Table 1: Action Plan Overview FISHERY NAME: Marshall Islands Longline Tuna fishery; Bigeye and Yellowfin Tuna START DATE: September 2012 FISHERY LOCATION: Marshall Islands FISHING METHOD: Longline END DATE (anticipated): June 2014 PROJECT LEADERS: ANOVA, IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED BY: Moody Marine International (2010) Macalistair and Elliot Partners (June 2013) OVERVIEW OF THE ACTION PLAN: This action Plan is taken from the view of ANOVA and Luen Thai Fishing Venture (). ANOVA is a private company involved in export of Longline Pacific Albacore and Yellowfin Tuna in the Marshall Islands. is a private company involved in longline fishing activities in the Marshall Islands. The two companies are now in a partnership in a fisheries improvement program in order to reach MSC certification. The fishery improvement program concerns of longline fisheries : 1) Bigeye and 2) Yellowfin tuna that takes place in the Marshall Islands EEZ. This action plan is based on the 2010 pre assessment made by Moody Marine International. This action plan will be updated based on a new pre assessment that will be conducted in June 2013 (by Macallistair and Elliot Partners).
Table 2: Action Plan Details STANDARD REQUIREMENT 1.1.1 Stock status STATUS ACTIONS REQUIRED ACTION PARTNERS TIMEFRAME BET (2008 stock assessment): Fc/FMSY>1: overfishing is occurring and approaching an overfished state. Yield MSY=100 000mt to 130 000mt (lower than the previous years). Depending on recruitment, current yields may not be sustainable. Overfishing is occurring with a high probability in certain WCPO areas. YFT (2011 Stock Assessment): Fc/FMSY=0.56: likely that overfishing is NOT occurring. Bc/BMSY>0.1: stock likely NOT in overfished state. However, current fishing pressure is approaching FMSY. 1.1.2 Reference points Reference values include MSY reference points (YMSY, BMSY, SB MSY and FMSY). These reference points are used in evaluating stock status but not used directly for the management of either stock. 1.1.3 stock rebuilding Neither stock is considered depleted, as such it is not expected that there is a rebuilding plan in place. 1.2.1 Performance of the harvest strategy At the Regional level: The principle harvest strategy employed by the WCPFC, is to ensure that measures are based on the best scientific evidence available and are designed to maintain or restore stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors, including the special requirements of developing States in the Convention Area. WCPFC should use reference points in the management of both stocks. Limit reference points need to be identified. to encourage the use of reference points in the WCPFC management measures N/A Demonstrate how the harvest strategy is implemented and its performance assessed on a regional and national level. WCPFC WCPFC
At the Regional level: BET: (CMM 2012 01) restrictions on effort to 2001 2004 levels. YFT: (CMM 2012 01) Objective is to maintain stock at MSY levels. By not increasing fishing effort (LL) and restrict efforts to 2001 2004 levels (PS). It looks like the catches are above the 2001 2004 levels and therefore that catches are at or above MSY. The ability of the Commission to implement and enforce effort reductions in urgent situations in each nation is of concern, unless it is evident that nations are effective in implementing harvest controls in a timely manner. 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools There are country specific management measures in place; however, these measures basically follow those that are outlined by the Commission. There is incomplete information available with respect to how CMMs are implemented on a country specific level. Need to demonstrate how the CMM are implemented on a country specific level. At the Regional level: BET: (CMM 2012 01) restrictions on effort to 2001 2004 levels if catches are above 2000mt. No catch limit for RMI. YFT: (CMM 2012 01) Objective is to maintain stock at MSY levels. By not increasing fishing effort (LL) and restrict efforts to 2001 2004 levels (PS). At the national level: No catch quotas as catches were below 2000mt. Fishery operations are subject to 100% vessel monitoring systems (VMS), and restricted to harvest within the EEZ from 12 to 200 miles.
1.2.3 Information/ monitoring There are several sources of fishery dependent information within the bigeye and yellowfin tuna fishery conducted in the RMI, including observer coverage, logbook data and dockside monitoring. Demonstrate that VMS is required in national waters In 2008: 88% port sampling coverage 13% observer coverage 100% catch/effort coverage 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 2.2.1 Retained spp: Status It was not clear that VMS was required in national waters during the pre assessment. Both the assessments for bigeye and yellowfin tuna, evaluate the stock status of these species relative to reference points defined by the commission, MSY, and the assessments take into account uncertainties. Principle 2: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends Blue marlin is the only species caught incidental Risk Based Assessment on Blue Marlin July 2013 to the harvest that consists of greater that 5% of Research Institutes the total catch. Current stock assessment out of date (shows a healthy stock). New stock ANOVA assessment out soon (2013). Other potential vulnerable or valuable retained species were identified: albacore, striped marlin, swordfish, mahi mahi, opah, sailfish, sharks (unidentified), short billed spearfish, and wahoo An understanding of the quantities and whether they are retained or discarded and their fate is required 2.1.2 Retained spp: Management Blue Marlin: CPUE is declining and WCFPC measures likely to be inadequate. At the regional level (WCPFC) CMM 2008 06, Blue Marlin: If overfished, measures will be required either at the WCFPC level, Cook Island level or level. These measures should aim at reducing catch or mortality. Risk Based Assessment on Blue Marlin Research of potential mitigation measures. WCPFC
CMM 2008 05, CMM 2006 04, CMM 2005 03, 2005 02 Albacore, striped marlin, swordfish, mahi mahi, opah, sailfish, sharks (unidentified), short billed spearfish, and wahoo: while these species constitute less than 5% of the catch, they may still be considered main retained species due to their vulnerable or valuable status. Need information on how WCPFCs measures are implemented at the local level. Identify the quantities and whether they are retained or discarded and their fate 2.1.3 Retained spp: Info/Monitoring 2.2.1 By catch Spp: status Logbooks recording catch and effort, landings are subject to verification on the dock, and on board observers are required to collect catch information. In addition, there are several research activities conducted as components of the stock assessments of those species that are assessed, such as tagging work. At the fishery level, based on available information, all catch is retained. There is not enough info to score this component It is necessary to identify the bycatch composition, quantity and fate within the fishery. If in fact, all species are retained, there must be evidence to support that there is no discarding (dead or alive) at sea and that the management strategy supports retention of all species. 2.2.2 By catch Spp: Management 2.2.3 By catch Spp: Info/monitoring See above. See above. See above. See above.
2.3.1 ETP: Status RMI is not party to CITES and has not national ETP list. National ETP list should be drawn. August 2013 2.3.2 ETP spp: Managment Marshall Island annual report includes info on ETP interaction (only 1 turtle interaction in 2008) WCPFC: Seaturtles: CMM 2008 03 Seabirds: CMM 2007 04 It is not evident that there are national regulations in place in the Marshall Islands with respect to ETP species. However it was noted that circle hooks are specifically used to minimize the catch of sea turtles, and bird scare lines are deployed to minimize catch/entanglement of seabirds. Observers and logbook reports should record ETP interactions within RMI EEZ, for the LL fishery. Need to demonstrate how the WCPFC CMMs applicable to sensitive species are implemented at a national level, and if there are additional national legislations in place with respect to the identification and protection of ETP species. 2.3.3 ETP: Information monitoring Harvesters within the area of operation of the fisheries are not currently required to record or report interactions with sensitive species, including sea turtles, marine mammals, or sea birds. Interactions between the fleet and sensitive species are recorded by observers within the Marshall Islands territorial waters. Interactions with ETP species should be recorded in logbooks. August 2013 2.4.1 Habitat: status This fishery does not interact with any habitat during its operation. No management strategy is therefore required. 2.4.2 Habitat: Management strategy 2.4.3 Habitat: Info/ monitoring See 2.4.1. See Above. Within the area of operation of the fisheries under consideration, it appears that there has been some habitat monitoring, Measures or strategies should be in place to protect habitats (i.e. closure of sensitive habitat areas), or evidence to
however, there is not at this time a full understanding of the extent of this monitoring in each individual country. 2.5.1 Ecosystem: Status Sibert et al. (2006) analyzed all available data from the Pacific tuna fisheries from 1950 2004 to provide a comprehensive estimate of fishery impacts on population biomass and size structure. The findings indicated that while the trophic level of the catch has decreased slightly, there is not a detectable decrease in the trophic level of the population, indicating substantial, though not catastrophic, impacts of fisheries on these top level predators and minor impacts on the ecosystem of the Pacific Ocean. support minimal impacts. 2.5.2 Ecosystem: Management strategy 2.5.3 Ecosystem: Info/monitoring WCPFC measures related to highly migratory fish species and management of non target species: Resolution 2005 03 on Non Target Fish Species, and CMM 2012 01 on the management of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack. The RMI National Tuna Management Plan states that is prepared to take an ecosystem approach to managing the tuna fishery in the RMI and will address the impacts of fishing tuna on other species and the environment in general. Within the client fishery, it is evident that there is an understanding of the main functions of the components (i.e. target, bycatch, retained and ETP species and habitats). Ongoing at sea observer observations and reporting, as well as accurate landings data provide data to determine the levels of removals, and may be used to detect any increase in risk level of these species. In addition
to catch composition and quantity, data are collected on size of individuals caught and retained through these programs. Principle 3 3.1.1 Governance and policy: Legal framework RMI is a member of WCPFC. The Oceanic and Industrial Affairs Division of is the responsible body for country specific management in the RMI. The Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority () is responsible for the management and development of the tuna fishery in the Republic of the Marshall Islands. In addition to national management measures, the Marshall Island fishery is party to a number of regional and international management arrangements including the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA). With the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in place, the RMI is also obliged to comply with the management measures of the Commission (WCPFC, 2009a). The RMI Tuna Management Plan 2009 2011 provided for the implementation of WCPFC s measures on fishing activities within their jurisdiction. 3.1.2 Governance and policy: consultation, roles and responsibilities 3.1.3 Governance and policy: long term objectives In RMI, the Oceanic and Industrial Affairs Division of is responsible for overlooking operations of the EEZ. At the regional level (WPFPC), there are clear long term objectives that guide decision making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, and these are explicit within applicable WCPFC conservation (Define long term objectives in the national management plan)
and management measures. 3.1.4 Governance and policy: Incentives for sustainable fishery National level long term objectives? The fact that there are catch limits in place at the international level and that discarding is discouraged through the encouragement of landing all fish, there are measure that contribute to sustainable harvest. Measures should be taken in order to regulate or limit competitive harvest behaviour. 3.2.1 Fishery specific management system: fishery specific objectives 3.2.2 Fishery specific management system: Decision making process The harvest is competitive in nature at a national level, which may constitute a pervasive incentive. WCPFC: CMM 2008 01 for BET and YFT (see PI 1.2.1) National Level fishery specific objectives? At the commission/regional level, decisions are based on voting and require the consensus of voting members. Decisions with respect to conservation management measures are based on collective information provided by the various committees of the Commission including the scientific committee, technical and compliance committee, inter sessional working groups, ad hoc task groups, and the northern committee. Conservation and Management Measures describe binding decisions relating to conservation and management measures. Resolutions describe non binding statements and recommendations addressed to members of the Commission and Cooperating nonmembers. (Define fishery specific management objectives at the national level) In the RMI, the Oceanic Division of prepares and administers the tuna management plan. The development of the plan involves consultation with stakeholders including commercial and recreational fishing interests, processing companies, NGO s and educational
institutions. These groups are members of an advisory committee that meets in the development of, and review of a management plan. 3.2.3 Fishery specific management system: compliance and enforcement 3.2.4 Fishery specific management system: research plan 3.2.5 Fishery specific management system: monitoring and evaluation At regional level, the combination of MCS and compliance mechanisms at WCPFC level creates a system that has been demonstrated to be comprehensive and effective in the longline fisheries. Penalties are appropriate and applied, and are an effective deterrent. There are generally good levels of compliance by fishers (Akroyd et al, 2012). This agreement has allowed the sharing of surveillance platforms and joint enforcement operations to be carried out through Operation Island Chief and Operation Bigeye. The WCPFC requires that the Scientific Committee recommends a research plan to the Commission. The first Strategic Research Plan was prepared as an adaptive research plan to support the Scientific Committee s objective of providing the best available scientific advice. It had an initial period of five years, from 2007 to 2011. A second five year Strategic Research Plan has now been prepared for the period 2012 to 2016 (WCPFC, 2011). This plan will be used to guide the development of annual work plans of the Scientific Committee and will be periodically reviewed to ensure that it remains responsive to the Commission s needs. Marine Resources Assessment Group (UK) were contracted to undertake the review of the SC (WCPFC). Results of the review were made available in 2008 and are available on the Commissions website. No actions required
At the Commission level annual reporting by countries, as required under CMM, are used to monitor implementation and success of Commission stated measures at the national level. This provides regular internal review of the management strategy. The management of tuna in the RMI is established under the RMI Tuna Management Plan and is reviewed regularly. The current plan is effective for the period 2008 2011 (to be updated).