Progress Report Fishery Improvement Project for the Republic of the Marshall Islands Domestically-based Pelagic Longline Bigeye and Yellowfin Tuna Fishery Norpac Fisheries Export 1 April 2015 The participants of the Fishery Improvement Project for the Republic of the Marshall Islands pelagic longline yellowfin and bigeye tuna fishery periodically produce reports to document progress in implementing activities and milestones identified in the project workplan. The progress report is presented in three sections: section 1 presents a summary of all improvement project activities since the project’s inception; section 2 reviews in progress activities; and section 3 assesses project progress against the current workplan activities and milestones. Please review the project website at https://sites.google.com/site/wcpobetfip/home for more information, including background on the fishery, improvement project participants, reports from pre-assessments conducted against the Marine Stewardship Council standard, results of other public evaluations (SFP FishSource, MBAq Seafood Watch, various WWF program ratings, Safina Center), results from an ecological risk assessment, an initial 2011-2013 and current 2014-2018 workplans, materials from stakeholder consultations

1. Chronology of Project Activities The following is a current description of project activities since inception in 2011.  2011 – FIP is launched by Sustainable Fisheries Partnership and Norpac Fisheries Export (The FIP originally included both the Federated States of Micronesia and Marshall Islands longline bigeye/yellowfin tuna fisheries; in 2013 the FIP scope was amended to include only the Marshall Islands fishery due to fleet redistribution).  2011 – Scoping is conducted to identify key stakeholders  2011 – FIP website is launched (https://sites.google.com/site/wcpobetfip/).  2011 – 2010 MSC pre-assessment report is made public via posting on the FIP website.  2011 – A draft 2-year FIP Workplan is distributed to key stakeholders  2012 – A stakeholder consultation meeting is convened by SFP and Norpac  2012 – 2 –year workplan is adopted  2012 – FIP lead transitions from SFP to Norpac – the FIP is now industry-led  2012 – The regional fisheries management organization Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission adopts a formal limit reference point for bigeye and yellowfin tuna stocks (This is documented in the meeting report for the WCPFC 9th commission meeting available at http://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/WCPFC9-Summary-Report-final.pdf, see paragraph 269, where WCPFC9 adopted SC8 para 298 recommendation, which was to adopt 20%unfishedSB for the 4 WCPO tropical tuna stocks) (this constitutes an SFP Stage 4 result – delivering improvement in policies and practices)  2013 – Informal alliance participating in the FIP expands to include Luen Thai Fishing Venture, Marshall Islands Fishing Venture, Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority,

RMI FIP Progress Report

Page 1







 



    



Costco, New England Aquarium, the Pacific Islands Tuna Industry Authority, Tampa Bay Fisheries, Save-on-Seafood, and the two founding organizations, Norpac and the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. 2012/2013 – An ecological risk assessment was conducted in 2012, and published in 2013 (Gilman et al., 2013, available online http://goo.gl/PKnLPr), which established a benchmark for the fishery, identified opportunities for gear technology bycatch mitigation methods to address identified bycatch problems, and flagged data deficiencies. The findings from the ecological risk assessment were used in a second MSC pre-assessment (see below). 2013 – Based on the recommendations of the risk assessment study findings, the vessel owner Luen Thai Fishing Venture voluntarily removed all narrow J-shaped tuna hooks and replaced these with wider circle hooks. This result is improving the fishery by now using only best practice gear to reduce sea turtle bycatch (this constitutes an SFP Stage 4 result - fishing practice change to improve the fishery). 2013 –Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority trains observers with intent to resume onboard observer coverage of the domestically-based pelagic longline fishery in order to achieve or exceed the regional tuna RFMO requirement of 5% onboard coverage rate. 2013 – Norpac and SFP contract an MSC conformity assessment body (CAB) to conduct an updated and higher quality MSC pre-assessment; CAB finalizes the report in early December. 2013 – Norpac prepares a revised FIP scoping report and workplan for the period 2014-2018 with actions defined to address deficiencies in the fishery to achieve a level of sustainability consistent with an unconditional pass of the MSC standard based on findings of the MSC preassessment , actions to implement FIP processes as defined by CASS guidance (CASS, 2011, available online http://goo.gl/U30gxD), actions to provide for independent auditing of the FIP credibility, status and progress, and assess the traceability system (see Gilman, 2012– available online http://goo.gl/c85Sw6), measureable milestones and an associated budget. March 2013 - the catch sector Luen Thai Fishing Venture adopts a company policy banning the retention of sharks or fishing gear and methods to target sharks (DOWNLOAD https://sites.google.com/site/wcpobetfip/home/LTFV_shark_policy_Bilingual_R2.pdf?attredirec ts=0&d=1) (this constitutes an SFP Stage 4 result -fishing practice change to improve the fishery). Dec. 2013 - Norpac distributes a draft FIP workplan, covering the period 2014-2018, to stakeholders. Jan. 2014 - Blue Ocean Institute becomes a FIP participant. Feb. 2014 - Workplan for 2014-2018 is adopted March 2014 - Stakeholder consultation, Boston (side event to the seafood show) April – August 2014 Prepared materials for capacity-building ‘train-the-trainer’ program to enable Marshall Islands Ministry of Marine Affairs and Marshall Islands Fishing Venture staff to conduct longline fisher training, including in: (i) RMI longline rules, (ii) proper completion of Secretariat of the Pacific Community logbook forms, (iii) species identification training, to improve the quality of logbook data, and (iv) handling-and-release best practices for sea turtles, elasmobranchs (sharks and their relatives), cetaceans and seabirds. Training materials are posted at: https://sites.google.com/site/seafoodcompaniestunamanagement/home/training-materialsfor-longline-fishers. October 2014: initial train-the-trainer workshop convened – See https://sites.google.com/site/wcpobetfip/home/october-2014-capacity-building-workshop to access the workshop report and materials

RMI FIP Progress Report

Page 2

 2 Dec. 2014: Norpac, represented by Eric Gilman, participated in the 2nd in-person meeting of the western and central Pacific Ocean tuna MSC alignment group (see https://sites.google.com/site/seafoodcompaniestunamanagement/home/wcpo_tunap1_alignment)  20 Dec. 2014: second longline captain training workshop held in Majuro.  Feb. 2015 – Trial of high definition video cameras are initiated on one Majuro-based longline vessel.  March 2015 – The Nature Conservancy becomes a FIP participant.  March 2015 – Planning begins to conduct a pilot project of an electronic monitoring system

2. In-Progress Activities Electronic monitoring: The Nature Conservancy is leading plans to conduct electronic monitoring (EM) pilot projects in the Marshall Islands and other regional longline tuna fisheries. The primary goal of the pilot projects is to (i) increase the institutional capacity of domestic management authorities to manage EM systems. Secondary goals are to: (ii) determine which data fields collected by human observers can also be accurately collected by the EM system; (iii) determine the initial and annual costs for establishing and then implementing and maintaining the EM systems; and (iv) assess the time required for ‘dry observers’ to analyze EM system video footage (e.g., how long does it require a ‘dry observer’ to analyze video footage for a 12 hour duration haul, and how much time does it require the ‘dry observer’ to locate the haul portion of the footage). The EM pilots are not going to be designed to compare the accuracy of data collected via the EM system and via human observers, which has been adequately assessed in several previous studies (e.g., AFMA, 2010; McElderry, 2010; Hosken et al., 2013). The RMI EM pilot is planned to be conducted on 6 vessels, and will aim to have each participating vessel conduct a minimum of three trips using the EM system. EM systems can use onboard cameras, global positioning systems, sensors and data loggers to collect a wide variety of information and programs for analyzing resulting EM data by an independent authority. Data from EM can include information on catch levels, catch species composition, catch lengths, haulback disposition, and vessel compliance with various requirements such as handling and release practices, gear designs, and fishing methods. EM can complement traditional human onboard observer programs, or in fisheries where vessels are unsuitable (too small, unsafe, remote or unpredictable location for placing and retrieving observers, high incidence of coercion/corruption of human observers) to place a human observer may offer an alternative method for scientific and/or compliance monitoring (e.g., vessel specification requirements for EM are much lower than what is needed to deploy a human observer). Data from EM can also be used to compare with logbook, port sampling and human observer data. Several trials of EM systems have occurred in longline tuna fisheries (e.g., AFMA, 2010; McElderry, 2010; Hosken et al., 2013), the eastern Australia longline fishery is the one longline tuna fishery required to use EM (AFMA, 2012), and numerous non-tuna fisheries have taken up EM systems (e.g., Lowman et al., 2013). Optimal EM equipment specs, and the way the equipment is installed need to account for vessel-specific fishing operations, and the types of data that are planned to be collected (e.g., Restrepo, 2012). Systems for evaluating EM data likewise need to be tailored to fishery-specific monitoring objectives, where, applicable to both electronic and human fisheries observers, fisheryspecific objectives of analyses (i.e., required levels of accuracy and precision of catch rate estimates), the frequency of occurrence of catch and bycatch for each species of interest, amount

RMI FIP Progress Report

Page 3

of fishing effort, and distribution of catch and bycatch determine the requisite onboard observer coverage rate (Hall 1999; Gilman et al., 2014a). Western and central Pacific Ocean tuna MSC alignment group: To implement MSC principle 1 improvements related to improving the harvest strategies and status of WCPO bigeye and yellowfin tuna stocks, the FIP participants intend to continue to participate in activities of the "WCPO Tuna MSC Alignment Group". This Group is comprised of client groups of fisheries certified and under assessment against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard and of participants of Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) for fisheries for albacore, bigeye and yellowfin tunas in the Convention Area of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), and other stakeholders. See https://sites.google.com/site/seafoodcompaniestunamanagement/home/wcpo_tuna-p1_alignment for more information on the group. Traceability audit: Planned to be conducted in 2015. An independent traceability audit is described in activity 7(b) of the FIP workplan. Independent audit of FIP status and progress: The current Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions’ guidance on FIPs defines a category of FIP called a ‘comprehensive’ FIP (see http://www.solutionsforseafood.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Alliance-FIP-Guidelines3.7.15.pdf). Comprehensive FIPs must, “arrange for an independent, in –person audit of activity results and performance against the MSC standard by someone that is both experienced with the MSC standard and independent from the organization implementing the FIP.” The FIP participants plan to hire an independent consultant to conduct such an independent audit in 2016. This is described in the FIP workplan activity 7(d). TNC Regional FIP: TNC has become a formal participant of the RMI FIP, as well as lead of the FSM and a new Palau pelagic longline bigeye/yellowfin tuna fishery FIPs. TNC is planning to coordinate and align activities of these three projects. Stakeholder consultations: A third in-person stakeholder consultation is tentatively planned to be convened as a side event to either the PNA ministerial meeting in June 2015 on Pohnpei, or the WCPFC annual session in December 2015 in Indonesia. 3. Assessment against 2014-2018 Workplan Activities and Milestones Table 1 identifies the FIP workplan activities to address deficiencies and information gaps for MSC PIs found to not achieve an unconditional pass through a MSC pre-assessment, FIP process activities, planned schedule for completion, milestones (expected outcomes) for each activity, and progress to date in implementing each activity and achieving milestones.

RMI FIP Progress Report

Page 4

Table 1. Planned actions and milestones, and progress to date in implementing these activities and achieving expected outcomes, for the FIP for the Marshall Islands domestically-based longline tuna fishery.

PI no. 1.1.1

PI title Stock status – WCPO bigeye

Activity(ies) Activity 1: Engage with relevant stakeholders to pursue improvements in WCPFC governance, including adoption of formal target reference points for WCPO bigeye and yellowfin, harvest strategy that is responsive to the state of the 2 stocks, HCR that is based on the harvest strategy and formally adopted target and limit reference points, and evidence that the HCR is meeting stock management objectives. Activity 2: Engage with relevant stakeholders to pursue formation of a regional WCPO bigeye tuna FIP.

Schedule Milestone (a) is achieved biannually on an ongoing basis until target reference points, harvest strategy and HCR are adopted as described. Milestone (b) by December 2015. Milestone (c) by December 2016. Milestone (d) by December 2018. Milestone (e) by December 2018

Milestone(s) (a) Evidence of engagement with relevant stakeholders, seeking their support for WCPFC adoption of formal target reference points, harvest strategy that is responsive to the state of the stock, and HCR within a binding WCPFC tropical tuna CMM that implements the harvest strategy and is based on limit and target reference points. (b) WCPFC adopts a formal target reference point for WCPO bigeye and yellowfin tunas. (c) WCPFC adopts a tropical tuna harvest strategy that is responsive to the state of the stock and adopts a HCR within a binding CMM that is

RMI FIP Progress Report

Page 5

Progress (a) FIP participants conduct ongoing participation in the

WCPO Tuna MSC Alignment Group. Last meeting was in Dec. 2014. Participants also contribute to delegations to WCPFC. (d) The WCPO Tuna MSC Alignment Group, SFP’s regional longline FIP, and ISSF activities contribute to this milestone.

based on the harvest strategy and target and limit reference points. (d) Regional FIP that includes longline and purse seine fisheries that result in WCPO bigeye tuna fishing mortality is established. (e) There is evidence that the harvest strategy and HCR are fulfilling stock management objectives. 1.1.2

Reference points

1.2.1

Harvest Strategy

1.2.2

Harvest control rules and tools Outcome retained species

2.1.1

Activity 1 described above Activity 2 described above Activity 1 described above Activity 2 described above Activity 1 described above Activity 2 described above Activity 3: Improve monitoring systems to supply accurate data on retained and discarded catch and support robust standardized catch rate modelling. Activity 4: Conduct crew training and produce and disseminate outreach materials

Described above Described above Described above Milestones (f)and (g) by December 2014 Milestone (h) by December 2015 Milestones (i), (j), and (k) by December 2014

(b) and (d) Described above. (a), (c), (d) and (e) Described above. (c), (d) and (e) Described above. (f) Logbook data captures information on all catch to the species level (volumes and number of organisms) (g) Port sampling records landings of >95% of retained catch to the species level (h) Onboard observer

RMI FIP Progress Report

Page 6

Described above Described above Described above (f) Crew training activities designed to improve the quality of logbook data. (i) Data collection protocols of the WCPFC Regional Observer Program are reviewed and confirmed to meet target protocols. However, the quality of the RMI observer data has not been assessed to determine if these key fields are consistently populated.

coverage rate >5% (i) Onboard observer data collection protocols and practices include recording all retained and discarded catch to the species level, haulback disposition of discards, and relevant gear design and fishing method factors needed to develop robust standardized catch rate models for associated and dependent species (j) Provide crew training in (a) species identification; (b) handling and release best practices for turtles, sharks, cetaceans, and other species; and (c) summary of current regulations and company policies. (k) Produce, update as needed, include in training courses, and post on each longline vessel a summary of all relevant government (domestic and

RMI FIP Progress Report

Page 7

(j) Crew training conducted in two sessions in 2014. (k) Summary of RMI longline rules produced, included in training workshops, and distributed to each active longline vessel.

2.1.2

Management retained species

Activity 5: Reduce problematic catch of sharks, billfishes, sea turtles, cetaceans

Milestone (l) by December 2016 Milestone (m) by December 2018 Milestone (n) by December 2015

2.1.3

2.2.1 2.2.2

Information/monito ring - retained species Outcome – discarded catch Management – discarded catch

RMI FIP Progress Report

Activities 3 and 4: Described above

Described above

Activities 3 and 4: Described above Activity 5. Described above

Described above

WCPFC) requirements and company rules. (l) Striped marlin is <5% of retained catch (m) MIMRA management plan and regulations are amended to reduce possible problematic catch of non-target retained and discarded species, including endangered, threatened and protected species, and to reduce injury and mortality of discarded catch. (n) Get all hooks to soak below at least 50 meters. Identify other options for changes in fishing gear and practices to reduce unwanted catch and injury. (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) described above

Milestone (o) by December 2018

(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) described above (m) and (n) described above

Milestone (p) ongoing, annual

(o) No individual shark species makes

Page 8

Results of an ecological risk assessment, based on analyses of low quality amalgamated data, indicate that the fishery conducts daytime deep sets. Hooks are likely soaking deeper than 50m, which might contribute to minimizing billfish catch rates. See file:///C:/Users/Eric/Downloads/ MP_Gilman_Owens_Kraft_201 3_RMI_ERA.pdf for more information. Crew training conducted in 2014 in part to improve logbook data accuracy for caught marlins.

Described above

Described above No progress om milestones o (recent logbook, port sampling and observer data have not been evaluated) and p (observer data have not been

up >5% of discarded catch

2.2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 3.1.2

Information– discarded catch Outcome – ETP species Management – ETP species Information – ETP species Consultation, roles and responsibilities Governance and Policy

Activities 3 and 4: Described above Activities 3 and 4: Described above Activity 5. Described above

Described above

Activities 3 and 4: Described above Activity 6: Surveillance, Enforcement and Compliance

Described above

Described above Described above

Milestones (q), (s), (t) and (u) ongoing, annually. Milestone (r) by December 2015.

(p) Evidence that crew are employing prescribed handline and release practices for live sharks and ETP species, via annual assessment of observer records. (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) described above (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) described above (m), (n) and (p) described above (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) described above (q) Evidence that the catch sector complies with all reporting requirements in terms of comprehensiveness of the data reporting and submitting required data on time. (r) Independent assessment of relevant domestic legislation and regulations occurs in part to determine if the RMI fishery management system is implementing all WCPFC CMMs of

RMI FIP Progress Report

Page 9

evaluated).

Described above Described above Described above Described above (q) MIMRA confirms receipt of required logbook data.

3.1.4

3.2.3

Incentives for sustainability Governance and Policy Compliance and enforcement Fishery specific management system

Activity 6: Described above

Described above

Activity 6: Described above

Described above

relevance to the longline fishery, to document that the domestic management system accounts for information provided by the catch sector, and document how the number of longline licenses issued by MIMRA is determined to document whether subsidies contribute to causing unsustainable fishing levels. (q) and (r) described above

(h) described above. (s) Surveillance effort and methods are documented to be sufficient to identify any infractions of RMI rules and WCPFC CMMs. (t) Evidence that sanctions are consistently applied in response to identified acts of noncompliance, and that penalties for these infractions are

RMI FIP Progress Report

Page 10

Described above

Described above

sufficient to deter non-compliance.

3.2.5

Activity 6: Described above

Described above

NA

Management performance evaluation Fishery specific management system NA

Activity 7: FIP Process. (a) Stakeholder consultations – ongoing scoping

Ongoing annually

NA

NA

Activity 7: FIP Process. (b) Independent audit of product traceability

December 2014

NA

NA

Activity 7: FIP Process. (c) Maintain FIP public website

Ongoing monthly

NA

NA

Activity 7: FIP Process. (d) Independent audit of FIP status and progress

December 2014; Ongoing biannually or more frequent

RMI FIP Progress Report

(u) No evidence of systematic noncompliance. (r), (s), (t) and (u) Described above.

(v) At least 1 annual in-person meeting, frequent (minimum every 6 months) distribution of FIP progress reports, and re-map the supply chain to identify any new stakeholders that should be encouraged to become FIP participants (w) Independent audit of product traceability system is conducted and findings made public on the FIP project website (x) Website is updated at least monthly to identify progress in FIP workplan implementation (y) Audit report is produced with findings on the status

Page 11

Described above

The last in-person stakeholder consultation was convened in Boston in March 2014.

No progress on milestone w, planned for 2015

(x) website is updated periodically as activities are implemented and workplan milestones achieved, typically less frequently than monthly. No progress on milestone w, planned for 2016

NA

NA

RMI FIP Progress Report

Activity 7: FIP Process. (e) FIP progress reports

Ongoing, semiannually or more frequent

of the project in implementing the workplan activities and progress since the last audit; and audit report is made publicly available via posting on the project website. (z) Progress report is produced and distributed to FIP participants

Page 12

Conducted periodically as activities are implemented and milestones achieved.