSF´s best practices for limiting the number of FADs
and to strengthen the effectiveness of these FAD
measures, ISSF recommends committing to actions
such as (i) deploying only FADs with satellite tracking
buoys , (ii) not activating remotely the buoys of inactive
FADs in the water (i.e. dormant FADs), (iii) allowing
buoys to report at least once per day while they are in
the water, and (iv) adopting alternative possible
measures such as FAD closures to reduce their impact.
(4) Use only non-entangling FADs to reduce ghost
fishing
o A new ISSF non- entangling and biodegradable FADs
guide was published on August 2019 and, thus, ISSF
encourages fisheries to commit to the new definition of
fully non-entangling FAD (without any netting). This will
allow following the best practice of Technical Paper
2019-11 to commit to using only non-entangling FADs.
o ISSF encourages incorporating in the FAD
management plan actions to reduce and remove
entangling FADs from the water, including encountered
FADs not owned by the fishery client.
(5) Mitigate other environmental impacts due to FAD
loss including through the use of biodegradable FADs
and FAD recovery policies
ISSF recommends the FAD management plan
incorporates specific actions to address the impact of
FAD losses. For example, ISSF suggests the fishery
under assessment works towards an early adoption of
biodegradable FADs in the Pacific Ocean and the
construction and deployment of simpler, smaller
biodegradable FADs.
Moreover, ISSF encourages FAD fisheries to further
develop good practices to reduce the loss and
abandonment of FADs as described in Technical Paper
2019-11 and Technical Paper 2018-19. For example,
by (i) providing FAD track data till the end of their
lifetime to identify areas of high incidence of stranding
events, (ii) providing positional data on beached FADs
to enable targeted recovery, and (iii) participating in
cooperative efforts to recover FAD from the water and
remove stranded FADs. The assessment report should
include a detailed description of the number of FADs
recovered by the fishery and the recovery strategy/plan
in place and technology used.
(6) For silky sharks (the main bycatch issue in FAD
sets) implement further mitigation efforts
ISSF supports the adoption by the fishery under

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 333 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

assessment of measures to reduce shark bycatch (e.g.

developing and implementing a Code of Good
Practices for bycatch) and suggests the fishery further
develops measures to ensure that silky shark mortality
is reduced (e.g. directing more effort to school sets and
decrease FAD sets, avoiding small sets or with high
bycatch/tuna ratio, releasing sharks from the net when
safe and practical, implementing live and safe release
of sharks (and rays) from the deck).
ISSF encourages FAD fisheries to further test and
develop shark and rays release techniques from the
deck (with a special focus on big individuals) and to
identify the tools/tactics used to the safe release of
sharks (hoppers, stretchers, release ramps, etc.).
TRACEABILITY As described in the Traceability section in the Accepted (no
ISSF is concerned that given that some vessels from report, CoC is required to start at the point of score change)
the UoC may fish in non-UoC geographic areas and capture (at sea) for those UoAs where there is a
that catches may come from other set types, in cases risk of vessels fishing in non-UoC geographic
where there were both UoC-caught and non-UoC- areas or on sets that are not part of the UoA. The
caught fish aboard a vessel, the risk of mixing catches CoC audit verifies that the tracking and
might jeopardize the final product’s traceability. In order segregation systems are effective.
for the fishery to achieve certification, it must be verified
that the Chain of Custody is strong and starts at sea.
Alternatively, as in other MSC-¬certified tuna fisheries,
catch from these trips could be considered to be non-
eligible for certification.
HS ADVOCACY ACTIONS We note the suggestions/recommendations are Accepted (no
According to the ACDR preliminary scores, the CAB will forward thinking and will discuss them with score change)
likely set conditions towards the implementation by TUNACONS.
IATTC of robust Harvest Strategies for Eastern Pacific
skipjack and bigeye tuna. As regards the Client Action
Plan to meet these conditions, ISSF would like to
suggest specific actions for the Client to consider:
1) Publicly support the high-level appeals for RFMOs
developed by global NGOs that are participants in the
NGO Tuna Forum.
For 2020, the global appeal letter was focused on key
asks for each RFMO this year. We note that while Tri
Marine and Nirsa did; Eurofish, Servigrup and Grupo
Jadran did not sign the letter this year. This letter that
contains the Forum's high-level appeal to the tuna
RFMOs, along with all the logos of current and new
company signatories, is a living public statement of
support available on the NGO Tuna Forum's website.
(https://ngotunaforum.org/global-tuna-advocacy-
appeal/)
Eurofish, Servigrup and Grupo Jadran should publicly
support the high-level appeals for RFMOs developed

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 334 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

by the global NGO Tuna Forum and attach their logo to

the living statement of support. In order to be included,
please contact Mr. Robin Teets
([email protected]).
In 2020 and 2021, apart from publicly supporting NTF’s
living statement of support by attaching their logo,
companies will also have the opportunity to engage in
other direct RFMO advocacy tactics to demonstrate
market support for specific tuna sustainability asks.
NGO participants in the NGO Tuna Forum will be
reaching out to market partners with these opportunities
in the coming months.
2) Continue to advocate for accelerated progress on
the adoption and implementation of Harvest Strategies
and Harvest Control Rules through IATTC, such as
through continued direct engagement with national
delegations to IATTC. ISSF also encourages Eurofish,
NIRSA, Servigrup, Grupo Jadran, and Tri Marine to
(continue to) directly engage in alignment initiatives
with other MSC-certified or MSC-aspiring fisheries
which also advocate for harvest strategies for Eastern
Pacific tuna stocks.
3) Urge the delegations of all parties associated with
Eurofish, NIRSA, Servigrup, Grupo Jadran, and Tri
Marine at IATTC to take a strong public position on
advancing harvest strategies as part of the
deliberations IATTC will undertake virtually this year
and at future in-person meetings, including by making
proposals for management objectives and accelerated
MSE.
4) Have meetings, calls or other direct contact with all
other relevant IATTC delegations where Eurofish,
NIRSA, Servigrup, Grupo Jadran, and Tri Marine have
business interests to advocate for the adoption of
Harvest Strategies.
5) Publicly support ISSF Position Statements that
contain detailed asks on Harvest Strategies and
Harvest Control Rules to the virtual sessions of the
IATTC in 2020 as well as IATTC future in-person
meetings, and document that support (e.g. by
submitting a letter or some other communication citing
the Position Statement).
6) Support technical work of IATTC as well as
capacity workshops on Management Strategy
Evaluation in the EPO region so as to increase the
leverage of IATTC members for the discussion and
adoption of robust Harvest Strategies.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 335 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

LETTERS OF SUPPORT The next iteration of the report (PCDR) will Accepted (no
The ACDR states that the CAB will likely set conditions include the client Action Plan and letters of score change)
regarding PI 1.2.1 (Harvest strategy) for the Eastern support
Pacific skipjack and bigeye stocks. Taking into account
that national governments will probably have a relevant
role in the action plan for these conditions, ISSF is
concerned that, without a letter of support from
Ecuador, Panama and USA, there is no clear
expectation that the Client Action Plan will achieve its
objectives.

In PCDRs from other tuna fisheries that have obtained

MSC certification in recent years, the evidence of
government support and involvement presented
consisted of a letter from the national fisheries agency
or ministry of fisheries stating their conformity and
commitment to the milestones and actions described in
the Client’s Action Plan (see for example the Final
Report of the Solomon Islands longline albacore and
yellowfin tuna fishery (P.279)).
Other Thank you for bringing this to our attention and Accepted (no
On page 26 (YFT stock status) there is a mistake. In the text has been corrected. score change)
the sentence "The combined ratio of Scur/SLIMIT is
estimated at approximately 3.0 and the probability of
Scur > SLIMIT = 0”, the last relationship should read
"the probability of Scur < SLIMIT = 0."

Table 24. Stakeholder Input ISSF – PI comments

Performance Input summary Input detail Evidence Suggested CAB response to CAB
Indicator (PI) or score stakeholder input response
references change code
Performance Summary sentence Detail of stakeholder input Objective If suitable, The CAB shall respond in The CAB
Indicator - evidence or please this column. shall assign
please copy references provide a a response
and insert rows should be suggested CAB responses should code to
to raise more provided in score include details of where each row
than one input support of change different changes have been completed
against a any claims based on made in the report (which by the
Performance or claimed your input section #, table etc). stakeholder.
Indicator errors of and
fact. evidence -
Optional

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 336 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

1.2.2 - Harvest The independent The independent report by Medley et al. (2020) indicates that the Medley et <60 We thank the reviewer(s) for Not
control rules fishery would not meet SG80 for SI 1.2.2.a and that, as a result, their comments and note accepted
report by Medley al. (2020)
and tools the overall PI score would be less than 80. that skipjack tuna are no (no score
(EPO-SKJ) et al. (2020) longer fishery targets, and change)
indicates that the 1.2.2.a: “The HCR for EPO tropical tunas is set out in Res. C-16- therefore not subject to
02, as follows: requirements pertaining to
fishery would not • If the probability that F>Flim is >10%, management measures PI1.2.2a.
meet SG80 for SI shall be established such that there is at least a 50% probability
1.2.2.a and that, that F will reduce to FMSY or below, and with a probability of
<10% of F>Flim.
as a result, the • If the probability that SB<SBlim is >10%, management
overall PI score measures shall be established such that there is at least a 50%
would be less than probability that SB will recover to SBMSY or above, and with a
probability of <10% that SB will decline to <SBlim within two
80. generations or 5 years, whichever is greater.

i.e. It can be expected to keep the biomass above the limit

reference point, and most likely above the PRI (given the
relatively precautionary probability of B<Blim set as a trigger for
management action) and fluctuating around MSY level. SG60 is
met.
In relation to SG80, the HCR is ‘well-defined’ but its detailed
application to skipjack is not because for skipjack Fmult cannot
be estimated. Given that the PRI for skipjack is likely to be at a
lower biomass, and given that various indicators, including
recruitment, are monitored and have lower reference levels
which could trigger management action as per the HCR, it can
be argued that the HCR will ensure that the PRI is avoided. In
relation to the MSY level, IATTC makes the argument, using a
non-quantitative risk-assessment (PSA), that the MSY level for
skipjack is at a level at which the MSY reference points for
yellowfin and bigeye would be exceeded, and hence will ensure
by default that it maintains skipjack at or above a level consistent
with MSY, but this also does not provide a ‘well-defined’ HCR.
On this basis, SG80 is not met.
In order to improve this scoring, the application of the HCR to
skipjack (i.e. the trigger value for taking management action in
relation to skipjack stock status) needs to be defined in terms of
some skipjack indicator rather than relying on other species."

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 337 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

3.1.2 - The independent The independent report by Medley et al. (2020) indicates that the Medley et 80 We assess 3.1.2 Si a given Not
Consultation, fishery would not meet SG100 for SI 3.1.2.a at the RFMO level the totality of the RFMO and accepted
report by Medley al. (2020)
roles and (IATTC). flag state management (no score
responsibilities et al. (2020) processes. We do not change)
(IATTC) indicates that the provide actually provide a
IATTC - 3.1.2.a: "(…) Roles and responsibilities are not "final standalone Sia for the
fishery would not necessarily well understood in all areas, IATTC has had a IATTC since the IAAATC is
meet SG100 for SI number of problems with Flag States that have not applied not a standalone UoA, The
3.1.2.a at the appropriate controls to all their vessels, and may not fully Antigua Convention and
understand their responsibilities. This includes Flag States not associated Commission
RFMO level submitting timely data and not in the correct form, and so on. Resolutions and
(IATTC). Some problems in providing basic data on vessels and catches recommendations that are
are likely due to a lack of understanding of requirements which agreed by consensus by
appear to be complex or a lack of technical capacity in the Commission members and
responsible institutions. While these problems are not in key conveyed to national
areas in the sense that they do not prevent IATTC completing its authorities and fishers for all
primary tasks, they nevertheless undermine its overall areas of responsibility and
effectiveness and increase risks to sustainability. For example, interaction. That there are
stock assessments can only be completed up to the end of the irregularities in compliance
available data series, which in these cases mean stock status does not necessarily imply
estimates are generally a year behind the current year. Hence that functions, roles and
although the fisheries meet the SG80, they do not meet SG100." responsibilities are not
explicitly defined and well
understood for all areas of
responsibility and
interaction. These matters
are more appropriately
scored and considered
under the PI 3.2.2
Compliance and
Enforcement. Following the
logic of Medley et al. 2020, it
could be argued that these
data reporting deficiencies
impacting stock assesments
are occurring in key area of
responsibility meaning SG
80 would not be met either.
Our approach in this
assessment is to consider
IATTC Roles and
responsibilities through the
lens of the UoA being
assessed. In this
assignment we find two UoA
score at SG 80 and one at
SG 100. This approach
ideals with the issues

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 338 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

commented on by Medley et
al, differing in execution d to
the UoAs being based on
flag states. We also
recognize it would be rare, if
at all, for an RFMO to be
scored by itself for this PI.
ISSF may wish to consider
adding text to this effect in
the revision 9 by Medley et
al.

Pew ACDR Comments

Table 25. Pew - General Comments

Evidence or CAB Response

General comments CAB response to stakeholder input
references Code

IATTC - P1 Harmonization Unfortunately, the decision to allow stakeholder

comments during harmonization discussions is not
We are requesting to participate as a stakeholder in all upcoming required by the MSC standard, and thus SCS
Not accepted (no
P1/P3 harmonization discussions for all tRFMOs associated with this n/a cannot implement this consultation opportunity. We
change)
assessment, in keeping with precedent set at Hong Kong 2016 strongly recommend Pew contact the MSC
WCPFC harmonization meeting, which allowed stakeholder standards team directly to express their interest in
attendance. having an opportunity to participate in consultation.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 339 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

tRMO Aligned Condition Timelines

We are supportive of the recent CAB-led, and MSC-approved Not accepted (no
n/a No response Necessary
variance request to align condition timelines for tRFMO fisheries on change)
V2.01 in order to create clear condition timelines associated with
RFMO workplans related to harvest strategies.
Procedural - Timelines

There is no posted timeline available on the MSC website. The fishery

announcement has been mounted twice as both the fishery's public
announcement and timeline. The fishery announcement states "A
separate assessment timeline is included in the announcement
Accepted (no score
materials which includes projected approximate dates for key versions We thank Pew for the comment and will upload an
n/a change - additional
of the report." updated timeline
evidence presented)
Pew requested that an updated timeline be mounted at our onsite
visit, December 8th 2020. As of this submission, we were unable to
find an updated timeline on the fishery's MSC site. Timelines are
helpful to allow us to organize our time internally to provide
comments.
Procedural - Number of UoAs. The text in the report and Table 3 and 4 is now
Accepted (no score
revised to reflect the actual number of UoAs. There
ACDR, p.13-16. change - change to
Announcements and p. 14-16 of the ACDR says 11 units, whereas on are now 5 UoA as two of the target species were
rationale)
p. 13 it says "there is a total of nine Units of Assessment". removed from P1

Procedural - Number of vessels in the UoA There was an error in the total number of vessels,
Accepted (no score
ACDR p.13/ which is 46, this is the vessels for which the
change - change to
Announcement says 43 large FVs,whereas ACDR p.13 says 44 large Announcement assessment team evaluated the impacts in the
rationale)
FVs. ACDR, the error is now corrected

G7.10.2.e Draft
scoring ranges ▲
Where limited
information is
Procedural - Systematic absence of of precautionary scoring as available to score a
required by G7.10.2.e for US fmall boats and elsewhere as noted. draft scoring range
for a Performance
In many cases scores >60 have been awarded in the absence of Indicator, the As the RBF was conducted for select PIs in P2 Accepted (no score
supporting evidence and on the basis of further information being assessment team these sections are now corrected. change - change to
collected during RBF workshopping. This is incorrect: per G7.10.2e, should be more rationale)
at the ACDR stage, where information is not available/RBF has not precautionary in their
been conducted, precautionary scores are to be awarded as <60. assessment, and
assign a draft scoring
range no higher than
60-79 (see Guidance
to the MSC Fisheries

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 340 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Standard). If there is
no information then
the draft scoring
range for the relevant
PI should be <60, the
draft rationale should
state that there is no
information and the
information gap
should be
highlighted. If the use
of the RBF has been
identified and the
CAB has not
conducted the RBF
during the
preparation of the
ACDR (there is no
requirement to do so)
the draft scoring
range for the relevant
PI should be <60, the
draft rationale should
state that the RBF
will be applied during
the assessment and
as such there is no
information at this
time, and the
information gap
should be
highlighted. This
should include the
information needed
to conduct the RBF.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 341 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Procedural - Scoring: Incorrect bias in burden of proof, per

GSA1.1 re: the precautionary principle.

"We conclude that incidents of shark finning reported by IATTC

observers has significantly declined [sic] we have no recent data to
indicate it is systematically taking place".
On account of the lack of recent evidence, the team
Per guidance, the burden of proof in this situation is on the fishery to did elect to place a condition for shark finning for Accepted (no score
Box GSA 1.1,
provide evidence that finning is not taking place, and in the absence of one of the small UoA, for the other two UoA change - change to
Fisheries Standard
such evidence, reduce scoring. additional evidence was provided indicating the rationale)/ Accepted
V2.01, p.11
GSA 1.1: In the MSC standard … intends the precautionary approach SG80 is met. The wording of the rationale has (score increased)
to be applied implicitly throughout the Certification Requirements. To been updated
capture this intent, the MSC system has been designed to give higher
scores where there is more certainty about the outcome, or where
management systems appropriately apply precaution under conditions
of uncertainty. Where limited information is available, teams should be
more precautionary in their assessment of information adequacy to
support an Outcome PI score."
Traceability

Section 6.2 re: traceability would benefit from direct comments related
to mixing risk at each stage. Instead, text is largely descriptive (still
helpful) information, but what is currently provided leaves readers
unsure of the answer to the different possible points of traceability We thank the reviewer for the comments, we've
Accepted (no score
risk. It would be most helpful to say this explicitly if this information Section 6.2 ACDR, p. updated the traceability section to include more
change - change to
isn't available at this stage of the assessment. 18 information on risks and have improved the flow of
rationale)
the section based on your comments
Minor comment: It is confusing speaking to well segregation as step 4,
Product Storage after Step 3, Offloading, when the text describes on-
vessel storage. This should be listed as stage 2 and stage 4 should
describe segregation after receiving, within processing facilities, if this
occurs prior to change of ownership.
Lack of clarity wrt scope for Units 10 & 11 - geography and gear

On p. 150 of the report it says "The U.S. Small Purse Seine UoA is
comprised of three small purse seine vessels from the U.S. with
carrying capacities ranges from 127 t to 145 t. Fishing is limited to free
school sets and conducted in waters adjacent to San Pedro, California Accepted (no score
The Executive part is correct, report has now been
U.S.A.. However, on p. 19 of the report it states: "These information ACDR p. 19, p.150 change - change to
updated
gaps include: rationale)
• Traceability of the US-based small purse-seine and geographic
areas of operation.

Please clarify in the executive summary, report backgroup whether

Units 10 and 11 use only FSs or also FADs.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 342 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

We appreciate your comment and note it includes

both a question and, based on our interpretation, a
position statement calling for a change in the
current MSC Guidelines. Regarding the position
statement, “At a minimum, conditions are needed
on such fisheries and scores of 100 are not
acceptable in systems where the competent
authority has determined, for data rich species, that
"reliable estimates of MSY and advice on the status
of a stock are not possible”, we note this diverges
from the current MSC Guidance and encourage
PEW to discuss this directly with MSC. We do note
that not all stocks are amenable to the application
of traditional stock assessment methodologies. It
depends in part on the stock in question (fish,
cetaceans, etc.), the breadth and quality of
available data, the level of acceptable risk
scientists/managers are willing to accept, and
General Statement on Best Fisheries Management Practices, P1 sometimes the type of assessment model used
(e.g., integrated).
Pew questions heavily whether stocks without a stock assessment
considered current within the 5 year range of a certificate cycle should
Not accepted (no
be certifiiable or held up as examples of best sustainable fisheries Regarding the question, should stocks without a
change)
practices. At a minimum, conditions are needed on such fisheries and stock assessment considered current within the 5-
scores of 100 are not acceptable in systems where the competent year range of a certificate cycle be certifiable or
authority has determined, for data rich species, that "reliable estimates held up as examples of best sustainable fisheries
of MSY and advice on the status of a stock are not possible". practices, is not easy to answer. First there is no
definition of “best sustainable fisheries practices”.
However, we note that in situations where the
current stock assessment schedule requires a
benchmark assessment to be completed every 6
years and in the intervening years the data and
underlying assumptions to the assessment are
reviewed and updates to stock status and
conservation advice conducted, one could use the
available information to infer stock status. There
are also situations in which stock status indicators
are used to infer stock status rather than output
from a traditional stock assessment and if the
indicators have been rigorously tested and their
robustness determined there is no reason why they
should not be used to infer stock status. We stress
that determining the utility of available information
to reflect stock status should be assessed on a
case-by-case basis.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 343 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 14, AGAC

General Statement on 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy (IATTC: YFT, SKJ,
WCPO ACDR, p.40
BET)
MSC-MSCI
We suggest that the CAB take a systematic approach to assessing
Vocabulatory V1.3,
compliance of harvest strategies. An example of this type of useful
p.12
approach is given in the AGAC WCPO ACDR via Figure 14, p.40,
We thank the reviewer(s) for their comments. Note
where the team has rightly examined the relative
Harvest stragey: that PI1.2.1 only apples to YFT; BET and SKJ are
compliance/development of the key elements of harvest strategies
The combination of now designated primary species. The PI1.2.1
individually, largely respectful of the MSC definition. We note the
monitoring, stock rational for YET has been modified, clearly
absence of the Management Action component of the HS definition in
assessment, harvest indicating that the current YFT harvest strategy is
the table and suggest that this important element - as the only
control rules and responsive to the state of the stock and based on
element that functions on the water - be included.
management actions, testing of the main tool to support the harvest
which may include an strategy (F-multiplier), management objectives for
The MSC defines a harvest strategy as “the combination of Not accepted (no
MP or an MP YFT in the IATTC Convention area are being met.
monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules, and management change)
(implicit) and be We note the modified text in the rational is
actions, which may include an MP or an MP (implicit) and be tested by
tested by MSE. consistent with the elements referenced in the
MSE.”, where the underlined items are mandatory components of an
WCPFC harvest strategy workplan and included in
MSC-compliant HS as defined in the MSC Vocabulary V1.3.
Harvest Control the Lloyds Registry AGAC WCPO ACDR report
Rule: "A set of well- Fig. 14, p.40). The assessment team also notes
In particular, it is important to note that the wording in the 1.2.1. SIs
defined pre-agreed that harmonization discussions for this fishery have
does not mention the same flexibility for "generally understood" or
rules or actions used continued since the publication of the ACDR and
"available" HCRs that appers in 1.2.2, but refers only to HCRs - which
for determining a the agreed YFT harmonized score for Sia/Sib is 80.
by definition - are "well-defined" (see reference at right). If any of
management action
elements of the harvest strategy, as given in definitions, is missing,
in response to
1.2.1 must score <60. Until these elements are well-defined AND
changes in indicators
there is a clear and functioning relationship among the elements
of stock status with
allowing responsiveness of management actions to the status of the
respect to reference
stock, a full harvest strategy does not exist.
points."
General Statement on HCRs (BET, YFT, SKJ)
We appreciate the comments by the reviewer(s)
Regarding 1.2.2a, the MSC defines an HCR as “a set of well-defined and for pointing out MSC guidance concerning
pre-agreed rules or actions used for determining a management MSC-MSCI harvest control rules. We recognize the importance
action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with Vocabulary V1.3, of having pre-agreed rules when it comes to
respect to reference points.” The bare minimum requirement is for a p.12 determining a management action in response to
pre-agreed plan, is given explicitly in the SG 60 SIa wording and changes in indicators of stock status with respect to
demands HCRs (sensu above) that are: “expected to reduce the Harvest Control reference points. We also recognize that
exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is Rule: "A set of well- information to assess stock status is not always
Not accepted (no
approached.” defined pre-agreed known with certainty which translates to uncertainty
change)
rules or actions used in stock status determinations. The IATTC has
We also emphasize that even if "generally understood (not defined for determining a adopted harvest control rules for tropical tuna in the
per MSC Vocabulary) and in place" is considered, the HCR in management action EPO (Resolution C-16-02) which represent pre-
question is still required to be compliant with the binding wording of in response to agreed rules for action. We further note that
the MSC definition and the SG 60 language, which require a priori changes in indicators harvest control rules evolve with new information
("pre-agreed") specification of the rules or management actions to be of stock status with and IATTC recognizes that alternative harvest
used in response to changes in stock status. respect to reference strategies will be considered that include hard and
points." soft limit reference points.
Furthermore, if the HCR triggers tools to enact responsiveness, and

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 344 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

this responsiveness is not mandated - but rather an action that

requires voting or consensus outside the competent authority (e.g. by
nation state delegations) - then the actions are functionally not pre-
agreed, and this needs to be accounted for in scoring.

1.2.1. SIa/SIb BET

Accepted (no score
ACDR, p. 89 No response Necessary change - change to
We agree with the scoring of the harvest strategy for BET, which does
rationale)
not reach the SG 80 for SIa or SIb.

Template & response codes

** Please note that as there are multiple elements within PIs and SIs, Accepted (no score
and column E in Tab 2 allows only one stakeholder input code where No response Necessary change - change to
in some cases three different scoring responses may be appropriate rationale)
(Units 1-9, Units 10&11 Element1 and Element 2), we have inputed
the lowest expected response code.

Table 26. Pew – PI Input ACDR

Performa
nce Evidence or Stakeholder CAB response to CAB response
Input summary Input detail
Indicator references input code stakeholder input code
(PI)
Principle 1 - Sustainable fish stocks

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 345 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

SIa/SIb - YFT We appreciate the format

suggestions provided by
We appreciate that the CAB has the reviewer(s) and will
rightly noted in the rationale for consider them in future
YFT SIa, that there are endeavors. We note that
elements of an MSC-defined there are accepted stock
harvest strategy that are assessments for YFT and
required to work together. As BET in the EPO which were
the team will be aware, the MSC completed in 2020.
defines a harvest strategy as
“the combination of monitoring, Recognizing that
stock assessment, harvest management objectives for
control rules, and management MSC-MSCI Vocabulary tropical tuna in the EPO
actions, which may include an V1.3, p.12 have been specified by
MP or an MP (implicit) and be IATTC, a harvest control
tested by MSE.”, where the Harvest Control Rule: "A rule for YFT specified and
Essential elements underlined items are mandatory set of well-defined pre- implemented (Resolution
of the harvest components of an MSC- agreed rules or actions C-16-02), tools to support
strategy are compliant HS as defined in the used for determining a the harvest control rule
incomplete and MSC Vocabulary V1.3. management action in implemented (Resolution
may or may not response to changes in C-17-01 and C-17-02) and
work together We suggest that the CAB take a indicators of stock status tested (Aires-da-Silva et al.,
1.2.1 - depending on a) systematic approach to with respect to reference Score reduction 2020), the comprehensive
Harvest resolutions/measur assessing compliance of points." expected to 60- MSE research program for Not accepted (no
strategy - es being voted into harvest strategies. An example 80, condition tropical tunas adopted by change)
SIa/SIb implementation via of this type of useful approach is Harvest stragey: The raised the IATTC, existing
IATTC member given in the AGAC WCPO combination of monitoring, monitoring measures,
nations and, b) in ACDR via Figure 14, p.40, stock assessment, harvest (observer, logbook, port
a responsively where the Lloyd's team has control rules and sampling, and VMS
timely fashion - if at broken out the relative management actions, programs), and a platform
all: the SG 80 is not compliance/development of the which may include an MP to review and discuss the
met key elements of harvest or an MP (implicit) and be need for additional
strategies individually, in a tested by MSE. management action (IATTC
tablular format, largely SAC and Commission
respectful of the MSC definition. ACDR, p. 41, rationale meetings), the assessment
There isn't a Management 1.1.1 YFT SIa team considers these
Action component of the HS elements to constitute a
definition in the Lloyd's table harvest strategy that is
and this is a necessary element. responsive to the state of
(We appreciate that that the the stock. The recent
SCS rationale does make clear testing of the f-multiplier
mention of management provides evidence that the
actions/tools.) strategy is working, as
management objectives for
The point of breaking out the YET in the IATTC
elements of the harvest strategy Convention area are being
and examining each individually met (Aires-da-Silva et al.,
is because under the 1.2.1 SIs, 2020). We note that the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 346 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

if any element of an MSC- elements outlined above

defined harvest strategy is are consistent with those
missing, so there is no harvest referenced in the WCPFC
strategy either. Until these harvest strategy workplan
elements each exist individually and included in the Lloyds
AND there is a clear and Registry AGAC WCPO
functioning relationship among ACDR report. The
the elements allowing assessment team also
responsiveness of management notes that harmonization
actions to the status of the discussions for this fishery
stock, there is no MSC-defined have continued since the
harvest strategy. publication of the ACDR
and the agreed harmonized
For the EPO, there is not a score for Sia/Sib is 80.
functioning HCR that is
compliant with the MSC
definition (please see reasoning
below for 1.2.2 SIs a/b), nor are
there management actions that
are mandated to be responsive
to the status of the stock as
required by use of the F
multiplier determining the
duration of temporal closures
based on the most vulnerable of
the tropical tunas (please see
1.2.2. SIc) - rather, there is a
voting process that determines
whether management actions
will or won't be taken. At
present there are also not
accepted stock assessments for
YFT or BET (1.2.4). On this
basis three of the four essential
elements of an MSC-defined
harvest strategy are not fully in
place and while the current HS
may be meeting objectives
incidentally (SG60), the harvest
stratey is not hardwired to be
responsive to the state of the
stock (see 1.2.2.). Elements of
the harvest strategy are
incomplete and may or may not
work together depending on a)
resolutions/measures being
voted into implementation via
IATTC member nations and, b)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 347 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

in a responsively timely fashion

- if at all: therefore the SG 80
is not met. Furthermore, for
YFT - arguably the principally
managed species - "the overall
trend in spawning biomass has
been gradually declining over
time (1985 -2019) despite
management measures to
increase biomass to MSY
levels" (SCS, ACDR), which
does not indicate a fully
functional harvest strategy with
the elements working together
to achieve its objectives (SG 80
SIa/b).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 348 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Sia/SIb - YFT/BET/SKJ
ISSF, March 2020, V7.0
To satisfy the requirements of
SIa at the SG 80 level the HCR
C-16-02
must be “well defined”, “in
https://www.iattc.org/PDFFi
place”, and “expected to keep
les/Resolutions/IATTC/_En
the stock fluctuating around a
glish/C-16-02-
target level consistent with
Active_Harvest%20control
MSY". To satisfy the
%20rules.pdf
requirements of SIb at the SG
80 level, the HCR must be
Clause 3 We thank the reviewer(s)
"likely to be robust to the main
for their comments and
uncertainties".
b. If the probability that F note both bigeye and
will exceed the limit skipjack tuna are no longer
Well-defined: Based on
reference point (FLIMIT) is fishery targets, and not
While the the Resolution C-16-02 we agree
greater than 10%, as soon subject to requirements
nature of the HCR that there is a written
as is practical management pertaining to PI1.2.2a/b.
is quantified in C- articulation of harvest control
measures shall be Yellowfin tuna are a fishery
16-02, the measures with quantified
established that have a target and while there have
language used triggers. However, Resolution
probability of at least 50% been issues with recent
1.2.2 - does not constitute 16-02 Clauses 3 b&c. only call
of reducing F to the target stock assessments and
Harvest a well-defined rule, for measures to be implemented Score reduction
level (FMSY) or less, and a implementation of HCRs,
control nor is not clearly in "as soon as is practical" : this expected to 60- Not accepted (no
probability of less than 10% there remain well-defined
rules and place, nor is it introduces formal elasticity to 80, condition change)
that F will HCRs in place for and the
tools - based on current the otherwise clear raised
exceed FLIMIT. 2020 stock assessment/risk
SIa/SIb stock assessment quantification in the clauses,
analysis suggests that
inputs, so should and undermines the determinate
c. If the probability that the current measures are
not be expected to nature of a well-defined rule.
spawning biomass (S) is appropriate (at least in the
keep the stock
below the limit reference short term). The assessors
fluctuating around In place: The most recent
point (SLIMIT) is note that harmonisation
current MSY. articulation of the HCR is in
greater than 10%, as soon discussions for this fishery
Resolution C-16-02 where
as is practical management have continued since the
current language evokes a
measures shall be publication of the ACDR
"rule" that remains contingent
established that have a and this is the agreed
on implementation "as soon as
probability of at least 50% harmonised score.
is practical" for both the LRP
of restoring S to the target
and TRP. Functionally, the
level (dynamic SMSY) or
rule is not in place until
greater, and a
AFTER this "practical" period
probability of less than 10%
has passed and action is
that S will descend to
taken. Furthermore, the wording
below SLIMIT in a period of
allows a) flexibility both in terms
two generations of
of the timing of a management
the stock or five years,
response and b) the option that
whichever is greater.
any response may need to be
voted into action, which also
presents the risk of it not being

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 349 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

voted into action. Functionally,

this remains a management
recommendation, versus a
pre-agreed rule that MUST
determine a responsive
management action (=in
place), as required by the
standard. No management
action may come from this
HCR recommendation
depending on the voting of
parties or the action may
come so slowly that it is not
responsive to the state of the
stock as needed. For example,
until 2017, there was
systematic use of the rule's
main tool - temporal closures -
which controlled effort and used
as an input the lowest F
multiplier value between BET
and YFT to define the change in
effort needed to keep stocks at
Fmsy or below Fmsy (IATTC
2007). However, in 2018, the
HCR was not applied to bigeye,
which was the species with the
lowest F multiplier value (which
would have implied an increase
inthe closure duration from 72
days to 107 days). On the basis
of the language in C-16-02 and
the above precedent, it is not
clear that the rule is "in place".

Fluctuating around MSY: In

addition, the previous BET
assessment was found to be too
uncertain to invoke an
associated temporal closure,
while the most recent YFT stock
assessment was not accepted
and is not being used for
scientific advice. The effecitve
use of the HCR in practice
depends upon outputs from the
stock assessments for YFT and
BET in particular, which are

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 350 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

currently unavailable for either

of these most vulnerable
species used to manage all
three tropical tuna stocks. The
language of C-16-02 3b also
only establish a 50% probability
of reducing F to the target level,
which may also not assure
"fluctation around" MSY.

For SIa, the rule is neither well

defined , nor is it in place (see
above) and with outdated stock
status information, none of
these elements can be expected
to keep the stock flutuating
around a level consistent with
an unknown present MSY: for
SIa, the SG80 is not met.

The absence of accepted,

current stock assessments for
both YFT and BET, as inputs to
the HCR, must be considered
key uncertainties, and therefoer
the SG 80 is not met for SIb.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 351 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

SIc - BET (YFT/SKJ)

"The duration of the closure is

set according to the level of
Fmult (FMSY/Fcurrent) for the
stock requiring the strictest
management (at present
bigeye). This harvest strategy is
in theory responsive to the state
of the stock. However, the 2018
stock assessment of bigeye
suggested that the stock status
was worse than previously
thought, and application of the
HCR should have resulted in an
increase in the duration of the We thank the reviewer(s)
The issue of closure from 72 days to 107 for their comments and
procedures that are days. However, this was not note that bigeye tuna is no
not automatically done, because IATTC scientific longer a fishery target, and
mandated to be staff considered that the bigeye thus not subject to
responsive to the assessment was too uncertain requirements pertaining to
state of the stock to provide a robust basis for PI1.2.2c. We further note
1.2.2. -
(and a current state such a large change in Score reduction that anlayses conducted in
Harvest
of the stock), but management; and also because expected to 60- 2021 by IATTC staff do Not accepted (no
control ISSF, March 2020, V7.0
still require voting F for yellowfin was estimated to 80, condition indicate that the current change)
rules and
action to assure be at the appropriate level. raised closure period will maintain
tools - SIc
compliance with IATTC scientists recommended stock status and that
the HCR tools, that a precautionary limit on Resolution C-21-04 does
remains purse seine sets be imposed in impose reductions in the
unresolved. On this addition to the seasonal closure, number of allowable active
basis, the SG 80 is but no resolution was passed to FADs by vessel class which
not met. this effect at IATTC plenary in we interpret to result in
2018" (ISSF, 2020). Therefore, reductions in FAD sets.
there is not clear evidence that
the HCR - via the F multiplier
determining closure periods - is
firmly in place as a "rule" that
invokes the mandated tools
(closures). This is not due to the
comptency of the IATTC staff or
scientists, but rather, that fact
that effort limitations (the HCR
tools) are implemented via
Resolutions that need to be
voted into place via nation
state delegations, so are not
under the functional control
of the comptent authority.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 352 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Since effort has exceeded

science advice and the use of
an appropriately lengthy
temporal closure (main
management tool) as required
by the HCR have not been put
in place when calculated, there
is not evidence that the tools in
use are appropriate or effective
in management practice.

It is also not appropriate to

invoke a current analysis to
retroactively invoke past
"compliance" of the
management system (as the
rationale appears to intimate): at
the time when the information in
question demanded action,
action was not taken . While we
take the point at this moment in
time, and on the basis of recent
benchmark assessment, the
closure period can be said to be
meeting management
objectives, the demonstrated
and larger issue of procedures
that are not automatically
mandated to be responsive, but
still require voting action to
assure compliance with the
HCR tools, remains unresolved.
On this basis, the SG 80 is not
met.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 353 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

SIa/SIb - YFT & BET

The team has an obligation to

score this PI on the basis of the
existing stock assessment in
use for management. The CAB
notes for both YFT & BET that "
the previous assessment was
We thank the reviewer(s)
not considered appropriate for
for there comments and
management decision making.
note that bigeye tuna is not
A new assessment is in process
a fishery targets, and, as
but has not yet been accepted,
such, is not subject to
and thus there is no fall-back
The stock requirements pertaining to
position if the current
assessments in PI1.2.4a/b. The most recent
assessment is not considered
force for YFT and yellowfin tuna stock
best available science (Minte-
BET are: a) assessment was conducted
vera et al, 2019)" (SCS, ACDR).
outdated and b) in 2020 and is considered
1.2.4 - cannot be said to to represent best available
As the competent authority has
Assessmen be are appropriate Score reduction science and appropriate for
defined that the assessments in
t of stock to the stock or expected to 60- management decision Not accepted (no
force are not appropriate for SCS, ACDR, p.57, p.99
status - functionally 80, condition making (Minte-Vera et al. change)
management, they are by
SIa/b - YFT estimated if the raised 2020). This assessment
definition not appropriate for the
& BET competent report has been updated to
stock and by extension, for the
authority has reflect results of the 2020
harvest control rule - the SG 80
defined that they yellowfin tuna stock
for SI a is therefore not met.
are not appropriate assessment. The
for management assessors note that
Similarly, while estimates of
decision-making harmonisation discussions
stock status relative to reference
for this fishery have
points have been made, these
continued since the
values are a) outdated and b)
publication of the ACDR
cannot be said to be
and this is the agreed
appropriate to the stock or
harmonised score.
functionally estimated if the
competent authority has defined
that they are not appropriate for
management decision-making,
until the new benchmark
assessment have been
accepted. On this basis the
SG 80 for SIb is not met.
Principle 2 - Minimising environmental impacts

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 354 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.1.1. SIa

UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats

BFT element - The rationale text

states " The species is likely
below the PRI, and measures
are in place that are expected to
ensure that the UoA does not
hinder recovery and rebuilding".
The PISG 100 requires that
there is "a high degree of
certainty" that the main primary
species are above the PRI….."
The scoring
and the scoring explicitly uses
explicitly uses the
the OR option for species below
OR option for
the PRI. Therefore the SG 100
species below the
cannot be reached (only for
PRI. Therefore the
species above the PRI) for
SG 100 cannot be ACDR, p. 151
PBT.
reached (only for
2.1.1 - species above the BFT Stock Assessment
Furthermore, the stock does not The team agrees that a
Primary PRI) for PBT and 2018, p. 13, p.19 Score reduction Accepted (score
meet the SG60 or SG 80 score of 100 is not
species the CAB needs to http://www.isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/I expected to <60, reduced to 60-80,
requirements because appropriate, this has been
outcome - provide an SC18/ISC_18_ANNEX_14 PI fails condition raised)
overfishing continues, which is updated in the report.
Sia understanding of _Pacific_Bluefin_Tuna_Sto
by definition, hindering
the UoA impacts ck_Assessment_2018_FIN
rebuilding (2018 Assessment,
within the context AL.pdf
p. 13, "... is subject to
of the most
overfishing relative to most of
reasonable Option
the common fishing intensity-
0 scenario (2018)
based reference points"). The
or re-score to
rebuilding probabilities cited in
below SG 60.
the ACDR assume that
recruitment will suddenly
increase once the stock
recovers to its initial rebuilding
target. There is no evidence to
support this claim, and in fact
the most recent stock
assessment states "...the 2018
projection results are more
optimistic than the 2016
projections, mainly due to the
inclusion of the relatively good
recruitment in 2016, which is
twice as high as the median of a
low recruitment scenario (i.e.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 355 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

that which occurred during1980-

1989)". If recruitment continues
at non-2016/mediam/low levels
(Option 0, p.19), the stock has
virtually no chance of successful
recovery - estimated at just a
3% chance. Therefore there is
no justification to expect that the
measures in place will ensure
recovery and rebuilding. The
CAB needs to provide an
understanding of the UoA
impacts within the context of
the most reasonable, non-
anomolous, Option 0
scenario, or re-score < SG 60.

G7.10.2.e Draft scoring The assessment team

ranges ▲ agrees with the comment,
Where limited information although qualitative
is available to score a draft information was collected at
scoring range for a the site visit, given the
Performance Indicator, the limited quantitative
2.1.1. SIb assessment team should information available the
be more precautionary in team took a more
UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats their assessment, and precautionary approach
assign a draft scoring and reduced the score, the
Minor primary species are not range no higher than 60-79 SG100 is no longer met.
2.1.1 - known given the absence of (see Guidance to the MSC
Primary Rescore to <60 (?) data on non-tuna species catch. Fisheries Standard). If Score reduction
Accepted (minor score
species or do not score SG In the absence of information at there is no information then expected to <60,
reduction)
outcome - 100 as met the ACDR stage, the guidance the draft scoring range for PI fails
SIb directs the CAB to score <60. In the relevant PI should be
this case we acknowledge that <60, the draft rationale
this does not seem logical for a should state that there is no
SI that is only scored at the information and the
SG100: at least SG 100 should information gap should be
not be awarded highlighted. If the use of the
RBF has been identified
and the CAB has not
conducted the RBF during
the preparation of the
ACDR (there is no
requirement to do so) the

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 356 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

draft scoring range for the

relevant PI should be <60,
the draft rationale should
state that the RBF will be
applied during the
assessment and as such
there is no information at
this time, and the
information gap should be
highlighted. This should
include the information
needed to conduct the
RBF.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 357 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.1.2 SIa All Units-

the team agrees with the
UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs stakeholder comment that
the score should be
The guidance (GSA 3.5.1) reduced from 100 to 80.
referenced specifically notes
that " there is no ‘if necessary’ However, following the
clause in SG100 so that in order MSC guidance on lost gear,
All units to score a 100 on this in PI 2.1.1 the intent is for
The currently component, a management the team to determine the
rationale does not strategy should be in place for fishing operations impact
justify the standard the UoA for P2 species, since UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs on primary species,
of proof related to gear loss or other incidental considering both observed
gear loss or a full impacts could still occur." The GSA 3.5.1.: However, there and unobserved moratlity,
stretegy which are rationale provided discusses is no ‘if necessary’ clause which may include ghost
both needed at the many FAD management in SG100 so that in order to fishing. The only primay
SG 100 and should measures (mainly bycatch score a 100 on this species in the fleet
therefore be re- mitigation-related), but none of component, a management employing FADs are
scored to SG 80. these address FAD gear loss as strategy should be in place skipjack and bigeye tuna
specified by guidance and there for the UoA for P2 species,
are currently no resolutions in since gear loss or other US Small Boats
place to address FAD gear loss, incidental impacts could We thank the reviewer(s)
2.1.2 -
UoAs 10, 11, US which is often substantial. The still occur. for the comments and note
Primary Score reduction
Small Boats current rationale does not that a Pacific bluefin tuna Accepted (minor score
species expected to <60,
BFT - The 2018 justify the standard of proof Fisheries Standard V2.01, rebuilding plan with targets reduction)
manageme PI fails
assessment related to gear loss mandated Definitions, p. 29 and acceptable risk levels
nt - SIa
estimated just a 3% by guidance at the SG 100, is currently in place. The
chance of recovery and should be re-scored to UoAs 10, 11, US Small management strategy,
under low/median SG 80. Boats proposed and adopted at
conditions, the joint WCPFC NC-
indicating that the We also note that the CAB has BFT element, p.19 IATTC WG meeting, were
measures in place not clearly justified the presence guided by projections to
are expected to of a full strategy. The measures http://www.isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/I provide catch reduction
hinder recovery in place appear to be a partial SC18/ISC_18_ANNEX_14 options that would achieve
until 2034 with 97% strategy. In the rationale for SIb _Pacific_Bluefin_Tuna_Sto the initial rebuilding target
probability under the CAB states "additional ck_Assessment_2018_FIN of 6.5%SSBF=0 with at
the most testing following a robust AL.pdf least 60% probability by
reasonable experimental design is required 2024 and a second
scenario. The SG to assess the utility and rebuilding target with at
60 is not met. feasibility of proposed least 9660% probability by
measures." The definition of a 2034 of achieving
partial strategy (which must be 20%SSBF=0; we recognize
met in order to proceed to the adopted rebuilding plan
scoring a full strategy) states as a partial strategy. We
that a partial strategy requires also not that the most
"...an understanding of recent stock assessment
howit/they (measures) work to conducted in 2020
achieve and outcome and an estimated stock biomass to

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 358 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

awareness of the need to be increasing since the

change the measures should initial 2016 and 2018 stock
they cease to be effective". The assessments. Current
efforts currently in place, while spawning biomass is at
progressive, demonstrate the 4.5%SSBF=0 (ISC 2020).
characteristics of a partial, but Bsed on this information
not full, strategy. rebuilding is occurring and
there is no indication that
UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats the stock is not expected to
meet requrements of the
BFT element - The stock does first rebuilding targets by
not meet the SG60 2024 and 2039. While
requirements because overfishing contions appear
overfishing continues, which by to be occuring the stock
definition, hinders rebuilding for continues to rebuild. No
a species that is below its PRI score change is proposed.
(see 2.1.1.a BFT element). The Based on information
2018 assessment estimated just provided through
a 3% chance of recovery under interviews, fishing
low/median conditions, operations of the US small
indicating that the measures in purse seine UoA has been
place are expected to hinder gathered. The fishery uses
recovery with 97% probability spotter planes to direct
under the most reasonable fishing activities of UoA
scenario. The SG 60 is not vessels to schools
met. comprised of tuna. The
goal of spotter plane pilots
Non-tuna primary catch is to minimize having
element(s), TBD - Disagree SI vessels set on mixed
should be scored at 100 as a) scholls and this strategy
non-tuna primary species are was verified during
not known and G7.10.2.e interviews with pilots and
specifies that if there is no vessel captains.This is not
information then the draft to say non-tuna species are
scoring range for the relevant PI not encountered, rather that
should be <60 (in this case, for their catch is minimal with
the non-tuna element of primary no impact.. Nonetheless,
catch, if present). While we given the limited
agree that reasonably, a score quantitative information
of 80 may be expected, as by available the team took a
definition, primary species are more precautionary
managed with reference points approach, as per
and other measures that G7.10.2.e, the SG100 is
together constitute at least a not met ; SG 80 is met.
partial strategy that should keep
spp. above the PRI, B)
However, with regard to
reaching the 100, this is at least

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 359 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

partially a FAD fishery that does

not have a strategy in place for
addressing gear loss, so in
keeping with rationale above for
Units 1-9, there is not what
could be described as a full
strategy addressing the gear
loss directive given by critical
guidance. Rescore to SG 80.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 360 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

UoAs 10, 11, US Small

Boats
2.1.2 SIb
Thank you for you
UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs comments and note that
results from the most
Agree with score of 80. recent Pacific bluefin tuna
assessment (ISC 2020)
UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats continue to show rebuilding
of the stock providing
2.1.2 - BFT element -Per reasoning some objective basis for
Primary UoAs 10-11. above in row 15, and rationale Score reduction confidence that the /partial
G7.10.2.e Draft scoring Not accepted (no
species Rescore both provided in the 2018 stock expected to <60, strategy will work. We do
ranges ▲ (see row 14) change)
manageme elements <60. assessment, the measures are PI fails not agree with the
nt - SIb not likely to work. Re-score to proposed reduction in
<60. scoreing for Pacific bluefin
tuna.
Non-tuna element - Should also Non tuna element does not
be scored as data deficient at reach SG100
present in keeping with
G7.10.2e. (<60) or scored not
higher than 80 for this per
rationale parallel to that given
for this element above (2.1.2
SIa).
UoAs 10, 11, US Small
Boats
2.1.2 SIc Typo corrected, score
capped at SG8-
UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs

Agree with score of 80.

UoAs 10-11. UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats

2.1.2 - Rescore BFT
Primary element to SG80 BFT element - Scoring table Minor score
G7.10.2.e Draft scoring Accepted (minor score
species and rescore non- says yes at SG100 for these reduction
ranges ▲ (see row 14) reduction)
manageme tuna element to units, while text says "On this expected
nt - SIc <60 or not higher basis the requirements at the
than 80. SG 60 and SG 80 levels are
met, but the SG 100 level is not
met". Please correct
typographical error in table.

Non-tuna element - Should also

be scored as data deficient at
present in keeping with
G7.10.2e. (<60) or scored not

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 361 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

higher than 80 for this per

rationale parallel to that given
for this element above (2.1.2
SIa).

2.1.2 SIe UoAs 10, 11, US Small

Boats
UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs The absence of other
primary species was was
Agree this SI is not scored as verified via qualitative
there is no primary unwanted methods during the site
catch. visit. Thus, the SI continues
2.1.2 -
to be NA. This explanation
Primary UoAs 10-11. Minor score Accepted (no score
UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats G7.10.2.e Draft scoring is now included in the
species Rescore non-tuna reduction change - change to
ranges ▲ (see row 14) rationale
manageme element to <60. expected rationale)
BFT element – Agree should not
nt - SIe
be scored as BFT is wanted and
retained.

Non-tuna element - It is not

currently known that there is no
primary spp. catch, therefore
this element should be <60.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 362 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.1.3 SIa

UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs

Agree with score of 100.

UoAs 10, 11, US Small
2.1.3 -
Boats
Primary UoAs 10-11. UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats Minor score
G7.10.2.e Draft scoring SI a is only scored for main Not accepted (no
species Rescore non-tuna reduction
ranges ▲ (see row 14) primary species, there no change)
information element to <60. BFT element – Agree with score expected
other main primary species
- SIa given reporting requirements for
in the fisher
BFT and dockside monitoring in
US.

Non-tuna element – There is no

primary spp. catch information,
therefore this element should be
<60.
2.1.3 SIb

UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs

Agree with score of 100 given

low levels of primary spp.
UoAs 10, 11, US Small
catches even in context of lower
2.1.3 - Boats
observer coverage on Class 1-5
Primary UoAs 10-11. Score reduction The SG100 is score as
vessels, given requirement for G7.10.2.e Draft scoring Accepted (minor score
species Rescore non-tuna expected to <60, "No" for all primary species.
only "some" quantitative ranges ▲ (see row 14) reduction)
information element to <60. PI fails There are no SG60 or 80
information.
- SIb guideposts in this Scoring
Issue.
UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats

Non-tuna element – There is no

primary spp. catch information,
therefore this element should be
<60.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 363 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.1.3 Sic

UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs UoAs 10, 11, US Small

2.1.3 - Boats
UoAs 10-11.
Primary Agree with 80 score Score reduction SG 60 and SG80 levels are
G7.10.2.e Draft scoring Accepted (minor score
species expected to <60, only applicable to 'main''
Rescore non-tuna ranges ▲ (see row 14) reduction)
information PI fails primary species. SG 100
element to <60. UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats
- Sic applicable to all, main and
Non-tuna element – There is no minor, species is not met.
primary spp. catch information,
therefore this element should be
<60.
G7.10.2.e Draft scoring
ranges ▲
Where limited information
is available to score a draft
scoring range for a
Performance Indicator, the
assessment team should
be more precautionary in UoAs 10, 11, US Small
their assessment, and Boats
assign a draft scoring Eastern Pacific and Striped
range no higher than 60-79 Bonito:
(see Guidance to the MSC Eastern Pacific and striped
Fisheries Standard). If bonito tuna were identified
2.2.1 SIa there is no information then as main secondary species
UoAs 10-11. the draft scoring range for for this fleet. The Risk
2.2.1 -
UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats the relevant PI should be Based Framework was
Secondary Score reduction Accepted (no score
Both elements <60, the draft rationale employed, based on the
species expected to <60, change - change to
should be scored BON + Non-tuna element - If the should state that there is no MSC Scoring Guideposts
outcome - PI fails rationale)
at <60 because the RBF is being used for these information and the based on PSA scores for
Sia
RBF will be used. elements, ACDR score should information gap should be the Northern sub stock of
be <60 as directed by guidance. highlighted. If the use of the the Eastern Pacific Bonito
RBF has been identified Tuna (Sarda chiliensis
and the CAB has not lineolata) and Stripped
conducted the RBF during Bonito Tuna (Sarda
the preparation of the orientalis), the SG80 is met.
ACDR (there is no RBF scores are capped at
requirement to do so) the 80.
draft scoring range for the
relevant PI should be <60,
the draft rationale should
state that the RBF will be
applied during the
assessment and as such
there is no information at

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 364 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

this time, and the

information gap should be
highlighted. This should
include the information
needed to conduct the
RBF.

2.2.1 SIb

UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs

Request for clarification. The

UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs
UoAs 1-9, rationale as written appears to
We employed the all or
FADs/FS UoAs be making the case for PSAs
none approach, the
justifying the SG 100 as met, UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs
rationale has now been
Request for but the text does not clearly linik
2.2.1 - updated.
clarification. the rationale to the decision not p.162 ACDR
Secondary Score reduction Accepted (no score
to score at the SG100, which
species expected to <60, UoAs 10, 11, US Small change - change to
UoAs 10-11. does appear to be the decision, UoAs 10, 11, US Small
outcome - PI fails Boats rationale)
as it is consistent with results in Boats
SIb The SG100 is not met,
Both elements the scoring table. Clearer
taking a precautionary
should be scored rationale would be helpful. See row 22.
approach. Guideposts 80
at <60 because the
and 60 are not scored for
RBF will be used. UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats
this Scoring Issue.
BON + Non-tuna element - If the
RBF is being used for these
elements, ACDR score should
be <60 as directed by guidance.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 365 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.2.2 SIa

UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs

The CAB has not clearly

justified the presence of a full
strategy, as required at the SG
100 to address FAD bycatch of
UoAs 1-9, secondary species. The
FADs/FS UoAs measures in place appear to be
a partial strategy. In the
the measures in rationale for 2.1.2 SIb the CAB
place, while states "additional testing
progressive, are following a robust experimental
not yet a fully design is required to assess the
strategy and should utility and feasibility of proposed UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs
be scored as measures." The definition of a Team agrees with
meeting the SG 80 partial strategy (which must be stakeholder comment, the
but not 100. met in order to proceed to score has been reduced
scoring a full strategy) states from 100 to 80
UoAs 10,11 that a partial strategy requires
"...an understanding of how it/ UoAs 10, 11, US Small
2.2.2 -
BON - General they (measures) work to Boats
Secondary Score reduction Accepted (no score
management achieve an outcome and an Fisheries Standard V2.01, Team agrees with
species expected to <60, change - change to
resolutions for the awareness of the need to Definitions, p.29 stakeholder comment, the
manageme PI fails rationale)
target tropical tuna change the measures shoudl score has been reduced
nt - SIa
species manage they cease to be effective". from 100 to 80
bonito at best Therefore, the measures in
incidentally, and place, while progressive, are not Only main secondary
have not been yet a fully strategy and should species are scored at the
tested for feasibility be scored as meeting the SG 80 60 and 80 level, for other
with regard to but not 100. minor primary species the
FADs. Therefore SG100 is not met.
management is a UoAs 10, 11, US Small Boats
partial, but not full,
strategy which BON - Partial strategies "may
does not meet the not have been designed ot
SG 100. manage the impact on that
component specifically. The
Non-tuna element - efforts currently in place via
Re-score to <60. general management
resolutions for the target tropical
tuna species manage bonito at
best, incidentally. Therefore the
current management practices
demonstrate the characteristics
of a partial, but not full, strategy
which does not meet the SG

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 366 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

100.

Non-tuna element - As per row

22. Re-score <60.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 367 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.2.2 SId TUNACONS UoA

Pew is concerned with the Both the background and

following statement in the rational have been modified
context of existing ACDR to address the reviewers’
scores for this SI. " While comments. Data available
significant regulations, to the assessment team on
including reporting the level of shark finning
requirements and sanctions comes from observer
are in place, there is still no programs, submitted
independent evidence that logbooks, port sampling,
shark finning is not taking and reports of the
place. The Team considers Committee for the Review
independent verification to be of Implementation of
paramount to the scoring of Measures Adopted by the
this SI" Commission (IATTC). The
TUNACONS UoA is
UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs comprised of 33 large
purse seine vessels
Ecuador FS/FADs– (Vessel class 6) flagged to
Recommend creating separate Ecuador, Panama, and the
Currently a score of element for smaller Class 1-5 USA, and 10 smaller purse
2.2.2 -
SG 60 is not FVs and scoring at <60 until seine vessels (Vessel
Secondary Scoring
merited on the evidence to justify coverage is classes 3-5) flagged to Accepted (minor score
species ACDR implications
evidence available, received given that incentives Ecuador. As required, there reduction)
manageme unknown
particularly for appear to exist in Ecuador to is 100% observer coverage
nt - Sid
Class 1-5 vessels trade fins (removal of laws to of large purse seine
and US small boat prevent fin trade in 2007) as vessels, and these data
units. well as being known as a major were provided to the
source of traded shark fins and " assessment team. While
other than observer data, no IATTC does not require
other independent data is observers on the smaller
available to validate that shark purse seine vessels,
finning is not occurring". By TUNACONS monitored
dividing the fleet by size and 100% of fishing activities on
country, to conduct scoring 9 small purse seine UoA
separately from Class 6 vessels vessels and these data
with 100% observer coverage, were provided to the
scoring is much more accurate. assessment team. The
Information on coverage specific assessment team assumed
to Class 1-5 FV is needed to that catches in the one
assign a "likely" score of 60 on unobserved vessel would
the basis of evidence. At be similar to catches in the
present, poorer performance of observed vessels. Also,
smaller FVs is being averaged catch compositions
and lifted by the 100% observer between large and small
coverage on the Class 6 FVs, UoA vessels were similar.
which is not the intent of the Given the high observer

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 368 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

standard. Currently a score of coverage of all UoA vessels

SG 60 has not be justified for and similarity in catches
Class 1-5 vessels. profiles we see no need to
assess large and small
Panama FS/FADs – Similar to vessel classes separately.
Ecuador. Class 1-5 FVs should Noting the level of observer
be in their own element and coverage in the
score <60 until evidence to TUNACONS UoA and
show that finning is not guidance provided by GSA
occurring is provided. 2.4.5 to confirm the
likelihood that shark finning
US FS/FADs – If measures in is not taking place a
the US are felt to be more nominal observer coverage
stringent than Ecuador and of 5% of effort is sufficient
Panama such that a score of 80 to achieve SG60. A
is justified, this would benefit nominal observer coverage
from clearer distinction of which of 20% of effort is sufficient
aspects of US/CA regulations to achieve SG80. While
are stronger, relative to the observer coverage rates in
other two flags/vessel classes. the TUNACONS UoA is
Scoring consequences significantly higher than
unknown. 20% and additional external
validation procedures are in
UoAs 10,11, US small boats place (port sampling), the
assessment team has
The evidence provided - taken a precautionary
"Additionally, the California approach due to past
Department of Land and Natural incidents of shark finning
Resources conducts inspections and scored PI2.2.2 Sid at
of catches from US vessel and 60.
there are no reports of UoA US Small PS UoA
vessels conducting shark finning While observer coverage of
activities. All catch from the UoA this class of UoA vessels
must be offloaded in California, (vessel class 1) is not
and therefore, is subject to required by IATTC, as well
intermittent California DLNR as the US due to safety
monitoring and surveillance reasons, MSC guidance
efforts" - needs to be (GSA2.4.5) allows the
framed/justified relative to assessment team to use
statement that " The Team their expert judgement
considers independent concerning the actual
verification to be paramount to validation method used to
the scoring of this SI." Scoring confirm the likelihood that
consequences unknown. shark finning is not taking
place. In the United States,
shark finning has been
prohibited since 2000
(Shark Finning Prohibition

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 369 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Act) and in 2011 the Shark

Conservation Act further
improved domestic and
international shark
conservation measures,
including additional
measures against shark
finning. In addition, as of
2011 California prohibited
the possession, sale, trade,
or distribution of shark fins.
Noting that the fishery
targets tuna schools and
relies on spotter planes to
direct fishing activities, only
schools with a low
probability of interacting
with non-tuna species are
recommended to vessel
captains (Matt Owens,
pers.com.). Additionally, the
California Department of
Land and Natural
Resources, in conjunction
with NOAA Fisheries,
conducts inspections of
catches from US vessel
and there are no reports of
UoA vessels conducting
shark finning activities.
Pursuant to the Shark
Finning Prohibition Act
NOAA Fisheries is required
to regularly report on
domestic and international
finning activities and there
are no reports of UoA
vessels conducting finning
activities. Using its
expertise judgement, the
assessment team
considers the totality of
these activities/measures
as sufficient justification
that finning is likely not
taking place and SG60 is
met.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 370 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

UoAs 10,11, US small

2.2.3 Sia boats
UoAs 10-11.
2.2.3 - only main secondary
Secondary UoAs 10,11, US small boats Score reduction species are scored at the
Non-tuna elements Not accepted (no
species See row 22 expected to <60, SG60 and 80 levels,
should be scored change)
information Non-tuna element - Should be PI fails bonitos are categorized as
at <60 because the
- SIa scored <60 in absence of main species, other minor
RBF will be used.
information secondary species do not
meet SG100
UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs
As 10 small prrse seine
2.2.3 SIb & c
vessels (Vessel classes 3-
5) are included in the UoA
UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs
and 100% of the fishing
effort on 9 vessels from
Agree with score at 100 for
2015-2018 has been
UoAs 1-9, Class 6 vessels. Disagree that
voluntarily monitored, the
FADs/FS UoAs score of 100 is currently justified
assessment team
for Class 1-5 vessels based on
considers there to be
Disagree that score the existing rationale which
sufficient information to
of 100 is justified does not demonstrate how low
2.2.3 - assess secondary species.
for Class 1-5 coverage rates provide sufficient
Secondary Score reduction The scoring rational has
vessels certainty around main/minor Not accepted (no
species See row 22 expected to <60, been modified to clearly
classifications from these change)
information PI fails state why the SG100 is
UoAs 10,11, US vessels, or that Class 6 catches
- SIb & c apprpriate for all vessels in
small boats can be used as a reliable proxy.
the UoA.
Non-tuna element - UoAs 10,11, US small boats
UoAs 10,11, US small
Should be scored
boats
<60 on basis of BON - Agree with score at SG
only main secondary
using RBF. 80
species are scored at the
SG60 and 80 levels,
Non-tuna element - Should be
bonitos are categorized as
scored <60 on basis of using
main species, other minor
RBF.
secondary species do not
meet SG100

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 371 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.3.1. SIa
UoAs 10,11, US
UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs
small boats UoAs 10,11, US small
boats
Agree, not scored because no
2.3.1 - ETP Should be scored The team conducted
established limits for any ETP Score reduction Accepted (no score
species <60 because no interviews during the site
sp. (SA3.10.1.1. p.44 DAT) n/a expected to <60, change - additional
outcome - information on visit and confirmed the fleet
PI fails evidence presented)
SIa ETPs and does not interact with ETP
UoAs 10,11, US small boats
obligation to be species, a score of 80 was
precautionary per awared.
Should be scored <60 because
G7.10.2.e
no information on ETPs and
obligation to be precautionary
per G7.10.2.e

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 372 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.3.1 SIb

All rationales talk in absolute

numbers (Tables 17 & 18
p.108), but it is not clear
whether these values are only
UoAs 1-9, from Class 6 vessels or also
2.3.1 Sib
FADs/FS UoAs account for unknown levels of
As described in section
observer coverage on FV
7.3.1.3 of the background,
Shark & Mobulid Classes 1-5, and if so, how
vessels in classes 1-5 have
elements - extrapolations were made and
100% observer coverage,
Disagree with coalated from both types of
through voluntary action
score of 60, should vessel classes. Further
from Tunacons, the P2
be <60 on the basis explanation requested.
analysis includes this data.
of the rationale
itself which confers UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs
UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs
little certainty at the Turtle element – Wording of
wording on sea turtle
70th percentile rationale inconsistent with
element corrected.
(Table SA9) and scoring in text and table.
does not justify this "Therefore, it cannot be said
Sharks/Mobulid
standard of proof. that direct effects are highly
elements:
In addition, 25% of unlikely to hinder impacts of
The team took a more
2.3.1 - ETP these vessels (10 ETP species. On this basis, the
Score reduction precautionary approach Accepted (no score
species FVs, Classes 1-5) SG 60 and SG 80 levels are
see row 22 expected to <60, and assumed the impact of change - additional
outcome - do not have 100% met." Typographical error?
PI fails the UoA was the higher evidence presented)
SIb observer coverage.
number of recorded sharks.
Extrapolation Sharks/Mobulid elements –
Given the lack of
process for Class Disagree with score of 60,
comprehensive fate data
1-5 vessels would should be <60 on the basis of
and post-capture mortality,
benefit from further the rationale itself which confers
all shark interactions were
explanation. little certainty at the 70th
assumed to result in
percentile (Table SA9) and does
mortality.
UoAs 10,11, US not justify this standard of proof.
small boats In addition, 25% of these
UoAs 10,11, US small
vessels (10 FVs, Classes 1-5)
boats
Should be scored have unknown levels of
The team conducted
<60 because no observer coverage. " For many
interviews during the site
information on ETP shark species and giant
visit and confirmed the fleet
ETPs and manta the sum of reported
does not interact with ETP
obligation to be discarded and retained animals
species, a score of 80 was
precautionary per did not equal the total reported
awared.
G7.10.2.e catch. For some species the
difference was significant, and
the actual direct effects could be
substantially higher. The issue
is particularly concerning for
silky shark where the fate
(retained or discarded) of

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 373 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

11,771 animals caught in FAD

sets and 465 animals caught in
free schools sets is unknown. In
addition, the impacts of post
release mortality associated
with the discarding of ETP
species by the UoA is unknown
as is entanglement of ETP
species in the FAD."

UoAs 10,11, US small boats

Should be scored <60 because

no information on ETPs and
obligation to be precautionary
per G7.10.2.e

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 374 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.3.1 SIc

UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs

The current rationale does not

clearly connect the work that
UoAs 1-9, The rationale pertaiing to
has been conducted with
FADs/FS UoAs indirect effects has been
confidence at the 80th
expanded to support the
percentile (Table SA9) which is
Improved rationale SG80 score. Also, as
the relevant standard of proof.
needed relative to previously noted 100% of
The rationale states that indirect
required standard the fishig effort on 9 of the
effects are "unlikely" vs. "high
of proof. smaller purse seine vessels
unlikely" to create unacceptable
2.3.1 - ETP Fisheries Standard V2.01, (vessel classes 3-5) has
impacts: the standard of proof at Score reduction
species UoAs 10,11, US Table SA 9 been monitored and the Not accepted (no
the SG 80 is highly unlikely. In expected to <60,
outcome - small boats assessment team change)
addition, 25% of these vessels PI fails
Sic see row 22 considers catches of the
(10 FVs, Classes 1-5) have
Should be scored one unobserved vessel to
unknown levels observer
<60 because no be similar to catches in the
coverage which is not
information on observed vessels.
accounted for or mentioned in
ETPs and Therefore the assessment
the rationale.
obligation to be team does not consider this
precautionary per to be an issue in scoring
UoAs 10,11, US small boats
G7.10.2.e this Si.
Should be scored <60 (80 not
met as scored) because no
information on ETPs and
obligation to be precautionary
per G7.10.2.e

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 375 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.3.2 SIc

There is not an objective basis

for confidence at present that
measures/strategy will work,
based on information directly
about the fishery. In fact, there
are a number of reasons to be
concerned that the existing
Resolutions are not being fully
implemented or are not
addressing serious sources of
The assessment team
mortality, as the CAB has
considers there is an
articulated:
objective basis for
confidence that the
- The sum of reported
measures/strategy will
discarded and retained
work. The UoA has in place
FAD Units animals did not equal the total
precautionary management
reported catch for the most
strategies designed to (1)
2.3.2 - ETP There is not an common non-target and ETP
meet national and
species objective basis for species. Such basic Score reduction
international requirements Accepted (no score
manageme confidence at accounting issues indicate expected to 60-
ACDR background, p.114 and (2) ensure the UoA change - additional
nt present that significant problems in the 80, condition
does not hinder recovery of evidence presented)
evaluation - measures/strategy ability to implement non- raised
ETP species (e.g., adoption
SIc will work, based on target species management.
of lesser entangling FADs) .
information directly - For turtles, 45% of the
The discrepancies between
about the fishery, interactions were not identified
retain/discarded and total
SG 80 is not met. to the species level, making
catch are considered to be
known impacts a challenge to
an informatiion deficiency
understand and indicating that
and is addressed in PI
monitoring/observer training is
2.3.3 along with a
not being implemented
condition.
effectively (p.175, rationale for
2.3.1.)
- The impacts of post release
mortality associated with the
discarding of ETP species by
the UoA is unknown.
- Effects of FAD
entanglement/beaching on ETP
species are unknown.

For the above reasons, the SG

80 is not clearly met.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 376 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.3.1. Sie

SIe – Score at SG80 is

appropriate. Recommend The rationale has been
2.3.2 - ETP All units Change to
including relevant guidance re: expanded to include MSC Accepted (no score
species rationale or
"regular" and showing that SA 3.5.3.2 guidance on reviewing change - change to
manageme Suggest improving evidence, not to
meetings are occurring with this measures for unwanted rationale)
nt - Sie clarity of rationale scoring
frequency " SA3.5.3.2 “Regular catch.
review” in scoring issue (e) shall
mean at least once every 5
years."
2.3.3. SIa
UoAs 1-9,
FADs/FS UoAs
UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs
UoAs 1-9, FADs/FS UoAs
Provide evidence Analysis includes observer
Score at SG80 may be
that Class 1-5 data from calss 1-5
appropriate. Would want to see
vessels behave in vessels, which have 100%
reasoning that Class 1-5
a similar manner, in observer coverage.
vessels behave in a similar
similar areas, to
manner, in similar areas, to
2.3.3 - ETP Class 6 vessels to
Class 6 vessels to justify the Score reduction Accepted (no score
species justify scoring.
use of data from Class 6 See row 22 expected to <60, change - additional
information UoAs 10,11, US small
vessels as representative of PI fails evidence presented)
- SIa UoAs 10,11, US boats
Class 1-5 FVs.
small boats The team conducted
interviews during the site
UoAs 10,11, US small boats
Should be scored visit and confirmed the fleet
<60 because no does not interact with ETP
Should be scored <60 (80 not
information on species, a score of 80 was
met as scored) because no
ETPs and awared.
information on ETPs and
obligation to be
obligation to be precautionary
precautionary per
per G7.10.2.e
G7.10.2.e
2.4.1 SIb
FAD Units
(FADs) Agree with score at SG
The rationale has been
Rationale to 60 given that effects of
expanded to note the
provide greater beached/lost FADs are not well
potential impact of derilict
justification of FAD studied, but still unlikely to
2.4.1 - FADs on the structural
set locations in cause serious or irreversible Scoring Accepted (no score
Habitats complexity, fragi;lity and
relation to VME harm to VMEs.Further FCP V2.1, GSA 3.12.3.2 implications change - change to
outcome - function of VMEs.
features that information from amalgamated unknown rationale)
Sib Information on vessel
include process vessel tracks should be
tracks will be required as
features such as provided to demonstrate that
part of the condition
structural Units 1-9 are not fishing inside
associated with this PI.
complexity and protected areas such as the
fragility, as well as Galapagos and Units 10-11 are
not inside US protected areas if

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 377 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

unknown FAD FAD fishing (?). Further

locations. rationale is needed to
acknowledge the possible
effects per VME definitions in
relation to structural complexity
and fragility (FCP V2.1, GSA
3.12.3.2) in relation to potential
effects of fishing around
seamount communities or
around fully protected areas or
where FADs may gather biota
via FADs drifting over such
areas and affecting ecosystem
processes. Where this
information is unknown,
precautionary scoring is
merited.
2.4.2 SIa & b

The following are the main dis-

jointed measures that currently
control FAD numbers/effort
FAD units
- number of active drifting FADs Rationales have been
that can be deployed revised to reflect the
There are no
- 72-day EPO-wide purse seine designation of three habitat
measures
fishing closure period, types, including commonly
functionally in place
- time/area purse seine closure encountered habitats,
to retrieve or track
for 31 days west of the minor habitats, and VMEs.
FADs or their
Galapagos Islands known as The revised rationale also
impacts on fragile
the “corralito” includes measures adopted
and structurall
2.4.2 - in Resolution C-21-04
complex VMEs Score reduction
Habitats These are considered calling for (1) further Accepted (score
(see row 35) which expected to 60-
manageme measures, all aimed at reducing FCP V2.1, GSA 3.12.3.2 reduces in the number of reduced to 60-80,
are the main type 80, condition
nt strategy - exploitation rates on tropical active FADs (below that condition raised)
of measures raised
Sia & b tunas, and not directed at established in Resolution
needed to assure
habitat protection and C-20-06), (2) the
that VMEs are not
management. Furthermore, submission of the location
impacted as gear
there are no measures of deactivated FADs, and
moves through
functionally in place to retrieve (3) daily reporting of the
protected areas or
or track FADs or their impacts location of active FADs. We
over structurall
on fragile and structurally note that a conditions has
complex pelagic
complex VMEs (see row 35) been raised against FADs
zones such as
which are the main type of in PI 2.4.2 Sia and Sib.
seamounts.
measures needed to assure that
VMEs as defined, are not
impacted. On this basis the SG
60, but not 80 or 100 are met.
Conditions will need to address

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 378 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

a) the need to know where

FADs go and b) impacts of
tracked gear within protected
areas or over structurall
complex pelagic areas such as
seamounts, convergence zones
etc.

2.4.2 SId
FAD Units
Appreciate that rationale cites
All existing
non-compliance by Ecuador, but The rationale has been
measures required
reasoning is silent on other flags modified noting there is
relate to gear
– this needs to be explicit for all some qualitative and
marking and data
countries. Furthermore, there quantiative evidence that
collection but not to
are no management TUNACONS conplies with
protecting VMEs,
2.4.2 - requirements in place in an all management
so it remains
Habitats output control sense to retrieve Scoring requirements and
questionable Not accepted (no
manageme or prevent FADs from ending up SG 60 wording, 2.4.2 d implications protection measures
whether the intent change)
nt strategy - in/on VMEs. All existing unknown afforded to VMEs. We note
of the SG 60 is
SId measures required relate to more measures to explicitly
met, which
gear marking and data protect VMEs would be
specifiies
collection but not to protecting beneficial but PI2.4.2 Sid
"management
VMEs, so it remains assess compliance with
requirements to
questionable whether the intent existing
protect VMEs". Any
of the SG 60 is met, which measures/requirements.
conditions should
specifiies "management
specifically address
requirements to protect VMEs".
this gap.
Any conditions should
specifically address this gap or
further rationale is needed.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 379 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.4.3. SIc

There is not currently adequate

(or any Commission-available)
information being collected
The rationale has been
capable of detecting the end
modified to reflect the
FAD Units points of lost/derelict FADs (only
2.4.3 - Score reduction collection of adequate
numbers, which is non-spatial
Habitats expected to 60- information to detect Not accepted (no
Revise score for information) and the associated FCP V2.1, GSA 3.12.3.2
information 80, condition increases in risk to the change)
Units 1-9 to SG 60 habitat/VME damage, in order to
- Sic raised main habitats based on
only. detect any related trends (SI
guidance provided in
language: "increases in risk") -
GSA3.15.
noting that VMEs are defined by
process considerations and not
just physical impacts. Revise
score for Units 1-9 to SG 60
only.

2.5.3 -
Ecosystem
information

Principle 3 - Effective management

In assessing 3.2.2 SI b
andSi c, we assessess
whether the management
3.2.2 - SIb & SIc
system respond to serious
and other important
If the HCR triggers tools to
issues… (Sib) and whether
enact responsiveness to the
The ability for the they use the precautionary
state of the stock, and this
fishery specific approach… . (Si) c.
responsiveness is not mandated
management Whether the response is
- but rather an action that
system to be sufficient with respect to P1
3.2.2 - requires voting or consensus
appropriately Score reduction and/or P2 is appropriately
Decision- outside the competent authority
responsive to See rationale for 1.2.1 and expected to 60- scroed under the PIs for P1 Not accepted (no
making (e.g. by nation state
serious and 1.2.2 80, condition and P2. There is able change)
processes - delegations) - then the ability for
important issues raised evidence that the IATTC's
SIb & Sic the fishery specific management
(SIb) or to be decision-making processes
system to be appropriately
precautionary (SIc) respond to serious and
responsive to serious and
is not other important issues
important issues (SIb) or to be
demonstrated. identified in relevant
precautionary (SIc) is not
research, monitoring,
demonstrated. Scores need to
evaluation and
be reduced to SG 60 for both
consultation, in a
SIs.
transparent, timely and
adaptive manner and take
account of the wider

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 380 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

implications of decisions
meeting SG 80 for 3.2.2
(Sib) and decision-making
processes use the
precautionary approach
and are based on best
available information
meeting SG 80 for 3.2.2
(Sic).

MSC Technical Oversight PCDR Comments

Table 27. MSC Technical Oversight PCDR Comments

MainID SubID PageReference Grade RequirementVersion OversightDescription Pi CABComment

Table 3 repeats UoA1 and UoA2

references in the "harvest
24334 32309 17-18 Guidance method/gear" section for UoA 3 4, 5 Updated
and 6. The team should update these
for clarity.

Typographical error: 'of the' is repeated

several times in the conclusions for
24334 32310 204 Guidance 2.4.3 (a) under the subheadings: Gabi to respond
commonly encountered habitats, free
school and US Small PS UoA.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 381 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.1 (a): It is unclear how the team Thank you for your comment. As
have applied SA3.2.1 and the linked stated in MSC Interpretation Log
interpretation (P2 species outcome Pis (P2-species-outcome-PIs-scoring-
- scoring when no main or no minor or when-no-main-or-no-minor-or-both-
both). For example, the interpretation PI-2-1-1-1527262009344) scoring
states that "if the fishery has no main issue (a) does not apply when there
species, scoring issue (a) is not are no main species under the
applicable. In scoring issue (b) each specified PI. With respect to
species will score either 80 or 100 secondary species, no species
24334 32308 150 Minor FCP-7.17.9.1 v2.2 2.2.1
depending on whether the SG100 is were classified as main based on
met". In this context it is unclear why observer data for both the free
the team have scored the TUNACONS school and FAD UoAs. Therefore,
Free and FAD sets in 2.2.1 (a) as 100 Si-a does not apply and should be
instead of not applicable. The default scored “Not Applicable”. Scores for
100 score would apply only where Si-a have been revised
there are no species within a appropriately and the overall score
component at all (i.e. no secondary for PI2.2.1 downwardly revised to
species). 80.

PI 2.3.1 (a): The rationale for the

Tunacons (Free and FAD sets) UoAs
Thank you for your comment.
states "no dolphins were identified as
During the site visit it was verified
captured by the UoA, however the
by both IATTC and TUNACONS
absence of marine mammal
that the UoAs meet the 100%
24334 32317 166 Major FCP-7.17.9.1 v2.2 interactions will be followed up at the 2.3.1
observer coverage requirement and
onsite". The team should confirm
the provided observer data is
whether this was followed up and the
correct, confirming there are no
absence of marine mammal
marine mammal interactions.
interactions in order to justify not
scoring PI 2.3.1 (a).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 382 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.1(a): It is unclear from the

rationale, what explicit, well-defined
Rationales for IATTC and WCPFC
and measurable short and long-term
have been update to provide
fishery-specific objectives exist, in
examples of explicit (required to
order to achieve the outcomes
24334 32319 256 Major FCP-7.17.9.2 v2.2 3.2.1 meet SG80 and SG100) and
expressed by the MSC’s Principle 2,
measurable (required to meet
and therefore to meet SG80. Relevant
SG100) short-term objectives exist,
long-term objectives for Principle 2 are
especially for P2.
addressed under PI 3.1.3, but not
short-term objectives.

PI 3.2.2(a): It is unclear from the

rationale whether there are The rationale for IATTC has been
‘established’ decision-making updated to clairify and explain the
24334 32320 258 Minor FCP-7.17.9.2 v2.2 3.2.2
processes in place, which are required legal basis for established decision
to meet SG80. Please refer to GSA4.8 making processes
for guidance on “established”.

Additional clarification of the

PI 3.2.2.(b): It is unclear from the decision making was made to the
rationale, how the decision-making rationale for the IATTC to show
24334 32321 259 Minor FCP-7.17.9.2 v2.2 3.2.2
processes take account of the wider how how the decision-making
implications of the decisions. processes take account of the
wider implications of the decisions.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 383 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

ISSF PCDR Comments

Table 28. ISSF PCDR General Comments

CAB
Evidence or
General comments CAB response to stakeholder input Response
references
Code
The CAB accepted ISSF´s recommendations on Cumulative
impacts provided at the ACDR stage, but we note no actions Thank you for your comments. As the new MSC standard
Not
have been included in the CAP. In the new standard version is not final and still under review it is not appropriate to
accepted
currently under discussion, cumulative impacts will be taken None given use it as the basis for "scoring". We note the need for
(no
into account with a more precautionary approach. In the assessing cumulative impacts has been discussed with
change)
meantime. We urge the fishery to advance in line with the the client and the manageement bodies.
recommendations ISSF provided at the ACDR stage.
The CAB accepted ISSF´s recommendations on General
Accepted
fishery description provided at the ACDR stage. ISSF still
(no score
considers that the report does no provide sufficient information Thank you for your comment and the background has
change -
into the fishery operations to allow stakeholders to provide None given been modified, and now includes a description of the
additional
accurate input and the PCDR report does not include fisheries.
evidence
Tunacons reply to ISSF recomendations to describe the
presented)
fishery operations.
Mitigation and handing of non target species `Onandia I, Grande
The action plan should be modified to adequately provide M, Galaz JM, et al Thank you for your comments and quantifying post
evidence that FAD sets and free school sets are not hindering (2021) New release mortality (PRM) is important for advancing our
recovery and rebuilding of Silky sharks, Whitetip sharks and assessment on understanding of fishing effects. The need for information
Mobulid rays. There is a range of measures in place that are accidentally on PRM has been discussed with the client and
directed at the conservation of sharks. These include IATTC captured silky management bodies.
Resolution C-05-03 which concerns the conservation of shark post-release
sharks (including silky sharks) and IATTC Resolution C- survival in the As noted by the comment, the assessment team did not
04-05 which mandates the live release of sharks when Indian Ocean tuna receive pot-release mortality rates, thus impacts of the Not
possible. The recent IATTC resolution (C-15-04) also contains purse seine fishery. UoA on sharks and mobulids was estimated with the accepted
a range of measures, including a prohibition on the retention of IOTC - 17th assumption that all interactions resulted in mortality. (no
Mobulid rays (whole or parts) and requires that Mobulid rays Working Party on The UoA is also following requirements to deploy lesser change)
be released alive whenever possible. Ecosystems and entangling FADs as stipulated in Resolution C-19-01.
The report evaluates the compliance with existing IATTC Bycatch. IOTC- The evidence of implementation of such measures is
measures for these species, without considering post-release 2021- addressed in Habitat conditions.
mortality rates, which are not available. These are ultimately WPEB17(DP)-
the keys elements to determine that the partial strategy is 13_Rev1, Online I note the importance of the research conducted by
working and that the fishery does not hinder rebuilding or ´https://www.iotc.or Onandia et al. (2021) and its value in understanding PRM
recovery of these species. The success of the partial strategy g/sites/default/files/ in the Indian Ocean.
in improving survival rates of accidentally caught Silky and documents/2021/04

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 384 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Whitetip sharks and Mobulid rays is dependent on well /IOTC-2021-

designed and implemented handling and release techniques. WPEB17DP-
Recent research on silky shark handling, release techniques
and post release mortality has been carried out by an MSC
certified tuna fishery in the Indian Ocean and similar work
should be undertaken by the Client fishery.
Onandia I, Grande M, Galaz JM, et al (2021) New assessment
on accidentally captured silky shark post-release survival in
the Indian Ocean tuna purse seine fishery. In: IOTC - 17th
Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch. IOTC-2021-
WPEB17(DP)-13_Rev1, Online
https://www.iotc.org/sites/default/files/documents/2021/04/IOT
C-2021-WPEB17DP-

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 385 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Pew PCDR Comments

Table 29. Pew PCDR General Comments

CAB
Evidence or CAB response to Pew Response during PI CAB response to
General comments Response
references stakeholder input Input stakeholder input2
Code
We do not know of any element
of the Standard or other MSC
Guidance document that would
preclude a CAB including
stakeholders in harmonization
should they so choose and would
appreciate the CAB directing us
to one if it does exist... The MSC
standards team has been clear The MSC outlines the
that they do not govern how opportunities for stakeholder
Unfortunately, the
CABs operate harmonization participation, including
decision to allow
meetings - this is strictly CAB opportunities to provide input
stakeholder comments
purview. in the ACDR and PCDR
during harmonization
consultation stages, and
IATTC - P1 Harmonization discussions is not
In keeping with ISEAL norms, the allowing stakeholders to meet
required by the MSC
MSC standard (and its service the team participants during
We are requesting to participate as a standard, and thus
providers, CABs) is bound to the site visit.
stakeholder in all upcoming P1/P3 SCS cannot implement
Not ISEAL Principles which include The outputs of the
harmonization discussions for all this consultation
n/a accepted Principle 5: Engagement, with harmonization discussions,
tRFMOs associated with this opportunity. We
(no change) obligations to "provide following Annex PB, are
assessment, in keeping with precedent strongly recommend
appropriate and accessible included in the report as
set at Hong Kong 2016 WCPFC Pew contact the MSC
opportunities to participate in captured by the relevant PI
harmonization meeting, which allowed standards team directly
governance, assurance and rationales. Thus,
stakeholder attendance. to express their interest
monitoring and evaluation.” stakeholders do have an
in having an
Principle 7 around Transparency opportunity to review the
opportunity to
is also relevant as harmonization outputs of harmonization
participate in
meetings have effectively discussions and provide
consultation.
become an entirely closed-door, comment as provided by the
CAB-only process with no MSC consultation guidelines.
stakeholder engagement.

Given the above, unless the CAB

can provide additionally
reasoning why they “cannot
implement” our participation,
including direct references to
MSC documents or decisions, we

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 386 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

reiterate our request to

participate in the previously
referenced harmonizations.

The text in the report

Procedural - Number of UoAs. and Table 3 and 4 is
Accepted
now revised to reflect On p. 17 we would suggest
(no score
Announcements and p. 14-16 of the ACDR, p.13- the actual number of clarifying Table 3 so that gears Table 3 has been modified to
change -
ACDR says 11 units, whereas on p. 13 16. UoAs. There are now 5 are clearly assigned to the Unit reflect the suggested change.
change to
it says "there is a total of nine Units of UoA as two of the numbers.
rationale)
Assessment". target species were
removed from P1
Lack of clarity wrt scope for Units
10 & 11 - geography and gear

On p. 150 of the report it says "The

U.S. Small Purse Seine UoA is
comprised of three small purse seine
vessels from the U.S. with carrying
capacities ranges from 127 t to 145 t.
Fishing is limited to free school sets
Accepted Thank you for your comment
and conducted in waters adjacent to We would appreciate more direct
The Executive part is (no score and see have done our best
San Pedro, California U.S.A.. ACDR p. 19, references to where in the report
correct, report has now change - to indicate where changes
However, on p. 19 of the report it p.150 changes have been made in
been updated change to have been made to the
states: "These information gaps response to the comments.
rationale) report.
include:
• Traceability of the US-based small
purse-seine and geographic areas of
operation.

Please clarify in the executive

summary, report backgroup whether
Units 10 and 11 use only FSs or also
FADs.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 387 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

General Statement on 1.2.1 Harvest

Strategy (IATTC: YFT, SKJ, BET)

We suggest that the CAB take a Figure 14,

We thank the
systematic approach to assessing AGAC WCPO
reviewer(s) for their
compliance of harvest strategies. An ACDR, p.40
comments. Note that
example of this type of useful approach
PI1.2.1 only apples to
is given in the AGAC WCPO ACDR via MSC-MSCI
YFT; BET and SKJ are
Figure 14, p.40, where the team has Vocabulatory
now designated
rightly examined the relative V1.3, p.12
primary species. The
compliance/development of the key
PI1.2.1 rational for YET
elements of harvest strategies Harvest
has been modified,
individually, largely respectful of the stragey: The
clearly indicating that
MSC definition. We note the absence of combination
the current YFT
the Management Action component of of monitoring,
harvest strategy is
the HS definition in the table and stock
responsive to the state
suggest that this important element - as assessment,
of the stock and based
the only element that functions on the harvest
on testing of the main
water - be included. control rules
tool to support the
and
harvest strategy (F-
The MSC defines a harvest strategy as management Based on the clarity it provides,
multiplier),
“the combination of monitoring, stock actions, which we would recommend that the
management We note the recommendation
assessment, harvest control rules, and may include CAB follow the model provided
objectives for YFT in Not provided by the reviewer and
management actions, which may an MP or an by LR in the WCPO AGAC
the IATTC Convention accepted will strive to include this
include an MP or an MP (implicit) and MP (implicit) report, which includes a table
area are being met. (no change) information is future
be tested by MSE.”, where the and be tested examining each of the elements
We note the modified assessments.
underlined items are mandatory by MSE. of an MSC defined harvest
text in the rational is
components of an MSC-compliant HS strategy in sequence.
consistent with the
as defined in the MSC Vocabulary Harvest
elements referenced in
V1.3. Control Rule:
the WCPFC harvest
"A set of well-
strategy workplan and
In particular, it is important to note that defined pre-
included in the Lloyds
the wording in the 1.2.1. SIs does not agreed rules
Registry AGAC WCPO
mention the same flexibility for or actions
ACDR report Fig. 14,
"generally understood" or "available" used for
p.40). The assessment
HCRs that appers in 1.2.2, but refers determining a
team also notes that
only to HCRs - which by definition - are management
harmonization
"well-defined" (see reference at right). action in
discussions for this
If any of elements of the harvest response to
fishery have continued
strategy, as given in definitions, is changes in
since the publication of
missing, 1.2.1 must score <60. Until indicators of
the ACDR and the
these elements are well-defined AND stock status
agreed YFT
there is a clear and functioning with respect to
harmonized score for
relationship among the elements reference
Sia/Sib is 80.
allowing responsiveness of points."
management actions to the status of
the stock, a full harvest strategy does
not exist.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 388 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

We appreciate the
General Statement on HCRs (BET, comments by the
YFT, SKJ) reviewer(s) and for
pointing out MSC
Regarding 1.2.2a, the MSC defines an guidance concerning
HCR as “a set of well-defined pre- harvest control rules.
agreed rules or actions used for We recognize the
determining a management action in importance of having
response to changes in indicators of pre-agreed rules when
stock status with respect to reference it comes to determining
points.” The bare minimum a management action
MSC-MSCI
requirement is for a pre-agreed plan, is in response to changes Thank you for your comments
Vocabulary
given explicitly in the SG 60 SIa in indicators of stock and we note that PI1.2.2a
V1.3, p.12
wording and demands HCRs (sensu status with respect to only refers to yellowfin tuna.
We believe the CAB still errors by
above) that are: “expected to reduce reference points. We We further note that to
Harvest not considering the full definition
the exploitation rate as the point of also recognize that achieve a score of SG80
Control Rule: of a Harvest Control Rule, which
recruitment impairment is approached.” information to assess "well defined HCRs are in
"A set of well- requires them to be “used for
stock status is not place that ensure that the
defined pre- determining a management
We also emphasize that even if always known with exploitation rate is reduced
agreed rules Not action in respect to reference
"generally understood (not defined per certainty which as the PRI is approached, are
or actions accepted points”. C-16-02 does not
MSC Vocabulary) and in place" is translates to expected to keep the stock
used for (no change) include any pre-agreed
considered, the HCR in question is still uncertainty in stock fluctuating around a target
determining a management action in respect to
required to be compliant with the status determinations. level consistent with (or
management the Target Reference Point.
binding wording of the MSC definition The IATTC has above) MSY", Resolution C-
action in
and the SG 60 language, which require adopted harvest 16-02, paragrapg 3, specifies
response to Please revise and rescore the
a priori ("pre-agreed") specification of control rules for tropical the management actions to
changes in rationale for the relevant PIs.
the rules or management actions to be tuna in the EPO be taken. We content that
indicators of
used in response to changes in stock (Resolution C-16-02) yellowfin tuna meets the
stock status
status. which represent pre- SG80 requirements.
with respect to
agreed rules for action.
reference
Furthermore, if the HCR triggers tools We further note that
points."
to enact responsiveness, and this harvest control rules
responsiveness is not mandated - but evolve with new
rather an action that requires voting or information and IATTC
consensus outside the competent recognizes that
authority (e.g. by nation state alternative harvest
delegations) - then the actions are strategies will be
functionally not pre-agreed, and this considered that include
needs to be accounted for in scoring. hard and soft limit
reference points.
Table 7
This section refers to the
Please clarify the statement in Table 7
client not handling product
that says, "US small PS UoA: The
that is considered target
fishery clients handle only certified fish.
species (YFT) that is not
No mitigation is necessary." Based on
sourced from the UoA.
the cited logbook data, these vessels
catch and retain non-certified species,

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 389 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

so this statement should be reviewed

and revised if necessary.

Table 30. Pew Comments PCDR PI Input- New at PCDR Stage

Perfor Input Input detail Evidence or references Stakehold CAB response to stakeholder input CAB
mance summary er input response
Indicat code code
or (PI)
Principle 2 - Minimising environmental impacts
2.1.1 - Improve The rationale should be updated to No Thank you for your comment and the rational Accepted
Primar rationale provide additional evidence for the (scoring has been revised providing clarification to the (no score
y needed for statement that “there have been implication statement “there have been continuing change -
species statement continuing improvements to the s improvements to the population of Pacific change to
outcom that there are population of Pacific bluefin tuna over unknown) bluefin tuna over time”. rationale)
e, Sla "continuing time”.
improvement
s in the
population"
13) There is SIa - PBFT, Small PS UoA https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/ No (score Thank you for your comments. Note MSC Not
insufficient Meetings2020/SAC- reduction Guidance GSA2.2.3.1 Use of proxy accepted
justification 11/Docs/_English/SAC-11-INF- expected indicators and reference points for PRI and (no change)
that the SG80 requires that “There is a partial H_Pacific%20Bluefin%20Tuna to 60-80, BMSY, clearly states that “in the case where
strategy will strategy in place for the UoA, if %20Stock%20Assessment.pdf condition neither BMSY nor the PRI are analytically
not hinder necessary, that is expected to raised) determined, the following default reference
recovery to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of points may be appropriate for measuring
levels that are the main primary species at/to levels "2. The projection results stock status depending on the species:
highly likely which are highly likely to be above the assume that the CMMs are fully BMSY=40%B0; PRI=20%B0=½BMSY“.
around PRI. PRI.” (Emphasis ours). The implemented and are based on Further, the second rebuilding targets was
background text and the rationale certain biological and other discussed by scientific staff of the WCPFC
does not provide sufficient justification assumptions. For example, and IATTC, and subsequently adopted by
for the CABs determination that the these future projection results both tuna RFMOs. Additionally, the 2nd
secondary rebuilding target of do not contain assumptions rebuilding target is the accepted LRP for
20%SSBF=0 is equivalent to PRI. To about discard mortality. tuna stocks in both Pacific tuna RFMOs.
our knowledge, the secondary Although the impact of discards
rebuilding target has no scientific on SSB is small compared to The pointed out the initial projections
basis, but was instead set as part of a other fisheries (Figure S-8), changed recruitment from low to average
political negotiation between members discards should be considered after the initial rebuilding target was
of the Joint WCPFC-IATTC working in the harvest scenarios expected to be met in 2024 and the change
group. Additionally, there is not in recruitment is a direct response to the
sufficient justification or evidence that 3. Given the low SSB, the expected increase in spawning stock
the rebuilding plan will result in a uncertainty in future recruitment, biomass (SSB); as SSB increases

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 390 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

population level that is “highly likely” to and the influence recruitment recruitment is expected to increase
be above the PRI, given that future has on stock biomass, (http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC18/ISC_18_ANNE
projections are entirely based on monitoring recruitment and SSB X_14_Pacific_Bluefin_Tuna_Stock_Assessm
assumptions about future recruitment should continue so that the ent_2018_FINAL.pdf). This change in
scenarios not in keeping with current recruitment level can be recruitment was reviewed and discussed by
ocean conditions or climate change understood in a timely manner." scientific staff of the two Pacific tuna RFMOs
(see comments for 2.1.2b for more and adopted. Note the SSB of Pacific Bluefin
information). Tuna (PBF) has steadily increased in the last
8 years (2011-2018) (see Table 3 in ISC
Unless the CAB can provide additional 2020). Young fish (age 0-2) shows a more
evidence to support their rapid increase in recent years (see Figure 7
determination that the PRI is in ISC 2020). These changes in biomass
equivalent to 20%SSBF=0 and coincide with a decline in fishing mortality
particularly, that the rebuilding plan will over the last decade (see Figure 8 in ISC
result in a population level that is 2020). Note that future PBF projections
“highly likely” to be above this level, scenarios initially computed in 2018 (ISC
the SI should be rescored to SG60 2018) were recomputed in the 2020 stock
and a condition should be added. assessment, and because of the increasing
SSB, the probabilities of meeting both the 1st
and 2nd rebuilding targets have increased
relative to 2018; a 99%-100% of meeting the
1st target and 91%-100% of meeting the 2nd
target. Also, PBF abundance in the EPO is
increasing as well as average size. All of this
is consistent with increasing SSB combined
with reductions in age-specific fishing
mortality. Also, CMM 2021-02 and
Resolution C21-01 harmonize PBF
management in the Pacific Ocean,
strengthen reporting requirements, establish
catch limits, and provides provisions to
ensure the rebuilding targets are met (e.g.,
based on the stock assessment conducted
by ISC in 2022, and other pertinent
information, CMM 2021-02 shall be reviewed
and may be amended as appropriate in
2022).

Collectively, this information provides

evidence that the 2nd rebuilding target is a
reasonable approximation of PRI, SSB has
been consistently increasing since 2011 due
to significant reductions in F, the projection
framework is scientifically sound, the catch of
Pacific bluefin tuna by the UoA relative to the
total Pacific-wide catch is extremely small (≈
1.5% between 2015 and 2020) with minimal
impact to the overall stock (see Figure 12 in

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 391 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

ISC 2020), and measures are in place to

modify fishing strategies to ensure stock
trajectories meet the established rebuilding
plan. The rational has been updated to clarify
some of these points and the Assessment
Team does not agree with the suggestion to
down score PI2.1.2a.
2.1.2 - There is No (score We thank the reviewer for their comments
Primar Insufficient SIb - PBFT, Small PS UoA ttp://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC18/ISC_ reduction and note that many of the concerns have
y evidence that 18_ANNEX_14_Pacific_Bluefin expected already been addressed in the response to
species the strategy The rationale does not provide _Tuna_Stock_Assessment_201 to 60-80, PI2.1.2a (see row13). Responses to specific
manag will work due sufficient evidence that there is an 8_FINAL.pdf condition comments associated with PI2.1.2b follow.
ement, to uncertainty objective basis for confidence that the raised) Note that recruitment dynamics represents
Sib about measures/ partial strategy will work, as the “holy grail” in fisheries and understanding
assumptions the projections of success of the causal mechanisms underlying recruitment
in recruitment recovery plan rely entirely on the https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/ variability and impacts to population biomass
assumptions made about future Meetings2020/SAC- is challenging. While I applaud the work of
recruitment levels. As shown in Table 11/Docs/_English/SAC-11-INF- Britten et al. (2017) for highlighting the
6-1 and Figure 8 of the 2018 ISC H_Pacific%20Bluefin%20Tuna potential impact of climate change on
Stock Assessment (to our knowledge, %20Stock%20Assessment.pdf recovery timelines, the calculations
the most recent report that includes presented were simplified to compare
projections of multiple recruitment p. 52. Recruitment productivity across disparate stocks, regions,
scenarios) the probability of reaching and data availabilities. A focused study on
the second rebuilding target under the Recruitment (age-0 fish on July the impacts of climate/environmental
“low recruitment” scenario by 2034 is 1st) estimates fluctuated widely variability on Pacific bluefin tuna would be
just 3%. without an apparent trend and necessary to understand potential impacts
were almost identical with the on timelines and explain causal
In the 2020 assessment, the ISC gave 2018 assessment. Recent mechanisms. With that said, we note that
a summary of recruitment (right) strong cohorts occurred in 2004 Pacific bluefin tuna spawning biomass has
indicating that the average recruitment (27.9 million fish), 2007 (23.1 been consistently increasing since 2011,
level for the last 10 years have been million), and 2008 (21.3 million), despite major changes in environmental
below the historical average, including and moderately good cohorts conditions throughout the entire Pacific
in the last two available years. Recent occurred in 2005 (15.3 million), Ocean (e.g., the marine heatwave in the
empirical analyses also suggest that 2010 (18.2 million), and 2016 Northeast Pacific Ocean first detected in
significant non-stationary behavior in (16.5 million) (Table 5-2 and 2013). While this may not address impacts to
biological parameters is occurring in Figure 5-12). The average recovery timelines it does stress the need for
the majority of global fish stocks in estimated recruitment was a more focused study. Nonetheless, as
response to environmental change approximately 13.2 million fish previously noted a scientifically sound
(Britten et al. 2017): such dynamics for the entire stock assessment rebuilding plan has been adopted with
have potential to lengthen recovery period (1952-2018). The 2014 specific targets and timeframes, and CMM
trajectories, or to eliminate projected and 2018 recruitments were 2021-02 and Resolution C21-01 provide a
gains. estimated to be relatively low mechanism to ensure the rebuilding plan is
(3.8 and 4.7 million fish, met.
Unless the CAB can provide evidence respectively) and the average
that the “average recruitment” recruitment level for the last 10
scenario – which is not being years FINAL 53 (9.9 million fish)
observed under current ocean has been below the historical
conditions - is more likely to occur in average level. The most recent

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 392 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

the future than the “low recruitment”, two years (2017 and 2018) were
there cannot be an objective basis for lower (6.7 and 4.7 million fish,
confidence that recovery plan will respectively) than average. It
achieve its objections and this SI should be noted that the 2017
should be rescored to SG 60 and a and 2018 recruitment estimates
condition should be added. have higher uncertainty
compared to other more recent
recruitment estimates. The CVs
estimated for the 2017 and 2018
year-classes were 17% and
28%, respectively. The high
uncertainty is due to those
recruitments being informed by
limited data. Importantly, there
is no recruitment index available
for 2017 year-class.
Recruitment estimates were
also less precise at the start of
assessment period until the
1970’s (average CV = 25%,
maximum CV = 44%) and
became moderately precise
from 1980 to 1993 (average CV
= 21%, maximum CV = 34%)
when CPUE-based recruitment
index from the Japanese troll
fishery became available. After
1994, recruitment estimates had
further improved in their
precision (average CV = 9%)
due to the comprehensive size
data collection for Japanese
fisheries that began in 1994."

Britten, G., Dowd, M., Kanary, L.

et al. Extended fisheries
recovery timelines in a changing
environment. Nat Commun 8,
15325 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms
15325
2.1.3 - There is SIa - PBFT , Small PS UoA SIb rationale: "Based on No (minor Accepted
Primar insufficient provided logbook data for this score PI 2.1.3 SI a. is assessing the information (no score
y justification The current rationale does not provide UoA no species have been reduction adequacy for main primary species only. change -
species that there sufficient evidence that there should classified as primary minor expected) Only one species was classified as primary change to
informa should be a be a high degree of confidence in the species. The assessment team main, bluefin tuna. The assessment team did rationale)
tion, high degreed catch reporting by the UoA employed qualitative methods not rely only on logbooks to evaluate
Sia of confidence specifically. Table 17 on p. 66 only during the site visit to confirm information to assess impact of the UoA on

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 393 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

in UoA catch gives logbook information from two of that there are no primary minor bluefin tuna. As stated in the rationale. There
reporting the three vessels in the small boat species. Nonetheless, given the is mandatory catch reporting at landing, and
UoA, suggesting that logbook data limited information available the Size-at-catch information is routinely
weren't available for all vessels. team took a more precautionary collected from all fisheries landing.
approach, as per G7.10.2.e, the The data on landings of bluefin tuna is well
If the report cannot be revised to with SG100 is not met." monitored.
an updated Table 17 that includes
logbook data from all UoA vessels as PCDR p. 65 While the UoA is not actively monitored by
evidence of its availability or records of observers and only logbook data from two of
the number of California Department "Qualitative methods for Small the three UoA vessels was available to
of Land and Natural Resources PS UoA monitor catches and identify primary species
inspections of catches from US vessel according to MSC guidelines, the CDFW
describing port inspections (2014- The logbooks are limited in conducts port inspections of all three vessels
2018 or a more recent 5 year period) scope, providing catch data for to check fish tickets for accuracy of catch
that provide evidence of functioning only tuna species. No data on and take fish samples for scientific purposes.
verification, this SI should be rescored interactions with ETP species or Noting that the three UoA vessels operate
to a maximum of SG80. catch of non-target species is cooperatively in the same area and conduct
collected. A qualitative approach similar fishing operations, we are confident
was employed during the site that the available logbook data is sufficient to
visit to identify secondary and understand catch composition. Evidence of
ETP species not identified in the visits to the port by CDFW staff has been
logbooks. Prior to the site visit provided and the vessels maintain an open-
the team reviewed literature of door policy regarding information requests
potential ETP species in the and access. We also note that NOAA has
area and spoke to US National authorized CDFW staff to enforce federal
Marine Fisheries Service laws and regulations as described within the
(NMFS), IATTC management Cooperative Enforcement Program which
and science officials and vessel aims to increase living marine resource
captains regarding potential conservation, endangered species
non-target species captured by protection, and critical habitat enforcement
the fishery along with ETP while strengthening state and territorial
interactions by the US small- enforcement resources
purse seine fleet during the (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/topic/enforce
onsite visit. A list of potential ment/cooperative-enforcement). Evidence of
ETP species was shared via a Cooperative Enforcement Agreement
survey with stakeholders to between NOAA and CDFW, particularly as it
gather anecdotal information on relates to shark finning prohibition measures,
ETP interactions. Based on the was provided in the form of correspondence
results of stakeholder interviews between NOAA and CDFW. Noting the port
the team concluded that sampling measures in place and that no
anecdotal information indicated catch reporting infractions have been
that the fleet does not interact reported the Assessment Team contends
with ETP species. The issue of that the logbooks are sufficient to identify
limited information is addressed main primary species and can assess with a
in PI 2.3.3" high degree of certainty the impact of the
UoA on main primary species with respect to
status thus providing further evidence to

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 394 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

support the SG100 score. The rational has

been updated to reflect this information.
2.1.3 - The rationale SIc - PBFT, Small PS UoA http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC20/ISC No (score We thank the reviewer for their comments. Not
Primar does not 20_ANNEX11_Stock_Assessm reduction Note discard mortality is not considered to be accepted
y provide The rationale does not provide ent_Report_for_Pacific_Bluefin_ expected significant source of mortality (ISC 2020) and (no change)
species sufficient sufficient evidence that the information Tuna.pdf to 60-80, unseen mortality was assessed as an
informa evidence that available is adequate to support a condition additional sourse of crytic mortality in the
tion, the partial strategy for PBFT, as the latest p. 58 raised) most recent assessment (ISC 2020).
Sic information ISC stock assessment for PBFT Unseen mortality or discards
available is indicates that there is additional While the work of Britten et al. (2017)
adequate to information required, including on Management measures enacted highlights the potential impact of climate
support a unseen mortality and discards. There over the last 5 years has change on recovery timelines, the
partial is also the need for a better resulted in the increasing calculations presented were simplified to
strategy for understanding of how biological abundance of juvenile age compare productivity across disparate
PBFT due to parameters vary with climate realities classes. More restrictive stocks, regions, and data availabilities. A
missing Britten et al.2017), to produce an management coupled with the focused study on the impacts of
information accurate recovery projections. At best, potential for rapid increases in climate/environmental variability on Pacific
that is "Information is adequate to support local abundance may be bluefin tuna would be necessary to
needed to measures to manage" the stock and resulting in increased bycatches understand potential impacts on timelines
fully inform the SI should be rescored to SG 60 and following releasing of and explain causal mechanisms. With that
the stock until the current information unwanted sized PBF. The said, we note that Pacific bluefin tuna
assessment. deficiencies are resolved. working group attempted to deal spawning biomass has been consistently
with this potential problem with increasing since 2011, despite major
the addition of unseen changes in environmental conditions
mortalities, but its magnitude is throughout the entire Pacific Ocean (e.g., the
poorly understood. Depending marine heatwave in the Northeast Pacific
on the relative magnitude of this Ocean first detected in 2013). While this may
unseen fishery mortality, this not address impacts to recovery timelines it
issue, unless properly does stress the need for a more focused
understood, may potentially study. Nonetheless, as previously noted a
weaken the strong relationship scientifically sound rebuilding plan has been
between observed catches, adopted with specific targets and
production function, and the timeframes, and CMM 2021-02 and
model’s ability to predict Resolution C21-01 provide a mechanism to
changes in abundance of fishes ensure the rebuilding plan is met.
taken in the longline fleets. This
‘fishing effect’ is the backbone
of the current assessment and
has allowed for strong model
stability and improved its
predictions. Measures to either
account for this unseen mortality
or eliminate it should be
explored.
2.2.2 - There is not SId - Sharks, Small PS UoA PCDR p. 159 No (score Thank you for your comments. The rational Accepted
Second sufficient reduction has been enhanced to verify cross (no score
ary external The current rationale and evidence "Additionally, the California expected referencing of statements which is also change -
species verification continues to be insufficient and the Department of Land and Natural additional

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 395 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

manag that shark initial concern regarding insufficient Resources, in conjunction with to <60, PI supported through regulations and evidence
ement, finning is not evidence, raised in the ACDR, was not NOAA Fisheries, conducts fails) inspections. presented)
, Sid taking place addressed. inspections of catches from all
US small purse seine vessel
As noted by the CAB, to meet SG 60 and there are no reports of UoA
the Guidance requires that “some vessels conducting shark finning
external validation should be in-place activities. Pursuant to the Shark
and understood to indicate a validation Finning Prohibition Act, NOAA
level equivalent to a nominal observer Fisheries is required to regularly
coverage of 5% of effort.” report on domestic and
international finning activities
While the rationale includes a general and there are no reports of
description of the inspection programs these UoA vessels conducting
that are in place, no evidence based finning activities. Using its
on inspection records, procedures in expertise judgement, the
practice, values, or other verifiable assessment team considers the
items have been presented Simply totality of these
put, no evidence has been provided activities/measures as sufficient
that there were any actual inspections justification that finning is likely
of the UoA vessels within the last 5 not taking place and SG 60 is
years, and therefore no evidence has met. Because there is no
been provided that there is “external observer data and logbooks
validation” of the UoA’s activities that contain no information on non-
is equivalent to a nominal observer target catches, the SG 80 level
coverage of 5% of effort." is not met."

The rationale does not include specific

information related to the vessels of
the UoA, such as inspection records
by CDLNR (e.g. number of vessels
inspected per month/year, types of
possible infractions examined, number
of infractions found etc.), reports by
NOAA fisheries with associated
quantitative reference of their findings
etc.

Until this information can be provided,

this SI should be rescored to <SG 60.
2.3.2 - The rationale SIc/d - All ETP species, US Small No (score Thank you for your comments. The rational Accepted
ETP does not PS UoA reduction has been enhanced noting there is an (no score
species provide expected objective basis for confidence that the change -
manag sufficient to <60, PI measures/strategy will work, based on change to
ement, evidence that The rationale is current insufficient to fails) information directly about the fishery. rationale))
SIc/d there are no justify that there is an "an objective
ETP basis for confidence that the
interactions measures/strategy will work.”

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 396 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

The CAB’s justification for its finding

that there are no ETP interactions
("Based on interviews with NGOs and
vessel captains it was determined that
the fishery does not interact with ETP
species due to how the fishery
operates; spotter planes direct all
fishing activities.") is directly
contradicted by examples from other
fisheries where spotter planes are
used that still have take many ETP
species (e.g., Northeastern Pacific
Ocean Tropical Purse Seine YFT and
SKJ Fishery).

The current rationale is therefore

incorrect (or need heavy revision), and
the evidence is also insufficient These
SIs should be rescored to <SG60
unless the CAB can provide more
justifiable and verifiable information to
support its finding that there are no
ETP interactions by the UoA.
2.3.2 - There is not SIc/d - Silky Sharks, UoAs 1-6 CMM C-21-06 No (score SI c. Accepted
ETP sufficient reduction The assessment team agreed that the UoA (no score
species evidence that As the CAB notes, there are https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/R expected lacks quantitative analysis to support high change -
manag the strategy uncertainties with the latest Pacific- esolutions/IATTC/_English/C- to 60-80, degree of confidence that the strategy will change to
ement, will work or wide silky shark stock assessment and 21-06- condition work. However, following the MSC rationale
SIc/d sufficient Table 16, p.64 indicates that 43% Active_Silky%20sharks.pdf raised) guideposts, this level of information is only
justification (8,816 /20,587) of silky sharks are required at the SG100. As noted in the
that the stock discarded dead based on IATTC "Recognizing that silky sharks rationale there is some information collected
assessment observer coverage. (Carcharhinus falciformis) are in the UoA and about Silky sharks, which
for a different the shark species most indicate that the UoA follows the CMMs in
stock is a CMM C-21-06 recognizes that silky commonly caught as bycatch by place, including observer information and
suitable sharks are the species most purse-seine vessels in the evidence of compliance with Tunacons and
proxy. commonly caught as bycatch in PS Convention Area; ISSF voluntary code of conduct, as reported
vessels in the Convention area and in the ISSF PVR - ProActive Vessel Register.
that measures should be implemented Recognizing that measures
to allow silky shark populations to should be implemented to allow Moreover, the total catch of the UoA is
rebuild. Article 14 also states that the silky shark populations to relatively small for the entire catch of the
Commission shall prioritize research rebuild in the Convention Area; silky and oceanic whitetip sharks. Given the
by the scientific staff in the following scale and intensity of impact of the limited
areas: b. Mitigation of bycatch of Aware of the need to establish number of vessels in the UoA, the specific
sharks... and survival of sharks caught conservation measures for the information gathered is considered
by all types of gears, giving priority to protection of sharks, especially appropriate to meet the SG80.
gears with significant catches. the silky shark;

The current inability for IATTC to set Recalling that Resolution C-19-

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 397 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

limits for silky sharks based on 05 requires the IATTC scientific SI d.

insufficient information, and release staff to develop complete Scoring guidepost asks for 'some' evidence
procedures where almost 50% of assessments of the silky shark of implementation, that has been provided in
animals are being released dead and stocks, but that due to a lack of the rationale.
an unknown percentage will not data it has not been possible to
survive after live release, means that conduct these and thus have
there is not sufficient justification for a indicators of the status of these
determination that "There is an species; "
objective basis for confidence that the
measures/strategy will work, based on
information directly about the fishery
and/or the species involved."

These SIs should be rescored to SG

60 and a condition should be set,
until there is evidence that the
measures in place are providing
evidence of recovery.

Table 14 should also be updated with

the most current CMM for silky sharks.

SIc/d - Oceanic Whitetip, UoAs 1-6

The rationale also does not include

sufficient evidence to justify that
finding that "As there is no current
stock assessment for oceanic whitetip
shark in the EPO, the assessment
team concurs that assessments in the
WCPO can be used to infer stock
status in the EPO."

Not only is there no justification for

using a stock assessment from an
ocean basin that include significant
differences in fishing dynamics,
geography etc. but the CAB is obliged
to score this PI "based on information
directly about the fishery and/or the
species involved". Neither of these
pieces of information are available to
evaluate management functionality for
EPO oceanic whitetip sharks, which
would be necessary to score SIc at the
SG 80. This SI should be rescored
to SG 60 and set a condition.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 398 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.3.3 - There is SIb - All ETP species, US Small PS ACDR p.110 "The logbooks are No (score Thank you for your comments. NOAA Accepted
ETP insufficient UoA limited in scope, providing catch reduction Fisheries requires all vessels to submit (no score
species evidence that data for only tuna species. No expected logbooks and to report all protected species change -
informa that the UoA This SI requires that "Information is data on interactions with ETP to 60-80, (ETP) interactions within the logbooks (per change to
tion, logbooks are adequate to measure trends and species or catch of non-target condition 50 CFR 229.6) and there has been no rationale)
Slb providing support a strategy to manage impacts species is collected." raised) reported noncompliance with this
accurate on ETP species." The rationale does requirement. Noting that no protected
information not include sufficient evidence that species interactions were recorded in the
that the UoA logbooks are providing logbooks provided for the years 2014-2018
accurate information adequate to the assessment team sought independent
measure trends verification of the potential for zero
interactions through interviews with NGOs
Given that at the ACDR, the CAB (PEW and Monterey Bay Aquarium), vessel
stated that logbooks were only captains, fishery scientists, and fishery
completed for tuna catches; and it was management organizations (NOAA Fisheries
not clear if the client group were aware and Pacific Fisheries Management Council),
of the NOAA LOF requirements to and it was determined that the fishery likely
record ETP species, which calls into does not interact with ETP species due to
question the accuracy of these self- how the fishery operates (e.g., spotter
reported data, the CAB should provide planes) and where the fishery operates (CA
evidence on how they determined that Bight).
is more likely that zero ETP species
have been captured in the last five Additionally, the US Marine Mammal
years in any set by these vessels, Protection Act mandates that all commercial
versus a situation where captains did fisheries be classified by the level of
not record ETP species in their catch incidental marine mammal death and serious
in logbooks, which in turn affected the injury. The level of marine mammal death
NOAA fisheries LOF listings. and serious injury that occurs incidental to
each fishery is reported in the annual Marine
Unless further justification and Mammal Stock Assessment Reports for each
evidence is provided, this SI should be stock. Fishery classifications are based on
rescored to SG 60 and a condition set observer/logbook data, information on fishing
to assure ETP species are being operations, and other information deemed
accurately recorded in UoA logbooks. relevant, and NOAA Fisheries lists this UoA
as a Category III fishery with no reported
interactions. Based on the totality of the
information there is adequate evidence to
support a strategy to manage impacts on
ETP species if necessary. The rational has
been revised accordingly.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 399 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Fundacion Pesca Limpia PCDR Comments

Table 31. General Comments

CAB response to stakeholder

General comments Evidence or references CAB Response Code
input
Including only yellowfin tuna in principle 1 is not Skipjack is the main target
appropriate in this case. It is clear that skipjack tuna species for this fishery. Only
We thank the reviewer for their
is the main target of this fishery and bigeye tuna is 18.4% of the catches by the
comments and note the client decided
also a very important species for this fishery. Tunacons fleet is yellowfin tuna.
to categorize yellowfin tuna as the only
Excluding two very important species from principle If you consider only free school Not accepted (no change)
fishery target. The CAB has fully
1 is a way of cheating the system in order to have a sets, only 10.5% of the catches
evaluated all non-target species
less strict evaluaton of these two very important are YFT (Table 12 assessment)
according to MSC guidelines.
species for the fishery (principle 2) and should not while skipjack tuna accounts for
be allowed by the CAB. 88.6%.
Some of the vessels in the assessment intentionally Thank you for your comment and
set on dolphins therefore they should be assessed dolphin sets are not included in this
as they operate under the AIDCP Dolphin Safe assessment. This fishery was
Not accepted (no change)
regulations. You can't just ignore this fact in the evaluated under FCP v2.1 which does
assessment an simply mention that the fish will be not require all set types to be
separated at the source assessed.
Page 59 of the assessment
states: "Depending on set type, Thank you for your comment and note
target species accounted for 11- the decision to categorize a species as
18% of the reported total catch, target is the responsibility of the client
Skipjack and Bigeye Tuna need to be included as a
while primary-main accounted for (fishery); CABs do not make those
main target species in the unit of assessment and
60-89%, primary-minor decisions. CABs are responsible for Not accepted (no change)
assessed by principle 1 and not by principle 2 as it
accounted for 0.42-20%, and appropriately applying all MSC
is intended by the CAB
secondary-minor and ETP guidelines to target and non-target
species each consistently species and for this assessment this
accounted for < 0.5% of the has been done.
reported total catch."

Yellowfin caught by FADS are juvenile and this has

an important impact in the reduction of the MSY of Thank you for your comment and the
the fishery mainly due to the yield by recruit. This yellowfin stock assessments actually Not accepted (no change)
aspect is not taken into consideration by the CAP in does take this into account.
the current assessment.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 400 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

BET assessment models have Thank you for you comment and again
The conditions described under Table 6 mention shown a binomial distribution point out that identifying target species
that there will be a surveillance of Bigeye tuna by which means that there is a risk is the responsibility of the client, not the
year 4. As mentioned above, Bigeyeand Skipjack that the stocks are not healthy. CAB. We note that the IATTC workplan
Tuna should be included as main and not wait for BET should be monitored from specifies that a benchmark skipjack Not accepted (no change)
four years before making any decissions. Including day 1 and not wait for four years. tuna assessment will be completed in
all three main target species and all set types should SAC-12-05, SAC 12-16 2023 and work to advance the bigeye
be a condition. documents available at IATTC assessment and address the
website. www.iattc.org uncertainties is continuing.
CAB is allowing comparmentalization of the fishery Thank you for your comment and note
The assessment document
in order to achieve the minimum scores for a single that dolphin sets are not included in
states that some of the vessels
species and just one set type. This should not be this assessment. This fishery was
have authorization to set on
allowed. Can you just ignore the impact on the other evaluated under FCP v2.1 which does
dolphins. The document also Not accepted (no change)
two main species which correspond to more than not require all set types to be
provides information on the %
81% of the catches? Can you just ignore the assessed. Information on the % catch
catches that correspond to
impact of FADS? This is why MSC is under so corresponding to yellowfin tuna was
yellowfin tuna.
much scrutiny. provided as required by MSC.
If you consider the information on Tables 12 and 13,
the Tunacons fleet catches 453809 tons of fish per
Thank you for your comment and we
year only accounting for freeschool and fad sets.
note the client has decided only to
YFT caught in freeschools only ads up to 17676 Tables 12 and 13 of the Draft
consider yellowfin tuna as the fishery
tons which corresponds to 3.9% of the catches. It is assessment that is available for Not accepted (no change)
target. The MSC guidelines have been
not fair to assess only 3.8% of the catches to comments
appropriately applied based on that
achieve an MSC certification and ignore 96.1 of the
decision.
catches or simply assess them as principle 2 which
is less strict.
Why is it mentioned in the executive summary that
the assessment complies with the MSC certification
requirements 2.01 MSC Fisheries Standard and
Thank you for your comment and we
Fisheries Certification Process v2.1 but in the
apologize for the confusion. The fishery Accepted (no score change - change to rationale)
communication to stakeholders you mention that the
is being evaluated under V2.1.
Fishery is being evaluated under V2.2.? Please
clarify which is the version being used for the
assessment and why.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 401 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 402 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8.6 Conditions

Table 1. Condition 2-1. Secondary Species (Bigeye) Management Strategy - All Flags Tunacons
Performance
Indicator PI 2.1.1 (a). Primary Species Outcome - Main primary species stock status (bigeye tuna)

Score 70
Justification See rationale in PI 2.1.1 (a) for bigeye tuna
Tunacons UoAs: By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that EPO bigeye tuna is highly
Condition likely to be above the PRI, or if bigeye tuna is below the PRI, there is either evidence of recovery
or a demonstrably effective strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise bigeye
tuna as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.
Surveillance: Milestone Year 1 (expected 2023)

Milestone By the first surveillance audit present a plan to show what actions will be taken to either
Year 1 ensure that EPO bigeye tuna are highly likely to be above the PRI, or, if below the PRI, present
evidence of an implemented effective recovery strategy between all MSC UoAs that categorize
bigeye tuna as main.
Expected score: 70
Activities:
1. TUNACONS will draft a plan to promote the following work to be
carried out at the IATTC. This plan shall include the following
elements:
a. As specified in the IATTC staff activities and research plan
(Document IATTC-98-02a) completing an update bigeye
stock assessment before the end of year 1, incorporating
alternative CPUEs.
b. Evaluation of the weighting criteria to be used in the risk
analyses.
c. Evaluate the responsiveness of the existing HCR to
changes in F (the responsiveness of the HCR to stock
status and maintenance of exploitation by the PRI is a
Client Action work product under the MSE process, which TUNACONS
Plan fully supports).
2. TUNACONS will maintain institutional arrangements for the
provision of FAD data (fine scale) for the production of indices of
abundance to contribute to improved stock assessments.
3. TUNACONS will engage with other relevant MSC
fisheries/stakeholders in promoting these activities.
4. TUNACONS will promote regional cooperation through technical
meetings and training processes with scientific representatives
from the countries that make up the TUNACONS consortium (this
is considered to be ongoing until the end of the certification
period).
Expected Copy of the proposed plan.
outcome:
Copy of the collaboration agreement between TUNACONS and IATTC.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 403 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Minutes of the meetings held for tasks 3 and 4.

Lead: TUNACONS
Other stakeholders:
Work on technical data: IATTC
OPAGAC/AGAC
Surveillance: Milestone Year 2 (expected 2024)
Milestone Client provides evidence of implementing the plan as presented in Year 1 (including any
Year 2 revisions).
Expected score: 70
Activities:
1. Implement the plan designed in the first year.
2. Support update of BET assessment to be conducted no later
than the second year, preferably during the first year.
3. Work towards having a new index of abundance derived from
FAD data incorporated into the planned update stock
Client Action assessment.
Plan
Expected Reports from activity 1
outcome:
Reports from activity 2
Minutes of meetings held for activity 3
As above
Surveillance: Milestone Year 3 (expected 2025)
Milestone Client should provide provisional results from the implemented plan and supporting analyses.
Year 3 If required, modifications to the plan should be presented, including anticipated outcomes.
Expected score: 70
Activities:
1. Continue implementation of plan designed in the first year;
depending on the results; update the plan accordingly.
2. However, elements 3 and 4, proposed in the Activities for Year 1
surveillance (3. TUNACONS will engage with other relevant MSC
Client Action fisheries/stakeholders […] 4. TUNACONS will promote regional
Plan cooperation through technical meetings and training processes
[…]), are considered work in progress throughout the certification
period
Expected As above
outcome:
As above
Surveillance: Milestone Year 4 (expected 2026)
Demonstrate that EPO bigeye tuna is highly likely to be above the PRI, or if bigeye tuna is
Milestone below the PRI, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective strategy in
Year 4 place between all MSC UoAs which categorise bigeye tuna as main, to ensure that they
collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 404 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Expected score: 80
Activities:
1. Continue implementation of plan designed in the first year;
depending on the results; update the plan accordingly.
2. Elements 3 and 4, proposed in the Activities for Year 1 surveillance
(3. TUNACONS will engage with other relevant MSC
fisheries/stakeholders […] 4. TUNACONS will promote regional
Client Action cooperation through technical meetings and training processes
Plan […]), are considered work in progress throughout the certification
period
Expected Provide evidence consistent with elements 1 and 2 described under Year 1
outcome: activities that BET is highly likely to be above PRI, or that TUNACONS UoAs do
not hinder recover and rebuilding of the stock.
As above
Consultation
on condition See attached letters of support

Table 2. Condition 2-2. Secondary Species Management Strategy – US Small PS UoA

Performance PI 2.1.1 (a). Primary Species Outcome - Main primary species stock status (Pacific bluefin
Indicator tuna)
Score 70 (US Small PS UoA)
Justification See rationale in PI 2.1.1 (a) for Pacific bluefin tuna
US Small PS UoA: By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the main primary species,
Condition Pacific bluefin tuna, is highly likely to be above the PRI or if Pacific bluefin tuna is below the
PRI, there is either evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective strategy in place between
all MSC UoAs which categorize this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not
hinder recovery and rebuilding.
Surveillance: Milestone Year 1 (expected 2023)

Milestone By the first surveillance audit present a plan to show what actions will be taken to present
Year 1 evidence of a recovery of the stock or an implemented effective recovery strategy between all
MSC UoAs that categorize Pacific bluefin tuna as main to ensure that they do not collectively
hinder recovery and rebuilding.
Expected score: 70
Activities:
During the first year of the condition, an Action Plan will be focused on
implementing an effective Pacific bluefin tuna stock rebuilding strategy
involving all MSC UoAs that have this species classified as main and that
Client Action demonstrate that the impact of these Assessment Units does not
Plan collectively hinder recovery and rebuilding of the stock.
Expected Publication of the Action Plan (Pacific bluefin tuna)
outcome:
Lead: Tri Marine

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 405 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Other stakeholders:
Work on technical data: NOAA
Other MSC UoA in the region capturing Pacific Bluefin Tuna
Surveillance: Milestone Year 2 (expected 2024)
Milestone Client provides evidence of implementing the plan as presented in Year 1 (including any
Year 2 revisions).
Expected score: 70
Activities:
During the second year, the Plan proposed in the first year will be
implemented.
Expected Minutes of meeting held
Client Action outcome:
Lead: Tri Marine
Plan
Other stakeholders:
Work on technical data: NOAA
Other MSC UoA in the region capturing Pacific Bluefin Tuna
Surveillance: Milestone Year 3 (expected 2025)
Milestone Client should provide provisional results from the implemented plan and supporting analyses.
Year 3 If required, modifications to the plan should be presented, including anticipated outcomes.
Expected score: 70
Activities:
Based on the implementation of the Plan and working together with NOAA,
evidence will be provided that the implementation of the proposed Plan is
effective or, if necessary, modifications to the plan will be carried out,
including the expected results.
Client Action Expected Minutes of meeting held
Plan outcome:
Lead: Tri Marine
Other stakeholders:
Work on technical data: NOAA
Other MSC UoA in the region capturing Pacific Bluefin Tuna
Surveillance: Milestone Year 4 (expected 2026)
Provide evidence that the main primary species, Pacific bluefin tuna, is highly likely to be
Milestone above the PRI or if Pacific bluefin tuna is below the PRI, there is either evidence of recovery
Year 4 or a demonstrably effective strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorize this
species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.
Expected score: 80
Activities:
In the Year 4 audit, provide a report indicating consistent scientific
Client Action evidence of stock rebuilding or a demonstrably effective strategy among all
Plan MSC UoAs that classify Pacific bluefin tuna as main shall be presented to
ensure that collectively they do not hinder rebuilding and rebuilding.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 406 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Expected Minutes of meeting held

outcome:
Lead: Tri Marine
Other stakeholders:
Work on technical data: NOAA
Other MSC UoA in the region capturing Pacific Bluefin Tuna
Consultation
on condition See attached letters of support

Table 3. Condition 2-3. Secondary Species Management Strategy - US Small PS UoA

Performance
PI 2.2.2(d) Secondary Species Management Strategy-Shark finning
Indicator
Score 70
Justification See Rationale PI 2.2.2 SI d
Condition US Small PS UoA: By the 4th annual surveillance audit, provide evidence that it is highly likely
that shark finning is not taking place.

Milestone Surveillance: Milestone Year 1 (expected 2023)

Year 1 Present a plan to provide evidence that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place.
Expected score: 70
Activities: An action plan will be developed to install an onboard an electronic
monitoring system (EMS) to collect the data for the US Small PS UoA fleet to
provide “good external validation” that it is highly likely that shark finning is
not taking place. The plan will include the objectives of the system, the means
to be used for data collection and interpretation, external verification of the
data and the expected results.
Expected Minutes of meetings held
outcome:
Action plan published
Client Action Responsible Party/ies:
Plan
Lead: Tri Marine
Scientific partner:
NOAA
IATTC
Other stakeholders:
Technical consultancy and companies specialized in Electronic Monitoring
Systems.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 407 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Surveillance: Milestone Year 2 (expected 2024)

Milestone Provide a report describing progress on the plan outlined in Year 1. Recommend adjustments
Year 2 to the plan as necessary.
Expected score: 70
Activities: Implementation of the electronic monitoring system on board UoA fishing
vessels and first data processed.
Expected Minutes of meetings held
outcome:
Photographs of the installed systems and videos with the recorded images
and first reports of processed data
Responsible Party/ies:
Client Action Lead: Tri Marine
Plan
Scientific partner:
NOAA
IATTC
Other stakeholders:
Technical consultancy and companies specialized in Electronic Monitoring
Systems.
Surveillance: Milestone Year 3 (expected 2025)
Milestone Provide a report describing progress on the plan. Recommend adjustments to the plan as
Year 3 necessary.
Expected score: 70
Activities: From the third year of the Condition, provide a report describing shark
management on board UoA vessels based on availableinformation obtained
from the electronic monitoring system installed.
Expected Minutes of meetings held and progress report
outcome:
Photographs of the installed systems and videos with the recorded images
and reports of processed data
Responsible Party/ies:
Client Action
Plan Lead: Tri Marine
Scientific partner:
NOAA
IATTC
Other stakeholders:
Technical consultancy and companies specialized in Electronic Monitoring
Systems.
Milestone Surveillance: Milestone Year 4 (expected 2026)
Year 4

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 408 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Provide evidence (good external validation) that it is highly likely that shark finning is not
taking place in the UoA.
Expected score: 80
Activities: From the accumulated information provided by the electronic monitoring
system, evidence in the form of processed data, technical reports, videos, and
photographs, demonstrate that shark finning is not taking place in the UoA.
Expected Minutes of meetings held
outcome:
Pictures of the installed systems and videos with recorded images and reports
of the processed data that provide ‘good external validation’ consistent with
MSC Guidelines , that shark finning is not taking place

Client Action Responsible Party/ies:

Plan Lead: Tri Marine
Scientific partner:
NOAA

Other stakeholders:
Technical consultancy and companies specialized in Electronic Monitoring
Systems.
Consultation See attached letters of support
on condition

Table 4. Condition 2-4. ETP Species Information - All Flags – Tunacons Fleet
Performance PI 2.3.3(b) ETP Species Outcome – Information adequacy for management strategy (Mobulid
Indicator Rays and Sea Turtles)
Score 70
Justification See rationale in PI 2.3.3 (b) for Tunacons UoAs

Condition Tunacons UoA: By the fourth surveillance, provide evidence that information is adequate to
measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species (Mobulid Rays and
Sea Turtles).
Surveillance: Milestone Year 1 (expected 2023)

Milestone Noting that the collection of requisite data to support PI2.3.3(b) is collected by observers,
Year 1 present a collaborative plan including procedures, protocols, and schedule to ensure the
collection of robust data consistent with Resolution C-19-04 and C-15-04. Outreach programs
to inform and educate observers and vessel captains will be part of the plan.
Expected score: 70
Activities: Development of a collaborative plan including procedures, protocols, and
Client Action schedule to ensure the collection of robust data consistent with Resolution C-
Plan 19-04 and C-15-04, to improve the identification of bycatch species on board
fishing vessels by fishery observers.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 409 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

This Plan will focus especially on the identification of shark, manta, ray and
turtle species, as well as other species that are more complicated to
differentiate. In addition, specific graphic material for species identification
will be developed to be carried on board the vessels.
During the first year, reinforcement training will be given to fishery observers,
and they will be provided with graphic material for the correct identification
of bycatch species.
Expected Collaborative Plan published
outcome:
Evidence that observers have received specific training courses.
Published support material
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: TUNACONS
Scientific: IATTC, Ecuadorian Government (SRP)
Surveillance: Milestone Year 2 (expected 2024)
Milestone Provide a report describing progress on the plan outlined in Year 1. Recommend adjustments
Year 2 to the plan as necessary.
Expected score: 70
Activities: Collection of information on board the vessels by the observers and
preparation of follow-up reports to determine whether the problems of
species identification have been corrected. These reports will be validated by
IATTC and IPIAP scientific staff.

Client Action Expected Follow-up reports

Plan outcome:
Meeting minutes
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: TUNACONS
Scientific: IATTC, Ecuador Government (SRP)
Surveillance: Milestone Year 3 (expected 2025)
Milestone Provide a report describing progress on the plan outlined in Year 1. Recommend adjustments
Year 3 to the plan as necessary.
Expected score: 70
Activities: The collection of information, preparation of reports and publication of the
information will continue.
Expected Follow-up reports
Client Action outcome:
Meeting minutes
Plan
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: TUNACONS
Scientific: IATTC, Ecuadorian Government (SRP)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 410 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Surveillance: Milestone Year 4 (expected 2026)

Milestone Provide evidence to demonstrate that information is adequate to measure trends and support
Year 4 a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species (Mobulid Rays and Sea Turtle).
Expected score: 80
Activities: The collection of information, preparation of reports and publication of the
information will continue. For this fourth-year it is expected that the
information published will include adequate identification and that there will
be a considerable reduction of uncertainty in the identification of these
species.

Expected Final report

Client Action
outcome:
Plan Meeting minutes
Information on results of on-board observations available
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: TUNACONS
Scientific: IATTC, Ecuadorian Government (SRP)

Consultation See attached letters of support

on condition

Table 5. Condition 2-5. ETP Species Information - US Small PS UoA

Performance PI 2.3.3(a) ETP Species Outcome – Information adequacy for management strategy
Indicator

Score 70
Justification See rationale in PI 2.3.3 (a) for US Small PS UoA

Condition US Small PS UoA: By the fourth surveillance, provide evidence to demonstrate that some
quantitative information is adequate to assess the US Small PS UoA related mortality and
impact on ETP species.
Surveillance: Milestone Year 1 (expected 2023)
Milestone
Year 1 Present a plan including procedures to provide some quantitative information to assess the
US Small PS related mortality and impact on ETP species.
Expected score: 70
Activities: In the first year of the condition a plan will be presented that includes procedures
Client Action
to be put in place that can provide some quantitative information that will allow
Plan
assessment of U.S. small PS-related mortality and its impact on ETP species.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 411 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

To this end, a pilot on-board electronic monitoring plan will be implemented to

provide insight into the actual interactions of this fleet with ETP species. This pilot
plan has been described in the action for indicator 2.2.2 (d) for the same fleet.
Expected Minutes of meetings held
outcome:
Action plan published
See condition 2-3
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: Tri Marine
Scientific partner:
NOAA
IATTC
Other stakeholders:
Technical consultancy and companies specialized in Electronic Monitoring
Systems.
Surveillance: Milestone Year 2 (expected 2024)
Milestone Provide evidence to demonstrate that the plan outlined in Year 1 is being implemented. If
Year 2 necessary, update the plan accordingly.
Expected score: 70
Activities: Implementation of the electronic monitoring system on board UoA fishing
vessels and first data processed agree whit the Plan published.
Expected Minutes of meetings held and progress report
outcome:
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: Tri Marine
Client Action
Scientific partner:
Plan
NOAA
IATTC
Other stakeholders:
Technical consultancy and companies specialized in Electronic Monitoring
Systems.
Surveillance: Milestone Year 3 (expected 2025)
Milestone Provide evidence to demonstrate further progress of the plan outlined in Year 1. If necessary,
Year 3 update the plan accordingly.
Expected score: 70
Activities: Implementation of the electronic monitoring system on board UoA fishing
Client Action vessels and first data processed.
Plan
Minutes of meetings held and a progress report

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 412 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Expected Responsible Party/ies:

outcome:
Lead: Tri Marine
Scientific partner:
NOAA
IATTC
Other stakeholders:
Technical consultancy and companies specialized in Electronic Monitoring
Systems.
Surveillance: Milestone Year 4
Milestone Provide evidence to demonstrate that some quantitative information is adequate to assess
Year 4 the US Small PS UoA related mortality and impact on ETP species.
Expected score: 80
Activities: From the cumulative information provided by the electronic monitoring system,
evidence will be presented that there is adequate quantitative information to
assess the U.S. small purse seine UoA related mortality and impact on ETP
species.
Expected Minutes of meetings held and final report, including pictures of the installed
outcome: systems and videos with recorded images and reports of the processed data,
Responsible Party/ies:
Client Action
Lead: Tri Marine
Plan
Scientific partner:
NOAA
IATTC
Other stakeholders:
Technical consultancy and companies specialized in Electronic Monitoring
Systems.
Consultation See attached letters of support
on condition

Table 6. Condition 2-6. Habitats Outcome – All Flags – Tunacons Fleet

Performance PI 2.4.1 (b) The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats
Indicator to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Score 75 (FADs only)
Justification Corals and MPAs are recognized as potential VMEs in all ocean basins, including the EPO. The
intent of the MSC habitat component is to characterize habitats in the area(s) fished by the
UoA (GSA3.13.1 MSC Standard v2.01) or in the ‘managed area’ (GSA3.13.5, MSC Standard
v2.01), and to assess the impacts of fishing attributed to the UoA in the area(s). Derelict FADs
are considered abandoned fishing gear and the MSC objective regarding impacts from gear

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 413 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

loss (abandoned gear) on habitat is described in Box GSA7 (MSC Standard v2.01). As derelict
FADs can potentially drift over large spatial scales the footprint of the impact can expand
beyond the managed area. The actual numbers of lost or derelict FADs by UoA vessels is
routinely not recorded, and their impacts have not been evaluated. On this basis
requirements at the SG 80 level were not met.

See rationale for PI 2.4.1b for additional information.

Tunacons FAD UoA: By the fourth surveillance audit provide evidence that FAD sets by the
Condition
UoA are highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of the VME habitats (coral reefs
and protected areas) to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Surveillance: Milestone Year 1 (expected 2023)

Milestone
Year 1 Develop and provide a plan for investigating the impact of lost FADs on the structure and
function of coral reefs and MPAs in the EPO region.
Expected score: 75
Activities:
During the proposed 4-year time frame for this condition, TUNACONS will
promote the implementation of a research plan to improve the
understanding of the impacts of FADs on coral reef structure and function in
the EPO MPAs.
The Plan will be structured in two lines of work. On the one hand, the direct
impact of FADs on the reefs will be analyzed. In this way it will be possible to
know the impact on their structure and functioning. In addition, since
TUNACONS is integrating in its fleet FADs built with degradable materials of
natural origin, the impacts of the different types will be analyzed and the
results obtained in the design and use of the best materials in their
construction will be incorporated and, thus, specific mitigation measures will
be established if the impact is substantial.
On the other hand, guidelines will be established to improve the recovery
processes of FADs before they reach the coral areas. To this end, natural drift
processes will be studied, and a code will be developed to reduce the number
Client Action of FADs in certain high-risk areas or at specific times when prevailing currents
Plan or winds may have a greater influence on the arrival of FADS to reef areas. In
addition, the monitoring system for FADs deployed in higher drift risk
locations will be improved to monitor 100% of FADs at the end of the
proposed 4-year period:

1. TUNACONS drafting and implementation of the research plan

for the control and monitoring of FADS and to improve the
knowledge of their impact on coral reefs in Marine Protected
Areas.
2. Establish a working group made up of researchers from the
IATTC, IPIAP and other research centers (Universities, NGOs) to
work together in the collection and analysis of information.
Expected Copy of the proposed plan
outcome:
Copy of the collaboration agreement between TUNACONS and other parties.
Minutes of the creation of the working group of item 2 above.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 414 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Lead: TUNACONS
Consultancy and technical assistance:
IATTC,, WWF, ATUNEC, National Chamber of Fisheries, Galapagos Artisanal
Associations, Galapagos National Park, Vice Ministry of Aquaculture and
Fisheries
Surveillance: Milestone Year 2 (expected 2024)
Milestone Provide information on the number of FADs lost by the fishery and the materials used in
Year 2 their construction.
Expected score: 75
Activities: 1. Continue implementation of the plan
2. Publication of first research results regarding the number of FADs lost and
the materials used in their construction.
Expected Progress reports
Client Action outcome: Minutes of meetings held
Plan Lead: TUNACONS
Consultancy and technical assistance:
IATTC, WWF, , National Chamber of Fisheries, Galapagos Artisanal Associations,
Galapagos National Park, Vice Ministry of Aquaculture and Fisheries
Surveillance: Milestone Year 3 (expected 2025)
Provide an initial evaluation of the potential impacts of FADs lost by vessels operating in the
Milestone
EPO region on coral reefs, and of any additional measures that might be needed if this
Year 3
impact is substantial
Expected score: 75
Activities:
1. Based on data obtained during the previous two years of Plan
implementation, an assessment of the impact on coral reefs of
FADs lost by fishing vessels operating in the EPO area will be
conducted. This initial assessment will include the evidence
found of these impacts, by type of FADs and how the impacts
are associated with climatic and oceanographic conditions. In
addition, if necessary, recommendations and changes in the
design and materials of FADs that minimize impacts will be
implemented.
Client Action A meeting will be organized with the participation of all
Plan interested parties at which the initial results of the ongoing
work will be presented, and which will also serve as a forum for
information exchange. The results of this meeting will be used
to improve the strategy for minimizing FAD impacts.
Expected Development of strategy for adoption by interested countries (Ecuador and
outcome: Panama)
Minutes of meetings held
Lead: TUNACONS
Consultancy and technical assistance:

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 415 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

IATTC, WWF, National Chamber of Fisheries, Galapagos Artisanal Associations,

Galapagos National Park, Vice Ministry of Aquaculture and Fisheries (VAP)
Surveillance: Milestone Year 4 (expected 2026)
Milestone Provide evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of coral
Year 4 reefs (VME) in the EPO region to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.
Expected score: 80
Activities:
1. Preparation of final reports on the research carried out and
presentation of results
Expected Technical and scientific reports analyzing how the measures adopted are
outcome: contributing and will contribute in the future to prevent the structure and
function of coral reefs from being seriously and irreversibly affected.
Client Action
Plan Minutes of meetings held
Lead: TUNACONS
Consultancy and technical assistance:
IATTC, WWF, , National Chamber of Fisheries, Galapagos Artisanal Associations,
Galapagos National Park, Vice Ministry of Aquaculture and Fisheries (VAP)
Consultation
on condition Letters of support from UoA flag state authorities.

Table 7. Condition 2-7. Habitats Management Strategy – All Flags Tunacons FAD UoA
Performance PI 2.4.2 (a) and (b) Habitats Management Strategy – Management strategy in place &
Indicator Management Strategy Evaluation
Score 75 (FADs only)
Justification The only potential impacts from the UoA on VMEs is from derelict FADs beaching on coral
reefs or MPAs noting that the VMEs potentially affected may be within the UoA
management area or outside the managed area. UoA vessels comply with IATTC time-area
closures and because purse seine fishing gear does not interact with the benthos, move on
rules would likely not support the delivery of SG 80 in PI 2.4.1 and are not considered
appropriate. The UoA supports the development and implementation of best practices for
derelict FADs to improve environmental protection and to support best available science to
minimize negative impacts on the environment. While there are voluntary initiatives to
report details of lost FADs, we have seen no evidence of implementation of voluntary efforts
to mitigate impacts to VMEs from lost FADs. On this basis there does not appear to be a
partial strategy in place to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or above,
including quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management
requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC
fisheries, thus requirements at the SG 80 level were not met. See EPO rationales for PI 2.4.2
(b) for additional information.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 416 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Tunacons FAD UoA: By the fourth-year surveillance audit, provide evidence that:

Condition SI a. there is a partial strategy in place, if necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat
Outcome 80 level of performance or above [For VMEs]
SI b. There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy [for
VMEs] will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved.
Surveillance: Milestone Year 1 (expected 2023)
Milestone
Year 1 Provide information on activities taken by the UoA to report lost FADs and fulfill FAD
management requirements.
Expected score: 75
Activities:

During the first year, TUNACONS in coordination with IATTC, Governments of

the flag countries and other tuna fishing industry groups in the EPO and that
are part of the same UoA, will work together to improve the reporting of the
loss of FADs, updating the existing information in this regard. This
information will be the basis for building a strategy to minimize or eliminate
the impact of FADs on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems.
Client Action
Plan
Expected Copy of the collaboration agreement between TUNACONS and other parties.
outcome: Minutes of meetings held
Evidence of new information on FADs lost.
Progress reports
Lead: TUNACONS
Consulting and technical assistance:
IATTC, WWF, , National Chamber of Fisheries, Galapagos Artisanal Associations,
Galapagos National Park, Vice Ministry of Aquaculture and Fisheries
Surveillance: Milestone Year 2 (expected 2024) and Year 3(expected 2025)
Milestone
Provide evidence of increasing activity to report all lost FADs from UoA vessels operating in
Year 2 and
the EPO region and that these activities meet FAD management requirements.
Year 3
Expected score: 75
Activities:
1. TUNACONS will hold periodic meetings with the IATTC staff to
know the progress of the lost FAD reporting activity. In addition,
it will improve the reporting level of its vessels in this regard.
The contents of these meetings and the information gathered
will be made available to the evaluation team during years 2 and
Client Action 3 of the Action Plan.
Plan
Expected Minutes of meetings held
outcome:
Progress reports
Lead: TUNACONS
Consulting and technical assistance:

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 417 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

IATTC, IPIAP, WWF, ATUNEC, National Chamber of Fisheries, Galapagos

Artisanal Associations, Galapagos National Park, Vice Ministry of Aquaculture
and Fisheries (VAP)
Surveillance: Milestone Year 4 (expected 2026)
For the EPO region provide evidence that for VMEs there is (1) a partial strategy in place, if
Milestone necessary, that is expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or
Year 4 above and (2) some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will
work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved.
Expected score: 80
Activities: Ongoing reporting during the previous 3 years on the FAD loss situation will
serve to determine, in an objective manner, the proper performance of the
existing strategy.
This information will result in technical reports, the content of which will be
made available at specific meetings between the parties and IATTC.
Expected Minutes of meetings held
Client Action outcome:
Progress reports
Plan
Strategy status report
Lead: TUNACONS
Consulting and technical assistance:
IATTC, IPIAP, WWF, ATUNEC, National Chamber of Fisheries, Galapagos
Artisanal Associations, Galapagos National Park, Vice Ministry of Aquaculture
and Fisheries (VAP)
Consultation
on condition Letters of support from UoA flag state authorities.

Table 8. Condition 2-8. Habitats Information – All Flags

Performance PI 2.4.3 (scoring issue b) Habitats information – Information adequacy for assessment of
Indicator impacts
Score 75 (FAD sets)
Justification See VME scoring rationale for PI 2.4.3 (b)
Tunacons UoA FADs: By the third surveillance audit, provide evidence that available
Condition information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the
main habitats, and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on
the timing and location of use of the fishing gear.
Surveillance: Milestone Year 1 (expected 2023)
Milestone
Year 1 Develop and provide a plan for determining the spatial extent, timing, and location of FAD
interactions with VMEs (coral reefs) in the EPO region.
Expected score: 75

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 418 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Activities: For the development of the actions proposed for elements 2.4.1 (b); 2.4.2 (a
and b) it is necessary to have sufficient information to determine the real
impact of FADs on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems, especially on coral reefs and
their intensity, and to establish management strategies to prevent these
impacts from seriously and irreversibly affecting the structure and function of
coral reefs.
Therefore, and as a complement to the actions proposed for indicators 2.4.1
and 2.4.2, a plan will be implemented to determine the spatial extent, timing,
and spatial location of interactions with VMEs (coral reefs).
Client Action
Plan Expected Lead: TUNACONS
outcome:
Consulting and technical assistance:
IATTC, ARAP, other fleets present in the EPO.
1. Copy of the Plan
2. Collaboration agreement between TUNACONS and other parties.
3. Minutes of meetings held
4. Progress reports
Surveillance: Milestone Year 2 (expected 2024)
Milestone Provide information on the number of FADs lost by the fishery that might interact with VMEs
Year 2 (coral reefs) in the EPO region.
Expected score: 75
Activities: Shares actions 2 and 3 with action 2.4.2 (a and b):
“TUNACONS will hold regular meetings with IATTC staff to learn about the
progress of the lost FAD reporting activity. In addition, it will improve the
reporting level of its vessels in this regard.
The contents of these meetings and the information gathered will be made
available to the evaluation team during years 2 and 3 of the Action Plan.”
Client Action Expected Lead: TUNACONS
Plan outcome:
Consulting and technical assistance:
IATTC, , ARAP, other fleets present in the EPO.
Minutes of meetings held
Progress reports with updated statistics on the number of FADs lost and their
characterization: (spatial extent, timing, and spatial location of interactions
with VMEs (coral reefs)).
Surveillance: Milestone Year 3 (expected 2025)
For the EPO region provide evidence that available information is adequate to allow for
Milestone identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable
Year 3 information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the
fishing gear.
Expected score: 80

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 419 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Activities: During the third year, the activities of previous years will continue, and a
workshop will be held to validate the information obtained from the activities
in the different actions of indicators 2.4.1; 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 for their use in the
framework of the fishery management processes.
Expected Lead: TUNACONS
Client Action outcome:
Consulting and technical assistance:
Plan
IATTC, ARAP, other fleets present in the EPO.
Minutes of meetings held
Progress reports
Technical report of the final workshop
Consultation
on condition Letters of support from UoA flag state authorities.

Table 9. Condition 3-1. Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms Panama

Performance
Indicator 3.2.3a Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms Panama

Score 60
Justification Executive decrees 160, 161 and 162 address administrative sanctions, mechanisms for the
monitoring, control and surveillance, and the permitting of fishing and fishing support
vessels respectively. Decree 160 of 2013 established a fishery monitoring and control centre
to manage VMS information. It also made logbooks mandatory for vessels greater than 20m,
specified required observer coverage and established a system of vessel inspection. Fishing
and fishing support vessels licensed to operate in international waters are available online.
In October 2019, Panama received a yellow card from the European Union over
shortcomings in the mechanisms that the country has put in place to ensure compliance with
its international obligations as flag, port and market state. These shortcomings include:
▪ Deficiencies in terms of control, notably over the activities of the fishing and
fishing related activities of vessels flying the flag of Panama.
▪ Deficiencies in the implementation of the Port State Measures Agreement in
order to prevent fish stemming from IUU fishing activities reaching national
and international markets and to effectively prevent IUU vessels from
receiving port services.
MCS mechanisms are established by Executive decrees 160, 161 and 162 and NOAAs 2021
Biennial Report to the US Congress did not report any negative fishing certifications with
respect to IUU fishing by vessels flagged to Panama. We can conclude that monitoring,
control and surveillance mechanisms exist for Panama and that there is a reasonable
expectation that they are effective However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude for
Panama a monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery
and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies
and/or rules.
Condition By the fourth year surveillance audit the client provides evidence to show that for Panama
monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and has
demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 420 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Milestone Surveillance year 1 (expected 2023): By the first surveillance audit the client shall provide
Year 1 evidence of a completed review of the monitoring, control and surveillance system and
identify gaps in Panama’s ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies
and/or rules.
Expected score: 60
Activities: According to the justification given for this condition, Panama must be able to
effectively implement monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms in the
fishery that demonstrate that the measures, strategies and/or standards for
fisheries management are being effectively complied with both for vessels
flying the Panamanian flag and for other flags that may be carrying out IUU
fishing activities.
Given that in Panama there are legal regulations and plans or measures to
combat illegal fishing and that, in addition, the country is a signatory to
international conventions and strategies focused on preventing, combating and
discouraging IUU fishing actions, it is necessary, in order to improve the score
of this indicator, that ARAP within 4 years provides evidence that the
monitoring, control and surveillance system of the fishery demonstrates its
ability to enforce compliance with existing management measures, strategies
and/or regulations.
To this end, TUNACONS will encourage through the Panamanian flagged fleet
that the National Fisheries Authority makes adequate progress in achieving the
Client Action stated objectives. To this end, it will hold periodic meetings and will make
Plan available to the National Authority the advisory and monitoring tools necessary
for this purpose.
During the first year of the condition, an analysis of Panama's current
monitoring, control and surveillance system for fisheries will be carried out to
identify gaps and deficiencies in the country's capacity to implement relevant
management measures, strategies and/or standards in a comprehensive and
effective manner. To this end, it will work with ARAP to encourage and provide
the necessary support to implement the improvement process.
Expected Document reviewing the current monitoring, control and surveillance system,
outcome: carried out by ARAP, including an analysis of the gaps and deficiencies in the
system.
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: ARAP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS
Surveillance year 2 (expected 2024): By the second surveillance the client shall provide
evidence of a plan, including a timeline to create a monitoring, control and surveillance
Milestone
system that addresses identified gaps in Panama’s ability to enforce relevant management
Year 2
measures, strategies and/or rules.
Expected score: 60
Activities: Once the gaps have been identified in the first year, ARAP will design a work
Client Action plan to carry out a thorough review of the country's fisheries monitoring,
Plan control and surveillance system. This Plan will include specific actions to
adequately address the deficiencies found in the first year analysis with
objectives, stakeholders and a timeline to achieve the expected results. The

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 421 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Plan will be developed by ARAP and TUNACONS and other stakeholders in the
fishery will provide technical support for the best approach to the Plan's
actions.
Expected Work plan published
outcome:
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: ARAP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS

Surveillance year 3 (expected 2025): By the third surveillance the client shall provide
Milestone evidence that Panama has begun implementing a monitoring, control and surveillance
Year 3 system that improves Panama’s ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies
and/or rules.
Expected score 70
Activities: Once the ARAP is implementing the modifications and advances in its fisheries
monitoring, control and surveillance system, the Client will request the
information that allows accrediting that this system is working and that it has
demonstrated its capacity to enforce compliance with the relevant
management measures, strategies and/or standards.
TUNACONS will hold meetings with the country's fishing authority and will
request supporting information according to the objectives of the proposed
Client Action condition.
Plan Expected Evidence of the implementation of the work plan.
outcome:
Minutes of meetings
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: ARAP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS
Surveillance Year 4 (expected 2026): By the fourth year surveillance audit the client provides
evidence to show that for Panama monitoring, control and surveillance system has been
Milestone implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant
Year 4 management measures, strategies and/or rules.
Expected score: 80
Activities: The Work Plan developed in the second year of the condition, for the
improvement of the monitoring, control and surveillance system, will be
implemented during the third year and will provide evidence of the
improvement of Panama's capacity to enforce the relevant management
Client Action measures, strategies and/or standards.
Plan
TUNACONS will hold meetings with the ARAP to learn about the status of the
implementation of the Plan and will provide its opinions regarding the
implementation of the Plan, according to its experience in Ecuador with the
vessels that are flagged in this country.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 422 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Expected Evidence of the results of the work plan, in accordance with the objectives
outcome: proposed therein.
Minutes of meetings
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: ARAP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS
Consultation See attached letters of support
on condition

Table 10. Condition 3-2. Sanctions (Ecuador)

Performance
Indicator 3.2.3b Sanctions (Ecuador)

Score 60
Justification Ecuadorian authorities acknowledge that until recently they faced legal and practical issues
to recover the fines, and cumbersome administrative procedures often result in practical
impossibility to address recidivism. Information provided by Ecuadorian authorities to the
European Commission indicates a previous uneven approach in relation to the application of
sanctions, notably as regards the confiscation of illegal catches. As a result, the previous
sanctioning system neither deprived the offenders from the benefits accruing from IUU
fishing, nor deterrent.
Condition By the fourth year surveillance the fishery client shall present evidence to demonstrate that
sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide
effective deterrence.
Milestone Surveillance year 1 (Expected 2023): By the first surveillance audit provide evidence that
Year 1 sanctions to deal with non-compliance are applied.
Expected score: 60

Activities: During the first year following certification, the Undersecretariat of Fisheries of
Ecuador will provide evidence that the new system of sanctions in the current
Fisheries Law is working and is effective as a deterrent to repeat offenses
against the law, and that these sanctions are entered through the country's
existing official collection system.
Expected Evidence of sanctions imposed by the Fishing Authority for illegal fishing
Client Action outcome: procedures.
Plan
Minutes of meetings
Responsible Party/ies:
SRP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 423 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Surveillance year 2 (Expected 2024): By the second surveillance provide evidence that
measures are in place to ensure sanctions to deal with non-compliance are being
consistently applied
Milestone Expected score: 60
Year 2

Activities: During the second year following certification, the Undersecretariat of Fisheries
of Ecuador will continue to provide evidence that the new system of sanctions
in the current Fisheries Law is working
Expected Evidence of sanctions imposed by the Fishing Authority for illegal fishing
outcome: procedures.
Client Action
Minutes of meetings
Plan
Responsible Party/ies:
VAP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS

Surveillance year 3 (Expected 2025): By the third surveillance continue to provide evidence
Milestone that measures are in place to ensure sanctions to deal with non-compliance are being
Year 3 consistently applied.
Expected score 60
Activities: During the third year following certification, the Undersecretariat of Fisheries of
Ecuador will continue to provide evidence that the new system of sanctions in
the current Fisheries Law is working
Expected Evidence of sanctions imposed by the Fishing Authority for illegal fishing
outcome: procedures.
Evidence of the collection of these sanctions and their effectiveness in
Client Action preventing reoccurrence of the offenses.
Plan
Minutes of meetings
Responsible Party/ies:
VAP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS
Surveillance Year 4 (Expected 2025):: By the fourth year surveillance the fishery client shall
Milestone present evidence to demonstrate that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are
Year 4 consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence
Expected score: 80

Client Action Activities: During the fourth year following certification, the Undersecretariat of Fisheries
Plan of Ecuador will provide evidence that the system of sanctions in the current
Fisheries Law continues to work and is effective as a deterrent to repeat

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 424 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

offenses against the law, and that these sanctions are entered through the
country's existing official collection system.
Expected Evidence of sanctions imposed by the Fishing Authority for illegal fishing
outcome: procedures.
Evidence of the collection of these sanctions and their effectiveness in
preventing reoccurrence of the offenses.
Minutes of meetings
Responsible Party/ies:
VAP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS
Consultation See attached letters of support
on condition

Table 11. Condition 3-3. Sanctions- Panama

Performance
Indicator 3.2.3b Sanctions Panama

Score 60
Justification Panama passed Executive Decree No. 160 of June 6, 2013, which established procedures to
impose administrative sanctions for violations of the regulations on aquatic, coastal/marine,
and fishery resources included in Law 44 of November 23, 2006.
Panama received a second yellow card in 2019 from the European Union because of
deficiencies in measures and actions to deter IUU fishing. The European Commission
determined that law enforcement is affected by inefficient administrative procedures and a
lenient approach towards infringements. The EU concluded there are significant delays in the
imposition of sanctions and the sanctioning system is neither depriving the offenders from
the benefits accruing from IUU fishing, nor deterrent. Although sanctions to deal with non-
compliance exist, there is no evidence that that are consistently applied or that they provide
effective deterrence.
Condition By the fourth year surveillance the fishery client shall present evidence to demonstrate that
sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide
effective deterrence.
Milestone Surveillance year 1 (Expected 2023): By the first surveillance audit provide evidence that
Year 1 sanctions to deal with non-compliance are applied.
Expected score: 60

Activities: Panama's new fisheries law was approved in May 2021 so its practical
application is very recent and has not given time to test its effectiveness in
Client Action relation to the improvement of administrative procedures rated as ineffective
Plan and by a lenient attitude towards infractions in accordance with the criterion of
the European Union in the justification for the second yellow card granted to
the country.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 425 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

As a result, there are significant delays in the imposition of sanctions, and the
system of sanctions does not deprive offenders of the benefits derived from
IUU fishing nor does it have a deterrent effect.
Consistent with the Condition attached to this indicator, in Year 4, TUNACONS
shall provide evidence that Panama's legal framework demonstrates that
sanctions are in place to address non-compliance, are consistently applied and
are considered to be dissuasive.
During the first year of this condition, ARAP will conduct a review of the system
of sanctions and how they are being applied since the approval of the new
Fisheries Law. This review will include of existing sanctions, their application
and identify gaps in the available sanctions, their application and their ability to
provide effective deterrence. This review will be driven by TUNACONS.
Expected Report on the review of the sanction system in accordance with the new
outcome: fisheries law and its effective application
Minutes of meetings held
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: ARAP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS
Surveillance year 2 (Expected 2024): By the second surveillance provide evidence that
Milestone measures are in place to ensure sanctions to deal with non-compliance are being
Year 2 consistently applied
Expected score: 60
Activities: During the second year, ARAP will continue to work on improving the
implementation of the new sanction system based on the information obtained
from the analysis of the new system in the first year of the condition.
In this second year, a report will be made detailing the effectiveness of the
sanction system to avoid recidivism of previously sanctioned vessels or
individuals.

Client Action Expected Evidence of sanctions imposed by the Fishing Authority for illegal fishing
Plan outcome: procedures.
Minutes of meetings
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: ARAP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS
Surveillance year 3 (Expected 2025): By the third surveillance continue to provide evidence
Milestone that measures are in place to ensure sanctions to deal with non-compliance are being
Year 3 consistently applied.
Expected score 60

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 426 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Activities: During the third year, ARAP will continue to work on improving the
implementation of the new sanction system based on the information obtained
from the analysis of the new system in the second year of the condition.
In this third year, a report will be made detailing the effectiveness of the
sanction system to avoid recidivism of previously sanctioned vessels or
individuals.
Expected Evidence of sanctions imposed by the Fishing Authority for illegal fishing
outcome: procedures.
Client Action
Plan Evidence of the collection of these sanctions and their effectiveness in
preventing reoccurrence of the offenses.
Minutes of meetings
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: ARAP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS
Surveillance Year 4 (Expected 2025): By the fourth-year surveillance the fishery client shall
Milestone present evidence to demonstrate that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are
Year 4 consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence
Expected score: 80
Activities: During the fourth year following certification, the ARAP will provide evidence
that the system of sanctions in the current Fisheries Law continues to work and
is effective as a deterrent to repeat offenses against the law, and that these
sanctions are entered through the country's existing official collection system.
Expected Evidence of sanctions imposed by the Fishing Authority for illegal fishing
outcome: procedures.

Client Action Evidence of the collection of these sanctions and their effectiveness in
Plan preventing reoccurrence of the offenses.
Minutes of meetings
Responsible Party/ies:
Lead: ARAP
Consulting and technical assistance:
TUNACONS
Consultation See attached letters of support
on condition

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 427 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8.7 Client Action Plan

For Client Action Plan Please Section 8.5. Support letters for Client Action Plan included here:

IATTC Support Letter

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 428 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Camara Nacional de Pesqueria (Ecuador) Support Letter

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 429 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Ministerio de producción, Comercio Exterior, Inversión y Pesca (Ecuador) Support Letter

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 430 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 431 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama Support Letter

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 432 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

AGAC Support Letter

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 433 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

WWF Ecuador Support Letter

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 434 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

NOAA Support Letter

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 435 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8.8 Surveillance
Table 28. Fishery surveillance audit
Surveillance
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Level
On-site surveillance On-site
On-site surveillance On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit
Level 6
audit audit & re-certification
site visit
Table 29. Timing of surveillance audit
Anniversary date Proposed date of
Year Rationale
of certificate surveillance audit
1 July 7th, 2022 July 2023 Anniversary date
2 July 7th, 2022 July 2024 Anniversary date

3 July 7th, 2022 July 2024 Anniversary date

4 July 7th, 2022 TBD Date for surveillance will be coordinated with date
for audit of re-assessment

8.9 Risk-Based Framework outputs

8.9.1 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)

Following Annex PF, the team elected to employ the RBF for the Eastern Pacific and stripped bonito
tunas, secondary main species associated with the US small purse seine UoA. Prior to the site visit the
assessment team gathered information needed to score these two species. The assessment team
conducted a draft productivity assessment analysis, in accordance with the Annex PF requirements (FCP
v2.1). Given that the site visit was remote, stakeholder meetings were also held remotely, to facilitate
participation, a survey with questions and draft PSA scores where shared with a range of stakeholder to
request input. The team also sought expert opinions from US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
and fleet captains during the site visit. Results of the RBF follow and are used to address PI 2.2.1 and PI
2.2.3.
Table 32, MSC Scoring Guideposts based on PSA scores for the Northern sub stock of the Eastern Pacific Bonito
Tuna (Sarda chiliensis lineolata) and Stripped Bonito Tuna (Sarda orientalis).
Scientific Name Common Name Taxonomic Group MSC Scoring
Group Number Guidepost
Sarda chiliensis lineolata Eastern Pacific Bonito Tuna Scombridae Group 1 95
Sarda orientalis Striped Bonito Scombridae Group 2 95

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 436 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 33. PSA productivity attributes and scores- Northern sub stock of the Eastern Pacific Bonito (Sarda
chiliensis lineolata)
Performance Indicator

Productivity
Scoring element (species) Northern substock of the Eastern Pacific Bonito (Sarda chiliensis lineolata)

Attribute Rationale Score

Average age at maturity Reaches sexual maturity at two years of age (Fishbase; March 1
2021)
Average maximum age The Northern substock of the Eastern Pacific Bonito, S. chiliensis
lineolata, reaches a maximum longevity 5–8 years (Campbell and 1
Collins, 1975).
Fecundity Spawning is discontinuous and a female of 3 kg may produce 1
millions of eggs per season (Fishbase March 2021)
Average maximum size Max length : 102 cm TL male/unsexed (Fishbase; March 2021) 2
Not scored for invertebrates
Average size at maturity Maturity: Lm 47.0 cm (Fishbase; March 2021) 2
Not scored for invertebrates
Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 1

Trophic level Trophic level (Ref. 69278): 4.5 ±0.3 se; based on diet studies 3
(Fishbase; March 2021)
Density dependence Not Applicable NA
Invertebrates only
Susceptibility

Fishery NA
Only where the scoring element
is scored cumulatively
Attribute Rationale Score

Areal Overlap Distribution is restricted to the eastern Pacific Ocean.The 2

northern subspecies, S. chiliensis lineolata (Girard) occurs from
off the coast of Alaska to Cabo San Lucas at the tip of Baja
California and in the Revillagigedo Islands. (FAO Species Fact
Sheets15). The fishery operates within California state waters, the
team estimates the areal overlap for the species and fishery to be
10-30%
Encounterability The species found in the upper water column and the fishing gear 3
is fished at the surface, thus a high overlap of the position of the
species with the fishing gear is assumed.
Selectivity of gear type Ortega-Garcia and Jakes-Cota (2019) report that commercial 2
landings in California waters consist almost exclusively of fish >
60 cm in length (24-inches). Size-at-maturity for bonito is
reported at 25-inches (Campbell and Collins, 1975). Therefore,

15
http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/3275/en

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 437 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

individuals smaller than the size at maturity could be regularly

caught. In fact, CA fishing regulations allow purse seine fisheries
to retain up to 18% by number of undersized fish. In lieu of
selectivity analyses we assume a score of 2 is appropriate.
Post capture mortality Based on the information provided in the fisheries logbook, the 3
assessment team assumes the majority individuals caught are
retained.
Catch (weight) Not applicable NA
Only where the scoring element
is scored cumulatively
Table 34. PSA productivity attributes and scores- Striped bonito16
Performance Indicator

Productivity

Scoring element (species) Striped bonito (Sarda orientalis)

Attribute Rationale Score

Average age at maturity Found to mature around one year as Lm is 42 cm (Sivadas et al., 1
2012).
Average maximum age More than four years (Sivadas et al., 2012) 1

Fecundity According to Silas (1962), fecundity varied from 0.24 to 0.64 1

million for fishes between 386 and 605 mm whereas Rao (1962)
recorded fecundity ranging from 0.91 to 1.15 million (Source0
Average maximum size Max length : 102 cm FL male/unsexed (Fishbase; March 2021) 2
Not scored for invertebrates
Average size at maturity Found to mature around one year as Lm is 42 cm (Sivadas et al., 2
Not scored for invertebrates 2012)
Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner (Fishbase; March 2021) 1

Trophic level 4.2 ±0.69 se; based on food items (Fishbase; March 2021) 3

Density dependence Not Applicable NA

Invertebrates only
Susceptibility

Fishery Insert list of fisheries impacting the given scoring element (FCP v2.1 Annex PF
Only where the scoring element 7.4.10)
is scored cumulatively
Attribute Rationale Score

Areal Overlap Eastern Pacific: Hawaiian Islands and Pacific coast of USA to
southern tip of Baja California and Tres Marias Islands extending 1

16
Sources: Fishbase (https://www.fishbase.de/summary/114)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 438 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

to Cabo Blanco, Peru, the Galapagos Islands and Gulf of

Guayaquil. An areal overlap of less than 10% between the
fishing effort and the species distribution is assumed
Encounterability The species found in the upper water column and the fishing gear 3
is fished at the surface, thus a high overlap of the position of the
species with the fishing gear is assumed.
Selectivity of gear type There is no available information on average age or size at 2
capture of striped bonito in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. We
assumed that the rationale outlined for Eastern Pacific bonito
applies here.
Post capture mortality Based on the information provided in the fisheries logbook, the 3
assessment team assumes the majority individuals caught are
retained.
Catch (weight) NA NA
Only where the scoring element
is scored cumulatively

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 439 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8.10 Harmonised fishery assessments

8.10.1 Principle 1
Table 36. Fisheries in the MSC targeting Yellowfin in the EPO Considered for Harmonization (Table updated
October 2021)
Report
Standard v2.0/2.01 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4
CAB Version
Final
AGAC four oceans Integral Purse Lloyds
Report 80 n/a 80 80 80 95
Seine Tropical Tuna Fishery Register
Oct 2021
Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical SCS
ACDR Sep
tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) Global 80 n/a 80 80 80 95
2020
fishery Services
Eastern Pacific Purse Seine
Lloyds ACDR Dec
Skipjack and Yellowfin tuna ≥80 n/a ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80
Register 2020
fishery (FSC and FAD set fishery)

Fiji Albacore, Yellowfin and Lloyds SV3 June

90 n/a 70 60 90 95
Bigeye Tuna longline Register 2021

French Polynesia albacore and Control SV2 July

80 n/a 80 80 80 90
yellowfin longline fishery Union 2021
Hawaii longline swordfish,
Control ACDR Oct
bigeye and yellowfin tuna ≥80 n/a ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80
Union 2021
fishery
Northeastern Tropical Pacific
Control SV2 Dec
Purse Seine yellowfin and 100 n/a 95 80 80 95
Union 2020
skipjack tuna fishery
SCS
US Pacific Tuna Group Purse ACDR May
Global >80 n/a >80 >80 >80 ≥80
Seine FSC and FAD Set Fishery 2021
Services
Pacific and Indian Ocean SCS Under
Longline Tuna and Swordfish Global Assessme ≥80 n/a ≥80 ≥80 ≥80 ≥80
(Ocean Family) Services nt
MSC Harmonized Scores 2021 80 n/a 80 80 80 95

Table 37. Overlapping fisheries

Supporting information

Describe any background or supporting information relevant to the harmonization activities, processes and
outcomes.
Initial harmonization discussions for yellowfin tuna commenced in March 2019 with assessors from each of the
CABs identified in Table 36. Given that benchmark assessments for yellowfin tuna were scheduled for completion
in 2020, further harmonization discussions were postponed until 4 September 2020, at which point discussions

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 440 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

between CAB assessors commenced. During the meeting it was determined that a recently published ACDR for
the OPAGAC Tuna Fishery did not rely on the most recent (2020) data and information for yellowfin tuna and
that rescoring using the new data (2020 assessment) would need to occur. It was further determined that SCS
Global Services had conducted draft scoring using the new information and agreed to share P1 scores for yellowfin
with interested CABs. Other P1 assessors shared their scores and during subsequent discussions on 15 September
2020 scores for yellowfin tuna in the EPO were harmonized to the extent that no material differences in scoring
were identified.
Was either FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.3.4 or PB1.3.4.5 applied when harmonizing? Yes

Date of harmonization meeting 15/03/2019 (initial)

04/09/2020
15/09/2020
Outcomes are still in progress

Table 7 Rationale for scoring differences

If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators
(FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.6)
The differences in scoring noted above in Table 6 under 1.2.3 have been discussed and the fisheries have agreed to
harmonize with the agreed upon scores at the time of their next audit.

8.10.2 Principle 2

As Principle 2 evaluates fleet specific impacts, the scores may vary based on each fleet’s catch behavior
and interactions. Therefore, harmonization is considered for consistency, but scores may vary.
Explanations for these differences are provided only in cases where results vary more than a score of 15
points on the same performance indicators, among assessments.

Table 35. Harmonisation requirements per PI under Principal 2, as noted in Table GPB1 in the MSC FCP v 2.2.
PI/SIs Harmoniza Required to Harmonise Justification for harmonization needed
tion
required?
(Yes/No)
2.1.1a Yes For stocks that are ‘main’ in The main primary species are Skipjack and Bigeye
both UoAs, harmonise status and Pacific Bluefin tuna
relative to PRI (at SG60, 80 and
100), and if below PRI, All scores for PI 2.1.1 are harmonized.
harmonise cumulative impacts
at SG80 (not at SG60).
2.2.1a No For stocks that are main in both There are no species have been classified as
UoAs, harmonise status relative secondary main.
to Biologically Based Limits (at
SG60, 80, and 100), and if below
Biologically Based Limits,
harmonise cumulative impacts at
SG80 (not at SG60).

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 441 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

2.3.1a No Harmonise recognition of any No limits are applicable to ETP species for this
limits applicable to both UoAs (at assessment.
SG60, 80 and 100), and
cumulative effects of the UoAs at
SG80 and SG100 (not at SG60).
2.4.1b No Harmonise recognition of VMEs MPAs and coral reefs are recognized as VMEs
where both UoAs operate in the
same ‘managed area(s)’ (see
Guidance to the MSC Fisheries
Standard).
2.4.2 a,c Yes Harmonise scoring at SG100 No fisheries reach SG100 for 2.4.2 a,c
since all fishery impacts are
considered (not at SG60 or 80).
All P2 PIs Not If 2 UoAs are identical in scope, There are no other fisheries identical in scope.
applicable even if the UoCs are different
(e.g. separate clients),
harmonisation is required.

8.10.3 Principle 3

Harmonisation requirements for PIs 3.1.1 – 3.1.3 is situation dependent. If both UoAs are part of the same
larger fishery or fleet or have stocks in either P1 or P2 that are at least partially managed by the same
jurisdiction(s) (nation states, RFMOs, or others) or under the same agreements, then the fisheries are
required to be harmonized (FCP v2.1, Table GPB1). Harmonisation may sometimes be possible for those
management arrangements that apply to both UoAs (noting the limitations accepted in GPB1.3). The MSC
accepts that it may be impractical to attempt full harmonisation, due to the large number of fisheries that
may be managed under the relevant policy framework, and the differences in application between them.

PI’s 3.2.1 – 3.2.4, harmonization is also situation dependent and required when both UoAs have stocks
within either P1 or P2 that are at least partially managed by the same jurisdiction(s) (nation states, RFMOs,
or others) or under the same agreements. Harmonisation is needed for those management arrangements
that apply to both UoAs e.g., at the RFMO level but not the national level in the case of 2 separate national
fleets both fishing the same regional stock.

Included in the table below are fisheries operating in under the management of the IATTC. With the
multiple layers of management (RFMO, flag state, coastal state) harmonization is not possible for all
fisheries listed here. This is further compounded by the different approaches taken by each CAB to score
multi-level management fisheries, that restrict score comparisons across fisheries operating under the
same RFMO. For these reasons, although we reviewed other P3 scores, alignment of scores is only
expected for fisheries for which management for all jurisdictions overlap, not only at the RFMO level. The
fisheries managed by the same jurisdictions include AGAC four oceans Integral Purse Seine Tropical Tuna
Fishery (Lloyds Register) and Eastern Pacific Purse Seine Skipjack and Yellowfin tuna fishery (FSC and FAD
set fishery) (Lloyds Register), these are fisheries 1 and 3 respectively in Table 36.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 442 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 36. MSC fisheries Operating in the WCPO (Updated November 2021).

Report Relevant Jurisdictions for

Fishery name CAB Gear Type Flagstate Area of Operation 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4
Version Management Assessed
Purse-Seine
1. AGAC four Lloyds Final Report Purse Seine Spain, Eastern Pacific National (Flagstate): Spain (EU)
oceans Integral Register Oct 2021 Ecuador, Ocean – FAO Ecuador, Panama, El Salvador,
Purse Seine Panama, areas 77 & 87 Kiribati
Tropical Tuna El (Area of operation National (License): Spain (EU)
80 85 80 80 75 75 90
Fishery Salvador, in Coastal waters Ecuador, Panama, El Salvador,
Kiribati is not clearly Kiribati
identified) National (Coastal): Not evaluated
Regional: IATTC
2. Eastern Pacific SCS Global ACDR Sep Purse Seine Ecuador Vessels operating National (Flagstate): Ecuador
Ocean tropical tuna Services 2020 in the Inter- National (License): Ecuador
80 80 100 90 85 75 80
- purse seine American Tropical National Coastal State: Ecuador
(TUNACONS) Tuna Commission Regional: IATTC
fishery Panama Convention area National (Flagstate): Panama
Fishery Evaluated in and Ecuador’s EEZ National (License): Panama
this report National (Coastal): Ecuador & 80 80 100 90 85 70 80
Panama
Regional: IATTC
USA National (Flagstate): USA
National (License): USA
80 85 100 90 85 80 80
National (Coastal): USA and Ecuador
Regional: IATTC
3. Eastern Pacific Lloyds ACDR Dec Purse Seine Ecuador Ecuadorian EEZ, National (Flagstate): Ecuador
Purse Seine Register 2020 Peruvian EEZ and National (License): Ecuador
Skipjack and High Seas within National Coastal State: Ecuador 60- 60- 60- 60-
>80 80 80
Yellowfin tuna IATTC boundary Regional: IATTC 79 79 79 79
fishery (FSC and (FAO areas 67, 77,
FAD set fishery) 81 & 87)
4. Northeastern Control SV2 Dec Purse Seine Mexico Mexican EEZ and National (Flagstate): Mexico
80 85 100 75 75 70 70
Tropical Pacific Union 2020 greater Eastern National (License): Mexico

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 443 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Purse Seine Tropical Pacific National Coastal State: Mexico

yellowfin and Ocean, within FAO Regional: IATTC
skipjack tuna 77 and
fishery the IATTC
management zone
5. US Pacific Tuna SCS Global ACDR May Purse Seine USA Eastern Pacific National (Flagstate): USA
Group Purse Seine Services 2021 Ocean within the National (License): USA
FSC and FAD Set IATTC commission National Coastal State: USA 80 90 90 95 85 80 80
Fishery area and EEZ’s of Regional: IATTC
the US
Longline
6. Hawaii longline Control ACDR Oct Longline USA High Seas in the National (Flagstate): USA
swordfish, bigeye Union 2021 WCPFC and IATTC National (License): USA
and yellowfin tuna convention areas National Coastal State: USA 60-
>80 >80 >80 >80 >84 >80
fishery and US Exclusive Regional: IATTC and WCPFC 79
Economic Zone
(EEZ)

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 444 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 37. Scoring differences

Performance Indicators AGAC four oceans Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical Eastern Pacific Purse
(PIs) Integral Purse Seine tuna - purse seine Seine Skipjack and
Tropical Tuna Fishery (TUNACONS) fishery Yellowfin tuna fishery
(FSC and FAD set fishery)
Ecuador & Panama Ecuador Panama Ecuador
PI 3.1.1 SI a- 100 80 80 Draft score: 75
PI 3.1.1 SI b- 80 100 80 Draft score: 60

PI 3.1.2 SI c 100 80 80 Draft score: 80

PI 3.1.3 SI a 80 90 90 Draft score: 70

PI 3.2.1 SI a 80 90 90 Draft score: 70

PI 3.2.2 SI b 80 (regional) 80 80 Draft score: 80

60 (national)
PI 3.2.3 SI a IATTC- 80 80 60 Draft score: 60
National- 60
PI 3.2.3 SI b 80 60 60 Draft score: 60
PI 3.2.3 SI c 80 80 80 Draft score: 60
PI 3.2.4 SI a 100 80 80 Draft score: 80

Table 38. Rationale for scoring differences

If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance
Indicators (FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.6)
Some of the differences in scoring are on account of different timelines of assessments. For one of the fisheries
(AGAC four oceans Integral Purse Seine Tropical Tuna Fishery) the Final Report was published on October 2021.
However, the main reason for differences in scoring is that the approach to P3 scoring of multi-level management
systems in the MSC standard is vague and unclear, leading to different approaches in scoring across CABs,
preventing score alignment.
If exceptional circumstances apply, outline the situation and whether there is an agreement between or among
teams on this determination

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 445 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8.11 Catch Composition Tables

Table 39. Cumulative catch by weight (mt) and percent of the UoA catch of all species in the TUNACONS UoA
FAD set fishery based on observer data from 2015–2018.
Retained Discard Catch Total Catch Percent of
Common Name Catch (mt) (mt) (mt) UoA Catch
Skipjack 169,185.00 2,248.00 171,433.00 60.1757
Bigeye 56,481.00 381.00 56,862.00 19.9588
Yellowfin 51,473.00 274.00 51,747.00 18.1634
Common dolphinfish 1,240.46 366.17 1,606.63 0.5639
Black skipjack 952.00 449.00 1,401.00 0.4918
Silky shark 11.23 158.83 397.12 0.1394
Wahoo 318.46 45.55 364.01 0.1278
Ocean triggerfish 10.67 273.55 284.22 0.0998
Bullet and frigate tunas 80.00 136.00 216.00 0.0758
Blue marlin 196.28 4.21 203.08 0.0713
Marlin, nei 61.05 6.07 67.92 0.0238
Black marlin 33.36 0.72 34.07 0.0120
Smooth hammerhead shark 0.25 5.70 29.79 0.0105
Eastern Pacific and striped bonito 21.00 4.00 25.00 0.0088
Whale shark 0.00 0.00 19.84 0.0070
Unicorn filefish 0.64 17.77 18.41 0.0065
Requiem sharks, nei 0.11 5.91 14.25 0.0050
Dorado, mahi mahi, dolphin fish, nei 6.53 6.53 13.06 0.0046
Hammerhead shark, nei 0.10 1.26 11.73 0.0041
Bluestriped chub 2.27 9.45 11.72 0.0041
Scalloped hammerhead shark 0.04 2.09 10.97 0.0038
Marine turtles, nei 0.00 10.84 10.84 0.0038
Pompano dolphinfish 5.77 4.97 10.75 0.0038
Yellowtail amberjack 2.95 6.70 9.65 0.0034
Ocean sunfish, Mola 0.00 8.53 8.53 0.0030
Rainbow runner 2.27 5.88 8.16 0.0029
Olive ridley turtle 0.00 8.06 8.06 0.0028
Sharks, nei 0.16 0.61 6.92 0.0024
Triggerfishes, durgons, nei 0.43 5.58 6.01 0.0021
Striped marlin 4.81 0.18 5.00 0.0018
Yellowtail 2.63 1.54 4.17 0.0015
Mackerel scad 0.97 3.00 3.96 0.0014
Manta rays 0.00 0.10 3.60 0.0013
Oceanic whitetip shark 0.00 0.54 2.97 0.0010
Black/Green turtle 0.00 2.93 2.93 0.0010
Tripletail 2.70 0.20 2.90 0.0010
Longfin yellowtail 2.58 0.14 2.72 0.0010

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 446 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Billfish, nei 1.88 0.11 2.16 0.0008

Scrawled filefish 0.05 2.08 2.13 0.0007
Manta ray, nei 0.00 0.00 2.06 0.0007
Spinetail manta 0.00 0.18 1.97 0.0007
Loggerhead turtle 0.00 1.91 1.91 0.0007
Triggerfishes, filefishes 0.49 1.40 1.89 0.0007
Giant manta 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.0006
Short fin mako shark 0.14 0.41 1.59 0.0006
Bigeye trevally 0.54 0.95 1.49 0.0005
Indo-Pacific sailfish 0.88 0.15 1.03 0.0004
Marlin, sailfish, spearfish, nei 0.36 0.54 0.89 0.0003
Pilotfish 0.12 0.58 0.70 0.0002
Swordfish 0.69 0.00 0.69 0.0002
Cortez sea chub 0.11 0.57 0.67 0.0002
Thresher shark, nei 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.0002
Great hammerhead 0.00 0.13 0.67 0.0002
Mako shark, nei 0.14 0.05 0.64 0.0002
Small fish, nei 0.15 0.44 0.59 0.0002
Pelagic thresher shark 0.00 0.11 0.54 0.0002
Leatherback turtle 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.0001
Leatherjacket filefishes 0.10 0.31 0.41 0.0001
Pelagic stingray 0.00 0.05 0.38 0.0001
Bigeye thresher shark 0.00 0.05 0.38 0.0001
Bull shark 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.0001
Shortbill spearfish 0.32 0.00 0.32 0.0001
Great barracuda 0.12 0.20 0.32 0.0001
Blue shark 0.00 0.02 0.32 0.0001
Chilean devil ray 0.00 0.09 0.27 0.0001
Rays, nei 0.01 0.02 0.26 0.0001
Finescale triggerfish 0.00 0.22 0.22 0.0001
Amberjacks, nei 0.07 0.14 0.21 0.0001
Jacks, crevalles, nei 0.10 0.10 0.20 0.0001
Munk's devil ray 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.0001
Large fish, nei 0.07 0.05 0.12 < 0.0001
Hawksbill turtle 0.00 0.11 0.11 < 0.0001
Drummer 0.02 0.10 0.11 < 0.0001
Thresher shark 0.00 0.00 0.11 < 0.0001
Blue-bronze sea chub 0.01 0.06 0.07 < 0.0001
Smoothtail manta 0.00 0.00 0.02 < 0.0001
Bigeye scad 0.00 0.02 0.02 < 0.0001
Flat needlefish < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.0001

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 447 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Table 40. Cumulative catch by weight (mt) and percent of the UoA catch of all species in the TUNACONS UoA
free school set fishery based on observer data from 2015–2018.
Common Name Retained Catch Discard Catch Total Catch Percent of UoA
(mt) (mt) (mt) Catch
Skipjack 148,259.00 1,841.00 150,100.00 88.5882
Yellowfin 17,676.00 109.00 17,785.00 10.4966
Bigeye 705.00 0.00 705.00 0.4161
Eastern Pacific and striped bonito 581.00 42.00 623.00 0.3677
Bullet and frigate tunas 2.00 119.00 121.00 0.0714
Whale shark 0.00 0.00 19.84 0.0117
Silky shark 1.70 2.51 13.18 0.0078
Giant manta 0.00 0.00 12.86 0.0076
Common dolphinfish 10.23 1.43 11.65 0.0069
Blue marlin 10.64 0.87 11.50 0.0068
Marlin, nei 4.24 0.34 4.58 0.0027
Ocean sunfish, Mola 0.12 4.41 4.52 0.0027
Marine turtles, nei 0.00 2.36 2.36 0.0014
Manta rays 0.00 0.00 2.30 0.0014
Black marlin 1.91 0.12 2.03 0.0012
Spinetail manta 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.0008
Olive ridley turtle 0.00 1.28 1.28 0.0008
Swordfish 1.07 0.08 1.22 0.0007
Smooth hammerhead shark 0.06 0.31 1.13 0.0007
Black/Green turtle 0.00 1.10 1.10 0.0006
Striped marlin 1.09 0.00 1.09 0.0006
Manta ray, nei 0.00 0.23 1.03 0.0006
Black skipjack 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.0006
Scalloped hammerhead shark 0.00 0.17 0.79 0.0005
Wahoo 0.58 0.04 0.61 0.0004
Pelagic thresher shark 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.0004
Hammerhead shark, nei 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.0003
Pompano dolphinfish 0.11 0.33 0.43 0.0003
Yellowtail amberjack 0.18 0.24 0.42 0.0002
Short fin mako shark 0.05 0.00 0.41 0.0002
Loggerhead turtle 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.0002
Sharks, nei 0.01 0.04 0.34 0.0002
Leatherback turtle 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.0002
Oceanic whitetip shark 0.00 0.26 0.31 0.0002
Blue shark 0.00 0.05 0.29 0.0002
Billfish, nei 0.17 0.06 0.28 0.0002
Chilean devil ray 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.0002
Indo-Pacific sailfish 0.03 0.21 0.24 0.0001
Bigeye thresher shark 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.0001
Great hammerhead 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.0001
Ocean triggerfish 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.0001
Mackerel scad 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.0001
Thresher shark, nei 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.0001
Rays, nei 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.0001
Mako shark, nei 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.0001
Pelagic stingray 0.01 0.01 0.07 < 0.0001
Requiem sharks, nei 0.00 0.05 0.07 < 0.0001
Smooth tail manta 0.04 0.00 0.06 < 0.0001
Hawksbill turtle 0.00 0.05 0.05 < 0.0001

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 448 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Small fish, nei 0.01 0.02 0.03 < 0.0001

Rainbow runner 0.01 0.02 0.03 < 0.0001
Pilotfish 0.01 0.02 0.02 < 0.0001
Tripletail 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.0001
Large fish, nei 0.01 0.00 0.01 < 0.0001
Great barracuda < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.0001
Leatherjacket filefishes < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.0001
Shark sucker < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.0001

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 449 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

8.12 Vessel List

Large Purse-seine Vessels:
No Vessel Name # Matricula Class Size FLAG Company
1 Adriana P-04-01019 6 Ecuador Eurofish
2 Aleshka P-04-00853 4 Ecuador Eurofish
3 Alessia P-04-00747 5 Ecuador Eurofish
4 Alina P-04-00575 6 Ecuador Eurofish
5 Chiara P-04-00960 6 Ecuador Eurofish
6 Don Antonio P-04-00627 4 Ecuador Eurofish
7 Don Bartolo P-04-00637 6 Ecuador Eurofish
8 Doña Maruja P-04-00847 6 Ecuador Eurofish
9 Doña Roge P-04-00697 6 Ecuador Eurofish
10 Giuletta P-04-00911 6 Ecuador Eurofish
11 Jo Linda P-04-00963 5 Ecuador Eurofish
12 Miranda P-04-01023 6 Ecuador Eurofish
13 Rocio P-04-00576 6 Ecuador Eurofish
15 Drennec. P-00-00794 6 Ecuador Nirsa
16 Elizabeth F. P-00-00649 6 Ecuador Nirsa
17 Gabriela A. P-00-00738 4 Ecuador Nirsa
18 Gloria A. P-00-00743 6 Ecuador Nirsa
19 Milagros A. P-04-00793 6 Ecuador Nirsa
20 Rafa A.. P-00-00727 3 Ecuador Nirsa
21 Ricky A. P-00-00767 6 Ecuador Nirsa
22 Roberto A. P-00-00740 4 Ecuador Nirsa
23 Rosa F. P-00-00715 6 Ecuador Nirsa
24 Via Simoun. P-00-00782 6 Ecuador Nirsa
25 El Marquez. INTERN 15516 6 Panamá - C. Aso. Nirsa
26 Maria del Mar A. INTERN 15534 6 Panamá - charted Nirsa
27 Milena A. INTERN 15535 6 Panamá - charted Nirsa
29 Claudia L. P -00-00864 5 Ecuador Servigrup
30 Domenica L. P-00-00764 4 Ecuador Servigrup
31 Fiorella L. P-00-0561 5 Ecuador Servigrup
32 Malula. P-00-0787 6 Ecuador Servigrup
33 Panchito L. P-00-00878 6 Ecuador Servigrup
34 Rossana L. P -00-00839 6 Ecuador Servigrup
35 Yolanda L. P-00-0805 6 Ecuador Servigrup
37 Diva Maria. 31349-06-B 6 Panama Jadran
38 Ljubica. 45933-PEXT 6 Panama Jadran
39 Medjugorje. P-04-00006 6 Ecuador Jadran
40 Reina De La Paz. 34810-09-A 6 Ecuador Jadran
41 Cape Breton. 1060977 6 USA Tri-Marine
42 Cape Cod. 599831 6 USA Tri-Marine
43 Cape Elizabeth III. 962922 6 USA Tri-Marine
44 Cape Ferrat. 1074874 6 USA Tri-Marine
45 Cape Finisterre. 610466 6 USA Tri-Marine
46 Cape May. 645777 6 USA Tri-Marine

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 450 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

California Coastal Purse Seine Fleet:

1 Cape Blanco
2 Ferrigno Boy
3 Barbara H.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 451 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

References
P1 & P2

Aires-Da-Silva, A., and Maunder, M. N. 2009. Status of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in
2007 and outlook for the future. IATTC Stock Assessment Report 9: 3-94

Aires-da-Silva, A. and Maunder, M.N. 2012. Status of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2011
and outlook for the future. Inter-Amer. Trop. Tuna Comm., Stock Assessment Report, 13: 3-14.

Aires-da-Silva, A and Cleridy Lennert-Cody, Mark N. Maunder and Marlon Román-Verdesoto. 2014.
STOCK STATUS INDICATORS FOR SILKY SHARKS IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN

Aires-da-Silva, A., C. Minte-Vera, and M.N. Maunder 2017. Status of bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific
Ocean in 2016 and outlook for the future. 8th Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee. Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission, Document SAC-08-04a, 8-12 May 2017. 12 pp.

Aires-da-Silva, A., Mark N. Maunder, Haikun Xu, Carolina Minte-Vera, Juan L. Valero,
Cleridy E. Lennert-Cody. 2020. Risk analysis for management of the tropical tuna fishery in the
Eastern Pacific Ocean, 2020. IATTC SAC-11, Virtual. Document SAC-11-08 Rev.
http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2020/SAC-11/Docs/_English/SAC-11-08-REV-09-Jun-
20_Risk%20analysis%20for%20management.pdf

Allain V., Griffiths S., Bell J. and Nicol S. 2015. Monitoring the pelagic ecosystem effects of different
levels of fishing effort on the western Pacific Ocean warm pool. Issue-specific national report.
Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nouméa, New Caledonia.

Allain V., Nicol S., Essington T., Okey T. Olson R.J. & Kirby D. 2007. An Ecopath with Ecosim model of the
Western and Central Pacific Ocean warm pool pelagic ecosystem. Third regular session of the
Scientific Committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 13-24 Aug. 2007.
Honolulu, USA. WCPFC-SC3 – EB SWG/IP-8: 1-42.

Aranda, M., de Bruyn, P., Murua, H. 2010. A report review of the tuna RFMOs: CCSBT, IATTC, IOTC, ICCAT
and WCPFC. EU FP7 project no. 212188 TXOTX, Deliverable 2.2, 171 pp.

Au, D.W.K. and Pitman, R.L. 1986. Seabird interactions with dolphins and tuna in the eastern tropical
pacific. Condor 88:304-317

Bayliff, W.H. 1994. A review of the biology and fisheries for northern bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus, in
the Pacific Ocean. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 336: 244–295

Benson, Scott R., Karin A. Forney, Jeffrey E. Moore, Erin L. LaCasella, James T. Harvey, James V. Carretta.
2020. A long-term decline in the abundance of endangered leatherback turtles, Dermochelys
coriacea, at a foraging ground in the California Current Ecosystem. Global Ecology and Conservation.
Volume 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01371.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 452 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Bonfil. R. 2008. Chapter 10 The Biology and Ecology of the Silky Shark, Carcharhinus Falciformis.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444302516.ch10

Burke L, Reytar K, Spalding M and Perry A (2011). Reefs at risk revisited. World Resources Institute.
Washington DC. (https://www.wri.org/publication/reefs-risk-revisited)

Cagua EF, Cochran JE, Rohner CA, Prebble CE, Sinclair-Taylor TH, Pierce SJ, et al. Acoustic telemetry
reveals cryptic residency of whale sharks. Biology Letters. 2015;11(4):20150092. pmid:25832816

Cass-Calay, S. (Chair), Alistair Dunn, Adam Langley, Steve Teo, Laura Tremblay-Boyer. 2019. 2nd Review
of the stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. IATTC , La Jolla, California
(USA)
2-6 December 2019. http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2019/YFT-02/_English/YFT-02-
RPT_2nd%20%20External%20review%20of%20IATTC%20staffs%20stock%20assessment%20of%20y
ellowfin%20tuna%20in%20the%20eastern%20Pacific%20Ocean.pdf

Casale, P. & Tucker, A.D. 2017. Caretta (amended version of 2015 assessment). The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species 2017: e.T3897A119333622. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017-
2.RLTS.T3897A119333622.en. Downloaded on 25 November 2021

Catry, T., J.A. Ramos, I. Catry, D. Monticelli, and J.P. Granadeiro. 2013. Inter-annual variability in the
breeding performance of six tropical seabird species: Influence of life-history traits and relationship
with oceanographic parameters. Marine Biology 160(5):1189-1201

CDFG. 2020. Status of the fisheries report an update through 2008. California Department of Fish and
Game, Marine Region. 232 pg.

Clarke, S., Yokawa, K., Matsunaga, H & Nakano, H. 2011a. Analysis of North Pacific Shark Data from
Japanese Commercial Longline and Research/Training Vessel Records. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-02
(available at http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/eb-wp-02/analysis-north-pacific- shark-data-japanese-
commercial-longline-and-researchtraining-ves )

Cole, J.S. 1980. Synopsis of biological data on the yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares (Bonnaterre, 1788),
in the Pacific Ocean. Inter-Amer. Trop. Tuna Comm., Spec. Rep., 2:71-150.

Collette, B., Fox, W., Juan Jorda, M., Nelson, R., Pollard, D., Suzuki, N. & Teo, S. 2014. Thunnus orientalis.
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2014: e.T170341A65166749.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-3.RLTS.T170341A65166749.en. Downloaded on 05 May
2016.

Dagorn, L. (2000). "Movement patterns of large bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in the open ocean,
determined using ultrasonic telemetry". Marine Biology. 136 (2): 361–371.

Delgado de Molina, A., Ariz, J., Santana, J.V. and Déniz, S. 2007. Study of Alternative Models of Artificial
Floating Objects for Tuna Fishery (Experimental Purse seine Campaign in the Indian Ocean). IOTC–
2006-WPBy - 05: 28 pp

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 453 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Delgado de Molina, A., Ariz, J., Pallarés, P., Delgado de Molina, R. and Déniz, S. 2005. Project on new FAD
designs to avoid entanglement of by-catch species, mainly sea turtles and acoustic selectivity in the
Spanish purse seine fishery in the Indian Ocean. WCPFC Scientific Committee First Regular Session.
8-19 August 2005, Noumea, New Caledonia. FT WP-2.

Devney, C. A., Short, M., and Congdon, B. C. (2009). Sensitivity of tropical seabirds to El Niño precursors.
Ecology 90, 1175–1183. doi: 10.1890/08-0634.1

Ely, B., J. Vinas, J.R. Alvarado-Bremer, D. Black, L. Lucas, K. Covello, A.V. Labrie, and E. Thelen. 2005.
Consequences of the historical demography on the global population structure of two highly
migratory cosmopolitan marine fishes: the yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and the skipjack tuna
(Katsuwonus pelamis). BMC Evol. Bio. 5: 19.

Eguchi, T., Gerrodette, T., Pitman, R.L., Seminoff, J.A. & Dutton, P.H. 2007. At-seadensity and
abundance estimates of the olive ridley turtle Lepidochlys olivacea in theeastern tropical Pacific.
Endangered Species Research, 3: 191–203.

Ehrhardt, N.M. & Fitchett, M.D. 2006. On the seasonal dynamic

Erwin, C.A. and B.C. Congdon. 2007. Day-to-day variation in sea-surface temperature reduces sooty tern
Sterna fuscata foraging success on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series
331:255-266.

Escalle, L., B Muller, S Brouwer, G Pilling and the PNA Office, Report on analyses of the 2016/2018 PNA
FAD Tracking Programme. presented at the Fourteenth Regular Session of the Scientific Committee
to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (SCI14-MI-WP-09, Busan, Republic of
Korea, 8–16 August 2018).

FAD Management Plan-Ecuador (http://iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2018/IATTC-

93/Presentations/_English/FAD-03b-PRES_Ecuador%20FADs%20Management%20Plan.pdf), IATTC
2018 (https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2018/IATTC-93/Docs/_English/IATTC-93-
MINS_93rd-Meeting-of-the-IATTC.pdf)

FAO. 2009. International guidelines for the management of deep-sea fisheries in the high seas. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Farley, Jessica H.; Clear, Naomi P.; Leroy, Bruno; Davis, Tim L. O.; McPherson, Geoff. 2006. Marine &
Freshwater Research 57 (7): 713–724

Farley, J., Eveson, P., Krusic-Golub, K., Sanchez, K., Roupsard, C., McKechnie, F., Nicol, S., Leroy, S., Smith,
B., Chang, N. (2017). Project 35: Age, growth and maturity of bigeye tuna in the western and central
Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee, 13th regular session, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, 9-17 August
2017, WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-01. https://www.wcpfc.int/node/29514.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 454 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Farley, J., Eveson, P., Krusic-Golub, K., Clear, N., Sanchez, C., Roupsard, F., Satoh, K., Smith, N., Hampton,
J. (2018). Update on age and growth of bigeye tuna in the WCPO: WCPFC Project 81. CSIRO Oceans
and Atmosphere; WCPFC-SC14-2018/ SA-WP-01. https://www.wcpfc.int/node/31012.

Forsbergh E.D. 1980. Synopsis of biological data on the skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis (Linnaeus,
1758), in the Pacific Ocean. Pp. 294-360. In: W.B. Bayliff. Synopses of biological data on eight species
of scombrids. IATTC Special Report 2. La Jolla California. 530 pp.

Franco, J., Dagorn, L., Sancristobal, I., and Moreno, G. 2009, Design of ecological FADs. IOTC-2009-WPEB-
16: 21 pp

Franco, J., Moreno, G., López, J. and Sancristobal, I. 2012. Testing new designs of drifting fish
aggregating device (FAD) in the Eastern Atlantic to reduce turtle and shark mortality. Collect. Vol.
Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 68 (5): 1754-1762.

Fulton, E.A. 2010. Approaches to end-to-end ecosystem models. Journal of Marine Systems 81(1-2):171-
183

Galvan-Tirado, C., P. DÍAZ-JAIMES, F.j. GARCÍA-DE-LEÓN, F. GALVÁN-MAGAÑA, and M. URIBE-ALCOCER.

2013. Historical demography and genetic differentiation inferred from the mitochondrial DNA of the
silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) in the Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Research, 147: 36–46
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2013.03.020

Galvan-Triado, C., F. Galván-Magaña and R.I. Ochoa-Báez. 2015. Reproductive biology of the silky shark
Carcharhinus falciformis in the southern Mexican Pacific. Journal of the Marine Biological
Association of the United Kingdom, Volume 95, Issue 3, pp. 561 – 567. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315414001970

Garcia 2016.

Grewe P. M., and Hampton J. (1998). An assessment of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) population structure in
the Pacific Ocean, based on mitochondrial DNA and DNA microsatellite analysis. CSIRO Marine and
Atmospheric Research, Hobart.

Griffiths S. and L. Fuller. 2019. An updated ecosystem model of the eastern tropical Pacific ocean:
analysis of ecological indicators and the potential impacts of FAD fishing on ecosystem dynamics. In:
IATTC - 10th Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee. IATTC-SAC-10-15, San Diego, California

Hall, M. and Marlon Roman. 2013. Bycatch and non-tuna catch in the tropical tuna purse seine fisheries
of the world. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 568. Rome, FAO. 249 pp.

Hampton, J., Sibert, J.R., Kleiber, P., Maunder, M.N. and Harley, S.J. 2005. Fisheries: Decline of Pacific
tuna populations exaggerated? Nature 434:E1-E2.

Harley, S.; Rice, J., & Williams, P. (2013). Spatial and temporal distribution

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 455 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

of whale sharks in the western and central pacific ocean based on

observer data and other data sources. WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-01.

Heckel, G., Murphy, K.E. and Compeán Jiménez, G.A. 2000. Evasive behavior of spotted and spinner
dolphins (Stenella attenuata and S. longirostris) during fishing for yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)
in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Fish. Bull 98:692-703.

Hinke, J.T., I. Kaplan, K. Aydin, G.A. Watters, R.J. Olson, and J.F.K.Kitchell. 2004. Visualizing the Food-
Web Effects of Fishing for Tunas in the Pacific Ocean. Ecology and Society 9(1).

Hinton, M.G., Maunder, M., Vogel, N., Olson, R., Lennert, C., Aires-da-Silva, A. and Hall, M. (2014). Stock
status indicators for fisheries of the eastern Pacific Ocean. IACCT-SAC Document SAD-05-11c.

Hoyos-Padilla, M., Ceballos-Vázquez, B.P. and Galván-Magaña, F. (2012) Reproductive biology of the
silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis (Chondrichthyes: Carcharhinidae) off the west coast of Baja
California Sur, Mexico. Aqua, International Journal of Ichthyology 18, 15–24

Hyder, Patrick; Bigelow, Keith; Brainard, Russell; Seki, Michael; Firing, June; Flament, Pierre. "Migration
and Abundance of Bigeye Tuna (Thunnus obesus), and Other Pelagic Species, Inferred from Catch
Rates and Their Relation to Variations in the Ocean Environment" (PDF). Retrieved February 3, 2020.

IATTC 2003. Convention for the strengthening of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
established by the 1949 convention between the United States of America and the Republic of Costa
Rica (“Antigua Convention”).

IATTC 2007. Conservation Recommendations. IATTC 75th meeting. Document IATTC-75-07b REV.
Cancun, Mexico.

IATTC 2012. Updated scientific report of the on the status of dolphin stocks in the eastern Pacific Ocean.
IATTC letter to the USA Secretary of Commerce.

IATTC 2011. Minutes of the IATTC 82nd meeting. La Jolla, CA USA, 4-8 July 2011. 149 pp.

IATTC 2014. Minutes of the IATTC 87th meeting. Lima, Peru. 14-18 July 2014. 94 pp

IATTC 2014b. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Fishery Status Report No. 12, Tunas and
Billfishes in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2013, La Jolla, California, 2014.

IATTC 2015. Tunas, Billfishes and Other Pelagic Species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean In 2014. 89th
Meeting of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Document IATTC-89-04a. 29 June-3 July
2015, Guayaquil, Ecuador. 136p.

IATTC. 2018. Tunas, billfishes, and other pelagic species in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2017. 93rd Meeting
of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Document IATTC-93-01, 24 and 27-30 August 2018.
117 pp.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 456 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

IATTC 2019. Report on the tuna fishery, stocks, and ecosystem in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2018. 94th
Meeting of the IATTC, Bilbao, Spain 22-26 July 2019. Document IATTC-94-01.
https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2019/IATTC-94/Docs/_English/IATTC-94-
01_The%20tuna%20fishery%20stocks,%20and%20ecosystem%20in%20the%20Eastern%20Pacific%2
0Ocean%20in%202018.pdf

IATTC. 2019b. The tuna fishery in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2018. 10th Meeting of the Scientific
Advisory Committee. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Document SAC-10-03, 13-17 May
2019. 52 pp.

IATTC. 2019c. Staff activities and research plan. 10th Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee.
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, Document SAC-10-01a, 13-17 May 2019. 110 pp.

IATTC 2020. Stock status indicators (SSIs) for tropical tunas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. IATTC SAC-11.
Virtual. Document SAC-11-05. http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2020/SAC-
11/Docs/_English/SAC-11-
05_Stock%20status%20indicators%20(SSIs)%20for%20tropical%20tunas%20in%20the%20EPO.pdf

IATTC 2020b. Staff recommendations for management and data collection, 2020. IATTC SAC-11. Virtual.
Document SAC-11-15. http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2020/SAC-11/Docs/_English/SAC-
11-15_Staff%20recommendations%20to%20the%20Commission.pdf

IATTC 2020c. Report on the Tuna Fishery, Stocks, And Ecosystem in the Eastern
Pacific Ocean In 2019. 95th Meeting of the IATTC, Video Conference. 30 November – 04 December
2020. Document IATTC-95-05. 149p.

IATTC-COR, 2010. Document COR-01-06, Compliance with IATTC Resolutions in 2010, IATTC Committee
for the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission, 1st Meeting, 2010.
IATTC-COR, 2012. Compliance with IATTC Resolutions in 2012, IATTC Committee for the Review of
Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission, 3rd Meeting, 2012.
IATTC-COR, 2013. Compliance with IATTC Resolutions in 2013, IATTC Committee for the Review of
Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission, 4th Meeting, 2013.
IATTC-COR, 2014. Compliance with IATTC Resolutions in 2014, IATTC Committee for the Review of
Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission, 5th Meeting, 2014.
IATTC-COR, 2017. Document COR-08-03, Compliance with IATTC Resolutions in 2017, IATTC Committee
for the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission, 8th Meeting, 2017.
IATTC, 2018. Document COR-09-01, Compliance with IATTC Resolutions in 2017, IATTC Committee for
the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission, 9th Meeting, August 21-
22, 2018.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 457 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

IATTC-COR, 2020. Document COR-12-01, Compliance with IATTC Resolutions in 2020, IATTC Committee
for the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission, 12th Meeting, 2020.
(Summary only).

ISC 2017. Report of the seventeenth meeting of the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and
Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean. http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC17/ISC17_Report_Final.pdf

ISC 2019. Report of the nineteenth meeting of the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-
like Species in the North Pacific Ocean. http://isc.fra.go.jp/reports/isc/isc19_reports.html

ISC Pacific Tuna Working Group 2014. Stock assessment of bluefin tuna in the Pacific Ocean in 2014.
http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/2014_Intercessional/Annex4_Pacific_Bluefin_Assmt_Report_2014-June1-
Final-Posting.pdf
ISC Pacific Tuna Working Group 2018. Report of the Pacific Bluefin Tuna Working Group Intercessional
workshop. ISC/18/ANNEX/09.
http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC18/ISC_18_ANNEX_09_Report_of_the_Pacific_Bluefin_Working_Group_
Workshop_(March_2018)_FINAL.pdf

Kitchell, J. F., C. H. Boggs, X. He, and C. J. Walters. 1999. Keystone predators in the central Pacific. Pages
665-704 in Alaska Sea Grant. Ecosystem approaches for fisheries management. University of Alaska,
Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Lawson, T. 2011. Estimation of Catch Rates and Catches of Key Shark Species in Tuna Fisheries of the
Western and Central Pacific Ocean using Observer Data. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-IP-02 (available at
http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/eb-ip-02/estimation-catch-rates-key-shark- species-tuna-fisheries-
western-and-central-pacific-oce ).

Lehodey, P., Chai, F., & Hampton, J. (2003). Modeling climate-related variability of tuna populations
from a coupled ocean-biogeochemical-populations dynamics model. Fisheries Oceanography, 12(4):
483-494.

Lehodey P, Senina I, Murtugudde R (2008) A spatial ecosystem and populations dynamics model
(SEAPODYM)—modelling of tuna and tuna-like populations. Prog Oceanogr 78:304–318

Lehodey, P., Bertignac, M., Hampton, J., Lewis, T., Picaut, J., 1997. El Niño Southern
Oscillation and Tuna in the western Pacific. Nature 389, 715–718.

Lehodey P., Senina I., Calmettes B, Hampton J, Nicol S. (2013). Modelling the impact of climate change
on Pacific skipjack tuna population and fisheries. Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-012-0595-1,
119 (1): 95-109

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 458 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Leroy, B, J. S. Phillips, S. Nicol, G. M. Pilling, S. Harley , D. Bromhead, S. Hoyle, S. Caillot, V. Allain, and J.
Hampton. 2013. A critique of the ecosystem impacts of drifting and anchored FADs use by purse-
seine tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Aquat. Living Resour. 26, 49–61.

Lopez, J., Moreno, G., Boyra, G., & Dagorn, L. (2016). A model based on data from
echosounder buoys to estimate biomass of fish species associated with fish aggregating
devices. Fishery Bulletin, 114(2), 166-179.

Martell S.J.D., P. de Bruyn, N.M. Davies and B. Ernst. 2013. Recommendations of the Review Panel on
the IATTC assessment of yellowfin tuna. IATTC Special Report 20. La Jolla, California. 13 pp.

Maufroy, A., Chassot, E., Joo, R., and Kaplan, D.M. (2015). Large-Scale Examination of Spatio-Temporal
Patterns of Drifting Fish Aggregating Devices (dFADs) from Tropical Tuna Fisheries of the Indian and
Atlantic Oceans. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0128023.

Maunder, M.N. 2002. Status of skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2001 and outlook for 2002.
IATTC Stock Assessment Report 3. 66 pp.

Maunder, M.N. 2012a. Status of skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2011. Inter-American
Tropical Tuna Commission Stock Assessment Report 13.

Maunder, M.N. 2012b. A length-structured meta-population stock assessment model: application to

skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. IATTC SAC-03-INF A, 24pp.
(https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2012/May/_English/SAC-03-INF-A-Length-based-
metapopulation-stock-assessment-model-DRAFT.pdf)

Maunder, M.N. 2014. Updated indicators of stock status for skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean.
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Stock Assessment Report 13.

Maunder, M. 2019. Updated indicators of stock status for skipjack tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
IATTC SAC-10. San Diego, California (USA), 113-17 May 2019. Document SAC-10-09.
https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2019/SAC-10/Docs/_English/SAC-10-
09_Skipjack%20tuna%20indicators%20of%20stock%20status.pdf

Maunder, M.N. and A. Aires-da-Silva. 2009. Status of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2007
and outlook for the future. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Stock Assessment Report.

Maunder, M.N. and Deriso, R.B. 2007. Using indicators of stock status when traditional reference points
are not available: evaluation and application to skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean.
InterAmer. Trop. Tuna Comm., Stock Assessment Report, 8: 229-248.

Maunder, M.N., and Deriso, R.B. 2013. Reference points and harvest rate control rules. IATTC SAC-04-
09. http://iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/MaySAC/Pdfs/SAC-04-09-Reference-points-andharvest-
control-rules.pdf

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 459 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Maunder M.N. and R.B. Deriso. 2014. Proposal for biomass and fishing mortality limit reference points
based on reduction in recruitment. IATTC Scientific Advisory Committee, Fifth meeting. Document
SAC-05-14. La Jolla, California. 11 pp.

Maunder, M.N. and R.B. Deriso. 2015. Application of harvest control rules for tropical tunas in the
eastern Pacific Ocean. Unpublished manuscript, personal communication. (Appendix 11)

Maunder, M.N., Deriso, R.B. 2016. Application of harvest control rules for tropical tunas in the eastern
Pacific Ocean. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. Scientific Advisory Committee. Seventh
Meeting. La Jolla, California (USA), 09-13 May 2016. Document SAC-07-07g.
https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2016/SAC-07/PDFs/presentations/_English/SAC-07-07g-
PRES_Reference-points-and-harvest-control-rule.pdf

Maunder, M.N. and Harley, S.J. 2005. Status of skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2003 and
outlook for 2004. Inter-Amer. Trop. Tuna Comm., Stock Assessment Report, 5: 109-167.

Maunder, M.N. and Hoyle, S.D. 2007. A novel method to estimate relative abundance from purse-seine
catch-per-set data using known abundance of another species. Inter-Amer. Trop. Tuna Comm., Stock
Assessment Report, 7: 283-297.

Maunder M.N. and G.M. Watters. 2001. Status of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission. Stock Assessment Report 1.

Maunder, M.N. and G.M. Watters G.M. 2003. A-SCALA: an age-structured statistical catch-at-length
analysis for assessing tuna stocks in the eastern Pacific Ocean, Inter-American Tropical Tuna
Commission Bulletin, 2003, vol. 22 (pg. 433-582).

Maunder, M. N., J. Zhu, and A. Aires-da-Silva. 2015. Preliminary management strategy evaluation to
evaluate the IATTC interim reference points and proposed harvest control rule. IATTC Document
SAC-06-10b. http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2015/6SAC/PDFs/SAC-06-10b-
PreliminaryMSE.pdf

Maunder, M.N., H. Xu, C. Minte-Vera, and A. Aires-da-Silva. 2018. Investigation of the substantial change
in the estimated F multiplier for bigeye tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. IATTC 9th meeting of the
Scientific Advisory Committee. Document SAC-09 INF-B. La Jolla, California. 15 pp.

Minte-Vera, C.V., A. Aires-da-Silva and M.N. Maunder. 2015. Status of yellowfin tuna in the Eastern
Pacific Ocean in 2014 and outlook for the future. IATTC 6th meeting of the Scientific Advisory
Committee. Document SAC-06-06. La Jolla, California.

Minte-Vera, C.V., M.N. Maunder and A. Aires-da-Silva. 2018. Status of yellowfin tuna in the Eastern
Pacific Ocean in 2017 and outlook for the future. IATTC 9th meeting of the Scientific Advisory
Committee. Document SAC-09-06. La Jolla, California.

Minte-Vera, C.V., Xu, H., Maunder, M.N. 2019a. Status of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in
2018 and outlook for the future. IATTC. SAC-10, San Diego, California (USA), 13-17 May 2019.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 460 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2019/SAC-10/10th-Meeting-Scientific-Advisory-
CommitteeENG.htm.

Minte-Vera, C., Mark N. Maunder, Haikun Xu, Juan L. Valero, Cleridy E. Lennert-Cody, and Alexan-dre
Aires-da-Silva. 2020. Yellowfin tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, 2019:
benchmark assessment. IATTC SAC-11, Virtual. http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2020/SAC-
11/Docs/_English/SAC-11-07_Yellowfin%20tuna%20benchmark%20assessment%202019.pdf

Molony, B. 2008. Fisheries biology and ecology of highly migratory species that commonly interact
with industrialised longline and purse-seine fisheries in the western and central Pacific
Ocean. Fourth Scientific Committee Meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries
Commission, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 11-22 August 2008.

Moreno, G., Orue, B. and Restrepo, V. 2017b. Pilot project to test biodegradable ropes at FADs in real
fishing conditions in Western Indian Ocean. IOTC-2017-WPTT19-51.

Moreno, G., Jauhary, R., Shiham, M.A. and Restrepo, V. 2017a. Moving away from synthetic materials
used at FADs: evaluating biodegradable ropes' degradation. IOTC-2017-WPEB13-INF12.

Neubauer, Philipp; Yvan Richard; Shelley Clarke (2018). Risk to the IndoPacific Ocean whale shark
population from interactions with Pacific Ocean purse-seine fisheries, 52 pages. Report prepared for
the WCPFC.

NOAA Fisheries. 2021. Hawksbill Turtles. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/hawksbill-turtle#.

(accessed November 25. 2021)

Olive Ridley Project. 2021. How Many Sea Turtles Are Left? https://oliveridleyproject.org/ufaqs/how-
many-sea-turtles-are-left (accessed November 25, 2021).

Oliver, Chris, and Neil Jacobs. 2020. Report To Congress: 2018 Shark Finning Report.
https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2020-10/20-070439%20-
%202018%20Report_Shark_Finning%20_508.pdf?VersionId=null

Olson, Robert J. and Watters, George M. (2003) A model of the pelagic ecossystem in the eastern
tropical Pacific Ocean. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Bulletin, 22(3), pp. 135-218.

Ortega-Garcia and Jakes-Cota 2019 (https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2019/SAC-

10/INF/_English/SAC-10-INF-J_Pacific%20bonito.pd

Perry, C. T., Figueiredo, J., Vaudo, J. J., Hancock, J., Rees, R., and Shivji, M. (2018). Comparing length-
measurement methods and estimating growth parameters of free-swimming whale sharks
(Rhincodon typus) near the South Ari Atoll, Maldives. Mar. Freshw. Res. 69, 1487–1495.

Phillips JS, Pilling GM, Leroy B, Evans K, Usu T, Lam CH, et al. (2017) Revisiting the vulnerability of
juvenile bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and yellowfin (T. albacares) tuna caught by purse-seine fisheries

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 461 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

while associating with surface waters and floating objects. PLoS ONE 12 (6): e0179045.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0179045

Punt, A., (Chair), Steve Cadrin, Dan Fu, Kai Lorenzen, Richard Methot, Kevin Piner, and John Walter.
2019. 2nd Review of the stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. IATTC , La
Jolla, California (USA), 11-15 March 2019. http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2019/BET-
02/Docs/_English/BET-02-
RPT_External%20review%20of%20IATTC%20staff%E2%80%99s%20stock%20assessment%20of%20b
igeye%20tuna%20in%20the%20eastern%20Pacific%20Ocean.pdf

Rice, J. & Harley, S. 2012a. Stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in the Western and Central
Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-06 (available at http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/SA-WP-
06/Stock-Assessment- Oceanic-Whitetip-Sharks-Western-and-Central-Pacific-Ocean )

Rice, J. and S. Harley 2013.Updated stock assessment of silky sharks in the western and central Pacific
Ocean. WCPFC-SC9-2013/ SA-WP-03. https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SA-WP-03-Silky-Shark-
SA.pdf.

Rosero, J., and O. Rosero. 2020. Plan de Acción Nacional para la Conservación y el Manejo de Tiburones
de Ecuador, Subsecretaría de Recursos Pesqueros – World Wildlife Fund. 2020

Schaefer, K.M. 1998. Reproductive biology of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the eastern Pacific
Ocean. IATTC Bull. 21(5):205- 273.

Schaefer, K.M. 2001. Reproductive biology of tunas. Pp. 225-270. In: B.A. Block and E.D. Stevens. Tuna:
Physiology, Ecology and Evolution. Academic Press. London.

Schaefer, Kurt M.; Fuller, Daniel W.; Miyabe, Naozumi. 2005. "Reproductive Biology of Bigeye
Tuna(Thunnus Obesus) in the Eastern and Central Pacific Ocean" . Bulletin 23 (1). La Jolla, California:
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission: 7–8.

Schaefer, K.M. 2009. Stock structure of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tunas in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Stock Assessment Report 9:203-221.

Schaefer K.M., Fuller D.W., Block B.A. 2009. Vertical Movements and Habitat Utilization of Skipjack
(Katsuwonus pelamis), Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares), and Bigeye (Thunnus obesus) Tunas in the
Equatorial Eastern Pacific Ocean, Ascertained Through Archival Tag Data. In: Nielsen J.L.,
Arrizabalaga H., Fragoso N., Hobday A., Lutcavage M., Sibert J. (eds) Tagging and Tracking of Marine
Animals with Electronic Devices. Reviews: Methods and Technologies in Fish Biology and Fisheries,
vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht
Schaefer, Kurt M. 2010. "Vertical movements, behavior, and habitat of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in
the equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean, ascertained from archival tag data". Marine Biology. 157 (12):
2625–2642.

Schaefer, K., D. Fuller, J. Hampton, S. Caillot, B. Leroy, and D. Itano. 2015. Fisheries
Research. Movements, dispersion, and mixing of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) tagged and released

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 462 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

in the equatorial Central Pacific Ocean, with conventional and archival tags. Fisheries Research 161:
336–355.

Seminoff, Jeffrey A., C.D. Allen, G.H. Balazs, P.H. Dutton, T. Eguchi, H. Haas, S.A. Hargrove, M. Jensen,
D.L. Klemm, A.M. Lauritsen, S.L. MacPherson, P. Opay, E.E. Possardt, S. Pultz, E.E. Seney, K.S. Van
Houtan, R. S. Waples. 2015. Status review of the green turtle (Chelonia mydas) under the
Engangered Species Act. NOAA technical memorandum NMFS;NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC ; 539;
https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/4922

Sibert, John R. 2003. Horizontal movements of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) near Hawaii determined by
Kalman filter analysis of archival tagging data. Fisheries Oceanography. 12 (3): 141–151.

Sibert, J., John Hampton, Pierre Kleiber, Mark Maunder. 2006. Biomass, Size, and Trophic Status of Top
Predators in the Pacific Ocean. Science 15 Dec 2006: Vol. 314, Issue 5806, pp. 1773-1776

Sibert, J.R., Harley, S.J., Ianelli, J.N., Punt, A.E. 2012. External review of IATTC bigeye tuna assessment.
IATTC Special Report 19.

Sivadas, M., Abdussamad, E. M., Jasmine, S., Rohit, P., Koya, K. P., Ghosh, S., ... & Bineesh, K. K. (2012).
Assessment of the fishery and stock of striped bonito, Sarda orientalis (Temminck and Schlegel,
1844) along Kerala coast with a general description of its fishery from Indian coast. Indian Journal of
Fisheries, 59(2), 57-61

SWOT. 2017. The State of the World’s Sea Turtles: The Conservation Status of Loggerhead Populations
Worldwide. SWOT report Vol. 12, Feb. 1, 2017. https://www.seaturtlestatus.org/articles/2017/the-
conservation-status-of-loggerhead-populations-worldwide.

Tanaka, S. 2006. Tanaka, S. 2006, Maturation of bluefin tuna in the Sea of Japan. (ISC/06-
1/PBFTWG1/09), 7pp

TUNACONs 2018.

Tseng, M-C, and P. Smith. 2012. Lack of genetic differentiation observed in Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus
orientalis) from Taiwanese and New Zealand waters using mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers.
Marine and Freshwater Research 63(3). DOI: 10.1071/MF11126

Valero, Juan L., Mark. N. Maunder, Haikun Xu, Carolina Minte-Vera, Cleridy Lennert-Cody and Alexandre
Aires-da-Silva. 2019. Spatial stock assessment model options for BET in the EPO and beyond. IATTC
2nd Review of the stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Document WSBET-
02-09. La Jolla, California. 16 pp. https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2018/SAC-
09/PDFs/Docs/_English/SAC-09-08-EN_Exploratory-spatially-structured-assessment-model-for-
bigeye-tuna.pdf

Weeks, S.J., C. Steinberg, and B.C. Congdon. 2013. Oceanography and seabird foraging: Within-season
impacts of increasing sea-surface temperature on the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Ecology Progress
Series 490:247-254.

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 463 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

Wild, A. and J. Hampton, 1994. A review of the biology and fisheries for skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus
pelamis, in the Pacific Ocean. p. 1-51. In R.S. Shomura, J. Majkowski and S. Langi (eds.), Interactions
of Pacific tuna fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 336(2):439 p.

Xu, Haikun, Carolina Minte-Vera, Mark N. Maunder and A. Aires-da-Silva. 2018. Status of bigeye tuna in
the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2017 and outlook for the future. IATTC 9th meeting of the Scientific
Advisory Committee. Document SAC-09-05. La Jolla, California. 12 pp.

Xu, Haikun, Mark N. Maunder, Cleridy E. Lennert-Cody and Marlon H. Román. 2019. Stock status
indicators for bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. IATTC 10th meeting of the Scientific Advisory
Committee. Document SAC-10-06. La Jolla, California.

Xu, H., Mark N. Maunder, Carolina Minte-Vera, Juan L. Valero, Cleridy Lennert-Cody, and Alexandre
Aires-da-Silva. 2020. Bigeye tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, 2019: benchmark assessment. IATTC
SAC-11. Virtual. Document SAC-11-06. http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2020/SAC-
11/Docs/_English/SAC-11-06_Bigeye%20tuna%20benchmark%20assessment%202019.pdf
Zhu, J.F., Chen, Y., Dai, X.J., Harley, S.J., Hoyle, S.D., Maunder, M.N., Aires-da-Silva, A. 2012. Implications
of uncertainty in the spawner-recruitment relationship for fisheries management: an illustration
using bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Research: 119– 120: 89–
93.

Zudaire, I., Santiago, J., Grande, M., Murua, H., Adam, P-A., Nogués, P, Collier, T., Morgan, M., Khan, N.,
Baguette, F., Moron, J., Moniz, I., Herrera, M. (2018). FAD Watch: a collaborative initiative to
minimize the impact of FADs in coastal ecosystems. IOTC-2018-WPEB14-12.

P3 References
Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama 2017. Action Plan for Sustainable Fisheries
https://arap.gob.pa/avances-plan-de-accion-pesca-sostenible-en-panama/
Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama 2009. National Action Plan to prevent, discourage and eliminate
Illegal Undeclared and Unregulated Fishing (INDNR).
Aquatic Resources Authority of Panama. Laws and Administrative Resolutions
https://arap.gob.pa/legislacion/
European Commission 2019. Questions and Answers – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing
and issues at stake in Ecuador
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/sl/QANDA_19_6037
European Commission 2019. Questions and Answers – Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing
and issues at stake in Panama
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/QANDA_19_6756
Ewell, C., Hocevar, J., Mitchell, E., Snowden, S., & Jacquet, J. (2020). An evaluation of Regional Fisheries
Management Organization at-sea compliance monitoring and observer programs. Marine
Policy, 115, 103842

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 464 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

IATTC 1990. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Rules of Procedure

IATTC 2003. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Convention for the Strengthening of the Inter-
American Tropical Tuna Commission Established by The 1949 Convention Between The United
States of America and the Republic of Costa Rica (“Antigua Convention”). June 2003
IATTC, 2018. Document COR-09-01, Compliance with IATTC Resolutions in 2017, IATTC Committee for
the Review of Implementation of Measures Adopted by the Commission, 9th Meeting, August 21-
22, 2018.
IATTC 2019 Compendium of active resolutions and recommendations (in force, January 2019).
https://www.iattc.org/PDFFiles/Resolutions/IATTC/Compendium-of-active-resolutions-and-
recommendations.pdf
FAO 2018 National Aquaculture Sector Overview: Panama
http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_panama/en
FAO 2018 National Aquaculture Sector Overview: Ecuador
http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_ecuador/en
McCluney, J. K., Anderson, C. M., & Anderson, J. L. 2019. The fishery performance indicators for global
tuna fisheries. Nature communications, 10(1), 1641.
Medley, PAH, J. Gascoigne and G. Scarcella. 2021. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna
Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 8). ISSF Technical Report 2021-01.
International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA
Ministry of Production, Exterior, Investment and Fisheries (Ecuador) 2017. Report of the Ecuadorian
Tuna Sector. http://www.produccion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Reporte-del-sector-
atunero-ingles.pdf
Ministry of Production, Exterior, Investment and Fisheries (Ecuador) 2019. National Tuna Action Plan.
Moss-Adams 2016. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and Agreement on the International
Dolphin Conservation Program: Performance Review June 20, 2016. http://www.tuna-
org.org/Documents/IATTC-AIDCP-Performance-Review-Final-ReportENG.pdf
NOAA Fisheries 2021. Report to Congress: Improving International Fisheries Management September
2021. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/identification-iuu-fishing-
activities#findings-and-analyses-of-foreign-iuu-fishing-activities
NOAA Fisheries 2019. Report to Congress: Improving International Fisheries Management September
2019. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/identification-iuu-fishing-
activities#findings-and-analyses-of-foreign-iuu-fishing-activities
NOAA Fisheries 2017. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/magnuson-stevens-fishery-conservation-and-
management-act.
NOAA Fisheries 2015. Report to Congress: Improving International Fisheries Management February
2015. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/foreign/international-affairs/identification-iuu-fishing-
activities#findings-and-analyses-of-foreign-iuu-fishing-activities

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 465 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

NOAA Fisheries n.d. IATTC Vessel Register Compliance Guide.

https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/wcr/publications/fisheries/migratory_species/iattc-rvr-
compliance-guide.pdf
NOAA Fisheries n.d. The Compliance Guide Fishing Restrictions for Tropical Tuna in the Eastern Pacific
Ocean for 2021 and FAD Construction Requirements. https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-
02/508_ComplicanceGuide_FADs-tropicaltuna2021.pdf?null
OECD 2019. Digital Government Review of Panama : Enhancing the Digital Transformation of the Public
Sector, OECD Publishing, Paris Political Data Base of the Americas, Republic of Ecuador:
Constitution of 2008 http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/english08.html
UNCLOS 1999. Signatory to the migratory stocks agreement – 1999
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (1982)
United Nations Fisheries Agreement (UNFA) 1995

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 466 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery

 SCS Global Services Report

9 Template information and copyright

This document was drafted using the ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.1’.

The Marine Stewardship Council’s ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.1’ and its content is copyright of
“Marine Stewardship Council” - © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2019. All rights reserved.

Template version control

Version Date of publication Description of amendment

1.0 17 December 2018 Date of first release

1.1 29 March 2019 Minor document changes for usability

A controlled document list of MSC program documents is available on the MSC website
(msc.org)

Senior Policy Manager

Marine Stewardship Council
Marine House
1 Snow Hill
London EC1A 2DH
United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900

Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901
Email: [email protected]

Version 5-2 (October 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 467 of 473

Eastern Pacific Ocean tropical tuna - purse seine (TUNACONS) fishery