Contents · Web viewPI 3.1.1 requires organized and effective cooperation with other parties to deliver management outcomes consistent with Principles 1 and 2. For Indonesia AWs this

Indonesian Skipjack and Yellowfin Pole and Line and Handline Fisheries: West Central Pacific and Indian OceanFishery location: Indonesian EEZ

Report author: Dr A Hough

Report author association: Hough Associates Ltd

Report author address: [email protected]

Client name: AP2HI / IPNLF

Client contact person: Jeremy Crawford

Client address: Jeremy Crawford [email protected]; Abdul Muis Sulaiman [email protected] Date: 28 June 2018

Version: 3.1

Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.1 page 1Date of issue: 9 October 2017 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

mailto:[email protected]



ContentsContents...................................................................................................................................2

Glossary...................................................................................................................................31. Executive summary...........................................................................................................5

2. Introduction.......................................................................................................................62.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment..............................................................................6

2.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery...................................................72.3 Unit(s) of Assessment............................................................................................7

2.4 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data........................................................93. Description of the fishery................................................................................................10

3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme......................................103.2 Overview of the fishery.........................................................................................10

3.3 Principle One: Target Stock Background.............................................................123.4. Principle Two: Ecosystem background....................................................................13

3.5 Principle Three: Management system background..............................................144 Evaluation Procedure......................................................................................................15

4.5 Assessment methodologies used........................................................................154.6 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment......................15

4.7 Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment.......................................154.8 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries...............................15

5 Traceability (issues relevant to Chain of Custody certification)......................................165.5 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further Chains of Custody..........................16

6 Preliminary evaluation of the fishery...............................................................................166.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree.........................................................16

6.1.1 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF)...................166.2 Summary of likely PI scoring levels......................................................................18

Table 6.3 Scoring sheet..................................................................................................18References.............................................................................................................................38


Glossary

AP2HIAsosiasi Pole and Line Dan handline Indonesia

Association of Pole-and-Line and Handline Indonesia

ASTUIN Asosiasi Tuna Indonesia Indonesian Tuna AssociationATLI Asosiasi Tuna Longline Indonesia Indonesian Tuna Longline AssociationBBRSE Balai Besar Riset Sosial dan Ekonomi Research Agency on Social and EconomyBRPL Balai Riset Penelitian Laut Marine Research Agency

BPSDM KPBadan Pengembangan Sumberdaya Manusia Kelautan dan Perikanan

Marine and Fisheries Human Resources Development Agency

DKP Departemen Kelautan dan PerikananFisheries Offices at Provincial and District Level

DG Directorate General

FKPPSForum Komunikasi Pengelolaan dan Pemanfaatan Sumberdaya Ikan

Forum on Fishery Resources Utilization Management

KAPI Kapal dan Alat Penangkap Ikan Vessel and Fishing GearKEMLU Kementerian Luar Negeri Ministry of Foreign AffairsKKJI Konservasi Kawasan dan Jenis Ikan Fish and Area ConservationKKP Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan Ministry of Marine Affairs and FisheriesKOMNAS KAJISKAN

Komisi Nasional Pengkajian Sumberdaya Ikan National Committee on Fish Stock Assessment

KTI Komisi Tuna Indonesia Indonesian Tuna CommissionMDPI Masyarakat Dan Perikanan Indonesia Community and FisheriesPDN Pemasaran Dalam Negeri Domestic MarketingPLN Pemasaran Luar Negeri Foreign Marketing

PSDKPPengawasan Sumberdaya Kelautan dan Perikanan Surveillance of Marine and Fishery Resources

P4KSDI Pusriskan – Pusat Riset PerikananResearch Centre for Fishery Management and Conservation of Fishery Resources

POKMASWAS Kelompok Masyarakat Pengawas Community Surveillance GroupPUP Pelayanan Usaha Perikanan Fishing Services

PUSKITAPusat Analisis Kerjasama Internasional dan Antar Lembaga

Centre for Analysis on International Cooperation and Inter Institution

SDI Sumberdaya Ikan Fishery Resources

SEACOMthe Directorate General for Sea Transport at the Ministry of Transport

Setkab Sekretariat Kabinet Cabinet Secretary

WPP Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan Fishery Management Areas

Fisheries Management and monitoringBMT Benchmark Monitoring ToolCAB Conformity Assessment Body

CCSBTCommission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna

CCM Cooperating Commission MemberCLS Collecte Localisation Satellites SACMM Conservation and Management MeasureEAFM Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management


EEZ Exclusive Economic ZoneETP Endangered, Threatened and ProtectedFIP Fishery Improvement ProjectFMA Fisheries Management AreaIOTC Indian Ocean Tuna CommissionITQ Individual Transferable QuotasMSC Marine Stewardship CouncilMoU Memorandum of UnderstandingMoV Means of VerificationNPOA National Plan of ActionNTMP National Tuna Management PlanPIRFO Pacific Islands Regional Fisheries ObserverPRI Point of Recruitment ImpairmentPSA Productivity Sensitivity AnalysisRBF Risk Based Framework

RCMFCResearch Centre for Marine Fisheries Conservation

RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation

SEAPODYMSpatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model

SICA Scale Intensity Consequence AnalysisSC Scientific CommitteeSPC South Pacific CommissionTCC Technical Conservation CommitteeTAC Total Allowable CatchTURF Territorial User Rights in FisheriesUNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks AgreementVDS Vessels Days SchemeUNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks AgreementVMS Vessel Monitoring SchemeUoC Unit of CertificationWCPFC Western Central Pacific Fisheries CommissionWCPO Western Central Pacific Ocean

WPEAWestern Pacific East Asian Oceanic Fisheries Management


1. Executive summaryThis Pre Assessment was carried out in May 2018 by Andrew Hough on behalf of AP2HI and IPNLF. This represents an update of previous pre-assessments and Fishery Improvement Plans conducted for various agencies in Indonesia including WWF (2012), AP2HI/IPLNF and MDPI (2013). This pre-assessment builds upon this previous body of work and includes a) the latest stock assessment updates and harmonised outcomes b) harmonisation considerations with other UoAs in the West and Central Pacific (WCP) and Indian Ocean (IO) and c) preliminary analysis of the main assessment for the PtCA SKJ and YFT fisheries in Sorong, Indonesia. This pre-assessment also takes into account measures taken to date to prepare individual UoAs to enter assessment.

This pre-assessment uses MSC CR v2.0.

Andrew Hough has been active in the development of Marine Stewardship Council certification since 1997. He was a founding Director of Moody Marine, led the establishment of Moody Marine fishery certification systems and has represented Moody Marine at all MSC workshops until 2011. He has also worked with MSC on several specific development projects, including those concerned with the certification of small scale/data deficient fisheries. He has been Lead Assessor (and often also expert team member) on many fishery assessments to date. This has included Groundfish (e.g. cod, haddock, pollock, hoki, hake, flatfish), Pelagics (e.g. tuna species, herring, mackerel, sprat, krill, sardine) and shellfish (molluscs and crustacea); included evaluation of the environmental effects of all main gear types and considered many fishery administrations including the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Pacific, Southern Ocean and in Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, Japan, China, Vietnam and Pacific Islands. He has recently acted solely as an expert team member of Principle 2 inputs of European inshore fisheries and Toothfish fisheries. He is a member of the MSC Peer Review College. Other assessments include Chain of Custody assessments for merchants, processors, distributors and retailers. Andrew has also been involved in the development of certification schemes for individual vessels (Responsible Fishing Scheme), has undertaken RFM assessments in Alaska and evaluation of the Marine Aquarium Council standards for trade in ornamental aquarium marine species. Consultancy services have included policy advice to the Association of Sustainable Fisheries, particularly with regard to the implications of MSC standard development, and assistance to fisheries preparing for, or engaged in, MSC assessment.

The UoAs evaluated are set out below, these involve: Eastern Indonesia WCP Skipjack Pole and Line Eastern Indonesia WCP Yellowfin Pole and Line Eastern Indonesia WCP Yellowfin Handline Western Indonesian IO Skipjack Pole and Line Western Indonesian IO Yellowfin Pole and Line Western Indonesian IO Yellowfin Handline

Within these general categories, 21 specific fisheries have been identified as being suitably prepared to take part in a first tranche of MSC assessments.

The key issues identified in the Pre-Assessment are as follows:

Principle 1: For both species, the stock status evaluated under P1 is a stock-wide issue and so

must be harmonised with other UoAs targeting the same WCP and IO stocks.


o For WCP Skipjack (SKJ), this means an overall pass for P1 with two conditions.

o For WCP Yellowfin (YFT), this also means an overall pass for P1 with two conditions.

o Both conditions relate to development within WCPFC of Harvest Strategies and Harvest Control Rules and Tools. These conditions are harmonised with other WCP UoAs.

o For IO SKJ, this means an unconditional P1 pass.o For IO YFT, this means a fail on P1 as the stock has recently been below its

biomass target level and effective harvest controls are not in place. Aspects of management evaluated with respect to Indonesian Archipelagic Waters

are addressed through WCPFC requirements relating to compatibility of management in archipelagic waters with WCPFC CMMs. Similar requirements are also expected for IOTC requirements. So harvest strategies/control rules established in Indonesian waters must be compatible with those established by WCPFC and IOTC. This is further developed in PI 3.1.1.

Principle 2: A key requirement for each UoA will be specific, verifiable, data on:

o Catch species composition and weight of each species for individual trips;o Bait usage, species and weight per species for same trips;o Bagan or bait fishing locations (including P&L boke ami lift-nets);o Verifiable data on sightings and any interactions with ETP species;o The numbers and locations of FADs used by UoA vessels and habitat (or

depth as a proxy) information; In future stages, as assessments move towards WPP or Indonesian AW-level

assessments or involve cumulative impact evaluations of any main (considerable catches) baitfish species, there will be a requirement for stock identification, assessment and management for main baitfish. This should include quantification of other sources of mortality (e.g. for human-consumption fisheries).

Principle 3: PI 3.1.1 requires organized and effective cooperation with other parties to deliver

management outcomes consistent with Principles 1 and 2. For Indonesia AWs this is particularly important as there is no Harvest Strategy nor well-defined and measurable HCR yet in place for SKJ nor YFT. MMAF are currently in the process of delivering these, and these should a) be timely and b) take specific account of MSC requirements. Delivery should also include data provision to WCPFC and IOTC in line with relevant CMM requirements.

To meet PI 3.2.1 requirements, the development of a Harvest Strategy should specifically include well-defined and measurable objectives for the fisheries.

2. Introduction

2.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment

AP2HI and IPNLF plan to progress MSC assessments of Indonesian pole and line (P&L) and Handline (HL) fisheries targeting skipjack tuna and yellowfin tuna from West and Central Pacific and Indian Ocean stocks. In the first instance, discrete Units of Assessment will be entered into assessment throughout Indonesian Management Areas (WPP).


This pre-assessment is therefore to evaluate likely success, and obstacles to certification, for individual UoAs. Eventually, entire Management Areas will be evaluated and so some potential issues are identified for incorporation into the fishery improvement Action Plan.

2.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery

The precise nature of each UoA initially proposed for assessment may vary. It is possible, for example, that there may be local examples of non-compliance or differences in treatment of bait fisheries. The structure of the action plan, however, should help to identify and address and such local issues.

2.3 Unit(s) of Assessment

The following are essentially ‘high-level’ UoA definitions. Within each, specific local UoAs will be developed, so there could be multiple separate UoAs within each high-level UoA, although each would be expected to perform similarly.

UoA 1: WCP Skipjack tuna – P&L FisheriesSpecies: Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)Stock: West and Central Pacific (WCP) Skipjack tunaGeographical area: West Pacific Ocean in Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ) of IndonesiaHarvest method: Pole & lineManagement: Indonesian National and Provincial

ManagementRegional: WCPFC

Client group: The extent of each UoA will be determined as these are identified for assessment. Vessels associated with each UoA will also be identified at this time.

Other eligible fishers: Other vessels which could join the UoA will also be identified at the point of UoA determination.

UoA 2: WCP Yellowfin tuna – P&L FisheriesSpecies: Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares)Stock: West and Central Pacific (WCP) Skipjack tunaGeographical area: West Pacific Ocean in Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ) of IndonesiaHarvest method: Pole & lineManagement: Indonesian National and Provincial




UoA 3: WCP Yellowfin tuna – Handline Fisheries

Species: Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares)


Stock: West and Central Pacific (WCP) Skipjack tuna

Geographical area: West Pacific Ocean in Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Indonesia

Harvest method: HandlineManagement: Indonesian National and Provincial




UoA 4: IO Skipjack tuna – P&L FisheriesSpecies: Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)Stock: Indian Ocean (IO) Skipjack tunaGeographical area: Indian Ocean in Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

of IndonesiaHarvest method: Pole & lineManagement: Indonesian National and Provincial

ManagementRegional: IOTC



UoA 5: IO Yellowfin tuna – P&L FisheriesSpecies: Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares)Stock: Indian Ocean (IO) Skipjack tunaGeographical area: Indian Ocean in Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

of IndonesiaHarvest method: Pole & lineManagement: Indonesian National and Provincial




UoA 6: IO Yellowfin tuna – Handline Fisheries

Species: Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares)Stock: Indian Ocean (IO) Skipjack tunaGeographical area: Indian Ocean in Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

of IndonesiaDocument: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.1 page 8Date of issue: 9 October 2017 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Harvest method: HandlineManagement: Indonesian National and Provincial




Within these high-level UoA categories, 27 separate and specific UoAs are identified as being sufficiently prepared to take part in a first tranche of MSC assessments.

Unit of Assessment Species/ gear FMA

Maluku SKJ PL 714, 715Maluku YFT PL 714, 715Maluku YFT HL 714, 715Banda YFT HL 714North Sulawesi & North Maluku SKJ PL 715, 716North Sulawesi & North Maluku YFT PL 715, 716North Sulawesi & North Maluku YFT HL 715, 716West Papua SKJ PL 715, 717West Papua YFT PL 715, 717West Papua YFT HL 715, 717West Flores SKJ PL 573, 713West Flores YFT PL 573, 713West Flores YFT HL 573, 713West Nusa Tenggara SKJ HL 573,713West Nusa Tenggara YFT HL 573, 713Southeast Sulawesi YFT HL 714South Sulawesi YFT HL 713Southeast Sulawesi SKJ PL 714Southeast Sulawesi YFT PL 714East Flores SKJ PL 573, 714East Flores YFT PL 573, 714East Flores YFT HL 573, 714Southeast Java YFT HL 573Kupang SKJ PL 573Kupang YFT PL 573Kupang SKJ HL 573Kupang YFT HL 573


2.4 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

No TAC is available for either WCP or IO as these are not TAC-based fisheries.

3. Description of the fishery3.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme

The fishery is not enhanced, nor is it based on an introduced species.

The UoAs comprise pole and line and handline vessels fishing mostly around anchored Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs). The MSC defines modified habitats as habitats modified in order to increase production or favour desirable species. FADs are included in the MSC list of examples of modified habitats. The MSC also defines enhanced fisheries as any activity aimed at, inter alia, raising total or elemental production, including, potentially, by habitat modification. Enhanced fisheries are subject to an alternative assessment tree and it is necessary, therefore, to consider whether any fishery using FADs constitutes an enhanced fishery.

Many tuna fisheries use anchored or drifting FADs. To date, large scale tuna fisheries using purse seines in the WCPFC and Indian Ocean have not been regarded as enhanced fisheries and have been assessed using the default tree, even though many thousands of FADs are involved. The Maldives pole and line fishery uses 50 anchored FADs for some of its activity. That fishery has also not been considered as an enhanced fishery.

In these UoAs FADs are used to attract target species for a period of time and to increase catch rates. They are an efficiency-enhancing device but are not expected to increase total production of the stock. In line with the other FAD-using tuna fisheries certified as meeting the MSC standard, the UoA is not treated as being an enhanced fishery. The default assessment tree, FCR v2.0, is therefore used.

3.2 Overview of the fishery

Indonesian vessels in the UoA target YFT and SJT in the Indonesian management areas. Statistics are reported to the WCPFC and IO and are used for both skipjack and yellowfin tuna stock assessments. Indonesia identifies itself as an Archipelagic State. The WCPFC and IOTC have jurisdiction in the EEZ and international waters, but not over designated AW.


WCPO and EPO area definitions, and WCPFC area of competence (Source: Williams and Terawasi, 2015)

Indonesian management areas span both the West Pacific and Indian Ocean. For each proposed UoA it will be necessary to confirm the status of the WPP concerned in relation to either the WCPFC or IOTC. This is particularly important for YFT as the status of stocks in the WCP and IO are significantly different

Fishing is concentrated on anchored FADs; fishing may also occur on free schools or schools associated with naturally occurring FADs.


WPP (Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan) Fishing Areas.

3.3 Principle One: Target Stock Background

West and Central Pacific

The most recent, final report and determination that includes skipjack and yellowfin tuna is the PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin, unassociated/non FAD set, tuna purse seine fishery, available at: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/pna-western-and-central-pacific-skipjack-and-yellowfin-unassociated-non-fad-set-tuna-purse-seine/@@assessments. The PNA final report and determination is used as a basis for harmonisation of Principle 1.

In considering the assessment and recruitment, and for consistency with all other WCPO tuna certification assessments, it is assumed that both skipjack and yellowfin stocks are single metapopulations, effectively unitary stocks to be treated and scored at Principle 1 as single stocks. Management must ensure the whole metapopulation (i.e. stock) is above the Point of Recruitment Impairment (PRI) to ensure recruitment is sustained.

Stock assessments are undertaken by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), as science provider to the WCPFC. The WCPFC Scientific Committee (SC) conducts assessments annually, with priorities reflecting current concerns with status of stocks or uncertainty in the assessments.

Indian Ocean

Skipjack tuna in the Indian Ocean has recently been certified for the Maldives pole and line fishery https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/maldives-pole-line-tuna/@@assessments. An assessment has also recently been undertaken for the Echebastar purse-seine fishery, but this is in an objection process at the time of writing https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/echebastar-indian-ocean-purse-seine-skipjack-tuna/


https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/echebastar-indian-ocean-purse-seine-skipjack-tuna/@@assessments

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/maldives-pole-line-tuna/@@assessments

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/pna-western-and-central-pacific-skipjack-and-yellowfin-unassociated-non-fad-set-tuna-purse-seine/@@assessments



@@assessments. The Maldivian fishery has been certified without any P1 conditions; the same harmonised recommendation has been made for Echebastar.

Yellowfin Pole and line fishing was certified in the Maldives until the publication of the fourth surveillance report of the previous certification (February 2017). At this point, a decline in stock status to below its target reference point Bmsy led to a fundamental rescoring of the stock. Although stock status and rebuilding plans met SG60 requirements, CR V2.0 SA2.5.2(a) and 2.5.3 (b) only allows the use of ‘available’ HCRs at SG60 if the stock has not been reduced below the Bmsy level. As HCRs are not in place, and the stock is estimated to be below Bmsy and to have been so for a significant time, this requirement was considered to be not met at SG60 and so the fishery was suspended. As demonstrable implementation of HCRs and rebuilding could not be demonstrated in the short-term, the YFT certificate was withdrawn in December 2017.

The Indian Ocean stocks of both species (also considered as single metapopulations) are therefore to be harmonised with these outcomes.

3.4. Principle Two: Ecosystem background

MSC splits non-target species in to two categories: i) primary species, and ii) secondary species. Species which are endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) are considered separately. Primary species are those for which there are management tools controlling exploitation as well as known reference points in place. Secondary species are those which are neither primary nor ETP.

The UoA pole and line fishery targets skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares); handline fisheries target yellowfin – all are highly selective. In addition to the target species, catches also include bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and other species such as bonito (Sarda spp.), dolphin fish (Coryphaena hippurus), frigate tuna, other neritic tuna species and rainbow runner. Of these, BET (and depending on the UoA either SKJ or YFT), and potentially KAwakawa in the Indian Ocean will be primary (i.e. managed according to reference points), the other species will be secondary.

Pole and line operations use bait bought from separate bagan (bait station) operations which are not part of the UoA, but the bait species caught are considered for certification purposes. It is also possible that vessels will also use lift-nets (boke ami) to catch bait during fishing trips. Handline vessels tend to catch their own bait. All relevant bait fishing locations would need to be determined, for each UoA, for Risk-Based Assessment analyses. Dominant bait species would include various species of anchovy, sardine, sprat and Indian mackerel, with typically a few species dominating volumes caught. All bait species will be secondary.

Available evidence (from other P&L assessments, and at sea observations) indicate limited interactions with ETP species which are unlikely to be significant and which would not hinder recovery of ETP species. Any interactions are most likely to occur with large handline vessels.

Monitoring, combined with knowledge from ecosystem models, provides sufficient information to identify the need and support the development of ecosystem management strategies for UoAs. It is noted, however, that information on the effects of anchored FADs on the distribution and migration of tunas cannot readily be obtained. NPOA Tuna (2014) considers tuna management by WPP, but there is no explicit strategy and plan for managing the impacts of tuna fishing on the ecosystem. However, the persistent low catches of target, primary, secondary, and ETP species, low or negligible habitat impact, and highly unlikely impact on trophic structure are such that no formal strategy may be required in practice.


https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/echebastar-indian-ocean-purse-seine-skipjack-tuna/@@assessments

3.5 Principle Three: Management system background

The key components of governance and fishery management framework are the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), the Indonesian Government Provincial and District level management.

In the WCP, the WCPFC sets conservation and management measures and policies for the WCPFC Convention Area, excluding archipelagic waters. In the IO, the IOTC carries out the same function. The Indonesian Government is responsible for ensuring management measures applied within Indonesia’s EEZ including archipelagic waters are compatible with those of the WCPFC.

MMAF is responsible for the licensing and overall national policy. Vessel operations are controlled by the Fishery Surveillance Office (PSDKP) Jakarta by monitoring the VMS for all vessels. All incoming fish are reported to Regional Fishery Surveillance Offices. The local/provincial government is the managing body for pole-and-line fishing activities within the 12nm zone. This includes bait-fishing bagans.

The National Tuna Management Plan sets the management framework, stock status/baseline and strategic management objectives and time-bound milestones for the different types of tuna fisheries (per WPP area) for Indonesia. This has several strategic objectives as part of the general management targets.


4 Evaluation Procedure4.5 Assessment methodologies used

This pre-assessment used MSC Template v2.1The version of MSC standard and assessment methodology is CR v2.0.

4.6 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment

Several fishery Improvement Plans have been developed for Indonesian fisheries. A coordinated FIP review meeting was held in Jakarta on 29 November 2017, attended by representatives of, among others, AP2HI, IPNLF, MMAF and WWF. The consultant was present in Jakarta 27-30 November, meeting with MMAF, AP2HI etc, and also attended this FIP review meeting. Information on the P&L and HL fisheries was provided during, and subsequent to, this site visit.

4.7 Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment

Stakeholders would include: AP2HI company members MDPI SFP/LINI WWF MMAF IPNLF CSIRO WPEA WCPFC IOTC

4.8 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries

Overlapping fisheries

WCPFishery Gear Geographical area Assessment statusPtCA Sorong Indonesia SKJ and YFT P&L FisheryWPSTA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin free school purse seine

P&L

Surrounding Nets - With purse lines (purse seines)

Western Central Pacific

Eastern Central Pacific Western Central Pacific

In assessment

In assessment

Solomon Islands skipjack and yellowfin tuna purse seine and pole and line

Hooks And Lines - Handlines and pole-lines

Western Central Pacific Certified

Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna


Eastern Central Pacific Western Central pacific

Certified

PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin, unassociated / non FAD set, tuna purse seine



Fiji Albacore and Yellowfin Tuna longline

Hooks And Lines - Longlines



SZLC CSFC & FZLC FSM EEZ Longline Yellowfin and Bigeye Tuna


Western Central Pacific In assessment

French Polynesia albacore and yellowfin longline fishery


Western Central Pacific In assessment

WPSTA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin free school purse seine



In assessment

SZLC, CSFC & FZLC Cook Islands EEZ South Pacific albacore & yellowfin longline



Certified

Talley’s New Zealand Skipjack Tuna Purse Seine


Southwest Pacific (FAO Area 81)

Certified

Indian Ocean

Maldives P&L SKJ Pole and line Indian Ocean CertifiedMaldives P&L YFTEchebastar IO Purse-seine SKJ

Pole and linePurse-seine

Indian OceanIndian Ocean

WithdrawnIn Assessment

There are ongoing communication processes between the affected CABs and Assessment Teams. CABs and Teams involved with these Indonesian assessments would need to join these processes.

5 Traceability (issues relevant to Chain of Custody certification)

5.5 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further Chains of Custody

Traceability is not expected to be a significant issue, but this would need to be evaluated separately for each UoA proceeding to assessment.

6 Preliminary evaluation of the fishery6.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree

The default CR v2.0 assessment tree is to be used.

6.1.1 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF)

The only main bycatch (Primary or Secondary) species are expected to be the dominant bait species (PI 2.2.1 – secondary species). Productivity and susceptibility characteristics of these species will be very similar.

A typical Productivity/Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) outcome is presented below for an anchovy species (anchovy is a typical P&L bait species; similar results have been obtained for HL bait species such as purple flying back squid, shorthead anchovy and buccaneer anchovy). The same or similar is anticipated for other similar bait species.

Productivity Scores [1-3] Susceptibility Scores Cumulative only


[1-3]A

vera

ge a

ge a

t mat

urity

Ave

rage

max

age

Fecu

ndity

Ave

rage

max

siz

eA

vera

ge s

ize

at M

atur

ityR

epro

duct

ive

stra

tegy

Trop

hic

leve

lD

ensi

ty D

epen

danc

e

Tota

l Pro

duct

ivity

(ave

rage

)

Ava

ilabi

lity

Enc

ount

erab

ility

Sel

ectiv

ity

Pos

t-cap

ture

mor

talit

y

Tota

l (m

ultip

licat

ive)

PS

A S

core

Cat

ch (t

ons)

Wei

ghtin

gW

eigh

ted

Tota

lW

eigh

ted

PS

A S

core

MSC

PSA

-der

ived

sco

re

Ris

k C

ateg

ory

Nam

e

MS

C s

corin

g gu

idep

ost

1 1 2 1 1 1 31,43 1 3 3 3 1,65

2,18

92

Low

≥80


6.2 Summary of likely PI scoring levels

Table 6.3 Scoring sheet

Principle 1 WCP Skipjack Tuna

Principle 1 applies at a stock-wide level for WCP stocks of SKJ and YFT. Scoring here will be harmonised with other UoAs targeting the same stock. For reference, scoring is harmonised with PNA, one of the latest assessments to be completed. It is also noted that harmonised scores have been produced through an MSC-mediated harmonisation workshop involving most CABs and P1 Assessors.

Principle Component PI Performance Indicator

RBF required?

(y/n)

Likely scoring

levelRationale/ Key points

1 SKJ

Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status N Pass(≥80)

Ten-year projections using the proposed reference case model and assuming future status quo catches at 2015 levels were performed for the 2016 stock assessment. In 2025, median SB/SBF=0 was estimated to be 0.49, and there was zero risk of the stock falling below the limit reference point (McKechnie et al. 2016).In 2015, CMM 2015-06 was adopted at the WCPFC, setting the TRP for skipjack tuna at an (initial) value of 50%SBF=0, subject to review no later than 2019. The stock assessment estimates spawning biomass to be close to this level.

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding N/A

Management

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy

Cond60-79

In line with harmonisation requirements, scoring issue 1.2.1a is scored as having met SG60 requirements but not SG80. The rationale for this score can be found in PNA fishery reports on the MSC website. These rationales are largely based on the lack of a clear linkage between potential catch and allocated effort.

1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools

Cond60-79

CMM 2014-06 established a process for the adoption of harvest control rules, however, well-defined harvest control rules are not currently in place and SG80 is not met. The current stock assessment and



RBF required?

(y/n)

Likely scoring


projections of future stock size indicate that the stock will remain above SSBMSY over the period agreed in the CMM 2014-06 workplan. The CRv2.0 SA2.5.2 a and SA2.5.3b requirements are met and a score of SG60 is expected.

1.2.3 Information and monitoring

Pass(≥80)

Information is available on key aspects of skipjack tuna biology and extensive tagging provides information on stock structure. The tagging data and size composition sampling are key inputs to the MULTIFAN-CL model which provides for estimation of reference points against which stock status can be evaluated and management advice provided. Data on environmental conditions is collected and is known to be important for understanding shifts in the distribution of the stock and the fishery.Other removals from the stock across the WCPO include catches by other WCPFC members, again predominantly by purse seine but also by other fishing gears. Catches by members are required to be reported to the WCPFC.

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status

Pass(≥80)

The skipjack tuna assessment is appropriate for the WCPO stock, accounting for spatial and temporal distributions, using appropriate biological assumptions, and accounting for diverse fisheries. The assessment is appropriate for the generally understood harvest control rules that are being applied and for the range of formal HCRs that are likely to be adopted

Number of PIs less than 60 0

Principle 1 WCP Yellowfin Tuna


RBF required?

(y/n)

Likely scoring level

Rationale/ Key points

1 YFT Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status N Pass From the 2017 stock assessment (Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2017) the



RBF required?

(y/n)



(≥80)

estimated “recent” (2013-2015) spawning biomass (SBrecent) was 34% of the unfished level (SBF=0), and the spawning stock associated with achieving MSY(SBMSY) was 25% of the unfished level. The WCPFC SC (WCPFC, 2017) consider it highly likely that the spawning biomass is above 20%SBF=0 LRP. The overall yellowfin stock has been declining but is still well above SBMSY.


Management


Cond60-79

To date, the measures in place have achieved stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 and assessment projections indicate they will continue to do so, meeting SG60 requirements. However, there has been a lack of progress in the development of management measures for some components of the overall fishery for yellowfin. The elements of the harvest strategy are not considered to be working together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80, hence SG80 requirements for this scoring issue are not met.


Cond60-79

CMM 2014-06 established a process for the adoption of harvest control rules, however, well-defined harvest control rules are not currently in place and SG80 is not met. The current stock assessment and projections of future stock size indicate that the stock will remain above SSBMSY over the period agreed in the CMM 2014-06 workplan. The CRv2.0 SA2.5.2 a and SA2.5.3b requirements are met and a score of SG60 is expected.


Pass(≥80)

The information and monitoring system that is in place for skipjack tuna catches is also applicable to yellowfin tuna. Stock abundance and removals are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage that is sufficient to support the harvest control measures in place. Estimates of stock abundance are obtained through the MULTIFAN-CL stock assessment. Abundance indices monitored include catch-per-unit effort (CPUE) for purse seine and longline fisheries. WCPFC has systems in place for recording catch and effort for all vessels catching WCPO



RBF required?

(y/n)



yellowfin tuna. There are issues of non-provision of operational catch and effort by several Commission members for the longline fishery. The SPC has enumerated the impacts of these operational level data gaps. As a result, there is not a high degree of certainty about all the information required, with operational level data not provided for some parts of the fishery. UoA removals are monitored through logbooks and inspection processes and SG60 and SG80 are met.


Pass(≥80)

The MULTIFAN-CL stock assessment 2017 model is an age and spatially structured model, utilising biological information, catch, effort, size composition, CPUE and tagging data and fits the data of 32 (33 in 2014) fisheries to nine regions (with slightly modified boundaries cf 2014) in quarterly time steps from 1952-2012. The assessment is undertaken by an experienced and internationally recognised stock assessment program at the SPC, the WCPFC science provider. The assessment is used to generate advice to management based on stock and exploitation reference points.


For Indonesian waters, harvest strategy development is a continuing process set up under the NPOA Tuna (2014) and started in November 2014. To date there have been multiple meetings per year, all with the aim of new harvest strategy development and improvement, with an aim on new strategy adoption in 2020. There are also issues of reporting catches within Indonesian waters to WCPFC. These issues relate to aspects of international cooperation rather than stock-wide management (of SKJ and YFT) and so are considered under PI 3.1.1.

To Summarise P1 situation:1. The stock status evaluated under P1 is a stock-wide issue and so must be harmonised with other UoAs targeting the same WCP

stocks2. Aspects of management evaluated with respect to Indonesian Archipelagic Waters are addressed through WCPFC requirements

relating to compatibility of management in archipelagic waters with WCPFC CMMs. So harvest strategies/control rules established in Indonesian waters must be compatible with those established by WCPFC.



Principle 1 Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna

Principle 1 applies at a stock-wide level for Indian Ocean stocks of SKJ and YFT. Scoring here will be harmonised with other UoAs targeting the same stock. For reference, scoring is harmonised with Maldives and Echebastar MSC assessments (noting that Echebastar is in an objection process at the time of writing).


RBF required?

(y/n)

Likely scoring


1 SKJ

Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status N Pass(≥80)

All analyses, as reflected in the Kobe II Strategy Matrix, suggest that with catches less than MSY since 2013, under all model variants examined, the probability of SB2016 being below SBlim is zero and so the stock is estimated to be above the PRI with a high degree of certainty. Also, the probability of SB2016 being below SBmsy is zero. The SC noted that “Current spawning biomass is considered tobe above the interim target reference point of SBMSY”.


Management


Pass(≥80)

IOTC Res 16/02 establishes a harvest control rule (HCR) for skipjack; this specifies when an overall catch limit will be set (to be managed using existing effort management measures), and when catch allocations should be set. This HS has been tested to the extent of data-assessment-HCR through MSE, and experience to date is that it has maintained skipjack at a high level, above Bmsy and well above any PRI - evidence that it is achieving its objectives. The performance of the HS is monitored and periodically reviewed. Shark finning and unwanted catches are not an issue for these fisheries.


Pass(≥80)

Resolution 16/02 on HCRs (IOTC, 2016) lays out an explicit and well-defined HCRs such that fishing intensity is reduced linearly from a maximum (when at or above 0.4B0, the specified TRP) to zero at 0.1B0.The HCR specifies LRP and TRP, how fishing intensity should be varied depending on status, the frequency of stock assessments and required outputs, how the IOTC SC should advise the Commission in order to implement the HCR, and conditions for review of the HCR (if needed). The main uncertainties have been taken in to account and the resulting



RBF required?

(y/n)

Likely scoring


HCR includes a range of additional rules to ensure robustness to uncertainty. F has been less than Fmsy over a relatively long history of reasonably constant fishing mortality and biomass, with IOTC measures related to effort control; this evidence indicates that the tools in use are effective at controlling the exploitation rate.


Pass(≥80)

Stock productivity and fleet composition are well understood, and the assessment takes account of both. The information available is considered sufficient to support the HS. Stock abundance and total removals are monitored regularly and with sufficient coverage andaccuracy to support the assessment estimates. While there are known problems with some of the artisanal fishery reporting, which may include the UoA (UoA removals are monitored through logbooks and inspection processes) the quality of information available is considered sufficiently good for stock assessment purposes.


Pass(≥80)

For the HCR adopted through IOTC Res 16/02, the key assessment output required is SBcurrent/SB0. The stock assessment provides aprobabilistic estimate of this metric and is appropriate for the HCR. All reference points are of standard form as used in multiple fisheries jurisdictions, including tuna RFMOs, and are appropriate to the skipjack stock, taking account of its productivity and resilience. Major sources of uncertainty are identified and taken into account.


Principle 1 Indian Ocean Yellowfin Tuna


RBF required?

(y/n)



1 YFT Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status N Cond60-79

The yellowfin stock status is estimated by the IOTC to be above the point of recruitment impairment (PRI taken as 20%B0 or 0.2 SB0).



RBF required?

(y/n)



However, it is below SBmsy with an estimate of SB2015/SBmsy = 0.89 (0.79-0.99), and to have been below SBmsy for 6 of the last 8 years. The 2015 Working Party on Tropical Tunas, and IOTC SC, concluded that on the weight of evidence available, the yellowfin stock is both overfished and subject to overfishing, this remains the case.

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding

Cond60-79

IOTC Res 16/01 addresses rebuilding of the YFT stock to above SBmsy. However, it is interim with an expectation of revision in 2019 following further stock assessment work. Nevertheless, the plan includes catch reductions which, if implemented, should lead to stock rebuilding to SBMSY and fishing mortality below FMSY. The timeframe is unclear and exact probabilities of rebuild are not known. However, this timeframe is of the order of 2 generation times (taking the average age of reproductive individuals as representative of generation time). Monitoring of stock status is in place.

Management


Cond60-79

The harvest strategy framework is set up to be responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy (reference points and management framework, information collection and assessment to estimate stock status relative to TRP and LRP) work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. The recovery plan for yellowfin (IOTC Resolution 16/01) has the objective of rebuilding the stock to B>Bmsy with 50% probability by 2024; this may be considered likely to work, but there is not yet evidence that it is achieving its objectives. Shark finning and unwanted catches are not an issue for these fisheries.


Fail <60

CR V2.0 SA2.5.2(a) and 2.5.3 (b) allows the use of ‘available’ HCRs at SG60 if the stock has not been reduced below the Bmsy level. As HCRs are not in place, and the stock is estimated to be below Bmsy and to have been so for a significant time, this requirement is not met at SG60.


Pass(≥80)

Stock productivity and fleet composition are well understood, and the assessment takes account of both. The information available is considered sufficient to support the rebuilding plan. Stock abundance and total removals are monitored regularly and with sufficient coverage and



RBF required?

(y/n)



accuracy to support the assessment estimates. While there are known problems with some of the artisanal fishery reporting, which may include the UoA (UoA removals are monitored through logbooks and inspection processes) the quality of information available is considered sufficiently good for stock assessment purposes.


Pass(≥80)

For the rebuilding plan adopted through IOTC Res 16/01, the key assessment output required is SBcurrent/SB0. The stock assessment provides a probabilistic estimate of this metric and is appropriate for the HCR. All reference points are of standard form as used in multiple fisheries jurisdictions, including tuna RFMOs, and are appropriate to the skipjack stock, taking account of its productivity and resilience. Major sources of uncertainty are identified and taken into account.


For Indonesian waters, harvest strategy development is a continuing process set up under the NPOA Tuna (2014) and started in November 2014. To date there have been multiple meetings per year, all with the aim of new harvest strategy development and improvement, with an aim on new strategy adoption in 2020. There are also issues of reporting catches within Indonesian waters to WCPFC. These issues relate to aspects of international cooperation rather than stock-wide management (of SKJ and YFT) and so are considered under PI 3.1.1.

The stock status evaluated under P1 is a stock-wide issue and so must be harmonised with other UoAs targeting the same IO stocks


Principle 2 Pole and Line SKJ and YFT: WCP and IO

2

Primary Species

2.1.1 Outcome N Pass(≥80)

The only primary species is expected to be bigeye tuna (BET) and possibly marlin (and SKJ and YFT in respective UoAs). As primary species are by definition managed according to reference points, the RBF would not be used.YFT and SKJ tuna are both fluctuating around MSYThe next most common primary species bycatch will be BET. Initial interrogation of WCPFC statistics for Indonesia suggest BET is around 2-4% of total P&L SKJ/YFT/BET catches, consistent with data from individual UoAs. The same is expected for the Indian OceanBET (and any other primary species caught, which could include kawakawa in the Indian Ocean) would therefore not be Main species. In the absence of any main species, the score would be at least 80.

2.1.2 Management Pass(≥80)

There is no strategy affecting primary species catch in P&L vessels, but the highly selective operation of the fishery represents an effective partial strategy that keeps bycatches <5%.For P1, Primary and Secondary species, there would not be any unwanted catches – all catches would be utilised.

2.1.3 Information Pass(≥80)

Landing data are expected to be available at any UoA level from at-sea and portside observers and/or factories showing the percentages of tuna primary species (SKJ, YFT and BET) in the landings.

Secondary speciesUoA Specific

2.2.1 Outcome Y Pass(≥80)

The only secondary species which would qualify as ‘main’ will be the most significant bait species. There are expected to be a few bait species which dominate catches, separated geographically or temporally or both; these will be species of anchovy, sprat, sardine. Initial UoAs entering assessment are expected to be small and discrete, and targeting what would be separate self-sustaining populations (within a wider metapopulation). The species concerned are all small, short-lived and highly fecund – i.e. high productivity. RBF assessments of these would separately identify low risk situations.

Depending on the configuration of initial UoAs entering assessment, cumulative impacts are possible (i.e. separate UoAs targeting the same stock with this comprising 10% or more of the total catch). In this case, a


score of 60-79 is possible, depending on the availability of information.


P&L vessels will buy bait from separately operated bagans (stationary fishing stations providing fish for bait or human consumption). Bagans are separately managed and must be positioned according to government requirements. P&L vessels may also use boke ami lift nets to capture additional bait.It is unlikely that UoAs (singly) will comprise >30% of total catches from a stock, and so could hinder recovery. This would need to be demonstrated for any main species, however (see 2.2.3 below). No shark-finning is expected on P&L vessels

2.2.3 Information Cond60-79

In order to confirm the scoring for 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, information would be required for each UoA on the landings of tuna and other species (by weight) per trip, the species composition of bait, the approximate amount of bait used per trip locations of all bagans visited and locations of any bait fishing by the vessels. Experience to date suggests that P&L vessels operating in the same location will show very similar trends in catches and bait use. Direct observer data is identified as the most effective means of collecting data. Given the consistency of data, relatively low levels of observer coverage should suffice. Wherever possible, relative estimates or information on other sources of fishing mortality on bait species should also be collected

Secondary SpeciesIndonesia AW General 2.2.1 Outcome Y N/A

In the longer-term, it is expected that significant UoAs will be assessed within each Management Area (WPP). At this point, and assuming sufficient information on bait species composition, bagan numbers and locations, it should be possible to carry out a wider RBF assessment, probably by management area. Given the area available and species productivity a score of above 60 and above 80 is possible but this cannot be determined at present.

2.2.2 Management N/A

Depending on the outcome of information gathering (2.2.3 below) and outcome evaluation (2.2.1 above), specific management measures for main baitfish species may be required. It is not yet possible to determine this.

2.2.3 Information N/A At a time that Management Area-wide assessments are carried out of P&L fisheries, it will be necessary to assemble significant information to allow the status of the stock and/or the effect of MSC UoAs (in relation to


total impacts) to be evaluated, and any requirements for bait species management to be identified, implemented and evaluated. Information requirements are determined in the FIP action plan.

ETP species


Interactions between P&L vessels and ETP species can be taken as being effectively negligible. Addressing 2.3.3 will strengthen scoring.

2.3.2 Management Cond60-79

Protection of ETP species and highly selective operation of P&L fishing vessels will suffice to score 80 or more.Depending on whether there are catches of ETP species (and this may be more an issue for large HL vessels) there should be a biennial review of measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species.


Sufficient information will be available from other P&L fisheries and anecdotally for Indonesian UoAs to justify the scoring above. To score 80+ for this PI, however, specific quantitative information on interactions (including nil interactions) will be required. This can be undertaken by observers in combination with 2.2.3.

Habitats

2.4.1 Outcome Pass(≥80)

Two issues are to be considered: the effects of P&L operations on seabed habitats (which will be zero) and the effects of deploying anchored FADs on habitat. Given the very small FAD footprint, it is considered to be highly unlikely that the anchored FADs would reduce structure and function of commonly encountered habitats to the point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.


The operational characteristics of the P&L fishery would mean that SG80 at least would be met. FADs are not yet licensed, although controls on FAD numbers are understood to be variable (with legislative reviews currently underway) – this is not, however, expected to lead to serious habitat-related effects.


The number and location of FADs associated with a UoA will need to be determined and some estimation made of the area affected (in m2) and the types of habitats present.

Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome Pass(≥80)

For initial UoAs, no major impacts have been identified in relation to retained species, bycatch, ETP species and habitat. Key ecosystem effects will therefore result from:

the removals of skipjack and yellowfin tuna within AW possible entrainment of tuna and other species in dense fields of

anchored FADsDocument: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.1 page 29Date of issue: 9 October 2017 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

Given the scale of impacts associated with individual UoAs, none of these are expected to give rise to serious or irreversible harm. This may require use of the RBF (SICA) assessment.

This will, however, require further investigation for future MSC assessments at Management Area-wide scales, where many more FADs are to be considered, including possible localised depletion of tunas and impacts of anchored FADs.


For initial UoAs, the management measures described in relation to each ecosystem component would be expected to be sufficient.

Additional management of tuna populations, baitfish populations and potentially FADs, may be required for future Management Area-wide assessments.


The key interactions will be the potential for localised depletion of key species (tunas and main baitfish species) and effects of FAD fields. The impact of these will depend on the scale of the UoA but would meet SG60 and potentially SG80.

Number of PIs less than 60: Initial tranche of UoAs: 0Long-Term Management Area-wide UoA: N/A

Principle 2 Handline SKJ and YFT: WCP and IO

2 Primary Species


The only primary species is expected to be bigeye tuna (BET) and possibly marlin (and SKJ and YFT in respective UoAs). As primary species are by definition managed according to reference points, the RBF would not be used.YFT and SKJ are fluctuating around MSYThe next most common primary species bycatch will be BET. Initial interrogation of WCPFC statistics for Indonesia suggest BET is around 3-4% of total HL SKJ/YFT/BET catches.BET (and any other primary species caught) would therefore not be Main species. In the absence of any main species, the score would be at least 80.



There is no strategy affecting primary species catch in HL vessels, but the highly selective operation of the fishery represents an effective partial strategy that keeps bycatches <5%.For P1, Primary and Secondary species, there would not be any unwanted catches – all catches would be utilised.

2.1.3 Information Pass(≥80)

Landing data are expected to be available at any UoA level from at-sea and portside observers and/or factories showing the percentages of tuna primary species (SKJ, YFT and BET) in the landings.

Secondary speciesUoA Specific


The only secondary species which would qualify as ‘main’ will be the most significant bait species. There are expected to be a few bait species which dominate catches, separated geographically or temporally or both; these will be species such as purple flying back squid, shorthead anchovy and buccaneer anchovy. Initial UoAs entering assessment are expected to be small and discrete, and targeting what would be separate self-sustaining populations (within a wider metapopulation). The species concerned are all small, short-lived and highly fecund – i.e. high productivity. RBF assessments of these would separately identify low risk situations.

Depending on the configuration of initial UoAs entering assessment, cumulative impacts are possible (i.e. separate UoAs targeting the same stock with this comprising 10% or more of the total catch). In this case, a score of 60-79 is possible, depending on the availability of information.


HL vessels will catch bait before each fishing operationIt is unlikely that UoAs (singly) will comprise >30% of total catches from a stock, and so could hinder recovery. This would need to be demonstrated for any main species, however (see 2.2.3 below). No shark-finning is expected on HL vessels (shark may occasionally be caught on large HL vessels in particular but would be landed whole).


In order to confirm the scoring for 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, information would be required for each UoA on the landings of tuna and other species per trip, the species composition of bait and the approximate amount of bait used per trip. Direct observer data is identified as the most effective means of collecting data for larger HL vessels; for smaller HL vessels, information would come from video and/or interview data. Relatively low levels of


observer coverage should suffice. Wherever possible, relative estimates or information on other sources of fishing mortality on bait species should also be collected

Secondary speciesAW / MA

2.2.1 Outcome N/A

In the longer-term, it is expected that significant UoAs will be assessed within each Management Area (WPP). At this point, and assuming sufficient information on bait species composition, catches and baitfishing operations, it should be possible to carry out a wider RBF assessment, probably by management area. Given the area available and species productivity a score of above 60 and above 80 is possible but this cannot be determined at present.

2.2.2 Management N/A

Depending on the outcome of information gathering (2.2.3 below) and outcome evaluation (2.2.1 above), specific management measures for main baitfish species may be required. It is not yet possible to determine this.

2.2.3 Information N/A

At a time that Management Area-wide assessments are carried out of HL fisheries, it will be necessary to assemble significant information to allow the status of the stock and/or the effect of MSC UoAs (in relation to total impacts) to be evaluated, and any requirements for bait species management to be identified, implemented and evaluated. Information requirements are determined in the FIP action plan.

ETP species


Interactions between HL vessels and ETP species are possible, especially for larger HL vessels. However, as most populations have very wide distributions and effects of UoAs will be low, effects of UoAs are not expected to hinder recovery of ETP species. Addressing PI 2.3.2 and 2.3.3 will strengthen scoring.

2.3.2 Management Cond60-79

Protection of ETP species and selective operation of HL fishing vessels would suffice to score 80 or more for management.However, depending on whether there are catches of ETP species (and this may be a particular issue for large HL vessels) there should be a biennial review of measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species.


Sufficient information will be available from other HL fisheries and anecdotally for Indonesian UoAs to justify the scoring above. To score 80+ for this PI, however, specific quantitative information on interactions (including nil interactions) will be required. This can be undertaken by


observers in combination with 2.2.3 (and for small HL vessels by video or interview/data collection forms).

Habitats


Two issues are to be considered: the effects of HL operations on seabed habitats (which will be zero) and the effects of deploying anchored FADs on habitat. Given the very small FAD footprint, it is considered to be highly unlikely that the anchored FADs would reduce structure and function of commonly encountered habitats, if any, to the point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.


The operational characteristics of the HL fishery would mean that SG80 at least would be met. FADs are not yet licensed, although controls on FAD numbers are understood to be variable (with legislative reviews currently underway) – this is not, however, expected to lead to serious habitat-related effects. and so this is expected to provide sufficient information and control to meet SG80.


The number and location of FADs associated with a UoA will need to be determined and some estimation made of the area affected (in m2) and the types of habitats present.

Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome Pass(≥80)

For initial UoAs, no major impacts have been identified in relation to retained species, bycatch, ETP species and habitat. Key ecosystem effects will therefore result from:

the removals of skipjack and yellowfin tuna within AW possible entrainment of tuna and other species in dense fields of

anchored FADsGiven the scale of impacts associated with individual UoAs, none of these are expected to give rise to serious or irreversible harm. This may require use of the RBF (SICA) assessment.

This will, however, require further investigation for future MSC assessments at Management Area-wide scales, where many more FADs are to be considered, including possible localised depletion of tunas and impacts of anchored FADs.


For initial UoAs, the management measures described in relation to each ecosystem component would be expected to be sufficient.

Additional management of tuna populations, baitfish populations and Document: MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.1 page 33Date of issue: 9 October 2017 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2014

potentially FADs, may be required for future Management Area-wide assessments.


The key interactions will be the potential for localised depletion of key species (tunas and main baitfish species) and effects of FAD fields. The impact of these will depend on the scale of the UoA but would meet SG60 and potentially SG80.

Number of PIs less than 60: Initial tranche of UoAs: 0Long-Term Management Area-wide UoA: N/A

Principle 3 All UoAs West Central Pacific

3 Governance & policy

3.1.1Legal and customary framework

Cond60-79

WCPFC require that conservation and management measures adopted for areas under national jurisdiction shall be compatible in order to ensure conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks in their entirety.SG 60 will be met as there are international agreements in place (via WCPFC) which provide a framework for cooperation to deliver sustainable management. Indonesia is a CMM and cooperates with the RFMO to produce scientific advice. However, SG 80 will not be met as this requires organized and effective cooperation with other parties to deliver management outcomes consistent with Principles 1 and 2. For Indonesia AWs this is particularly important as there are no well-defined Harvest Strategy or HCR yet in place for SKJ nor YFT.There is a sufficiently transparent dispute resolution mechanism which can considered to be effective. There are formal arrangements that make explicit the requirement to consider legal rights for traditional fishers.

3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities

Pass(≥80)

Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all important areas of responsibility and interaction.There is a demonstrated consultation processes which regularly seeks and accepts relevant information and demonstrates consideration of the information received.There is a national, of also often local, consultation process which shows


opportunity and encouragement for all parties to be involved and facilitates effective engagement.

3.1.3 Long term objectives

Pass(≥80)

At the regional (WCPFC) and national (MMAF) levels there are explicit and clear long term objectives which incorporate the precautionary approach.

Fishery specific management system 3.2.1

Fishery specific objectives

Cond60-79

This PI focuses on the fishery-specific Indonesian management system.SG60 would be met as there are objectives which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2 and these are implicit within the fishery specific management system.SG80 is not met as the objectives are weak in applying the RFMO requirements, particularly in relation to having compatible objectives (within a Harvest Strategy) explicitly within the management system.

3.2.2Decision making processes

Pass(≥80)

There are decision making processes within WCPFC and Indonesian Government ministries and agencies which result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives and decisions take account of serious and other important research, monitoring and evaluation, as well as the wider implications of decisions. Information on the fishery’s performance and management action is available on request at regional and national level and explanations are provided for actions and lack of actions.

3.2.3Compliance and enforcement

Cond60-79

There is a MCS system in place in the fishery at regional (WCPFC), national (Directorate General of Surveillance, Control and Monitoring of Fisheries Resources (PSDKP) is responsible for monitoring Indonesian waters beyond 12nm) and local (Provincial Government) level; with a demonstrated ability to enforce relevant management measures strategies and rules at each level. There are sanctions in place.Compliance would need to be verified at a UoA level, but fishers are generally thought to comply with management system requirements. UoA-related issues may relate to issues of FAD registration and potential landing of prohibited species; evidence would ne needed for each UoA to demonstrate general compliance. There is not expected to be systematic non-compliance.

3.2.4 Management performance evaluation

Pass(≥80)

A performance review structure is in place for both MMAF and Provincial DKP. An annual internal review on program planning and performance evaluation is undertaken by the Inspectorate General/Echelon I of MMAF.


An external review is undertaken by the Finance Audit Agency/BPK and Finance and Development Audit Agency/BPKP at least once a year.The Tuna, Skipjack, and Neritic Tuna Fishery Management Plan (NPOA Tuna and Neritic Tuna) will be evaluated each year against achievement of the Action Plan and in 2020 there is to be a complete review, which will form the basis for revision and improvement needed for the next 5-years period (2020-2025). The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.

Number of PIs less than 60: 0

Principle 3 All UoAs Indian Ocean

3 Governance & policy

3.1.1Legal and customary framework

Cond60-79

SG 60 will be met as there are international agreements in place (via IOTC) which provide a framework for cooperation to deliver sustainable management. Indonesia is a CMM and cooperates with the RFMO to produce scientific advice.The Indonesian government is responsible for ensuring management measures applied within Indonesian waters are compatible with those of the IOTC, and that fishing by Indonesian vessels is carried out in accordance with any measures put in place by IOTC. This PI requires organized and effective cooperation with other parties to deliver management outcomes consistent with Principles 1 and 2. For Indonesia AWs this is expected to lead to a similar outcome as for WCP waters – requiring some local delivery of an equivalent Harvest Strategy and HCR for SKJ (And rebuilding measures for YFT if this is to proceed to MSC assessment).There is a sufficiently transparent dispute resolution mechanism which can considered to be effective. There are formal arrangements that make explicit the requirement to consider legal rights for traditional fishers.

3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities

Pass(≥80)

As for WCP. Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all important areas of responsibility and interaction.


There is a demonstrated consultation processes which regularly seeks and accepts relevant information and demonstrates consideration of the information received.There is a national, of also often local, consultation process which shows opportunity and encouragement for all parties to be involved and facilitates effective engagement.

3.1.3 Long term objectives

Pass(≥80)

At the regional (IOTC) and national (MMAF) levels there are explicit and clear long term objectives which incorporate the precautionary approach.

Fishery specific management system

3.2.1Fishery specific objectives

Cond60-79

As for WCP. This PI focuses on the fishery-specific Indonesian management system.SG60 would be met as there are objectives which are broadly consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2 and these are implicit within the fishery specific management system.SG80 is not met as the objectives are weak in applying the RFMO requirements, particularly in relation to having compatible objectives (within a Harvest Strategy) explicitly within the management system.

3.2.2Decision making processes

Pass(≥80)

As for WCP. There are decision making processes within IOTC and Indonesian Government ministries and agencies which result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives and decisions take account of serious and other important research, monitoring and evaluation, as well as the wider implications of decisions. Information on the fishery’s performance and management action is available on request at regional and national level and explanations are provided for actions and lack of actions.

3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement

Cond60-79

There is a MCS system in place in the fishery at regional (IOTC), national (Directorate General of Surveillance, Control and Monitoring of Fisheries Resources (PSDKP) is responsible for monitoring Indonesian waters beyond 12nm) and local (Provincial Government) level; with a demonstrated ability to enforce relevant management measures strategies and rules at each level. There are sanctions in place.Compliance would need to be verified at a UoA level, but fishers are generally thought to comply with management system requirements. UoA-related issues may relate to issues of FAD registration and potential landing of prohibited species; evidence would be needed for each UoA to demonstrate general compliance. There is not expected to be systematic


non-compliance.

3.2.4Management performance evaluation

Pass(≥80)

A performance review structure is in place for both MMAF and Provincial DKP. An annual internal review on program planning and performance evaluation is undertaken by the Inspectorate General/Echelon I of MMAF. An external review is undertaken by the Finance Audit Agency/BPK and Finance and Development Audit Agency/BPKP at least once a year.The Tuna, Skipjack, and Neritic Tuna Fishery Management Plan (NPOA Tuna and Neritic Tuna) will be evaluated each year against achievement of the Action Plan and in 2020 there is to be a complete review, which will form the basis for revision and improvement needed for the next 5-years period (2020-2025). The fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review.

Number of PIs less than 60: 0


ReferencesDavies, N., Harley, S., Hampton, J. & J. McKechnie (2014). Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee, Tenth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10-2014/SA-WP-04. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall IslandsGovernment of Indonesia, Fishery Act 31/2004Government of Indonesia, MMAF Decree No 15/2012 on FAD deploymentGovernment of Indonesia, MMAF Decree No 30/2012, on Technical gear restrictionsHinke, J. T., I. C. Kaplan, K. Aydin, G. M. Watters, R. J. Olson, and J. F. Kitchell. 2004. Visualizing the food-web effects of fishing for tunas in the Pacific Ocean. Ecology and Society. Vol: 9(1). Pages 10.Indonesian Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries & WWF. 2011. Action Plan Indonesian Tuna Fisheries. Better management practices for moving forward toward sustainable and responsible fisheriesIOTC 2016 assessment reports http://www.iotc.org/science/status-summary-species-tuna-and-tuna-species-under-iotcmandate-well-other-species-impacted-iotc IOTC Resolution 12/01 on the implementation of the precautionary frameworkIOTC Resolution 16/01 On an Interim Plan for Rebuilding the Indian Ocean Yellowfin tuna Stock in the IOTC area of Competence, and limitations on FADsIOTC Resolution 16/02 on harvest control rules for skipjack tuna in the IOTC area of competence IOTC–2016–S20–R[E]IOTC Resolutions see: http://www.iotc.org/sites/default/files/documents/compliance/IOTC_-_Compendium_of_ACTIVE_CMMs_26_November_2016IPNLF Compliance report 2017. Compliance and enforcement review of Indonesian pole and line and handline fleet. May 2017Leroy, 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, 49–61McKechnie, S., Hampton, J, Pilling, G.M. & N. Davies (2016). Stock assessment of skipjackMMAF and the Directorate General for Sea Transport at the Ministry of Transport (SEACOM), Memorandum of Understanding (11/2016).MMAF, The Indonesian tuna management plan for skipjack and neritic tunas, 2014Tremblay-Boyer, L., S. McKechnie, G. Pilling, J. Hampton (2017) Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-06 Rev1 tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC12-2016/SA-WP-04, Bali, Indonesia, 3-11 August 2016.WCPFC 2017. Summary Report of the (WCPFC) 13th Regular Session of the Scientific Committee (available at https://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/sc13)WCPFC 2017. Fourteenth Regular Session of the Commission, Manila, Philippines 3-7- December 2017. Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in WCPFC.WCPFC 2018. Fourteenth Regular Session of the Commission, Manila, Philippines 3-7- December 2017. Summary report


https://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/sc13

Contents · Web viewPI 3.1.1 requires organized and effective cooperation with other parties to deliver management outcomes consistent with Principles 1 and 2. For Indonesia AWs this

Documents