prepared for - fisheryprogress.org · pre-assessment of the kendari based tuna purse ... brpl badan...

CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT

PO Box 371

Port Douglas, QLD, Australia

Tel: (+61) 7 4099 3107

Email: [email protected]

Pre-Assessment of the Kendari based tuna purse fishery operating in Archipelagic and Territorial Waters within management areas WPP 713 (The Makassar Strait and the Flores Sea), WPP 714 (the Banda Seas) and WPP

715 (the Maluku and Seram Seas)

Prepared for

WWF

Prepared by

Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management (Pty) Ltd.

October, 2018


TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY......................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 5

2. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment .............................................................................................................12 2.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery..............................................................................12

3. Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification ............................................................... 12

4. Catch and Effort Data ........................................................................................................ 13

5. Description of the fishery ................................................................................................. 15

6. Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme ............................................ 16

7. Principle One: Target species background .................................................................. 18 7.1 UoA 1: WCPO Skipjack ...........................................................................................................................18 7.2 UoA 2: WCPO Yellowfin ..........................................................................................................................22

8. Harvest strategies .............................................................................................................. 28 8.1 WCPFC tuna harvest strategy ...............................................................................................................28 8.2 Indonesia’s Archipelagic tuna harvest strategy. ................................................................................32

9. Principle Two: Ecosystem background ......................................................................... 34 9.1 Primary and secondary species catch .................................................................................................34 9.2. Primary species outcome and management ....................................................................................34 9.3 Secondary species outcome..................................................................................................................39 9.4 Partial Strategies for Neritic Tunas and Spanish mackerel..............................................................39 9.5 Information required to support neritic tuna stock assessments...................................................39 9.6 Small Pelagic species .............................................................................................................................40 9.7 MSC UoAs collectively not hindering recovery ..................................................................................41 9.8 Shark catch and shark finning ...............................................................................................................41 9.9 Habitat impacts .................................................................................................................................42 9.10 Ecosystems ............................................................................................................................................43

10. Principle Three: Management system background ................................................. 43 10.1 Legal and customary framework ........................................................................................................43 10.2 Roles, Responsibilities, and Consultation (MSC Criteria 3.1.2) ....................................................47 10.3 Long-term Objectives (MSC Criteria 3.1.3) ........................................................................................51 10.4 Fishery specific objectives ..................................................................................................................52 10.5 Decision-making processes (P 3.2.2) .................................................................................................53 10.6 Compliance and enforcement PI .........................................................................................................54 10.7 Performance Review .............................................................................................................................55

11. Evaluation Procedure .................................................................................................... 56

11.1 Assessment methodologies used ...................................................................................... 56

11.2 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment ............................. 56

11.3 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries ....................................... 56

12. Traceability (issues relevant to Chain of Custody certification) .......................... 56 12.1 Traceability within the Fishery ............................................................................................................57 12.2 Inseparable or practically inseparable catches ................................................................................58

13.3 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further chains of custody..................................... 59

14 Preliminary evaluation of the fishery ......................................................................... 59


14.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree ....................................................................................59 14.2 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) ...............................................59

10 Preliminary evaluation of the fishery ......................................................................... 60 11.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree ....................................................................................60 11.2 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) ...............................................60 11.3 Summary of likely PI scoring levels ...................................................................................................60

References .................................................................................................................................. 66


GLOSSARY AFAD Anchored Fish Aggregation Device

AP2HI Asosiasi Pole and Line Dan handline Indonesia

ASPIC Stock Production Model Incorporating Covariates

ASTUIN Indonesia Tuna Association

ATLI Tuna Long line Association

AW Archipelagic Waters

BMSY Biomass Maximum Sustainable Yield

BRPL Badan Riset Perikanan Laut (Marine Fisheries Research Institute)

CA Consequence Analysis

CCMs Cooperating Commission Members

CFRD Centre for Fisheries Research and Development

CMM Commission Management Measures

CPUE Catch Per Unit of Effort

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

CSA Consequence Spatial Analysis

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia)

CSTP Coral Sea Tagging Program

CoC Chain of Custody

DGCF Directorate General Capture Fisheries (DGCF)

DKP Dinas Perikanan (provincial fishery agency)

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

ENGO Environmental Non-Governmental Organisation

ENSO El Nino Southern Oscillation

EOP Eastern Pacific Ocean

ETP Endangered, Threatened, and Protected

EU European Union

F Fishing Mortality

FAD Fish Aggregation Device

FAO Food & Agriculture Organization

FCR Fishery Certification Requirements

FIP Fisheries Improvement Plan

FKPPS Forum on Fishery Resources Utilization Management

FL Fork Length

FMA Fishery Management Area (see WPP and WPPNRI)

FSMY Biological Reference Point for Fisheries Management

GT Gross Tonne

HCR Harvest Control Rule

IATTC Inter American Tropical Tuna Commission

ID Indonesia

IPI Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (relating to fish stocks)

ISSF International Seafood Sustainability Foundation

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

IUU Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported

JPTP Japanese Tagging Programme

LL Longline


LRP Limit Reference Point

MDPI Masyarakat Dan Perikanan Indonesia

MMAF Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries

MSC Marine Stewardship Council

MSE Management Strategy Evaluation

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

MT Metric Tonne

nm Nautical mile

NTMP National Tuna Management Plan

PERMEN Peraturan Menteri (ministerial regulation)

PH Philippines

PL Pole-and-Line

PNA Parties to the Nauru Agreement

PNG Paua New Guinea

PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment

PS Purse Seine

PSA Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis

PSDKP Surveillance of Marine and Fishery Resources

PTTP Pacific Tuna Tagging Project

RBF Risk-Based Framework

RPP Rencana Pengelolaan Perikanan (fishery management plan)

RTTP Regional Tuna Tagging Project

SC Science Committee (WCPFC)

SEACOM the Directorate General for Sea Transport at the Ministry of Transport

SEAFDEC South East Asian Fisheries Development Center

SG Scoring Guidance

SICA Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis

SPC OFP Secretariat of the Pacific Commission Oceanic Fisheries Program

SSB Spawning Stock Biomass

TACC Total Allowable Country Catch

TCC Technical Compliance Committee

TRP Target Reference Point

UoA Unit of Assessment

UoC Unit of Certification

VDS Vessel Day Scheme

WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Commission

WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean

WFF World Wildlife Fund

WPEA West Pacific East Asia Project

WPP Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan (Fisheries Management Area)

WPPNRI Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan Negara Republik Indonesia (Fishery Management Area)


1. Executive summary

Richard Banks, on behalf of Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management, undertook this pre-assessment of the Kendari based purse seine fishery targeting skipjack and yellowfin tuna. The pre-assessment was undertaken using MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) v2.0 and prepared in accordance with the MSC Pre-assessment Reporting Template v2.0. The pre-assessment was undertaken for WWF, including site visits and two workshops in August and September 2018. The work was undertaken for WWF on behalf of domestic processor, PBN and Tri Marine International, suppliers to the Bolton Group. PBN is a member of the WWF Seafood Savers Program.

The first site visit for the pre-assessment was held at the offices of MMAF, Jakarta in the week commencing 13 August 2018. This was followed by a workshop comprising various national groups, which explored fisheries improvement tasks from a national perspective, held in Bogor on 2021 August, and thereafter with a separate workshop, held in in Kendari, South East Sulawesi on 13 September. The second workshop addressed Kendari purse seine specific issues, but in the context of some of the required outputs that needed to be dealt with at provincial level and how these would support the required actions at national level. The Ministry of Marine Affaires and Fisheries (MMAF), the Centre or Fisheries Research & Development (CFRD), World Wildlife Fund attended both workshops, and the second workshop was attended by local stakeholders including PBN, Tri Marine International, Dinas Perikanan, purse seine representatives and university academics.

Two units of certification were identified for the pre-assessment, skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), covering one fishing method, purse seine, operating in the three management areas: WPP 713 (The Makassar Strait and the Flores Sea), WPP 714 (The Banda Seas) and WPP 715 (The Maluku and Seram Seas). The purse seine fishery in Kendari comprises 319 vessels landing an estimated 3,870 MT of target species, along with a by-product of other tunas and small pelagics of 15,615 MT. These figures are likely to be understated. Of the fleet, 260 vessels are <= 30 GT and 60, >30 GT. The wider fishery, covering all tuna purse seine vessels fishing in Archipelagic waters (the Unit of Assessment (UoA)), is covered in a separate report, and refers to the operations of the Indonesian purse seine fleet within AW and the WCPFC Indonesian zones, as a whole.

PBN, the client, purchased from 97 vessels in 2017, with all but 1 vessel registered <= 30 GT. Vessels <= 30 GT fall under provincial jurisdiction, whilst vessels > 30 GT are subject to national licensing rules. The 97 vessels represent the Unit of Certification (UoC), but it is expected that this will be a fluid target, with the client purchasing from both <=30 GT, and > 30 GT.

Areas WPP 713, WPP 714 and WPP 715 fall within the Indonesian archipelagic zone, which is subject to national jurisdiction. In these zones, purse seine vessels target straddling tuna stocks from the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. These vessels catch the two principal tropical tuna species, skipjack and yellowfin, but as part of their day to day operations, may also catch small pelagic species (Decapterus), along with other tuna species, including bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and some neritic tunas, reportedly included bullet tunas (Auxis rochei), and also longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol).

The Units of Assessment and Units of Certification are:

• Western, Central and Pacific Ocean skipjack (UoC 1),

• Western and Central Pacific Ocean yellowfin (UoC 2)

P1 issues

Two species have been identified as UoAs. These include: Pacific Ocean Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares).


These two species are currently not in an overfished state, nor subject to overfishing, with fishing at or around Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) (WCPFC SC, 2018).

A WCPFC Target Reference Point (TRP) has been set for skipjack at 0.50 BMSY (WCPFC, 2015-06)

but TRPs have not been set for Pacific Ocean Yellowfin (and Bigeye). All WCPFC Pacific tropical tuna stocks have established Limit Reference Point (LRP) at 0.20 BMSY (WCPFC8). WCPC is

currently in the process of setting TRPs for Yellowfin tuna (WCPFC, 2014-06). The likely outcome is expected to be a TRP of 0.40 BMSY, with the expectation that this will be set at the WCPFC General

Session, December 2018.

Harvest strategies for Pacific tuna are set out in WCPFC Tropical Tuna measure, which is reviewed annually. The Current measure is WCPFC CMM is 2017-01. Measures include effort limits for purse seine fisheries, and limits on effort for ‘other commercial fisheries. Indonesia is bond to apply management actions to its defined EEZ areas – WPP 716 and 717, which are determined by Indonesia to be part of the Convention area.

Indonesia is the process of establishing Limit and Target Reference Points for its archipelagic waters (MMAF, 2018). These limits are required to be compatible with the WCPFC reference points set (WCPFC, 2000); and MSC Guidance on Straddling stocks) and would apply to Indonesian fisheries management areas, and the three relevant zones, WPP 713, WPP 714 and WPP 715. A default LRP for tuna in AW will be to maintain spawning stock biomass above 0.2 of the unfished level with a probability of 90% MMAF, 2018). A TRP for tuna in AW has not been decided as this awaits more detailed consideration of the implications for social and economic objectives for the fishery. The Indonesian harvest strategy and harvest control rules are expected to be finalised by 2023, but a schedule for key components, including the performance of the management regime, is expected to be completed before then.

Archipelagic measures are subject to national sovereignty, and as such independent from the RFMO decision-making process, as they are for all contiguous AW zones in other Pacific country waters (Papua New Guinea (PNG), Solomon Islands and Philippines). As yet, no harvest control rules have been applied by Indonesia to its AW, but a draft strategy is in development. It is noteworthy that two AW fisheries, Solomon Island purse seine and pole-and-line have been assessed and achieved Certification (MRAG, 2015).

An average 491,532 MT (2012-2016) of tropical tunas are caught by the Indonesia fleets in the WCPFC area, including AW (ITFACE, 2017). The purse seine fishery (the UoA) catches 128,000 MT (2012-2016) tonnes of tropical tunas, which are reported to WCPC, from which 63% are caught in AW, with the remainder from EEZ fisheries (WPP 716 and 717). The catch made by the Kendari based purse seine fleet is 2,450 MT of skipjack and 1,420 MT Yellowfin (the UoC) respectively, though there is some doubt as to the accuracy of catch and offload data. Kendari catches represent 4.71% and 8.8% of Indonesia’s archipelagic catch of skipjack and yellowfin respectively.

Fleet composition data are available from the Indonesian fleet and are used in the stock assessments, which fit to a single area, by quarter (of year) for all fleets, including the UoA (Indonesian purse seine caught species). Stock abundance indices (CPUE) are available for the main fleets, including Indonesian purse seine. The CPUE analyses draws on some other (environmental) data that are also used to help interpret recruitment patterns. Indonesia provides some to information to support these stock assessments, but there are also indications on weaknesses in reporting from ports and the level of accuracy in the logbook returns received (WWF, Tuna Fishery Action Plan Workshop, 2018 and Peter Williams, SPC Senior Statistician, pers comm. September. 2018).

Stock abundance is estimated using the stock assessment based on a wide range of data from all fisheries. Amongst the inputs to the assessment are indices of relative abundance in the form of standardized CPUE from a number of key fleets, and this includes some data from the Indonesian purse seine fishery.

WCPFC stock assessments of skipjack tuna are undertaken regularly. These assessments consider major features relevant to the biology and the nature of the UoA and the wider WCPO. It is


implemented using MULTIFAN- CL, fitting an age- and spatially-structured model to catch, effort, size composition, and tagging data. The model first developed for skipjack tuna in 1998 and has been continually fine-tuned and improved. The WCPFC assessments explicitly explore sources of uncertainty.

Stock assessments are available for all the target species in WCPFC, and these have been progressively undertaken in the years from 2014-2017. The WCPFC assessments are 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.

P2 issues

Primary species are those subject to management, which, where the UoA target fishery is skipjack includes yellowfin and bigeye tuna; and where the UoA target fishery is yellowfin includes skipjack and bigeye tuna, Lower volume species such as bigeye are selected as a primary species but could be elevated if required as a target species. In this instance, it is highly likely that bigeye tuna represents a higher proportion of the total yellowfin catch, and UoA yellowfin may be overstated.

Other species caught by the Kendari purse seine fleet include Bullet tuna (Auxis rochei) and scads (Decapterus) and probably longtail tuna (Thunnus tonggol). These represent 9,650 MT and 5,900 MT respectively. Small quantities of other neritic tuna are also caught, but individually these species fall well below the MSC threshold of ‘main’ (5%), and none are identified as ‘minor/vulnerable.

WCPFC’s observer coverage (WCPFC, CMM 2017-01) requires that large-scale purse seine vessels carry observers, without exception. The national observer program requires 5% coverage, but only applies to vessels >= 30GT. Therefore, almost all vessels selling to PBN do not carry any observers. Observer data is available for vessels operating from Kendari but is only restricted to the 60 vessels >= 30GT (i.e. around 20%). Catch data is also strengthened by the Centre for Fisheries Research and Development (CFRD) port data collection program that extracts from 30% of all landings into the port of Kendari. MSC specifies ”good external validation” should be understood to indicate a validation level equivalent to a nominal observer coverage of 20% of effort, although the CAB may accept other rates and alternative measures/evidence with sufficient justification that the same scientific outcome (highly likely confidence that (shark) finning is not taking place) is delivered (MSC, Attachment K, Annex C at SG 80).

Partial management strategies do not exist for scads or any neritic tuna species in AW. The South East Asian Fisheries Development Centre (SEAFDEC) undertakes the assessment for neritic tunas in Western Pacific / South China Sea region (SEAFDEC, 2016), but these do not currently include bullet tuna.

Indonesia has also undertaken some stock assessment work into small pelagics (MMAF, 2014). This indicates that stocks are considered over exploited in WPP 715 and assessed to be fluctuating around MSY. A PSA would score for the small pelagic fishery at 81.

Sharks are rarely seen or caught in Indonesian purse seine fisheries (ISSF, 2018), fishers in different regions estimated about 0.1-0.3 sharks per set (e.g. 1-3 sharks in 10 sets), most being juvenile silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) of small size (e.g. < 70 cm). Whale sharks are very infrequently encountered, once or twice a year according to some fishers, and are actively avoided as they can easily rip the net. If accidentally caught, they are always released alive either by cutting an opening in the net or releasing over the corkline (ISSF, 2018). It is highly unlikely that there are unobserved mortalities from FADs as all FADs are non-entangling and made from natural fibres.

For the purpose of this assessment, silky sharks are defined as Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species. National measures are in place to prohibit the export of shark (Decree 59/PERMEN-KP/2014) and specified species, which include silky shark, Oceanic white tip and hammerhead sharks. Fishers are prohibited from landing sharks and generally release or consume on board. There are also specific prohibitions on the catch and interaction of both whale sharks (Nomor 18/kepmen-kp/2013) and Manta rays (Nomor 4/Kepmen-Kp/2014).


Design of ETP bycatch mitigation activities in purse seine fisheries is limited to best release practices from deck of species of special concern. ISSF and CFRD have conducted skipper awareness workshops (ISSF, 2018) in Indonesia since 2012, and indications are that skippers outwardly avoid interactions with sharks. These workshops are ongoing and coordinated by CFRD.

Shark finning is said not to be taking place in the Indonesian purse seine fishery (WWF Workshop, 2018), but there are no formal regulations in place, nor any formal results from observer reports containing reference to shark bycatch and finning practices.

Purse fisheries are characterized by a very low impact on habitat at the fishing grounds, as all fishing takes place in deep water. Hence there are no bottom habitat impacts.

AFADs may be considered as enhanced and subject to assessment using an alternative assessment tree. 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 have not been regarded as enhanced fisheries and have been assessed using the default tree, even though many thousands of FADs are involved. The 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. However, more needs to be understood on the potential impacts of FADs on the purse seine (and other fisheries, e.g. pole-and-line). Similarly, there is no information on FAD displacement. This is an issue that is addressed under compliance.

Given the very low percentage of volume removals by the UoAs, there is evidence that the UoA fishing is highly unlikely to disrupt the relevant key elements (predator–prey, prey–predator relationships) underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

P3 issues

Laws are formulated by parliament and transferred into government regulation or MMAF decree. Fisheries policies are set out through the Directorate-General for Capture Fisheries, MMAF, and these policies also require implementation at provincial and district levels under the Autonomy Law No. 23/2014. The Ministry, in decentralizing authority to the provinces and districts, assumes a facilitation and coordination role to guide these authorities in the management of their respective jurisdictions, consistent with national laws. The Ministry then focuses on implementation of these policies, through fisheries legislation for the offshore fisheries, i.e. vessels fishing outside 12 nautical miles or over 30 GTs, with delegated responsibility to provincial fisheries services for vessels < 30 GT.

An MSC scoring requirement is that there is an effective national legal system and a framework for cooperation with other parties, where necessary to deliver management outcomes. In 2017, Indonesia was deemed non-compliant in the WCPFC’s Compliance Monitoring Review process in implementing several obligations laid out in WCPFC conservation and management measures during 2016 (Attachment U, WCPFC 2017a). In relation to the tropical tunas measure (then, CMM 2015-01), these included:

• Para 16 – missed reporting deadline notifying the Secretariat of additional FAD measures (i.e. fourth month FAD closure in October or limit on the total number of FAD sets)

• Para 23 – failure to establish effort limits or equivalent catch limits for purse seine fisheries within the EEZ that reflects the geographical distributions of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas and are consistent with the objectives for those species; missed reporting deadline to notify the Secretariat of effort/catch limits.


• Para 24 – failure to report limits established under para 23 and their bases in Annual Report Part 2 and annual reporting of fishing days for the previous 12-month calendar.

• Para 34 – Less than 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels fishing solely within its national jurisdiction

• Para 44 – failure to report monthly on longline bigeye catch by Indonesian flagged vessels

Paras 47 & 48 were not assessed in the CMR in 2017, however, it is understood that Indonesia was yet to take measures to ensure the total effort and capacity of other commercial tuna fisheries for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack do not exceed 2001-2004 or 2004 levels. At the time of writing, the 2018 CMR report was still in draft form and not yet publicly available.

National objectives are enshrined by the policy pillars of sovereignty, sustainability, and prosperity, and incorporated into Indonesia’s main fisheries law (31 of 2004, revised by 45 of 2009). Both the precautionary and ecosystem approaches to fisheries management have also been introduced as component of the government’s core management objectives (Decree PMKDPRI 15/MEN/2012 (National Strategy on Fisheries Management)) and are explicit in deciding on management actions.

Reference is made to fishery management plans in the Fisheries Law as an instrument of fishery specific governance, and definitions for these plans are contained in Ministerial Regulation 29 of 2012 on compilation of fisheries management plans (Rencana Pengelolaan Perikanan, RPP), and these apply the requirements to estimate of Maximum Sustainable Yield for each stock, a maximum allowable catch and resource allocation system (from a national aggregate to provincial and district levels), based on historic levels of fishing in each jurisdictional area. The tuna fishery management plan was published in 2014 and is set to be renewed in 2020. The Tuna Management Plan sets out short and long-term objectives and but does not explicitly set out:

• WCPFC management requirements (WCPFC), which should be explicit within the management system.

• The application and management of harvest rules and tools per fishery or address the required ecosystem management issues (bycatch and ecosystem related issues, e.g. ETP management objectives per fishery.

The pre-assessment shows that organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. Similarly, consultation procedures exist in the form of the WPPNRI (fishery management area, Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan Negara Republik Indonesia). However, there appear to be constraints in the functionality of some of the WPP meetings because of transport logistics and lack of funding. It is also questionable whether the WPP structure, across 11 management areas is appropriate for straddling stocks. As such, whilst a formal structure exists to allow consultation with the provinces, the focus needs to remain on the development, and promulgation of the National Tuna Management Plan (NTMP) at national level. There is strong evidence that this has occurred with a proactive meeting structure leading to the development of AW

harvest strategies. This demonstrates that the current consultation processes provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved and facilitates their effective

engagement (3.1.2c). However, Indonesia has as yet not implemented some core management requirements required of WCPFC, is still to form an AW harvest strategy, it is evident that the Decision- making processes has yet to (a) result in measures and strategies to achieve fisheries

management objectives (3.2.2a) and (b) adequately respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation (3.2.2b). A FIP action will therefore need to address a formal structure to address consultation processes and decision-making, without the risk of it being diffused at provincial level. Prior to full assessment, the program will need to demonstrate that a fishery specific hierarchy for decisions exists which should include:

• Fisheries respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner;


• Precautionary actions are explicit within the fishery specific management policy;

• Evidence that through the WPP structure, explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity; and

• Evidence of legal challenges or judicial decisions are adhered to in the management of the fishery.

The pre-assessment also identifies that the compliance system in the fishery is weak, and that the current tools applied fail to deal effectively with the current management regulations (the application of logbook returns and limits to the number of AFADs, This suggests that as and when the harvest strategy is implemented, there will be a need to undertake a compliance risk assessment to determine the appropriate control measures for this fishery, and to ensure that the compliance tools adopted are sufficiently effective in eliminating systematic non-compliance. Under current measures, it is difficult to guarantee that the two principal reporting and control tools – logbook returns and AFAD restrictions are being effectively applied. Evidence will need to demonstrate completion of logbooks and

knowledge of FAD displacement. These will need to demonstrate ‘Some evidence exists to demonstrate

fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery (3.2.3c)’.

Fishery Improvement:

Based on the information available, we believe the fishery is currently not well placed to proceed to full assessment but could be if it can address potential impediments to certification. Improvements to management that would see the fishery better placed for certification include:

Principle 1

• Adopting Target Reference points and implementing a harvest strategy and harvest control tools for Archipelagic skipjack and yellowfin (bigeye tunas), that are compatible with the WCPO rules and tools. The strategy should include:

o Well defined trigger reference points for each species based on one of more proxy indicators (1.2.1a);

o Appropriate control rules and a primary management tool, most probably some form of effort control system or Total Allowable Catches for each fishery sector (1.2.1a);

o A harvest control rule to initiate the response to a fishery indicator moving above or below the trigger reference point (1.2.2a);

o A Management Strategy Evaluation to demonstrate that the HCRs will be effective and respond to the main uncertainties (1.1.2 b/1.2.1c), and that a management strategy is expected to work (1.2.2) or that stocks < MSY will recover within 2 times its generation time (1.1.2);

o Strengthen the information base for monitoring stock status and the responsiveness of the management system and fleet to the management measures applied (1.2.3);

• Adopting Target Reference Points for WCPFC yellowfin and bigeye tuna and applying harvest strategies across the WCPFC tropical tuna fisheries;

• Strengthening data collection from catch logbook returns for < and > 30 GT along with observer coverage and reviewing alternative systems that will strengthen compliance (e.g. e-reporting).

Principle 2

• Strengthen the data available for purse seine bycatch (neritic tunas and small pelagics) in order to assess the relative impact of the Kendari purse seine fishery on these stocks

• Contribute to the development of partial strategies for neritic tunas and scads in AW zone;


• MMAF and CFRD to work with SEAFDEC to develop a partial strategy for neritic tunas, including longtail tuna, bullet tunas and others (kawa and frigate tuna);

• Develop stock assessment for bullet tunas (as per SEAFDEC);

• Expand the existing PSAs to include scad, if no other small pelagic assessment data is available for WPP 713, WPP 714 and WPP 715;

• Provide evidence (observer reports) that shark finning is not taking place on purse seine vessels;

• Implement observer reporting targets for small-scale purse seine vessels (< 30 GT);

• Work with CFRD to review the system of catch verification from vessels < 30 GT, through port sampling;

• Undertake an assessment on the impact of AFADs on the epi-pelagic environment, and reassess the rational for such a measure;

• Undertake an assessment on the impact of AFADs on the epi-pelagic environment and reassess the rational for such a measure, i.e. limits on FAD numbers and the required distance between them.

Principle 3

• Implement effective WCPFC conservation and management measures (i.e. CMM 2017-01 para 25 (zone-based purse seine effort control); para 35 (100% PS observer coverage in national waters); para 51 (controls on ‘other commercial fisheries’) in WPP 716 and 717.

• Ensure that a comprehensive decision-making system is in place into the national consultative process that includes:

o Decision-making processes that results in measures and strategies to support the management of Tropical tunas and neritic tunas (3.2.2a);

o Decision-making responds to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner (3.2.2b);

o Ensuring that precautionary actions are explicit within the fishery-specific management policy (3.2.2c);

o Providing evidence to show that through these groups, explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity (3.2.2d);

• Develop and apply of a compliance risk assessment for the purse seine sub fisheries;

• Identify and apply compliance tools to effectively enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules (3.2.3a) including existing measures e.g. logbooks and AFADs, and new measures as they are applied after the adoption of fishery management tools (i.e. effort or quota management controls;

• Provide evidence that sanctions are being applied to the tuna purse seine sector and that they are an effective deterrent (3.2.3b);

• Provide evidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment’, addressing ‘when required, providing information (logbooks and FAD positions) of importance to the effective management of the fishery’;

• Ensure that there is a fisheries specific management performance review process in place which

is subject to internal and occasional external review (3.2.2b).


2. Introduction

2.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is an independent, global, non-profit organization which has established a third-party certification for sustainable fishing. It works to enhance responsible management of seafood resources, to ensure the sustainability of global fish stocks and the health of the marine ecosystem. It is supported by a broad coalition of those with a stake in the future of the global seafood supply. The MSC harnesses consumer power by identifying sustainable seafood products through an eco-label. The MSC has identified the following mission statement:

The MSC strongly recommends that fisheries that are considering certification according to the MSC standard carry out a pre-assessment. Independent Certification Assessment Bodies (CABs) carry out pre-assessments to assess whether a fishery is likely to pass the scoring standards set by MSC. In case of fisheries that are not deemed ready to proceed with a chance of success to full assessment, the pre-assessment will indicate where the weaknesses lie and as such provides direct entry points for plans to improve the fishery to make it more likely to pass full certification and improve its sustainability. This is known as a Fishery Improvement Plan (FIP).

The MSC recommends pre-assessments of fisheries interested in certification to help the client get a clear picture of whether the fishery is a good candidate for a full certification evaluation, to see what potential issues may arise as part of a full certification evaluation, and to determine the likely costs for a full certification. The client must provide evidence that 1) the policies, management principles, and enforcement programs of the responsible fishery management bodies and fishing fleets can be expected to meet the MSC Principles and Criteria; and 2) that the status of the entire biological stock or stocks of the species utilized by the fishery are healthy, even if the fishery just fishes a small portion of the entire stock(s). This is necessary because the MSC's Standards Council has determined that the biological stock of the species fished must be demonstrated as healthy for a fishery or fisheries to be fully certified. These pieces of information are designed to help a fishery make more informed decisions regarding its ability to move forward with full certification.

2.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery

There were no obvious constraints to the pre-assessment. Thanks, in particular go to Sven Blankenhorn, Heri Heri, Saraswati Adityarini and Achmad Mustofa for providing technical and facilitation support along with supporting reference material.

3. Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification

The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specifies that the Unit of Assessment (UoAs) are those fisheries in assessment or certified at the time the UoC announces its assessment or reassessment on the MSC website. The distinction used in this case is that the UoA represents purse seine fisheries in the Indonesian Archipelagic Waters WPP 711, WPP 712, WPP 713, WPP 714, WPP 715 and WPPF 718, along with WCPFC zones, 716 and 717, and the UoC represents the Kendari purse seine fishery in WPP 713, WPP 714 and WPP 715.

The MSC Guidelines to Certifiers specifies that the unit of certification is "The fishery or fish stock (=biologically distinct unit) combined with the fishing methods/gears and practice (=vessel(s) pursuing the fish of that stock) and management framework."

This pre-assessment assesses the Kendari purse seine management areas as Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan, WPP 713, WPP 714 and WPP 715, and identifies the UoCs based on each species defined as a target species.

To safeguard the world’s seafood supply by promoting the best environmental choice.


Two units of Certification (UoC) were evaluated in this pre-assessment: UoC 1: AW/WCPO Pacific Ocean Skipjack tuna (2,450 MT)

Species: Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)

Stock: Pacific Ocean Skipjack tuna

Geographical area: WPP 713 - The Makassar Strait and the Flores Sea (FAO 71)

WPP 714 - The Banda Seas (FAO 71)

WPP 715 - The Maluku and Seram Seas (FAO 71)

Harvest method: Purse seine

Management: National Indonesia Government (MMAF) Provincial (DKP) Indonesian Government

Client group: 97 purse seine vessels selling to PBN

Other eligible fishers: All Indonesian licensed purse seine vessels, operating from Indonesian ports in Kendari

UoC 2: AW/WCPO Yellowfin tuna (1,420 MT)

Species: Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Stock: Pacific Ocean Yellowfin tuna

Geographical area: WPP 713 - The Makassar Strait and the Flores Sea (FAO 71)

WPP 714 - The Banda Seas (FAO 71)

WPP 715 - The Maluku and Seram Seas (FAO 71)

Harvest method: Purse seine

Management: National Indonesia Government (MMAF) Provincial (DKP) Indonesian Government

Client group: 164 purse seine vessels selling to PBN

Other eligible fishers: All Indonesian licensed purse seine vessels, operating from Indonesian ports in Kendari

Bigeye tuna is nominated as a P2/Primary species for the purposes of the Kendari purse seine assessment because there are no discernible markets for this fishery. However, assessors will have to review the possibility of species mixing of yellowfin and bigeye tuna under Chain of Custody (MSC V 2, 7.4.13) and the criteria used to define Inseparable or practicably inseparable catches (See Box 1, Section 12 – Traceability). If it becomes impossible to separate out Bigeye tuna from Yellowfin tuna prior to recertification, then the bigeye tuna catches will have to first seek an IPI exemption for the first assessment; and then be assessed as P1/Target species, if separation does not occur.

4. Catch and Effort Data

There are 319 purse seiners operating in the Indonesia port of Kendari targeting Pacific Ocean yellowfin and skipjack tuna along with a bycatch of bigeye tuna, bullet tuna and small pelagic species.

Catches are taken exclusively in three of Indonesia’s Fishery Management Areas: The Makassar

Strait and the Flores Sea (WPP 713), the Banda Sea (WPP 714) and the Maluku and Seram Seas (WPP 715), which are in Indonesia’s archipelagic zone. The archipelagic contiguous zone falls under national management responsibility with two associated management systems: The national management authority, MMAF is responsible for the management jurisdiction for the vessels > 30 GT, and outside of 12 nm; and the Provincial Dinas Perikanan (DKP) falls or vessels < = 30 GT and within 12 nm. This means that licenses are issued by DKP for vessels < 30 GT and when fishing in the WPP


zones, and if required for outside 12 nm; and by MMAF for vessels > 30GT, fishing exclusively outside the 12nm limit. Vessels < 30 GT may fish in up to two FMAs, with licenses issued by the Kendari DKP, under special arrangement with the Bitung Provincial DKP (WPP 715).

Figure 1. Fisheries Management Areas (WPP) in Indonesian marine waters

The catch taken by the 319 vessels is shown in Figure 1, divided between < and > 30 GT, along with the distribution by species (Figure 2) in percentage terms. It is expected that the catch volumes are understated.

Figure 2: Catch by species (and

vessel size group) (2016) Source:

Kendari catch data_SB.xls

-

2,000.00

4,000.00

6,000.00

8,000.00

10,000.00

Skipjack Yellowfin Bullettuna

Scad Bigeye Other

>30 GT

< 30 GT


Figure 3: Catch by species

Source: Kendari catch data_SB.xls

It is highly likely that catches of bigeye tuna are understated. However, indications from PBN suggest that bigeye may account for 20% of the YFT catch, i.e. around 262 MT, but at 1.6%. Hence, neither main, or minor vulnerable. Bigeye tuna is selected as a target species as there is no discernible market for this species from this UoC.

Total WCPO catches of skipjack and yellowfin are 2 million MT and 857,000 MT (Table 1). Total catches of skipjack and yellowfin in AW are 60,000 and 16,000 MT. The UoC represents 0.12% and 0.12% of the WCPO fishery for both skipjack and yellowfin respectively, and 4.1% and 8.8% of the total catch caught in Indonesian AW. It is highly likely that these volumes will change as part of the FIP activities, which will seek to further quantify and strengthen the data available.

Table 1: Purse seine tropical tuna Catch by Indonesia and Total catch by all nations (2016)

Skipjack Yellowfin Skipjack Yellowfin Skipjack Yellowfin

Tonnes % AW % of WCPO total

Kendari 2,450 1,420 4.1% 8.8% 0.12% 0.17%

Indonesian

AW

60,434 16,094 2.92% 1.88%

Indonesia

WCPO

97,836 25,766 4.73% 3.01%

WCPO 2,070,035 856,630 100.00% 100.00%

Source: Kendari catch data_SB.xls (Kendari), Indonesia AW and WCPO (Hatfield, 2018) WCPO (WCPFC Tuna

Fishery Yearbook, 2017)

5. Description of the fishery

Purse seines (PS) were first introduced to Indonesia in the early 1960’s. Following the trawl ban in the early 1980’s, when many trawl units were converted to PS. Vessel fishing power and numbers continued to increase throughout Indonesia, but these were mostly smaller vessels, targeting small pelagics.

In the late 1980s, larger PS vessels were added to the fleet to provide tropical tuna supplies to onshore processors. The tropical tuna PS fishery peaked in 2013, partially with the support of foreign investment (and ownership), and then subsequently declined with the removal of large foreign owned vessels from the fishery. The tuna catch has remained relatively stable since then.

Purse seine nets are surround nets (jaring lingkar) with a purse line (tali kerut) drawn to close the floor of the net through attached rings. Purse seine nets are usually operated from a single vessel, but, in some cases, two vessels may be involved. The size of vessels varies from 10-30 GT to larger >30 GT to >150 GT.

13%

6%

50%

30%

0% 1%

Skipjack

Yellowfin

Bullet tuna

Scad

Bigeye

Other


There are estimated 800 Indonesia purse seine vessels > = 30 GT, but as many as 35,200 < 30 GT (Hatfield, 2018). Industrial purse seiners (500-2,000 GT) dominate the wider Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) PS tuna fishery, but these do not operate in Indonesian waters.

Both small and large pelagic fish are taken by Indonesian purse seiners, typically around anchored fish aggregation devices (FADs or rumpons), in association with light attraction at night. Smaller vessels tend to concentrate on small pelagics, while larger vessels fish offshore for tropical tunas. Vessels fishing closer to shore will also encounter neritic tunas. These may be fairly common in the AW zones and off West Sumatra and South Java.

6. Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme

The Kendari purse seine fishery has been assessed with regard to special considerations for the scope of the MSC certification sought (FCR 27.4):

• Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification– see above;

• Enhanced Fishery – the Indonesian FAD purse seine fishery may meet the MSC definition of an enhanced fishery. However, the interpretation of this needs to consider i) If serious or irreversible harm may be caused to the natural ecosystem’s structure and function, including the natural food chains of predator and/or prey species; and ii) the types and extent of habitat modifications and the possibility of these causing serious or irreversible impacts. The DNV Raja Ampat pole-and-line assessment (DNV,2018) considered these matters but suggested that the scale and intensity of the UoA (20 anchored FADs across major deep-water areas with relatively small removal of biomass from the epipelagic habitat/system), that the default tree PISG are adequate. The scale and intensity of the purse seine AFAD fishery is more significant, and as such this issue needs to be determined. It is also noteworthy that there are other FAD fisheries that have been assessed (Maldives pole-and-line (DNV, 2017) and Eschebastar purse seine (Acoura Marine 2017) and not been assessed under the default assessment tree as enhanced fisheries. Once again, this may be a question of scale, which needs to be evaluated against the impact of removal of biomass from the epipelagic habitat/system.

• Unilateral Exemption – the Indonesian purse seine fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement;

• Destructive Fishing Practices – the Indonesian purse fishery does not use fishing with poisons or explosives;

• Dispute or Controversy – the Indonesian purse seine fishery is not the subject of controversy and/or dispute;

• Past MSC Record – the Indonesian purse seine fishery has not previously failed assessment nor had a certificate withdrawn;

• Other Eligible Fishers – All license holders in the Indonesian purse seine fishery would be eligible to use an MSC certificate awarded to the fishery;

• IPI Stocks – There are no issues for the Indonesian purse seine fishery regarding Inseparable or Practically Inseparable stocks;

• Enhanced Stocks – the Indonesian purse seine fishery does not comprise any enhanced stocks;

• Introduced Species – the Indonesian purse seine fishery is not based on any introduced species.

• Overlapping Fisheries – the Indonesian purse seine fishery unit of certification overlap with other MSC certified fisheries. These include:

• The PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and Yellowfin, unassociated/non FAD Set, tuna purse seine, certified in 2011 (Acoura Marine, 2018)

• Maldives pole-and-line skipjack tuna, certified in November 2012 (DNV-GL, 2017)

• Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna, certified in June 2016 (SCS, 2016)

• Solomon Islands skipjack and yellowfin tuna purse seine and pole and line, certified in July 2016 (MRAG, 2016)

• Japanese Pole and Line skipjack and albacore tuna fishery, certified in October 2016

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/tri-marine-western-and-central-pacific-skipjack-and-yellowfin-tuna/

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/solomon-islands-skipjack-and-yellowfin-tuna-purse-seine-and-pole-and-line/

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/japanese-pole-and-line-skipjack-and-albacore-tuna-fishery/


(Acoura Marine, 2017)

• The Talleys New Zealand Skipjack Tuna Purse Seine, certified in August 2017 (Acoura Marine, 2017)

• WPSTA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin free school purse seine, certified in June 2018 (Acoura Marine, 2017)

• The Eschebastar Indian Ocean purse seine skipjack tuna, Certified in November, 2018 (Acoura Marine, 2018)

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/talleys-new-zealand-skipjack-tuna-purse-seine/

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/wpsta-western-and-central-pacific-skipjack-and-yellowfin-free-school-purse-seine/

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


7. Principle One: Target species background

7.1 UoA 1: WCPO Skipjack

7.1.1 Biology and distribution (Pacific Ocean Skipjack tuna)

Skipjack tuna are found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans. They are the smallest of the major commercial tuna species, generally not exceeding 20 kg. In the Western Pacific, warm, pole ward-flowing currents near northern Japan and southern Australia seasonally extend skipjack tuna distribution to 40°N and 40°S (McKechnie, et al. 2016). However, their greatest abundance is seen in equatorial waters, roughly corresponding to a 20°C surface isotherm.

Skipjack in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) are considered to comprise a single stock for assessment and management purposes. A substantial amount of information on skipjack movement is available from tagging programs, which have documented some large-scale movement within the Pacific (Figure 4). Skipjack movement is highly variable (Sibert et al. 1999, cited in McKechnie et al, 2016) but is thought to be influenced by large-scale oceanographic variability (Lehodey et al. 1997, cited in McKechnie et al, 2016). Analyses of the tagging data have, however, indicated that the median lifetime displacement of skipjack ranges from 420 to 470 nautical miles (Sibert & Hampton 2003, cited in McKechnie et al, 2016).

Figure 4. Map of the movements of tagged skipjack released in the WCPO and subsequently recaptured.

(Source: McKechnie et al. 2016).

Skipjack are highly fecund and spawn opportunistically throughout their range and throughout the year when conditions are favourable, with the spawning season becoming shorter with increasing distance from the equator. They reach maturity at about 40 cm fork length (FL) and within their first year. Fecundity increases with size but is highly variable. The estimated number of eggs produced per season in females of 41 to 87 cm FL ranges between 80,000 and 2 million. Skipjack tuna have a generation time of 2 years (Berger et al. 2013).

Skipjack growth is rapid compared to yellowfin and bigeye tuna. In the Pacific, approximate age estimates from counting daily rings on otoliths suggest that growth may vary between areas. At 150, 200, 300 and 400 days, FLs of 42, 47, 55, and 60 cm were estimated for fish sampled close to the equator (Leroy 2000, cited in McKechnie et al, 2016).

Skipjack tuna form both free schools and schools associated with FADs or other floating objects. Monthly observer sampling of the catch indicates that, when fished as surface schooling adults, they


are typically caught at 30–70 cm and 2–5 kg in size. Depth distribution ranges from the surface to about 260 m during the day but is limited to near surface waters at night (FAO 2016, cited in McKechnie, et al, 2016).

Skipjack tuna feed on fishes, crustaceans, cephalopods and molluscs; cannibalism is common. They are preyed upon by large pelagic fishes and sharks. Skipjack tuna are not a Low Trophic Level species. Their trophic level (as reported in www.Fishbase.org) has been estimated at 4.4.

7.1.2 Information (Western and Central Pacific Ocean Skipjack tuna)

Catch, effort, size composition, and tagging data are assembled for 23 fisheries, including Indonesian purse seine. Fisheries are modelled with respect to their selectivity by size, areas fished, and standardised catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE). CPUE time series for the Philippines domestic purse seine fishery and the PNG archipelagic purse seine fishery have been developed for inclusion in the skipjack and yellowfin assessments. Improvement in the quality of the data available has been strengthened with the support of the West Pacific East Asia Project (WPEA) (https://www.wcpfc.int/west-pacific-east-asia-oceanic-fisheries-management-project).

The majority of skipjack catch is taken by purse-seine vessels in the WCPO’s equatorial region fishing under the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) Vessel Days Scheme (VDS). Reporting is by standardised WCPFC logbook, with an increasing use of electronic data reporting, allowing for the inclusion of the most recent year’s data.

Size composition data (length‐frequency) for each of the defined fisheries were compiled into 54 x 2 cm size classes (2–4 cm to 108–110 cm) with data from purse-seine, longline and pole-and-line, as well as a limited amount of data from domestic fisheries in the Philippines, Indonesia and more recently Vietnam. Previous assessments used purse-seine length frequencies from grab samples taken by observers, but this has since been changed to spill samples, which are believed to be more accurate. Data from the pole and line fisheries in Region 3 were dominated by observer collected samples from the Japanese fleets (1974–2004), with additional data from Fiji in the 1990’s. Length data from the pole and line fishery in Region 4 consist of mostly Japanese data (1972–2009), with significant data from Indonesia in the years 2009–2012.

Tagging data are a key input and are of particular importance for the skipjack assessment. Data used in the assessment include the Secretariat of the Pacific Commission Oceanic Fisheries Programme (SPC OFP) Skipjack Survey and Assessment Project carried out during 1977–80, the Regional Tuna

Tagging Project (RTTP) undertaken during 1989–92 and in‐country projects in the Solomon Islands (1989–90), Kiribati (1991), Fiji (1992) and the Philippines (1992). In addition, tagging data from regular Japanese research cruises were available for the period 1988-2012 and tagging data from the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (PTTP) were available from 2006 until the 2nd quarter of 2012. All tags were released using standard tuna tagging equipment and techniques by trained scientists and technicians. Tags have been returned mostly from purse seine vessels via processing and unloading

facilities throughout the Asia‐Pacific region. For incorporation into the assessment, tag releases were stratified by release region, time period of release (quarter) and the same size classes used to stratify

the length‐frequency data. A total of 277,562 effective releases were classified into 251 tag release groups.

Estimates of natural mortality rate have been obtained using a size-structured tag attrition model (Hampton 2000, cited in McKechnie et al, 2016), which indicated that natural mortality was substantially larger for small skipjack (21-30 cm FL, M=0.8 per month) compared to larger skipjack (51–70 cm FL, M=0.12-0.15 per month). The longest period at liberty for a tagged skipjack was 4.5 years.

7.1.3. Stock assessment (Western and Central Pacific Ocean Skipjack tuna)

Assessments are undertaken by the SPC OFP as the scientific advisory body for the WCPFC. The latest skipjack assessment (McKechnie et al. 2016) was presented at the 12th regular session of the WCPFC SC meeting, held in 2016. Skipjack tuna stock assessments have been conducted regularly since 2000.

http://www.fishbase.org/


Assessments are conducted using the well-established MULTIFAN-CL software which was developed as an analytical tool for fisheries in which large-scale age sampling of catches is unfeasible or not cost effective, but where length-frequency (size composition) sampling data are available. MULTIFAN provides a statistically based, robust method of length-frequency analysis, fitting an age- and spatially-structured model to catch, effort, size composition, and tagging data. The model first developed for skipjack tuna in 1998 and has been continually fine-tuned and improved. 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 new assessment makes a number of structural and technical changes to the 2014 assessment and takes account of issues raised in an independent review of the 2011 bigeye tuna assessment which were also applicable to the skipjack assessment (Ianelli et al. 2012). The assessments include additional provision for uncertainties (biomass and recruitment) in the assessment model, particularly in response to the inclusion of additional years of data, and to improve diagnostic weaknesses of previous assessments. Sensitivity tests and confidence intervals are also calculated.

The skipjack assessment explicitly explores sources of uncertainty. Two approaches are used to describe the uncertainty. The first estimates statistical uncertainty within a given assessment model. In addition, structural uncertainty in the assessment is examined by considering the variation in a crosswise grid of model runs which include many of the options of uncertainty explored during model development (McKechnie et al. 2016). The structural uncertainty includes examination of factors including steepness, the length composition weighting data, the assumed tag mixing period and the tagging data weighting, resulting in a grid of 54 models. Model outputs are provided in a probabilistic way.

The SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme provides an ongoing programme of review of assessment assumptions and approaches. Model structure has been updated to reflect the availability of new data or new interpretations of existing data. A suite of sensitivity analyses are undertaken to explore the impact of options such as changing assumptions for fixed parameters or different treatments of the data. Furthermore, retrospective analyses have been undertaken to explore any systematic biases in the model and the results used to adjust the reference case. Aspects of uncertainty examined include stock-recruitment steepness, alternate growth assumptions, alternate mixing assumptions and changes in weighting factors (Rice et al, 2014, McKechnie et al. 2016). The assessment for skipjack tuna has been shown to be robust. The SG100 requirements are met.

In 2005, Labelle simulation tested MULTIFAN-CL for a ‘yellowfin’ style stock and found the resulting estimates were ‘relatively close’ to the simulated values. Reference points (e.g. Fmsy) were within +/- 12%. This test is demonstrates the overall value of MULTIFAN for all tuna stock assessments See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783604002140.

7.1.4 Stock status (Western and Central Pacific Ocean Skipjack tuna)

The overall management advice from the 2016 and 2017 Science Committee (SC) is that the skipjack assessment continues to show that the stock is currently moderately exploited and fishing mortality level is sustainable. The recent catches are fluctuating around, and some models also indicate that the stock is currently under the Target Reference Point (TRP). WCPFC SC12 also noted that fishing is having a significant impact on stock size and can be expected to affect catch rates. The stock distribution is also influenced by changes in oceanographic conditions associated with El Niño and La Niña events, which impact on catch rates and stock size.

The 2016 WCPO catch of skipjack (1,816,650 mt – 67% of the total catch) was the fourth highest recorded, nearly 160,369 mt less than the record in 2014 (1,977,019 mt). This was 3% below the estimated MSY (1,875,600), noting that those two numbers are not directly comparable because MSY is calculated based on the historical average recruitment.

The main conclusions of the 2016 stock assessment (McKechnie et al. 2016) were as follows.

A fluctuating but consistently high level of recruitment since the early 1970s has supported a robust fishery in all regions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783604002140


Current catches are lower than, but approaching estimated MSY.

Fishing mortality of all age-classes is estimated to have increased significantly since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing, but fishing mortality still remains below the level that would result in the MSY and is estimated to have decreased moderately in the last several years.

Recent levels of spawning biomass are well above the level that will support the MSY, and are well above the limit reference point, 20%SBF=0.

The management advice is summarised in Table 2. Table 2: Estimates of management quantities for selected stock assessment models. Parameter Base case h=0.65 h=0.95 Mix_2qtr

Clatest 1,679,528 1,679,517 1,679,522 1,679,609

MSY 1,891,600 2,026,400 1,832,800 2,076,800

Frecent/FMSY 0.45 0.51 0.40 0.41

SB0 6,764,000 7,637,000 6,284,000 7,463,000

SBMSY 1,626,000 1,972,000 1,423,000 1,858,000

SBF=0 7,221,135 7,802,299 6,877,143 7,751,452

SBlatest/SB0 0.62 0.55 0.66 0.68

SBlatest/SBF=0 0.58 0.53 0.61 0.61

SBlatest/SBMSY 2.56 2.11 2.93 2.73

SBrecent/SBF=0 0.52 0.48 0.54 0.56

SBrecent/SBMSY 2.31 1.90 2.63 2.32

(Source: WCPFC 2016b).N. B: For the purpose of this assessment, “recent” is the average over the period 2011– 2014

and “latest” is 2015. Mix_2qtr relates to the tag mixing period and h = steepness.

Figure 5 shows a Kobe plot of the outcomes across the grid of model runs.

Figure 5 Summary of latest stock status (2016) (Source: McKechnie et al)


7.2 UoA 2: WCPO Yellowfin

7.2.1 Biology and distribution (Western and Central Pacific Ocean Yellowfin tuna)

Yellowfin tuna are found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. The thermal boundaries of occurrence are roughly between 18° and 31°C.

The distribution of yellowfin tuna in the Pacific is nearly continuous. However, the lack of evidence for long-range east-west or north-south migrations of adults suggests that exchange between the yellowfin tuna from the Eastern and the Central Pacific, and between the Western and the Central Pacific, is limited. This suggests the existence of subpopulations. There is a large amount of tagging

data (1989‐2017) which indicate extensive latitudinal movements among the equatorial regions but

also a level of longitudinal movements to and from the sub‐ tropical latitudes (Figure 6).

The tagging data suggest that tuna can follow the movement of convergence zones and other areas of higher productivity and respond to events such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which change geographical patterns of productivity in the equatorial Pacific. For the purpose of WCPFC yellowfin stock assessments, the stock within the domain of the model area (essentially the WCPO, west of 210°E) has been considered as a discrete stock unit, with movement between regions modelled empirically based on analysis of tagging data (Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2017).

Figure 6: Long-distance (>1,000 nmi) displacements of tagged yellowfin in the Pacific Ocean from data

available to SPC. (Source: Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2017). The green arrows are data from the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (2008-current). The purple arrows are from earlier

SPC tagging in the western Pacific (Regional Tuna Tagging Project, 1989-1992), the IATTC in the eastern Pacific and

the University of Hawaii in the North Pacific around Hawaii.

Yellowfin tuna are a fast-growing species. Juvenile yellowfin are first recruited to commercial fisheries (mainly surface fisheries in Philippines and eastern Indonesia) at a few months of age. They grow

quickly to an estimated mean length for the final age‐class of approximately 153 cm, with a maximum fork length close to 200 cm.

Yellowfin tuna mature at around 2-3 years of age but when information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction are included, the reproductive output is found to peak between 10 and 15 years of age. Spawning occurs throughout the year in the core areas of distribution, but peaks are observed in the northern and southern summer months.

Small yellowfin tuna are found in surface waters for the most part (often associated with skipjack), but as they grow, they may change their behaviour to live somewhat deeper (although still usually above


the thermocline and shallower than albacore in a given area). Yellowfin tuna feed on other fish, crustaceans and squid.

Natural mortality is considered to be variable by size, declining initially with size, then increasing at the onset of maturity. The lowest rate is estimated at approximately 0.6-0.8 per year for pre-adult yellowfin of around 50-80cm fork length (Hampton 2000, cited in Tremblay-Boyer et al, 2017). Natural mortality is a key uncertainty in the stock assessment, as it is for many stocks.

7.2.2 Information (Western and Central Pacific Ocean Yellowfin tuna)

The data used in the yellowfin tuna assessment using MFCL consist of catch, effort, length-frequency and weight-frequency data for the fisheries defined in the analysis, and tag release-recapture data. Thirty-two fisheries are defined but covering purse seine and longline fisheries as well as incorporating catch estimates from Indonesia and the Philippines through the WPEA project.

WCPO annual catches by major gear categories used in the assessment are shown in Figure 7. Catch identified as “other” is dominated by the domestic fisheries of the Philippines, Indonesia and Vietnam, principally catching smaller fish using a variety of small-scale gear types (e.g. pole and line, ringnet, gillnet, and handline) but also including small to medium sized purse seines (Tremblay-Boyer et al.2017). Aside from the significance of purse seine sets, the data shows the ‘other’ group which is largely made up of catches in Indonesian and Philippines waters.

Figure 7: Estimates of reduction in spawning potential due to fishing (fishery impact =

1−SBlatest/SBF=0) by region, and over all regions (lower right panel), attributed to various fishery

groups for the diagnostic case model (Source: Tremblay-Boyer, 2017)


Figure 8: Total annual catch (1000s mt) of yellowfin tuna by fishing gear as used in the 2017 stock

assessment’s reference case model (Source: Tremblay-Boyer et al.2017). Available length-frequency data for each of the defined fisheries were compiled into 95 2-cm size classes (10-12 cm to 198-200 cm). Data were either collected onboard by fishers, through observer programmes, or through port sampling. Size data were either missing or poor for the Indonesian and Vietnamese small-fish fisheries and the Indonesian-Philippines ex-EEZ purse seine fishery.

The yellowfin assessment incorporates tagging data, as they are informative about stock size, and exploitation rate. A large amount of tagging data was available for incorporation into the assessment. The data used consisted of the OFP’s Regional Tuna Tagging Project conducted during 1989-1992, the Coral Sea tagging program (1991-1995), and the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (PTTP) data. For incorporation into the MULTIFAN-CL analysis, tag releases were stratified by release region, time period of release (quarter) and the same size classes used to stratify the length frequency data. A total of 82,581 releases were classified into 78 tag release groups. Returns from each size‐class of each tag release group (14,883 tag returns in total) were then classified by recapture fishery and recapture time period (quarter).

7.2.3 Stock assessment (Pacific Ocean Yellowfin tuna)

Stock assessments for yellowfin tuna have been conducted frequently since 1999. An independent review of the 2011 bigeye tuna assessment (Ianelli et al., 2012) made several recommendations for improvement that apply equally to the yellowfin tuna assessment, and these have been incorporated into the current assessment where possible.

The assessment model relies mainly on catch and effort data for various fleets, size data and tagging data. The most recent stock assessment was conducted in 2017 (Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2017) and follows much the same process as described above for skipjack, i.e., it is undertaken by SPC’s OFP, uses MULTIFAN-CL, draft results are submitted to the SC for discussion and review, and a final report presented to the WCPFC plenary. A pre-assessment workshop provided overview of the main input data sets and recommendations regarding the range of assessment model options and sensitivities to be included within the stock assessment. CPUE as an indicator of abundance from several fisheries is incorporated into the stock assessment. These include the Philippines and PNG archipelagic waters purse seine fisheries. The longline CPUE indices for the main longline fisheries in each region are one of the most important inputs to the assessment as they provide information on trends in abundance over time for each subregion.

Aside from updating the input data (catch, effort, size frequencies, and standardised CPUE derived from aggregate and operational data), there were no differences in the input data and structural


assumptions of the 2014 assessment compared to the 2014 assessment. The assessment is supported by several other analyses that include: improved purse seine catch estimates, reviews of the catch statistics of the component fisheries, standardised CPUE analyses of operational level catch and effort data, and preparation of tagging data and size composition data (Tremblay-Boyer et al.2017).

The current assessment investigated the impact of a wider range of uncertainties than previous yellowfin assessments.

7.2.4 Stock status (Western and Central Pacific Ocean Yellowfin tuna)

Stock status is presented in the 2017 assessment report (Tremblay-Boyer et al.2017) and the 2017 SC summary report (WCPFC 2017a). Outputs of the 2017 assessment relative to a range of reference points are given in Table 3.

Fishing mortality has generally been increasing through time. For the reference case Fcurrent (2014–2017 average) is estimated to be 0.77 times the fishing mortality that will support MSY. Across the four models (base case and three sensitivity models) Fcurrent/FMSY ranged from 0.54 to 1.13 (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Tremblay-Boyer et al reported equilibrium unfished spawning potential SB0 was estimated at 2,199,750 mt and the spawning potential that would support the MSY was estimated to be 527,940 mt or 24 % of SB0.

Management advice based on the 2016 assessment is that yellowfin spawning biomass is above the biomass-based LRP (0.2SBF=0) and overall fishing mortality appears to be below FMSY. It is highly likely that the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Latest catches in the assessment (611,982 mt, 2015) of WCPO yellowfin tuna was below MSY (670,658 mt). Table 3 shows that the latest estimate of spawning biomass of 687,547 t is above both the level that will support MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 1.40 for the base case and ranges from 0.8 to 1.91 across the four models) and also above the LRP of 0.2SBF=0 (SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.35) for the base case model and ranges from 0.32 to 0.46 (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

The main conclusions of the 2017 stock assessment were as follows (Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2017):

The main conclusions of the 2017 stock assessment were as follows (Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2017):

1. Biomass is estimated to have declined throughout the model period for all models in the grid. Those declines are found across most tropical and temperate regions of the model;

2. Across the model grid, the terminal depletion estimated for the majority of runs estimate stock status levels to be above the 20%SBF=0. The range of SBlatest/SBF=0 values was 0.18 to 0.45.

Only two runs (<5%) fell below the LRP of 20%SBF=0. The median estimate (0.33) is comparable

to that estimated from the 2014 assessment

3. Corresponding estimates of Frecent/Fmsy ranged from 0.58 to 1.13, with 2 out of the 48 runs

(<5%) indicating that Frecent/Fmsy > 1. The median estimate (0.75) is also comparable to that

estimated from the 2014 assessment

4. Fishing mortality for adult and juvenile yellowfin tuna is estimated to have increased continuously since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing (seen in the diagnostic case model). In general, these have been on average higher for juveniles, but in recent years adult fishing mortality has also increased. A significant component of the increase in juvenile fishing mortality is attributable to the Philippines, Indonesian and Vietnamese surface fisheries, which have the most uncertain catch, effort and size data1.

1 MSC scores the fishery on the basis of stock status. The high take of juvenile species in the catch may

(juvenile overfishing) be a cause of stock decline. In the case of tuna, this has been an issue for both yellowfin and bigeye tunas. However, both stocks are not currently considered to be overfished. That said,


5. The significance of the recent increased recruitment events and the progression of these fish to the spawning potential component of the stock are encouraging, although whether this is a result of management measures for the fishery or beneficial environmental conditions is currently unclear.

Table 3: Summary of reference points over all 48 individual models in the structural

uncertainty grid.

The increased development of fisheries catching younger yellowfin (e.g. the PH and ID miscellaneous fisheries) has impacted on MSY levels (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017), although purse-seines are still predicted to catch larger fish to an extent, but only for unassociated fisheries that target free schools. This trend of associated purse-seines catching a greater proportion of smaller fish than the corresponding unassociated fisheries is generally expected to increase across the regions.

If recent recruitments are assumed, spawning biomass will remain relatively constant, and the stock is exceptionally unlikely (0%) to become overfished or to become subject to overfishing, and it was very unlikely (2%) that the spawning biomass would fall below SBMSY (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

The assessment outcome is summarised in the Kobe plots (Figure 9 and Figure 10).

there may be an issue of localized depletion, but there is no requirement in the MSC standard to score localized depletions across transboundary stocks.


Figure 9: Yellowfin tuna: Estimated time-series (or “dynamic”) Kobe plots for two example models

from the assessment (one from each of the levels of the size weighting axis) (Source: Tremblay-Boyer et

al. 2017).

Figure 10: Yellowfin tuna:

Alternative portrayal of stock status

with target and limit reference points (Source: Tremblay-Boyer et al.

2017). The red zone represents

spawning potential levels lower than

the agreed limit reference point

which is marked with the solid black

line. The orange region is for fishing

mortality greater than FMSY

(F=FMSY is marked with the black

dashed line). The lightly shaded

green rectangle covering 0.4-

0.6SBF=0 is the ‘space’ that WCPFC

asked for consideration of a TRP for

skipjack shaded green rectangle

covering 0.4-0.6SBF=0 is the ‘space’

that WCPFC asked for consideration of

a TRP for skipjack tuna.


MSC pre-assessment of Kendari tuna purse seine fishery page 28

8. Harvest strategies

The MSC defines a harvest strategy as “The combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions. These rules are based on a number of core requirements:

• The stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY). This requires that where either BMSY or the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) are analytically

determined, the appropriate reference points for measuring stock status depending on the species: BMSY=40%B0; PRI=20%B0=1⁄2BMSY.

• That the stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. It is highly likely that the

stock is above the PRI.

• That well-defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is

approached, and are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with

(or above) MSY

• That HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties.

• The information available and stock assessment monitoring.

• Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the

exploitation levels required under the HCRs. Available evidence is usually provided in the form of a management strategy evaluation (MSE).

HCRs are often applied on a frequent basis, such as with the annual setting of TACs (an output control) or fishing effort restrictions (an input control). The HCR must respond dynamically to the monitoring data from the fishery with regular adjustments to the management tool, when required. Other measures, other than TACs and effort control may comprise only technical measures such as size limits, gear restrictions, closed seasons and closed areas. In these cases, the specific terms of the technical measures are usually set and fixed for a relatively long period of time (several years), based on occasional strategic stock assessments. Development of these other measures could address some specific areas of concern identified for specific species or species groups, identified by some of the proxy parameters, e.g. the

threat to pre-adult species.

8.1 WCPFC tuna harvest strategy

The WCPO harvest strategy for skipjack tuna has several components, with WCPFC, and national and archipelagic management actions, supported by a robust stock assessment and extensive monitoring frameworks (See sections 1.6.1 – 1.6.3 above). Monitoring frameworks include the collection of operational catch and effort data, the provision of a range of scientific, monitoring and compliance information by observers, VMS data, and port sampling data. The monitoring provides the key databases for the skipjack tuna stock assessments.

WCPFC has adopted some interim components of a HS including for skipjack (e.g. LRP & TRP, plus narrowed the range for other components such as the risk of breaching the TRP) but it has not adopted a Harvest Strategy in its entirety. This can only be achieved once management measures are directly linked to harvest control rules and are demonstrably responsive to ensuring that exploitation levels remain within the reference points set. That said, the current status is within the boundaries of the reference points set for skipjack.

The current WCPFC CMM relating to the stock management and management measures for skipjack tuna is CMM 2017-01 (WCPFC, 2017b). This measure is applicable to Indonesia’s WPP zones 716 and 717 and has evolved from the first WCPFC tropical tunas management measure, CMM 2005-01. This initial measure was aimed at managing bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna rather than skipjack tuna, predominantly limiting purse seine effort to the 2004 level or average 2001 to 2004 levels.

CMM 2008-01 (replacing CMM 2005-01) was also aimed at managing bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna. It introduced measures such as a requirement for 100% observer coverage for purse seine vessels, and FAD restrictions. Purse seine effort levels in CMM 2008-01 were similar to those described for 2005-01 but recognized the limits in place under the PNA’ VDS.



WCPFC (2010) noted that “the WCPO skipjack tuna stock is decreasing slowly and is now about 50% depleted from an unexploited level. This is a moderate level of depletion: the stock is not overfished, and there is no overfishing. However, at some time in the near future a decision will have to be made as to the acceptable level of depletion and future harvest strategies for this stock.” WCPFC (2010) discussed the need for extension of several aspects of 2008-01, including the conservation and management of skipjack tuna as well as bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna.

A major update of CMM 2008-01 came in 2012 with the adoption of CMM 2012-01 as a measure for

the conservation and management of skipjack tuna as well as bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna,

introducing an objective for skipjack tuna that F/Fmsy ≤ 1. CMM 2012-01 included binding purse seine effort limits without exemptions for all EEZs. This includes, limiting effort in PNA EEZs to the 2010 level (paras 12-14 of the CMM) and limiting effort or catch in all other EEZs, including Pacific Island countries, Indonesia and Philippines and other coastal states including Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the US. The CMM also extended the effort and capacity limits of other commercial fisheries to apply also to skipjack tuna (para 30 of the CMM). As a result, the 2010 effort level was applied as a hard limit for all purse seine effort in PNA EEZs, as well as binging limits on other purse seine fisheries, where the combined effort exceeding 2,000 vessel days, along with limits on other commercial fisheries.

The core elements of the harvest strategy are contained in the annual revisions of the Tropical Tuna measure, the current one being CMM 2017-01 (WCPFC, 2017b) of which there are a number of key components:

• Para 16. A three (3) months (July, August and September) prohibition of deploying, servicing or setting on FADs shall be in place between 0001 hours UTC on 1 July and 2359 hours UTC on 30 September each year for all purse seine vessels, tender vessels, and any other vessels operating in support of purse seine vessels fishing in exclusive economic zones and the high seas in the

area between 20oN and 20oS.

• Para 25. CCMs (Commission Cooperating Members within the Convention Area shall restrict purse seine effort and/or catch of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna within their EEZs in accordance with the effort limits established and notified to the Commission. Noting that Indonesia has not notified limits to the Commission, whereas as other (PNA, other Pacific Islands, Japan, Australia and New Zealand) CCMs have.

• Para 35. Each CCM shall ensure that all purse seine vessels fishing solely within its national jurisdiction within the area bounded by 20°N and 20°S carry an observer

• Para 39. As an interim measure, CCMs listed in Attachment 1, shall restrict the level of bigeye catch to the levels of catch as specified. Indonesia’s bigeye catch limit is 5,889 MT, against a recorded bigeye catch of 4,954 MT (2016) (WCPFC, 2017).

• Para 50. To assist the Commission in the further development of provisions to manage the catch of bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas, the Scientific and Technical and Compliance Committees during their meeting in 2018 will provide advice to the Commission on which fisheries should be included in this effort and what information is needed to develop appropriate management measures for those fisheries.

• Para 51. CCMs shall take necessary measures to ensure that the total catch of their respective other commercial tuna fisheries for bigeye, yellowfin or skipjack tuna, but excluding those fisheries taking less than 2,000 tonnes of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack, shall not exceed either the average level for the period 2001-2004 or the level of 2004.

UNFSA Annex II provisions, incorporated in the Convention, were taken as constituting implicit target and limit reference points. As noted above, the WCPFC practice is that the SC issues an agreed statement on the current status of the stock, management advice and implications, which is forwarded to the WCPFC annual session for consideration of any Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) recommended. Management advice (and the implications of that advice) has been regularly



provided with respect to indicators of fishing mortality and biomass relative to MSY levels – i.e.

Fcurrent/FMSY, Bcurrent/BMSY and SBcurrent/SBMSY.

At the 9th regular session of the Commission in 2012 (WCPFC 2012a), WCPFC established a limit

reference point for the four main tuna species:

• Skipjack tuna (20%SBrecent, F=0, i.e., 20% of the estimated spawning biomass in the absence of fishing averaged over a recent time window).

• Bigeye: the LRP set at the biomass-based LRP of 20%SBrecent,F=0, with deferral of a recommendation on the value of X% in the Level 2 fishing mortality-based LRP of Fx%SPR to SC9 (SC8 recommendation)

• Yellowfin: the LRP set at \ the biomass-based LRP of 20%SBrecent,F=0, with deferral of a recommendation on the value of X% in the Level 2 fishing mortality-based LRP of Fx%SPR to SC9 (SC8 recommendation)

• South Pacific albacore: the LRP set at \ the biomass-based LRP of 20%SBrecent,F=0, with deferral of a recommendation on the value of X% in the Level 2 fishing mortality-based LRP of Fx%SPR to SC9 (SC8 recommendation)

At its 10th regular session, the Commission further agreed that the time window for estimation of the spawning biomass in the absence of fishing should be 10 years and be based on the years (from the last year used in the assessment to 10 years prior to that). Work on determining acceptable levels of risk of not breaching the limit reference point is still in progress.

At the 12th regular session of the Commission in 2015 (WCPFC 2015b), CMM 2015-01 was passed (replacing a CMM 2014-01 and its predecessors). Included in this resolution is the statement: “the

Fishing Mortality Rate (F) for skipjack tuna will be maintained at a level no greater than FMSY, i.e.

F/FMSY ≤ 1.” This reiterates the same statement made previously in CMM 2013-01 and CMM 2014-

01. The agreed fishing mortality limit of F/FMSY ≤ 1 is consistent with maintaining the skipjack stock

at or above BMSY. This is an indication of an intent to maintain the stock at a high productivity level, not just well above the point at which recruitment might be impaired. The time window used in estimating the recent average spawning biomass is the same as that described above for the LRP.

CMM 2014-06 describes how the WCPFC views harvest strategies and its plans for implementing them for all tropical tuna stocks, including skipjack. CMM 2014-06 is consistent with MSC definitions and requirements and outlines an intention to move towards a harvest strategy with well-defined harvest control rules (‘decision rules’ in WCPFC terminology). The current harvest strategy relies on annual decision-making processes founded on the core principles of the WCPFC as laid out in its Convention and in a growing body of CMMs (see https://www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and-management-measures).

Work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules has progressed over several years through a series of Management Objectives Workshops (MOWs). WCPFC CMM 2014-06 was

adopted at the 11th regular session of WCPFC to develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for key fisheries and stocks in the WCPO. The CMM identifies the elements that harvest strategies are to contain (including defined operational objectives, target and limit reference points for each stock, acceptable levels of risk of not breaching limit reference points, a monitoring strategy, decision rules that aim to achieve the target reference point and avoid the limit reference point, and management strategy evaluation).

CMM 2014-06 includes a paragraph that the Commission shall agree a workplan and indicative timeframes to adopt or refine harvest strategies for skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, South Pacific albacore, Pacific bluefin and northern albacore tuna by no later than the twelfth meeting of the Commission in 2015. A work plan to further the development and adoption of harvest strategies for these species

was adopted at the 12th regular session of the Commission (WCPFC 2015a, Attachment Y). The Commission tasked the SC with support from the Scientific Service Provider to undertake the activities specified in the agreed work plan (included in this report at Appendix 10). Further development of the

https://www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and-management-measures

https://www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and-management-measures



harvest strategy will require consideration of potential shortcomings, for example, the need for appropriate mechanisms to be integrated into the harvest strategy to manage potential effort creep.

Also, at the 12th Regular Session of the Commission (WCPFC 2015a), CMM 2015-06 (WCPFC 2015b) saw the adoption of a target reference point for skipjack tuna, “The target reference point for the WCPO

skipjack tuna stock shall initially be 50 per cent of the estimated recent average spawning biomass in

the absence of fishing, (SBF=0, t1-t2)”. This is to be an interim TRP, subject to review by 2019.

No TRPs have as yet been set for the other tuna fisheries, but work is in progress to set less conservative LRPs for yellowfin, bigeye and albacore at 40 per cent of the estimated recent average

spawning biomass in the absence of fishing.

There are no formally agreed decision rules or harvest control rules (HCRs) yet in place. However, the harvest strategy is based on high quality science and compliance information. The current state

of the stock provides evidence of successful management to date. Skipjack spawning biomass is

estimated to be at 48%SBF=0, approaching twice the SBMSY level of 28%SBF=0, and fishing

mortality is estimated to be 0.61FMSY. Skipjack is also not projected to fall to the SBMSY level.

WCPFC (2014c) reports that “Future status under status quo projections (assuming 2012 conditions) was robust to assumptions on future recruitment. Under either assumption, spawning biomass

remained relatively constant and it is exceptionally unlikely (0%) for the stock to become overfished

(SB2032<0.2SBF=0) or for the spawning biomass to fall below SBMSY, and it is exceptionally unlikely

(0%) for the stock to become subject to overfishing (F>FMSY).” Nevertheless, the WCPFC has put in

place CMM 2014-06 aimed at ensuring harvest control rules and agreed TRPs are developed and implemented for tuna stocks, including skipjack. This was strengthened in 2015 through the agreed work plan for the adoption of harvest strategies required under CMM 2014-06.

Current MSC assessments, (Acoura Marine 2018, MRAG 2015) have harmonised scored for harvest strategy at SG 60-SG 80. The rational for not achieving SG 80 is that the harvest strategy has not been fully implemented. This issue will be resolved once the fishery harvest tools are responsive to the reference points set for both skipjack and yellowfin tuna respectively. This would include a direct link to the measures specified in the tropical tuna CMM to the TRPs and LRPs.

An MSC scoring requirement is that there is an effective national legal system and a framework for cooperation with other parties, where necessary to deliver management outcomes. In 2017, Indonesia was deemed non-compliant in the WCPFC’s Compliance Monitoring Review process in implementing several obligations laid out in WCPFC conservation and management measures during 2016 (Attachment U, WCPFC 2017a). In relation to the tropical tunas measure (then, CMM 2015-01), these included:

• Para 16 – missed reporting deadline notifying the Secretariat of additional FAD measures (i.e. fourth month FAD closure in October or limit on the total number of FAD sets)

• Para 23 – failure to establish effort limits or equivalent catch limits for purse seine fisheries within the EEZ that reflects the geographical distributions of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tunas and are consistent with the objectives for those species; missed reporting deadline to notify the Secretariat of effort/catch limits.

• Para 24 – failure to report limits established under para 23 and their bases in Annual Report Part 2 and annual reporting of fishing days for the previous 12-month calendar.

• Para 34 – Less than 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels fishing solely within its national jurisdiction

• Para 44 – failure to report monthly on longline bigeye catch by Indonesian flagged vessels

Paras 47 & 48 were not assessed in the CMR in 2017, however, it is understood that Indonesia was yet to take measures to ensure the total effort and capacity of other commercial tuna fisheries for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack do not exceed 2001-2004 or 2004 levels.



8.2 Indonesia’s Archipelagic tuna harvest strategy.

In May 2018, the Government of Indonesia announced that an Interim Harvest Strategy for tuna would be implemented for Archipelagic Waters (AW) (MMAF, 2018), i.e. as applicable to WPP 713, WPP 714 and WPP 715. This follows a commitment in the Tuna Fisheries Management Plan (NTMP Number 107/KEPMEN-KP/2015) to implement measures that are compatible with the Western Central and Pacific Commission (WCPFC) CMM 2014-06. The Action Plan (MMAF. 2018) specifies a Time Frame from 2018-2023.

The NTMP sets a five-year plan for implementing action plans including development and implementation of harvest strategies. This addendum to the NTMP describes the management objectives and harvest strategy framework developed though a 2-year technical and consultative process, commencing November 2014 to November 2017. The harvest strategy framework details the forms of harvest strategy developed through this process that will be refined and implemented for management of fishing effort targeted at tropical tuna in Indonesian Archipelagic Waters. It includes an action plan of specific information needs, consultation processes and institutional arrangements required for the implementation of the harvest strategies for each species. The management objective for yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna and skipjack tuna is:

“to ensure the sustainability of yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna and skipjack tuna resources” through harvest strategy implementation’.

The operational objective is defined: to maintain spawning stock biomass (SSB) above the limit reference point (LRP) of 0.2 of the unfished level, with the probability of 90% over the 10- year projection period.

The default limit reference point for tuna in archipelagic waters is to maintain spawning stock biomass above 0.2 of the unfished level with a probability of 90%.

A target reference point for tuna in archipelagic waters has not been set as this requires more detailed consideration of the implications for social and economic objectives for the fishery.

Alternative target reference points for skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna will be investigated, based on stakeholder surveys and using Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) testing as part of the Action Plan for harvest strategy implementation. It is understood that the MSE work has been completed by CSIRO.

Key timelines for the adoption of this work specify 2018-2019 (Appendix 3, MMAF 2018), and thereafter the monitoring and effectiveness of the tools by 2020. The strategy is projected to be fully in place by 2023.

From the fifteen management measures stipulated in Article 3, Law No 31, Year 2004, on Fisheries, and amended by Law 45, year 2009, on Fisheries, eight management measures were selected

through selection processes at the 4th and 5th Stakeholder Workshop. Subsequently a risk-

assessment process was completed at the 6th Stakeholder Workshop, and the following five priority selected management measures were selected:

1. Limit on use of Fish Aggregating Device. 2. Spatial closures (of important spawning or nursery grounds) and temporal closures (during

important events such as spawning). 3. Number of fishing days (per gear, for semi industrial and industrial vessels). 4. Number of vessels – limited entry (per gear; for semi industrial and industrial vessels through

licensing, permits, taxing, royalties). 5. Total Allowable Country Catch (TACC) limits per Fishery Management Area.

In order to determine, to the extent possible, that a harvest strategy selected for implementation is likely to a) meet the specified objectives for the fishery; and b) be robust to major uncertainties in the status and dynamics of the stock and the fishery and effectiveness of monitoring and management, it is considered best practice to develop a range of alternative, practically feasible harvest strategies



and compare their relative performance using a simulation modelling approach known as Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE).

A set of MSE models have been developed for skipjack and yellowfin tuna (MMAF, 2018), based on the relevant WCPFC regional stock assessments. These MSE models have been used to develop and conduct preliminary testing of empirical harvest strategies for skipjack and yellowfin tuna, based on the available information and monitoring series, and examine the general feasibility of proceeding with the framework for harvest strategies for skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna. These MSE models also provide the basis for testing the performance of specific alternative harvest strategies and providing government and stakeholders with results to select the most appropriate harvest strategy for each species for implementation. This will be completed as part of the MSE technical and consultation process.

Implementation of harvest strategies for tuna in AW requires the following priority activities to be completed (MMAF, 2018):

• Maintenance, extension and improvement of fisheries monitoring and data collection programs

• Targeted research

• Representative age, growth and reproductive biology parameters for Archipelagic waters

• Operational catch and effort data for all tuna fisheries to improve CPUE standardisation

• Review and optimisation of port monitoring programs to improve estimation of total catch and effort in archipelagic waters.

• Testing, refinement and selection of operational objectives and harvest strategy

• Technical work program

• Stakeholder consultation

• Specification and implementation of management measures

• Refine detail of preferred management measure(s)

• Determine necessary regulatory and monitoring requirements for implementation

• Confirmation of regulatory and institutional arrangements required for harvest strategy implementation:

• Development of consultative and advisory forums

• Policy, stakeholder and science capacity development for harvest strategy implementation

The MSC guidance (V2) refers to the assessment taking place on the target species (the stock). Fish stock implies that the particular population is a biological distinct unit, which in the case of the WCPFC species covers the full range of the tuna species, from east to west2. Fishery assessments are required under MSC Principle 1 to assess stock status, harvest control rules, harvest control rules. When considering management PIs under P1 in fisheries that target shared stocks, straddling stocks or highly migratory stocks, CABs should consider all national and international management systems that apply to the stock and the capacity of these systems to deliver sustainable outcomes for P1’.

The Guidance also stresses that the elements of the harvest strategy need to work together. CABs should therefore consider the overall performance of harvest strategies in both the Convention context and in Indonesian Archipelagic waters, and how its elements contribute to allowing the management system to be responsive to the state of the stock. Key elements of harvest strategies include: the control rules and tools in place, including the ability of the management system to control effort, considering issues such as overcapacity and its causes.

Current MSC assessments, (PNA 2018, MRAG, 2015) have harmonised scored for harvest strategy at SG 60-SG 80. The Sorong draft pole-and-line assessment (DNV, 2018) has followed this scoring. The assessor has reviewed the scoring but is of the view that without the application of a harvest strategy, the purse seine preassessment would not achieve an equivalent score until the Indonesian harvest strategy has been fully implemented. It is noteworthy that the Solomon Islands AW purse

2 Recent work by CSIRO



seine and pole-and-line fishery achieved the same status as the PNA fishery because compatible measures had been implemented for Solomon Islands AW waters. This scoring may be changed following the outcome of a Final Report for the Sorong fishery, post public process review.

9. Principle Two: Ecosystem background

9.1 Primary and secondary species catch

Primary species are defined as species that are not identified as the specific target species in each UoA, and where each primary species is subject to fishery specific management, with established reference points (SA3.1.3, MSC, 2014, p.132). This means that for each UoA, every other target species is classified as a primary species for the purpose of the specific Unit of assessment. The ‘main’ designation is given where either i) “the catch of a species by the UoA comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA”, or ii) “The species is classified as ‘Less resilient’ and the catch of the species by the UoA comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA.” Even if these thresholds are not reached, “the assessment team shall still classify a species as main if the total catch of the UoA is exceptionally large (≥ 400,000 t), such that even small catch proportions of a P2 species significantly impact the affected stocks/populations” (SA3.4.2, MSC, 2014, pp. 138-139). For Indonesian purse seine fishery, the latter designation of primary ‘main’ applies to yellowfin and skipjack in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean fishery (Table 4). Bigeye, minor is the only other primary species caught, but < 5% (main) and not vulnerable (2%).

Table 4: Species catch (target (T), primary (P) and secondary (S), 2016

UoA (Catches in WPP &14 and 715)

Species Tonnes %

Skipjack (T/P) Katsuwonus pelamis 2,450 12.4%

Yellowfin (T/P) Thunnus albacares 1,420 7.2%

Bigeye (P – minor) Thunnus obesus 262* 1.3%

Bullet tuna (S main) Auxis rochei 9,632 48.8%

Scad (S (main)) Decapterus 5,892 29.9%

Other** Rastrelliger kanagurta 63 0.3%

Total Euthynnus affinis 19,719 100%

** adjusted to take account of 20% yellowfin within BET catch * Other species less than 0.05% = Salam, Lemadang, Kuwe, Kembung (Indian mackerel),

Bentong, Lencam, Kawa and Marlin

Source: Catch data summary_SB xlx.

To be noted that primary species Outcome PI will be assessed at a score of 80 (a pass) if only ‘main’ species are scored. ‘Minor’ species may be assessed to achieve a higher score, approaching 100. In this case ‘minor’ primary species would have to be highly likely above the PRI; or If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of ‘minor’ primary species. A score of 100 for ‘minor’ species is equivalent to a score of 80 for ‘main’ and requires 80% probability that the stock is above PRI (as opposed to 90% for ‘main’). The MSC Standard requires that CAB take into consideration both observed and unobserved mortality of P2 species when scoring the Outcome PI (SA 3.1.8, MSC, 2014, p. 133).

9.2. Primary species outcome and management

The status and strategy for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye in the WCPO have been summarised in section 1.6. These species will also be assessed as a scoring component for P 2.1 (Primary species), when other than the target species under assessment.

It is highly likely that for WCPFC species, target species will only include skipjack and yellowfin; and that bigeye, will be assessed as a minor primary species because catch volumes are so low. Skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye are above PRI and fluctuating around MSY, and three stocks have a strategy in



place in the WCPFC fishery, but presently not in AW.

Information in these fisheries is considered good, and likely to achieve a pass, but it is noteworthy that the SPC assessment WCPFC draw attention to weaknesses in the data available from Indonesia. For example. Some of the other critical variables, such as length frequency analysis, rely on information provided by other fleets (e.g. PNA purse seine, Japanese pole-and-line).

9.2.1 Biology and distribution (Western and Central Pacific Ocean Bigeye tuna)

Bigeye are distributed throughout the tropical and sub-tropical waters of the Pacific Ocean. Bigeye tuna are relatively fast growing and have a maximum fork length (FL) of about 200 cm (Aires-da-Silva et al., 2015, cited in McKechnie, 2017). Available data for the WCPO indicate that bigeye tuna begin to be reproductively active from about 80 cm FL, and nearly all individuals >120 cm FL are reproductively mature (Farley et al., 2017, cited in McKechnie, et al, 2017).

The natural mortality rate of bigeye tuna is likely to vary with size, with high rates for the youngest

age-classes and the lower rates of around 0.5 yr−1 for bigeye >40 cm FL (Hampton, 2000, cited in Mckechnie, 2017). Tag recapture data indicate that significant numbers of bigeye reach at least eight years of age (Hampton and Williams, 2005). The longest period at liberty for a recaptured bigeye tuna tagged in the WCPO is approximately 14 years, for a fish 1-2 years old at release (SPC unpublished data). Natural mortality of female bigeye is hypothesised to increase at around the age of reproductive maturity, due to the physiological stresses of spawning.

Bigeye tuna in the far eastern and western Pacific may have relatively little exchange, but those in the

central part of the Pacific between about 180◦ and 120◦ W may mix more readily over distances of 1,000–3,000 nautical miles (Schaefer et al., 2015, cited in McKechnie, 2017). It is also evident that here is extensive movement of bigeye across the nominal WCPO/Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO)

boundary of 150◦ W (Figure 11).

Figure 11: Map of the movements of tagged bigeye released in the Pacific Ocean and subsequently

recaptured more than 1,000 nautical miles from their release site (Source McKechnie et al, 2017).

Bigeye tuna are an important component of tuna fisheries throughout the Pacific Ocean and are taken by both surface gears, mostly as juveniles, and longline gear, as valuable adult fish. They are a principal target species in tropical waters of both the large, distant-water longline fleets of Japan, Korea, China and Chinese Taipei and the smaller, fresh sashimi longline fleets based in several Pacific Island countries and Hawaii.

Bigeye caught by purse seine vessels are taken almost exclusively from sets on natural and artificial floating objects (FADs). Higher volumes of bigeye are caught in the large-scale purse fishery of the Central Pacific Ocean, albeit that smaller quantities, and almost exclusively pre-adults, are taken in the Indonesian purse seine and handline fisheries.



A number of significant trends in the fisheries have occurred over the model period, specifically:

• The steady increases in bigeye catch by longline vessels over most of the assessment period in the equatorial and southern regions;

• The development of the equatorial purse-seine fisheries from the mid-1970s and the widespread use of FADs since the mid-1990s, allowing an expansion of the purse-seine fishery, and corresponding increases in catch of bigeye;

• Large changes in the purse seine fleet composition and increasing size and efficiency of the fleet;

• The steady increase in catch for the domestic fisheries of Indonesia and the Philippines since 1970, and more specifically catching pre-adult tunas (Figure 17);

• The apparent stabilisation of catches of bigeye for most gears after the mid 2000’s, due to limits under the WCPFC conservation management measures.

9.2.2 Information (Western and Central Pacific Ocean Bigeye tuna)

The data used in the bigeye tuna assessment consist of catch, effort, length-frequency and weight-frequency data for the fisheries defined in the analysis, and tag release-recapture data. Thirty-two fisheries are defined but covering purse seine and longline fisheries as well as incorporating catch estimates from Indonesia and the Philippines through the WPEA project.

WCPO annual catches by major gear categories used in the assessment are shown in Figure 12. Catch identified as “other” is dominated by the distant water longline fisheries of Japan, Korea, China and Taiwan, principally catching larger fish, but also by large sized purse seines using Drifting FADs (McKechnie et al.2017).

Figure 12. Time series of bigeye tuna catch (t) by gear for the western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO).

(Source: McKechnie et al, 2017).



Figure 13: Estimates of reduction in spawning potential due to fishing (fishery impact =

1−SBlatest/SBF=0) attributed to various fishery groups for the diagnostic case model used in the stock

assessment (Source: McKechnie et al, 2017).

Figure 14: size composition (average for last five years; bottom) of bigeye tuna catch (t) by gear for the

western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Source: Brouwer et al, 2017

Available length-frequency data for each of the fisheries were compiled into 95 2cm size classes (10–12 cm to 198–200 cm). Weight data were compiled into 200 1kg size classes (0–1 kg to 199–200 kg). Data were either collected onboard by fishers, through observer programmes, or through port sampling. Size data were either missing or poor for the Indonesian and Vietnamese small-fish fisheries and the Indonesian-Philippines ex-EEZ purse seine fishery.

Tagging data were available from the Regional Tuna Tagging Project (RTTP) during 1989–92 (including affiliated in-country projects in the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Fiji and the Philippines), more recent (1995, 1999-2001) releases and returns from the Coral Sea Tagging Programme (CSTP) by CSIRO (Evans et al., 2008), and the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (PTTP) carried out during the period 2006 until the 3rd quarter of 2014; and additional data, which became available since the 2014 assessment from the Japanese Tagging Programme (JPTP), and are included in the sensitivity analyses.

9.2.3 Stock assessment (Western and Central Pacific Ocean Bigeye tuna)

Stock assessments for bigeye tuna have been conducted frequently since 1999. An independent review of the 2011 bigeye tuna assessment (Ianelli et al., 2012) made several recommendations for improvement that apply to the bigeye tuna assessment, and these have been incorporated into the current assessment where possible. Further detailed independent reviews for estimating purse seine catch by species were conducted by Lawson (2013); Cordue (2013); Powers (2013), and McArdle (2013) (cited in McKechnie et al, 2017).

The assessment model relies mainly on catch and effort data for various fleets, size data and tagging data. The most recent stock assessment was conducted in 2017 (Mckenie et al., 2017) and follows much the same process as described above for skipjack and yellowfin, i.e., it is undertaken by SPC’s OFP, uses MULTIFAN-CL, draft results are submitted to the SC for discussion and review, and a final report presented to the WCPFC plenary. A pre-assessment workshop provided overview of the main input data sets and recommendations regarding the range of assessment model options, a review of some uncertainties, especially in the context of revised recruitment parameters and purse seine catch frequencies, and sensitivities to be included within the stock assessment. CPUE as an indicator of abundance from several fisheries is incorporated into the stock assessment. The longline CPUE indices for the main longline fisheries in each region are one of the most important inputs to the assessment as they provide information on trends in abundance over time for each subregion.



Aside from updating the input data (catch, effort, size frequencies, and standardised CPUE derived from aggregate and operational data), additional adjustments were made to account for the new maturity-at-length, using a new growth curve derived from recently processed otoliths, which suggests a much lower asymptotic size for old fish. All models that assume the new growth function estimate significantly more optimistic stock status than the 2014 assessment.

9.2.4 Stock status (Western and Central Pacific Bigeye)

The 2017 BET stock assessment (McKechnie et al, 2017), has shown more positive results than the previous, 2014, stock assessment. The median ratio of Frecent/FMSY is estimated at 0.83 (range:

0.61-1.32), indicating that overfishing is likely not occurring (across all model runs, there is a 23% chance that FMSY is being exceeded). Table 4 shows that the latest estimate of spawning biomass is

above both the level that will support MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 1.23 for the base case).

The following conclusions were made in the 2017 stock assessment (McKechnie et al, 2017).

1. The stock was above the LRP in all cases (SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.25, SBlatest= 0.28, where recent= 2011-2014, latest = 2015). The median ratio SSBrecent/SSBF=0 is 0.32

2. The median ratio of spawning biomass SSBrecent/SSBMSY in the model runs is estimated at

1.23 (range: 0.63 to 1.66), but there is some uncertainty in the model results. Spawning biomass is estimated to be likely above the target reference point.

3. The estimate of MSY is 156,800 tonnes where recent catches (2012-2016 average = 149,200 tonnes) are below MSY.

4. MSY has been reduced to less than half its levels prior to 1970 through harvest of small bigeye ("growth overfishing").

5. All models with the new growth estimated a significant recent recruitment event that has increased spawning potential in the last several years, and it is expected that these recruits will soon progress into the spawning potential and increase stock status, at least in the short-term (McKechnie et al, 2017).

Table 5: Summary of reference points over all 48 individual models in the structural uncertainty grid

However, it can be argued that at least for the main tropical tuna species (skipjack, yellowfin and

bigeye) that ‘Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA

on the main primary species with respect to status’; and ‘Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main primary species’. This would meet SG 80a; and SG 80c.



9.3 Secondary species outcome

The UoC Secondary species only main species (WPP 713, 714 and 715) are associated with higher quantities of ‘main’ species including bullet tuna (49%) and scad (30%). There are also indications from observer reports that Longtail Tuna (tongkol) are also be caught in WPP 715 (Figure 16) (MMAF, 2016), though they do not appear in the catch statistics.

None of the stocks have adopted limit reference points for any of the neritic. However, all are now reviewed collectively by participating nations, and it is likely that national limits will be set for the various stocks in the Pacific, under South East Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC. WCPFC has no mandate to manage neritic tunas.

The outcome for some neritic tuna species in the Pacific Ocean has been assessed by the Scientific Working Group on Neritic Tuna (SEAFDEC, 2016). The workshop applied ASPIC stock assessment modelling. The workshop determined the Pacific Kawa and Tongkol to be below MSY. No Pacific assessment has been carried out for bullet tuna, but this is included as a priority for future SEAFDEC work3.

9.4 Partial Strategies for Neritic Tunas and Spanish mackerel.

None of the species have determined partial strategies for either the Pacific or Indian Ocean. This is perhaps less serious for the Pacific Ocean side, but SEFDEC scientists have recommended establishing a partial strategy for neritic tunas, setting total allowable catches for all participating countries.

9.5 Information required to support neritic tuna stock assessments

Indonesia has as yet not provided data to support the SEAFDEC stock assessments for bullet tuna (SEAFDEC, 2016).

Observer data is available from the > 30 GT fleet (MMAF, 2016), and represents coverage levels of around 5% of the total fleet. These data are available for the different WPPs and illustrate the dominance of Tropical tuna catches in some zones – 714 and 715, as opposed to the large numbers of bullet tunas and small pelagics associated with vessels < = 30 GT. This reflects the fact that fishing outside of 12 nm has a much higher dependency on the tropical tunas.

Figure 15: Obsever data (714), Vessel sample > 30 GT catch distribution

3 Indonesia’s country report to SEAFDEC (SEAFDEC, 2016) cites the importance of neritic tunas in the South China Sea

and Natuna Sea, and the importance of the gillnet fishery (Mr. Thomas Hidayat).



Figure 16: Obsever data (715), Vessel sample > 30 GT catch distribution

From the above, it would appear that observer coverage for vessels > 30 GT, which is set a 5%, successfully captures an accurate breakdown of species distribution.

WCPFC’s observer coverage (WCPFC, CMM 2017-01) for its large-scale purse seine fishery is 100%, but with minimum levels set at 5% for other commercial fleets, including Indonesia. However, MSC specifies ”good external validation” should be understood to indicate a validation level equivalent to a nominal observer coverage of 20% of effort, although the CAB may accept other rates and alternative measures/evidence with sufficient justification that the same scientific outcome (highly likely confidence that finning is not taking place) is delivered (MSC, Attachment K, Annex C at SG 80)

9.6 Small Pelagic species

MMAF, 2016, provides the basis for estimating the status of fish stocks in Indonesia. "Ikan Pelagis Kecil" (small pelagic species) in Indonesia (MMAF, 47/KEPMEN-KP/2016) as follows: WPP 713 – 0.61 WPP 714 - 0.69 WPP 715 - 1.05 with E < 0.5 meaning "under-exploited" 0.5 < E < 1 meaning "fully-exploited", and E > 1 meaning "over-exploited".

This suggests that the status is "fully exploited" for WPP 715, or at least that the stock is fluctuating around MSY.

The small pelagic catch is WPP Status, whist significantly influenced by the purse seine fishery, estimated to account for about half of the catch, 635,000 MT throughout Indonesia, are also heavily impacted by other fisheries, for example those targeting small pelagic fish for human consumption or bait, along with environmental conditions. On investigation, it is not clear how these assessments were derived. The Ministerial Decision also gives a total for "Potensi" (Max Sustainable Yield), which is 3,522,578 t. The Ministry itself has not published any detailed stats since 2014.

It is recommended that because of the uncertainty, that MMAF review using the Risk Based Framework (RBF). A test RBF was undertaken for baitfish sourced from purse seine. The scoring (Appendix 1) indicates high levels of productivity robustness (low risk), but higher sensitivities to overfishing (higher risk). The one lower score 'selectivity' was scored a '2' reflecting the Mesh size



usually targeting the mature small-pelagics, and not pre-adult, in mini purse seine the likely RBF score would be 81.

9.7 MSC UoAs collectively not hindering recovery

SA3.4.6d allows an 80 score in cases where the proportion of combined catch by all relevant MSC

UoAs is effectively not hindering recovery. In other words, in cases where total fishing mortality is not below FMSY, teams need to evaluate whether the marginal fishing mortality caused only by the relevant MSC UoAs is material to the stock’s ability to recover. This could be determined in a practical way by examining likely population trajectories if all the other fisheries reduced their catches to zero (i.e., the only catches were being taken by the fishery under assessment). Since this will often be difficult to determine, MSC allows that the UoA’s catch in proportion to the total catch of a stock may be used as a reasonable proxy of whether that UoA on its own or cumulatively with other UoAs, could be considered to be hindering recovery.

To illustrate this approach, even if the total catch of a species is clearly hindering recovery, UoA catches of less than 30% of the total catch of a species may not normally be influential in hindering a recovery in a marginal sense, i.e., nothing the UoA does would be likely to change the situation. On the other hand, catches of more than 30% might be influential, such that if the UoA acted to reduce its catches, the stock might well start to recover.

The results show that all P2 main species, the total effort by the UoA will not normally be influential in hindering a recovery in a marginal sense.

Table 12: UoA Main or vulnerable Purse seine species catch (Primary and secondary) not hindering

recovery

Species UoA catch Total catch %

Bullet tuna 9,632 Na Na

Scad 5,892 < 30%

Skipjack 2,540 <30%

Yellowfin 1,420 856,630 <30%

Bigeye 260 242,848 <30%

Source: MMAF (small pelagics), WCPFC YB, 2017 (Tropical tunas), SEAFDEC, 2016 (Pacific

neritic tunas).

On this basis, a fishery acting on its own will not require a P2 partial strategy to achieve a pass. However, as a collective strategy within Indonesia, it is highly likely that neritic tuna and small pelagic management may become a management priority as the tuna management plan evolves. This suggests that partial strategies to protect neritic tuna may become a feature of WPP and national management actions.

9.8 Shark catch and shark finning

Sharks are rarely seen or caught in Indonesian purse seine fisheries (ISSF, 2018), fishers in different regions estimated about 0.1-0.3 sharks per set (e.g. 1-3 sharks in 10 sets), most being juvenile silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) of small size (e.g. < 70 cm). Whale sharks are very infrequently encountered, once or twice a year according to some fishers, and are actively avoided as they can easily rip the net. If accidentally caught, they are always released alive either by cutting an opening in the net or releasing over the corkline (ISSF, 2018). It is highly unlikely that there are unobserved mortalities from FADs as all FADs are non-entangling and made from natural fibres.

For the purpose of this assessment, silky sharks are defined as Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species. National measures are in place to prohibit the export of shark (Decree

59/PERMEN-KP/2014) and specified species include Carcharhinus falciformis: silky shark, Alopias spp:

Thresher sharks, Sphyrna lewini: Hammerhead shark. Fishers are prohibited from landing sharks and

generally release or consume on board.



ISSF and CFRD have conducted several bycatch mitigation workshops on best release practices from deck of species of special concern that have mandatory release regulations like turtles or sharks. These skipper workshops are supported by CFRD (Claire van der Geest, ISSF, pers comm. September 2017. Turtles and sharks are generally released from the net or from deck (Pak Agung, CFRD, pers. comm, August 2017). These workshops are ongoing4.

Shark finning is said not to be taking place in the Indonesian purse seine fishery (WWF Workshop, 2018), but there are no formal regulations in place, nor any formal observer reports containing reference to shark bycatch and finning practices.

9.9 Habitat impacts

Purse fisheries are characterized by a very low impact on habitat at the fishing grounds, as all fishing takes place in deep water. Hence there are no bottom habitat impacts.

AFADs may be considered as enhanced and subject to assessment using an alternative assessment tree. 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 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. However, more needs to be understood on the potential impacts of FADs on the purse seine (and other fisheries, e.g. pole-and-line).

Figure 17: Typical FAD construction for (a) ponton type FAD and (b) gabus type FAD Source:

Widodo, AA (Anung), et al

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. Evidence

4 The most recent workshops were the 7th (BItung), 8th (Prigi) and 11th (Pekalongan) of May this year, Claire van de Geest, September, 2018



will need to demonstrate completion of logbooks and knowledge of FAD displacement. These will

need to demonstrate ‘Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system

under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery (3.2.3c)’.

9.10 Ecosystems

The Indonesian Pacific UoA catch of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye is 129,000t per year (Table 1), or 4% of the total annual skipjack catch in the WCPO, including AW.

Effects on key ecosystem elements, which need to be considered, are the depletion of top predators and potential trophic cascades caused by depletion of the target and non-target species as a prey/forage species (Sibert et al. 2006; Allain 2007, 2010).

Main interactions between the Pacific purse seine fishery and all of the key elements (trophic structure and function) identified can be inferred from existing information and have been investigated at the WCPO scale (Cox et al, 2002a, b; Sibert et al, 2006). Ecosystem models (Sibert et al. 2006, Allain 2007, 2010, 2015) of the pelagic ecosystem use existing information to evaluate main interactions.

Ecosystem modelling studies for the Pacific Ocean warm pool ecosystem are available (Allain et al, 2015, Griffiths et al, in press). These studies have shown that the warm pool ecosystem structure is resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community). The intrinsic resistance of the ecosystem to perturbation appears to be related to the high diversity of predators in the food web that consume a wide range of prey (Allain et al. 2015). Ecosym scenarios suggest that WCPO warm pool ecosystem structure is most sensitive to changes in the biomass of mid-trophic-level forage groups (e.g., Mesopelagic fish and crustaceans). This is because the species composing these groups have a very high standing biomass, are highly productive, and exert high top-down predation pressure on lower trophic levels, but also exert strong bottom-up pressure by being key prey for high-level predators. Target and non-target species caught in Indonesian purse seine fishery are mainly from the higher trophic levels, thus the impact on the ecosystem is expected to be low, although the fishery catches significant quantities of pre-adult tunas which is likely to have a higher impact on the ecosystem.

Given the very low percentage of volume removals by the UoAs, there is evidence that the UoA fishing is highly unlikely to disrupt the relevant key elements (predator–prey, prey–predator relationships) underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

Continuing catch monitoring and compliance inspections are adequate to detect changes in risk associated with target and primary species catch and composition, ETP, and all secondary species catches.

Monitoring, combined with knowledge from ecosystem models, provides sufficient information to support development of strategies for the UoA.

10. Principle Three: Management system background

10.1 Legal and customary framework

10.1.1 WCPFC

For the purpose of this section, the key components of governance and fishery management framework are the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), the Indonesian Government and (Provincial and District) levels, i.e. with 12 nm.

The WCPFC is a Regional Fishery Management Organisation (RFMO), established under Convention entering into force in 2004. WCPFC is responsible for sixty per cent of the world’s tuna catch. The Commission has 27 Members, of which most are small island developing states (SIDSs). All major coastal and fishing states in the WCPO are Members, except for Vietnam, which has co-operating non-member (CNM) status. Current members are: Australia, Canada, People‘s Republic of China,



Cook Islands, European Union (EU), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America (USA) and Vanuatu.

Several other states are granted cooperating non-member (CNM) status on an annual basis, agreeing to comply with WCPFC measures, participating as observers, and entitled to authorize their vessels to fish in the WCPO within set limits.

The WCPFC Convention (WCPFC, 2000) follows closely the provisions of the UNFSA, including in particular:

• The objective of ensuring, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks (Article 2)

• The general principles in Article 5 of the UNFSA including the application of the precautionary approach, incorporating the UNFSA Annex II Guidelines for The

• Application of Precautionary Reference Points (Article 5)

• The application of these principles by Parties in their cooperation under the Convention, including the application of these principles in areas under national jurisdiction (Article 7)

• Compatibility of measures established for the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction (Article 8)

• Application of the dispute settlement provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to disputes between WCPFC Members (Article 31)

• Recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers, and of communities and small island states dependent for their food and livelihoods on tuna resources. (Article 30)

The roles and responsibilities of WCPFC members are clearly described in the Convention, especially Articles 23 and 24, the Commission Rules of Procedure, Conservation and Management measures, and other Commission rules and decisions, including the Rules for Scientific Data to be Provided to the Commission, and the Rules and Procedures for Access to and Dissemination of Data Compiled by the Commission.

In addition to Member participation, the WCPFC allows participation by non-members and participating territories, with particular opportunities for CNMs, and allows observers to participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including the Scientific Committee, the Technical and Compliance Committee and the Northern Committee. The Finance and Administration Committees assist the work of the Commission. As part of the conditions for CNM status, applicants are required to provide annually “a commitment to cooperate fully in the implementation of conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission and to ensure that fishing management measures adopted by the Commission.” (CMM-2009-11, para 2b).

The records of Commission meetings show that the Commission takes a wide range of advice and inputs from its subsidiary bodies, members and observers before implementing decisions, including the adoption of conservation and management measures. Scientific advice clearly identifies the extent to which different sources of information have been considered.

The WCPFC Convention requires the Scientific Committee to “recommend to the Commission a research plan, including specific issues and items to be addressed by the scientific experts or by other organizations or individuals, as appropriate, and identify data needs and coordinate activities that meet those needs”. The WCPFC Strategic Research Plan (SRP) 2007–2011 was adopted by the Scientific Committee and approved by consensus by the WCPFC in 2006. The Plan has subsequently been revised, with a new SRP for 2012-2016 adopted at SC7.

The Plan addresses four overall research and data collection priorities:

1. collection and validation of data from the fishery

2. monitoring and assessment of stocks 3. monitoring and assessment of non-target associated species and the pelagic ecosystem



4. evaluation of existing CMMs and potential management options.

With this structure, the Plan is substantially directed towards providing information to enable the Commission to avoid overfishing or depletion of targeted stocks and the application of an ecosystem approach. However, the implementation process in the Plan is also designed to contribute to improving governance and policy, through the development of management information tools such as Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE), and the development of relevant scientific and technical capacities in developing country Commission members.

WCPFC sets conservation and management measures and policies for the WCPFC Convention Area, excluding archipelagic waters. The Indonesian Government is responsible for ensuring management measures applied within Indonesia’s EEZ including archipelagic waters are compatible with those of the WCPFC (Para 2, WCPFC 2017-01). This includes a commitment from Indonesia as a signatory to the Convention (Article 8, WCPFC, 2000), that:

• Conservation and management measures established for the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction shall be compatible in order to ensure conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks in their entirety; and

• the coastal State shall ensure that the measures adopted and applied by it to highly migratory fish stocks within areas under its national jurisdiction do not undermine the effectiveness of measures adopted by the Commission under this Convention in respect of the same stocks.

10.1.3 The Indonesian National Legal Framework

Indonesia is a Parliamentary democracy supported by a House of Representatives or Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR). The President of the Republic of Indonesia executes governmental administration. There are 33 provinces and 354 regencies in Indonesia. A governor heads a Province, while the regency or municipal level of government is headed by a regent or mayor. Following the implementation of decentralization beginning on 1 January 2001, the Provinces and districts or regencies have become the key administrative units responsible for providing most government services.

The legal system of Indonesia is based on Roman-Dutch law. Laws are formulated by Parliament and transferred into a Government or Presidents Regulation (Perman) implemented by the Fisheries Ministers. These are also passed to Provincial Governments for implementation. Fisheries policies or specific decrees that support the implementation of these policies, are set out through the Directorate General for Capture Fisheries, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries (MMAF - established in 2000) but go through the various processes of adoption, if requiring implementation at Provincial and District levels under the Autonomy Law No. 22/1999, and modified by Law No. 32/2004. The Ministry, in the devolution of authority to the provinces, assumes a facilitation and coordination role to guide these authorities in the management of their respective jurisdictions, consistent with national laws. The Ministry then focuses on implementation of these policies, through fisheries legislation for the offshore fisheries, i.e. vessels fishing outside 12 nautical miles or over 30 GTs, whilst delegating implementation within 12 nautical miles, and for vessels less than 30 GT to each province.

The Government has recently adopted a new system to cover a consultation and decision-making process (See below) for each Fishery management area, Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan.

The current national core fisheries laws are enshrined in Law (UU) No. 25/2004 concerning Planning System for National Development, UU No. 31/2004 concerning Fisheries and the Presidential Regulation No. 7/2005 concerning the National Development Plan for medium phase (RPJMN) during year of 2004-2009 and modified by Act No. 45/20095. The Act includes specific reference to protection of the livelihoods of community fishers (Article 6 (2) and to consider local customary laws and local wisdom (kearifan lokal).

Further, indirectly-related legislation that impacts on marine capture fisheries includes:

5 http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ins97600.pdf



• Endangered species legislation

• Export/import/trade legislation

• Biodiversity legislation

• Oceans policy legislation

• Marine park/sanctuary/reserves legislation

• Port management legislation

• Coastal management legislation

Indonesia's main fisheries law (32 of 2004, amended by 45 of 2009) includes a section on the need Indonesia's guidance on formulation of harvest strategies explicitly requires involvement of private sector and fishing communities (see decision of the Director General of Capture Fisheries 17/PER-DJPT/2017, chapter IV, section 2). Informal local policies in some areas come from traditional, unwritten laws handed down from generation to generation. These are referred to as “customary law” or locally as sasi or adat law. It occurs only in a specific Province such as “sasi” in Maluku Province applies in some cases to control over specific seamounts (WPP 715). That said, the government has not applied any clear mandate for co-management, and actively seeks to establish its own authority on fisheries management issues.

Generally speaking, Government of Indonesia usually addresses public concerns even though the mechanisms are not always formalized or transparent. For example, advocacy groups succeeded to remove the paragraphs on use rights in coastal fisheries from Indonesia's coastal zone management law (UU 27 of 2007), resulting in revisions formalized in law 1 of 2016. Another example is that the Ministry granted a grace period to boat seine fishers after the prohibition of that gear through 7/PERMEN-KP/2016.

Indonesia ratified UNCLOS 1982 on 3 February 1986 and the Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the Convention on 2 June 2000. The UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) was ratified in 2010.

Aside from being members of WCPFC and IOTC, Indonesia is also a member of:

• CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna

• BIMP-EAGA Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines – East Asia Growth Area

• SEAFDEC South East Asian Fisheries Development Centre Indonesia actively participates in the following regional fisheries related bodies:

Conventions to which Indonesia is a party

• IOMAC Indian Ocean Marine Affairs Cooperation

• SEAFDEC South East Asian Fisheries Development Centre

Indonesia is Non-Party to the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS). Indonesia has taken several actions with respect to international mandates and initiatives including:

• Familiarisation/socialisation training on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF);

• A National Plan of Action for Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported (IUU) Fishing to be implemented, 2012-2016;

• Preparations for implementation in the NPOA for reducing catches of seabirds in long-line fisheries (in draft)6;

• An NPOA for conservation and management of sharks (2015)7

• A draft of national plan of fishing capacity was finalized in 2007. However, the implementation has

6 http://www.fao.org/3/a-br346e.pdf 7 The core WCPFC ETP CMMs are as yet not incorporated into the Decrees including: CMM 2010-07 (covering sharks

and finning requirements), CMM 2011-04 and silky sharks CMM 2013-08



not taken place until now.

• A National Action Plan / Management Plan for tuna (skipjack, neritic tunas), 2014

• the ratification of the FAO Port State Measures Agreement formalized as presidential regulation 43 of 2016).

Work on the Shark NPOA is complete, demonstrating a commitment to the protection of sharks and rays within Indonesian Law. There is a moratorium on the export the hammerhead and oceanic white tip shark and fins (Decree 59/PERMEN-KP/2014) both now CITES Appendix II species and listed as Endangered and Highly Endangered on IUCN. The core WCPFC ETP CMMs are as yet not incorporated into the Decrees including: CMM 2010-07 (covering sharks and finning requirements), CMM 2011-04 and silky sharks CMM 2013-08. IUCN Vulnerable and Endangered sharks are also included as an MSC requirement.

Various ministerial and presidential regulations explicitly refer to the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (for example, ministerial regulation 12/MEN/2012, ministerial decision 54/KEPMEN-KP/2014, the ministerial regulation on management of tuna 107/KEPMEN-KP/2015.

Article 8 of the WCPFC Convention (WCPFC, 2000) requires compatible measures to be adopted in Archipelagic and territorial waters and the UNCLOS Articles 63(2), 64, 118, 119, and UNFSA Article 8 all requires countries with archipelagic waters to respond to transboundary management obligations.

Compatible harvest strategies have not been applied but are being developed for Indonesia’s AW and territorial seas. A series of workshops commenced in 2015, supported by scientific inputs from Australia’s CSIRO. Further workshops are planned to review the AW Indonesian tuna harvest strategy, including harvest control tool options.

10.2 Roles, Responsibilities, and Consultation (MSC Criteria 3.1.2)

10.2.1 Roles and responsibilities

Fisheries management falls under the joint responsibility of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries and the provincial and district governments. MFMR devolves management authority to the provinces and district levels under Decentralisation Law No. 22:

• Districts manage through District Decrees (called Perda) for the area 0-4 nautical miles from their coasts;

• Provinces from 0-12 nm (the overlap being for coordination and consistency between districts at the provincial level); and

• the National government and agencies take responsibility for fisheries management and implementation outside the 12-nm zone.

The establishment of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries to coordinate this devolution exercise and provide a guide for consistent implementation according to fisheries legislation is a very positive step for fisheries management in Indonesia. The management planning functions rest with the Directorate General for Capture Fisheries, legal and regulatory development with the Secretary General, and research with earlier noted research directorate. The monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) functions rest with the Directorate General for Marine Affairs Resource Controlling and Fisheries Surveillance, supplemented by assistance from the armed forces (mainly the Navy and Air Force), and the Marine Police.

Main task of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries is assisting the President implementing governmental tasks in the marine fisheries sectors. These functions include:

1. Formulation of the national policy, implementation policy, technical policy in marine affairs and fisheries;

2. Implementation of governmental affairs appropriate with the task area. 3. Management of goods and wealth owned by state; 4. Monitoring and evaluation of task implementation; 5. Issuing evaluation reports, suggestions and recommendations to the President.



In terms of implementation of the main tasks and functions, the organization structure of MMAF, as stipulated by the Presidential Regulation No, 10/2005 concerning Organization Unit and Task of Echelon I, the State Ministerial of the Republic of Indonesia, consists of 8 (eight) working divisions, namely:

1. Secretariat General: To carry out the coordination in implementation tasks as well as providing departmental administration supports

2. Directorate General of Capture Fisheries: To formulate as well as implement policy and technical standardization on capture fisheries sector

3. Directorate General of Aquaculture: To formulate as well as implement policy and technical standardization on aquaculture sector

4. Directorate General of Surveillance of Marine and Fisheries Resources: To formulate as well as implement policy and technical standardization on surveillance of marine and fisheries resource sectors

5. Directorate General of Marine Spatial Management: To formulate as well as implement policy and technical standardization on the marine spatial management, coasts, and small islands sectors

6. Directorate General of Fisheries Product Competitiveness: To formulate as well as implement policy and technical standardization on the competitiveness, logistic system, and improvement on the sustainability of marine and fisheries business.

7. Inspectorate General: To carry out internal surveillance on the task implementation in the Ministry.

8. Agency for Research and Human Resources of Marine Affairs and Fisheries: To conduct researches as well as human resources development in marine and fisheries sectors. This includes the Research Center for Fisheries.

There are several agencies whose mandates interact and overlap with fisheries, consequently the legislation of these agencies either directly or indirectly impacts on fisheries policies, laws, and management practices. Some of these agencies include:

Ministry of Local and Interior Government – for devolution of management authority to both the provinces (0-12 nautical miles) and districts (0-4 nautical miles), and vessel licensing of vessel size groups. National legislation covering boats in excess of 30 GT, provinces covering boats of 0-10 GT) and districts (< 10 GT).

• Ministry of Forestry – that has taken management authority for all marine parks;

• Ministry of Environment for maritime environment issues;

• Navy and Maritime Police for their maritime enforcement roles.

• Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Transportation,

• State Ministry of Research and Technology and Indonesian Institute for Science.

The liaison between the MMAF and other agencies, as noted above, is facilitated through the National Maritime Council chaired by the Minister of MMAF.

The Directorate General of Capture Fisheries utilises its port network to cover data collection and fisheries MCS. Log-books are applied to all vessels in excess of 10 GT, and the data recorded by the PPK in the large ports. In some cases, log-book data is extracted from smaller craft (down to 5 GT). Very little information is collected at district level, and data is reliant on estimates from the local District office. Additional information is also collected on fish sizes. This information is disseminated electronically to the Directorate of Capture Fisheries, CFRD and the RFMOs.

Licensing of fishing vessels and reporting requirements are based on vessel size with vessels smaller than 10 gross tonnes (GT) being considered artisanal and not required to report, but they must be registered at the district/provincial level. Where registration of artisanal vessel is actually carried out, it is done annually and with an automatic renewal system, if there are no reported changes to the vessel. Intermediate vessels (10-30 GT) are licensed at Provincial level and larger vessels are normally licensed at the national office. Licenses are renewed annually and then automatically issued



at the provincial offices if there are no changes to the vessel or its equipment. All vessels over 5GT are required to be inspected for safety by the Ministry of Sea Communications and Transport prior to being licensed for fishing by the Ministry. MMAF and the Directorate General for Sea Transport at the Ministry of Transport (SEACOM) entered into a MoU in 2015 to address the issue of vessels > 30 GT seeking to register in the provinces (11/2016).

The management of fisheries resources is not based on quota, although in one of the Ministerial of Agriculture Decree in 1990 mentions TACs. The Licensing system developed by MMAF is based on input control by allocating number of fishing vessels by fishing area. MMAF has also established a central data base province and MMAF to link provincial vessel registers to a national database system. This also includes the transfer of vessel logbook records from the province to MMAF. Provincial and district government do not have any regulation limiting the number of fishing vessels (completely “open access”), except for the sardine fisheries in the Bali Strait where the number of vessels operating in this Strait has been regulated by the Province of East Java and of Bali Province since 1977.

In support of Fishery Management policies, the Minister is responsible for establishing a Fishery Management Plan, which should contain:

• The potentials & allocation of fish resources

• Establishing TACs

• Types, quantity and size of fishing gears

• Fishing seasons and closed areas

• Size & minimum weight of fish species to be caught

• Fishery reserves

• Protected species

MMAF has commenced the development of fisheries specific management plans, which are to be extended to incorporate DKPs Provinsi and District. The tuna management plan, 2014 is the first of these.

10.2.3 Consultation

The WCPF convention (WCPFC, 2000) describe the functions roles and responsibilities of member states and the committees established by each Commission, and duly provide for a consultative processes, including for participation of NCPs and NCM and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs).

The Rules of Procedure in the Convention have clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of members and non-members. Stakeholders including NGOs and other interested parties meaningfully engage with the two RFMOs activities through attendance as an observer at Commission and related meetings, such as the Scientific Working groups and Compliance Committees.

Each Tuna Commission actively assists and facilitates the regular and timely provision of fisheries information on its website in advance of and following meetings and workshops. Each Commission actively uses information from the fishery and its member states to inform fisheries management discussions and the formulation of management measures, as demonstrated by reports and outcomes of WCPFC meetings.

The Indonesian consultation process is either through informal or structured consultation processes.

Informal consultations include discussions with higher level associations such as the Indonesia Tuna Association (ASTUIN), Tuna Long line Association (ATLI) and the Asosiasi Pole and Line Dan handline Indonesia (AP2HI,), as well as at NGO level (WWF and Masyarakat Dan Perikanan Indonesia (MDPI)), company and fisher levels in the port locations. The consultation process is applied by both MFMR and the Forum for Coordination for the Fisheries Resources Utilization and Management (FKPPS) in the designated WPP areas.

A formal consultation structure exists through Wilayah Pengelolaan Perikanan Negara Republik Indonesia (WPPNRI). The organisation and 11 regional secretariats, 1 for each management area (Figure 42), provides technical advice from relevant research, monitoring, and evaluation.



Figure 42: Indonesian Fisheries management regional secretariats.

The consultation process provides for a Scientific panel and Consultative Panel in each FMA. Research outputs are generated by the science providers Research Centre for Fishery Management and Conservation of Fishery Resources (CFRD). The consultative panel comprises industry representatives and NGOs. NGOs, such as WWF and TNC, may participate in the Scientific Panel.

Figure 43: Indonesian fisheries management consultative framework

Three specials working groups also exists. Namely, the Control and Enforcement Working Group, the Fisheries Exploitation and Conservation Working Group and Data and Information Working Group. These groups provide technical advice to the Director of Capture Fisheries.

There are some issues and constraints in respect to the operationalisation of the WPP structure due to inadequacies in the current secretarial capacity to service the WPPs, lack of funding for meeting attendance, and general logistical travel issues in respect to specific locations.

Due to the straddling stock structure of tuna stocks, some consultation issues are best handled at national level. An example of this includes the current discussions in the development of the Indonesia tuna harvest strategy, where over the course of the last 2 years, DG Capture fisheries has engaged with all service providers, industry and NGOs. A series of workshops (MAFF, 2018) has involved all relevant stakeholders, seeking not only participation but accepting relevant information. The work program for tuna harvest strategy included the following:



• Research into development into a harvest strategy for AW, with the possibility of an outline structure by December 2016

• A strengthening of data collection and supporting systems including national and provincial enumerator collection, integrated national and provincial data bases, the adoption of catch logsheets throughout the Indonesian tuna fleets and the deployment of observers, consistent with the RFMO requirements

• A strengthening of fleet licensing requirements that now integrates Provincial and National licensing

• Tighter controls on the definition of vessel limits (GRT), preventing large vessels being licensed under provincial jurisdiction

• The incorporation of the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) into national fisheries management objective and the tuna management plan

• Data collection on bycatch species and ETPs.

Several marine related agencies also contribute to the development of management plans and policies and support their implementation through their legislations. These include: Forestry, LIPI, Navy, Maritime Police, and the scientific network through the universities. NGOs are working on an increasing basis with communities to encourage them to assume stewardship roles in the collaborative (government and community) management schemes for the coastal areas. New policies, legislative instruments and evolving management structures will be required to fully implement these initiatives.

10.3 Long-term Objectives (MSC Criteria 3.1.3)

National objectives are enshrined by the policy pillars of sovereignty, sustainability, and prosperity, and incorporated into Indonesia’s main fisheries law (31 of 2004, revised by 45 of 2009, Article 2 and Article 3)

The current strategy of the Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries elevates sustainability as one of the three pillars (the other two are sovereignty and prosperity---see the opening page of the Ministry's website, kkp.go.id).

The National Fisheries Master Plan (2009-2015), albeit out of date, contains a number of core objectives:

To strengthen an integrated marine and fisheries’ human resources and institutions;

1. Demand orientated marine and fisheries’ rules and regulations, based on national and global requirements, and implemented as a synergy of cross sectors, central and regional governance

2. Integrated, accountable and real-time planning, implementing and reporting process based on real time and accurate data

3. Competent and requirement-based marine and fisheries’ human resources

a. To sustainably manage marine and fisheries resources;

i. Optimal and sustainable utilization of marine and fisheries resources

ii. Conservation area and protected aquatic organisms are managed sustainably

iii. Small islands are developed to become islands with high economic value

b. Indonesia is free from Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing and destructive activities to marine and fisheries resources

c. To increase scientific based productivity and competitiveness

i. All areas with fisheries potential become minapolitan areas with bankable businesses

ii. All marine and fisheries production centers have superior commodities, supported by the implementation of innovative technology with guaranteed packaging and quality



iii. All marine and fisheries facilities and infrastructures are built integrated and able to support and produce domestic requirement

d. To extend the access of the Domestic and International markets

i. All villages have markets to facilitate the fisheries product trading process

ii. Indonesia becomes the world’s market leader and the main destination of marine and fisheries investment destination

Both the precautionary and ecosystem approaches to fisheries management have also been introduced as component of the government’s core management objectives (Decree PMKDPRI 15/MEN/2012 (National Strategy on Fisheries Management). MMAF sets overall catch quota for major species groups (large pelagics, small pelagics, demersal fish, etc.) at 80% of the estimated Maximum Sustainable Yield (see Ministerial decree 47/KEPMEN-KP/2016).

The ecosystem approach to fisheries management has been incorporated as an objective into the Indonesia Tuna Action Plan. MMAF issued a regulation on competency standards for practicing the ecosystem approach to fisheries management (9/PERMEN-KP/2015, tentang standard kompetensi kerja khusus pengelolaan perikanan dengan pendekatan ekosistem)

10.4 Fishery specific objectives

The National Plan of Action Tuna, Skipjack and Neritic Tuna, Management Plan of Indonesia, 2014 was established through the enactment of Ministerial Decree of Marine Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of Indonesia Number: 107/KEPMEN-KP/2015. This is implementation of article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia that mandates that “the land, water and the natural riches contained therein shall be controlled by the State and shall be made use of for the people”.

The Indonesian tuna management plan (NPOA) for skipjack and neritic tunas was finalized in 2014.

The Plan contains objectives as follows:

• To ensure the sustainability of tuna • To implement management measures • To increase compliance in national regulations including target species measures and bycatch

limits • To increase the competitiveness of Indonesian tuna in the World market • To ensure the sufficiency of supply to the domestic market. The management scope includes: • Skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin and neritic tunas • Identification of data requirements, analysis planning, fish resource allocation, consultation,

decision-making, law enforcement and implementation. • Areas covered by the RFMO Conventions: IOTC areas 571, 572, 573, and WCPFC 716 and

717; and Indonesian archipelagic waters 7111, 712, 713, 714, 715 and 718



The plan runs for five years (2015-2020), with a full review in 2020, to be coordinated by the Directorate General of Capture Fisheries. The review will include an evaluation to measure the success of the NPOA in respect of:

a. input needed relating to fund, human resource, facility, and institution to implement the action

plan;

b. target achievement;

c. implementation of the action plan that has been set; d. whether or not an amendment to the action plan is needed in order to obtain the defined

objectives.

The review will be based on

a. global development of the tuna, skipjack, and neritic tuna fisheries;

b. updated scientific information;

c. amendment of the national policy and the amendment of the laws and regulations;

d. change of action plan;

e. the results achieved, and the problems encountered; and f. other factors that affect the fishing activity of tuna, skipjack, and neritic tuna.

The Directorate General carried out an annual review of the NPOA in 2016. The results are confidential; however, it can be reflected in the documents and implementation of activities conducted by Directorate General of Capture Fisheries implemented in 2017. For example, in the document plan for the 2017 fiscal year, Indonesia has included a budget to finance the activity for developing Harvest Strategy (HS) particularly for archipelagic and coastal tuna.

Observations are that the Plan does not include:

• WCPFC management requirements (WCPFC) which should be explicit within the management system (SG 80)

• The application and management of harvest rules and tools per fishery, or address the required ecosystem management issues (bycatch and ecosystem related issues, e.g. ETP management objectives per fishery (SG 80)

• Measurable fishery specific outcomes and actions identified are so that the implementation of the management plan is subject to internal and occasional external review (SG 100) (SG 100).

10.5 Decision-making processes (P 3.2.2)

Decision making (PI 3.2.2) by DGCF and WPPINR will need to demonstrate established decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives (SG 80 a) and decisions take account of serious and other important research, monitoring and evaluation, as well as the wider implications of decisions (SG 80 b), but to a large extent the absence of a fishery specific management strategy and general lack of information has prevented some key decisions being taken for specific fisheries, which makes it difficult to respond in a timely an adaptive manner (SG 80 b). The present absence in the application of elements of WCPFC HCRs in response to concerns of full exploitation of some stocks, e.g. yellowfin tuna, or perceived over exploitation is others. Is a concern. The current process of adopting a Harvest Strategy for AW, will clearly demonstrate ‘responsiveness to research, monitoring and evaluation, but adoption is not proposed until 2023 (MMAF, 2018).

Nevertheless, decision making by DGCF (Director General Capture Fisheries) Indonesia and FKPPS (Forum of management and utilisation of Fisheries resources) Indonesia, demonstrate established decision- making processes that 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. FKPPS meets every two

years at national level, and once a year at FMA level.

For example, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fishery Regulation No 35/PERMEN-KP/2013 re



Procedure for Determining Fish Species Protection, has to pass through the following steps:

• Public Consultation • Policy Analysis • Scientific Recommendation.

There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- specific objectives. However, measures and strategies are rarely specific to each fishery or group of stocks.

Decrees provide evidence that decisions are promulgated into laws.

Decision-making processes are required to use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. However, precautionary actions to date are not explicit within the management policy.

The consultative mechanism allows for information on the fishery’s performance and management action to be made available on to the decision makers / consultative groups. Evidence will be required to show that through these groups, explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

There is no evidence of legal challenges or judicial decisions taken to in the fishery. It could be argued that the consultation system proactively seeks avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. However, without an array of management measures designed to control catch and effort, as well as bycatch, this PI has not been tested, yet.

10.6 Compliance and enforcement PI

Compliance with fisheries laws is executed through Directorate General of Surveillance and Control on Marine and Fisheries Resources (PSDKP), the local provincial and district fisheries administrations, and the navy and maritime police agency. Fisher groups are being urged through several coastal resource development programmes to assume greater input into the management planning, policy development, and the implementation process, although this is still in its infancy. This latter task is often being undertaken with the support of non-government organizations (NGOs). Critical constraints to compliance activities are the lack of financial resources. PSDKP resources 26 patrol craft 80 GT and above, operating throughout Indonesia. These craft usually work collectively with the Navy and Marine police.

The purse seine fleets are associated with all vessel size groups. All craft over 30 GT are required to carry VMS. Extension to VMS to vessels between 10 and 30 GT is presently being considered. All vessels in excess of 10 GT are required to register a sailing declaration that must be carried on board. On receipt of licence approval, vessels are also referred to (SEACOM) in order to check Vessel Size classification before a final fishing permit can be issued. Compliance with licensing regulations appears to be functioning. In this instance, vessels < 30 GT may be issued with a license to fish no more than two WPP zones, and no more. MMAF is responsible for granting licences for vessels fishing outside 12 nm and the EEZ. Generally speaking vessels < 30 GT are less likely to fish outside 12 nm (Tri Kusna, Director, DKP, Kendari, pers comm. September 2018), and vessels under 100 GT are less likely to fish outside the AW WPPs.

The logbook regulation is covered by Ministerial Decree 48/2014 and supported by a sanction system. The decree includes small-scale fisheries (<30GT). Vessels not completing are denied an operational permit, but the application of this measure would appear to lack consistency. Aside from non-completion of logbooks, species catches are inherently under reported in order to avoid tax (WWF Preassessment and FIP Workshop, Bogor, August 2018), or species composition are not accurately recorded

A measure is in place to restrict the use of more than 3 AFADs per vessel (PER.30/MEN/2004; PER.08/MEN/2011 and PERMEN No. 26/PERMEN-KP/2014). Vessels owners openly admit

(WWF Preassessment and FIP Workshop, Kendari, 2018) that vessels usually fish up to 10 FADs or more. Moreover, information on FAD placement is not shared with DGCK or DKP (Widodo, et al, 2016).



Indonesia has special fisheries courts to handle cases related to fisheries (see article 71 in law 45 of 2009 on fisheries). These courts have been established in Indonesia's main fisheries hubs: North Jakarta, Medan, Pontianak, Bitung, Tual, Tanjung Pinang, Sorong (Keputusan Presiden Nomor 6 Tahun 2014), Merauke (Keputusan Presiden Nomor 6 Tahun 2014), and Ambon (Keputusan Presiden Nomor 6 Tahun 2014). These fishery Courts have the specific authority to examine, adjudicate and decide fishery-related crimes in Indonesia, whether by Indonesian citizens or foreign nationals. Fishery Courts follow criminal procedural law, with several exceptions concerning matters specific to the field and activities of fisheries. These courts are fairly new and to date only five have been established, in the District Courts of North Jakarta, Medan, Pontianak, Bitung, and Tual. Further explanation of Fishery Courts is found in Law No. 45 of 2009 regarding the Amendment to Law No. 31 of 2004 regarding Fisheries.

Fishery Act 31/2004 sets out penalty schedules. Enforcement includes the graduated fiscal penalties, suspension or cancellation of licenses, refusal for new licenses and full removal from the fishery as penalty options. Revision issued on 2009 No 45. lists penalties and fines to deal with specific violations. The range of fines increased was increased 10-fold in 2009 with a penalty range from USD 25,000 and up to USD 500,000 or sent to jail for 6 years. PSPKP maintain a record of infractions, but this information is confidential. However, there is no clarity as to whether sanctions to deal with non-compliance are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence (3.2.3b).

Existing tools that are in place evidently do no eliminate IUU (PI 3.2.3) and the fishery and has not demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules (3.2.3a).

One worthwhile output to assess the appropriateness of enforcement measures applied would be to undertake a compliance risk assessment, which would provide some understanding of the tools required to assess compliance risks in the deep water demersal fisheries. It is hoped that MMAF will take the risk assessment and apply these to each of the fisheries. It is unlikely, at this stage, that an assessment will be able to demonstrate that Fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system under assessment (3.2.3c). This PI is unlikely to pass and requires the support of technical assistance to meet with appropriate IUU standards.

10.7 Performance Review

The WCPFC was subject to an external performance review (WCPFC, 2012b) carried out in 2012 that found the WCPFC convention is almost completely up to-date with the most recent standards in international fisheries management. The peer review found that the convention was consistent with the UNCLOS and the UNFSA, and it allowed the WCPFC to bring in Port State measures that are consistent with the FAO Port State Measures Agreement. The peer review noted that the convention assigned responsibility for conservation and management, as well as the application of the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach, to the members, not the Commission. This means that the WCPFC has little scope for action other than through its members. The peer review further noted legal questions as to whether WCPFC measures are applicable in member States’ territorial waters and archipelagic waters (i.e., Indonesia) as well, or only in the EEZs and the high seas. Members are divided over this question. The peer review suggested that archipelagic States have full sovereignty over archipelagic waters; and that the convention, which proclaims its consistency with both of these treaties, only applies to EEZs and the high seas.

An independent review (MRAG, 2009) of the Commission’s science structure and functions has been conducted resulting in revamping the operation of the Scientific Committee, and the adoption of a peer review process and other changes to the data and science functions.

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 (once a year). An external review is undertaken by the Finance Audit Agency/BPK and Finance and Development Audit Agency/BPKP at least once a year.

A performance review also takes place for CFRD and its subsidiary research groups. This includes an internal review on research and program planning by Inspectorate General/Echelon I of MMAF (every three months) and M&E of Balitbang KP/Echelon I of MMAF (every month) - external review on



program is conducted by Finance Audit Agency/BPK twice a year during planning and evaluation, while university conducted external review on research plan once a year

An external review of both organizations is undertaken by the Finance Audit Agency/BPK and Finance and Development Audit Agency/BPKP at least once a year.

The effectiveness of each department is reviewed internally and externally.

• DKP Fishery offices are audited by Inspectorate, Finance and Development Audit Agency (BPKP) and Finance Audit Agency (BPK).

• The Surveillance office is audited by the General Inspectorate of MAFF, and Finance Audit Agency (BPK).

• The Navy is audited by Finance Audit Agency (BPK).

• Coastal Fishing Ports are audited by the Finance Audit Agency (BPK) and the Inspectorate.

Audits are done at least annually. Audit reports are confidential.

11. Evaluation Procedure

11.1 Assessment methodologies used

This pre-assessment has been undertaken according to the MSC Certification Requirements V2.0.

The MSC Pre-assessment Reporting Template v2.0 was used.

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

A site visit was conducted to MMAF offices, WWF offices and the office of DKP Kendari. All work undertaken relied on a combination of literature review, and exchange with stakeholders in two workshops. One held in Bogor with members of MMAF, CFRD and NGOs, and the other in Kendari with Government officers, Researchers, fishers and processors.

11.3 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries Current MSC assessments, including Acoura Marine 2018, MRAG 2015, have harmonised scored for harvest strategy at SG 60-SG 80. The rational for not achieving SG 80 is that the harvest strategy has not been fully implemented. This issue will be resolved once harvest tools have been set for both skipjack and yellowfin tuna respectively.

The Sorong draft pole-and-line assessment (DNV, 2018) has followed this scoring. The assessor has reviewed the scoring but is of the view that without the application of a harvest strategy, the purse seine preassessment would not achieve an equivalent score until the Indonesian harvest strategy has been fully implemented. It is noteworthy that the Solomon Islands AW purse seine and pole-and-line fishery achieved the same status as the PNA fishery because compatible measures had been implemented for Solomon Islands AW waters. This view is consistent with the response prepared by WWF to the Sorong Public Consultation Report (WWF, 2018).

This scoring may be changed following the outcome of a Final Report for the Sorong fishery, post public process review.

12. Traceability (issues relevant to Chain of Custody certification)

In the event that the purse seine fisheries proceed to full assessment and are subsequently certified, arrangements are required at all stages of the supply chain to ensure identification and segregation of certified product in order for the product to bear the MSC ecolabel.



12.1 Traceability within the Fishery

Access to the fishery is restricted by license – national and provincial, but without clear definitions of management measure parameters, with two different mesh sizes being used. This assessment focusses largely on the > 30 GT of ~800-900 vessels, largely because it is this group that is targeting tropical tunas.

Reliable catch data is not available, but trip catch logbooks are being submitted to a large degree by vessels > 30 GT, and a lesser degree by small vessels. These indicate the location fished and tonnage caught (in kg). Species composition is broadly unreliable with skipjack probably more accurate than other species, and a mix of yellowfin and bigeye, with bigeye significantly undeclared, due to difficulties in identifying bigeye at a young age. There are also mixtures of neritic tunas caught, but these are easily distinguishable from the tropical tunas. Catches are either transshipped at sea or landed directly into port. There moratorium on transhipment at sea (57PERMENKP2014) has been lifted by the Capture Fisheries Director Jenderal’s regulation on fishing within operational units (Perdirjen Perikanan Tangkap No 1 2016). This new regulation is highly demanding of capture and transfer vessel owners and captains, and the regulations has not been adapted widely beyond the initial piloting harbours of Benoa, Bitung, and Muara Baru.

The Chain of custody cycle commences at the point where mixing is likely to occur, i.e., when transshipped to carrier, or at any of the landing station. When caught, species are divided into species groups: skipjack, yellowfin (and bigeye, which aren’t early distinguishable from yellowfin when small) and other species, usually put in sacks and placed in a common hold, and hence, at this stage it is highly unlikely that skipjack, and yellowfin tuna are mixed with other species. Small (baby tunas) are mixed with neritic tunas. The separation at vessel level also ensures that product can be traced to each vessel, which allows full traceability in accordance with European Union catch certification requirements.

Once landed, the fish are sorted and lower quality fish, along with the neritic tunas are sold at the market for domestic consumption, the remainder is separated into 1 tonne cages, into skipjack or yellowfin tuna (but also including bigeye) and placed into -20 deg containers.

Carriers for vessels >30GT can only receive fish caught by a very defined set of catching vessels, as regulated in Perdirjen Perikanan Tangkap No 1 2016.

Carriers for vessels <=30GT may source from other fishers, hence it is important for the fish to be identified and separated. In order to avoid the prospect of mixing at this stage, UoC fish transferred to carriers may require some form of third-party verification to ensure that certified product is stored separately.

The product is sold through vessel agents to individual processing firms. The processing firms sell product to US and the European markets. Species are filleted and cooked at the various factories, largely located in Jakarta, Bitung and Surabaya. The facility exists at processing levels to ensure that UoA product is kept separate from other species.

CoC systems are evaluated by Certification Assessment Bodies. There are a number of specific issues that will need to be addressed by them.

1. The logbook recording system, as applied is too weak. This suggests that a more robust recording system for those in the UoC must be implemented. This may require the application of some form of electronic logbook, but with an ability to cross check data with the various traceability checks, e.g. transhipment documents, or factory recording systems. The establishing of data protocols and the application of ER is the most likely scenario.

2. Verification procedures must avoid the prospect of mixing, and transshipment and unloading stations represent very real risks to the CoC system. Linking ER along with processing traceability systems is likely to provide a real opportunity for establishing a robust CoC system. A Comparison of aggregate catch data and each vessels data should reveal anomalies should mixing take place at sea. Digital vessel logs would need to be reconciled with landing/receiving logs to ensure harmonization between reports.



3. The option exists to implement a sampling programme (MSC Chain of Custody Certification Requirements V28, Table 12 and Table 15). There is a scoring system which allows for an internal and external audit process. An indicative score is around 55-80 (Table 15), which suggests for a site number of 25, Internal audit samples would have to be taken at 6 sites, and external audits at 4 sites. Advice on the application of this plan would need to require input from a Certification Assessment Body.

12.2 Inseparable or practically inseparable catches

A further consideration is that because of the mixing of yellowfin and bigeye, these target (yellowfin) and primary species (bigeye), can be assessed as Inseparable or practicably inseparable (IPI) (Annex GPA), for one certification period only.

Box 1: Inseparable or practicably inseparable catches

7.4.13 The CAB shall identify if there are catches of non-target (P2) stock(s) that are

inseparable or practicably inseparable (IPI) from target (P1) stock(s). ◙

7.4.13.1

The CAB shall only recognise stock(s) as being an IPI stock, where the inseparability arises because either:

a) The non-target catch is practicably indistinguishable during normal fishing operations (i.e., the catch is from a stock of the same species or a closely related species); or

b) When distinguishable, it is not commercially feasible to separate due to the practical operation of the fishery that would require significant modification to existing harvesting and processing methods; And:

c) c. The total combined proportion of catches from the IPI stock(s) do not exceed 15% by weight of the total combined catches of target and IPI stock(s) for the UoA;

d) The stocks are not ETP species; and e) The stocks are not certified separately.

7.4.14 If IPI stocks are identified and are below the level of 15% specified in 7.4.13.1.c, the CAB shall, as early as practicable in the assessment process and following the variation request procedure set out in section 4.12 of the GCR, submit a variation request to the requirements section 7.4 to the MSC to either:

7.4.14.1 Allow fish or fish products to be considered as coming from IPI stocks to enter into chains of custody subject to Annex PA.

1. The variation request to allow fish or fish products to be considered as coming from IPI stocks to enter into chains of custody shall include a detailed and

8 https://www.msc.org/documents/scheme-documents/msc-scheme-requirements/msc-coc-

certification-requirements-v2.0/view



substantiated rationale of how the catches under consideration fulfil the requirements of 7.4.14.1 above.

2. If this variation request is accepted, the requirements for IPI stocks in Annex PA shall apply.

7.4.14.2 low fish or fish products considered as coming from IPI stocks to enter chains of custody, with an exemption to the additional assessment requirements for IPI stocks given in PA4.2.

a. The variation request to allow an exemption to requirements for IPI stocks shall include a detailed and substantiated rationale showing that, in addition to 7.4.13.1:

i. The catch proportion of IPI stocks calculated in 7.4.13.1.c is less than or equal to 2% and the total catch of IPI stock(s) by the UoA does not create a significant impact on the IPI stock(s) as a whole.

ii. CABs shall note that significance will be assessed on basis of the status of the IPI stock, and the risk that the IPI catch poses to the health of the IPI stock.

7.4.15 The CAB shall use the evaluation against the requirements specified in 7.4.13 - 7.4.14 above to determine the eligibility of catches of IPI stock(s) to enter further certified chains of custody. This evaluation shall not influence the final determination.

13.3 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further chains of custody

Any certified products from the fishery are likely to be identifiable and would be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody. The fishery certification will end, and chain of custody begin, at the point at which landings or transshipments are made from fishing vessels to a named buyer or processing facility (i.e., at the point of change of ownership). To continue a chain of custody, entities taking ownership of the product at downstream points must be certified against MSC’s Chain of Custody Standard.

Any downstream suppliers taking ownership of any certified product will need arrangements in place to ensure separation of any certified and uncertified material of the same species.

14 Preliminary evaluation of the fishery

14.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree

The review of information conducted for this pre-assessment indicates that the default assessment tree is applicable and appropriate without revision. None of the species assessed against Principle 1 were considered to be low trophic level species, therefore no modifications to the Principle 1 performance indicators were required.

It is noteworthy that MSC is in the process of reviewing amendments to the default assessment tree to cater for multi species fisheries.

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

All target species are subject to stock assessment, as are primary species and most secondary species (neritic tunas and Spanish mackerel). However, not all neritic tunas are subject to stock assessment, and for the main national assessment, PSAs may have to be done for Bullet tunas. However, SEAFDEC are likely to include this species as part of their ongoing stock assessment work.



For specific local assessments (UoCs), it is highly likely that specific fleet impacts on neritic tunas and small pelagics is well below the 30% threshold to qualify for significant impact on the stocks, and or recovery, if required. National measures are in place for ETP species, which means that were species to be identified, the RBF cannot be used for ETPs. It is highly unlikely that these species impact on benthic habitat. SICA may be used to assess impacts on ecosystem overall, but there is sufficiently strong research available to demonstrate minimal impact.

10 Preliminary evaluation of the fishery

11.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree

The review of information conducted for this pre-assessment indicates that the default assessment tree is applicable and appropriate without revision. None of the species assessed against Principle 1 were considered to be low trophic level species, therefore no modifications to the Principle 1 performance indicators were required.

It is noteworthy that MSC is in the process of reviewing amendments to the default assessment tree to cater for multi species fisheries.

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

All target species are subject to stock assessment, as are primary species and most secondary species (neritic tunas and Spanish mackerel). However, not all neritic tunas are subject to stock assessment, and for the main national assessment, PSAs may have to be done for Bullet tunas. However, SEAFDEC are likely to include this species as part of their ongoing stock assessment work.

For specific local assessments (UoCs), it is highly likely that specific fleet impacts on neritic tunas and small pelagics is well below the 30% threshold to qualify for significant impact on the stocks, and or recovery, if required. National measures are in place for ETP species, which means that were species to be identified, the RBF cannot be used for ETPs. It is highly unlikely that these species impact on benthic habitat. SICA may be used to assess impacts on ecosystem overall, but there is sufficiently strong research available to demonstrate minimal impact.

11.3 Summary of likely PI scoring levels

Key to likely scoring level.

Definition of scoring ranges for PI outcome estimates

Shading to be used

Instructions for filling ‘Likely Scoring Level’ cell

Information suggests fishery is not likely to meet the SG60 scoring issues.

Fail (<60)

Add either text (pass/pass with condition/fail) or the numerical range (<60/60-79/≥80) appropriate to the estimated outcome to the cell. Shade the cell of each PI evaluation table with the colour which represents the estimated PI score.

Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may not meet all of the scoring issues at SG80. A condition may therefore be needed.

Pass with Condition

(60-79)

Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this PI. Fishery may meet one or more scoring issues at SG100 level.

Pass

(≥80)


MSC pre-assessment of the Indonesian Tuna purse seine fishery page 61

Table 13: Simplified Scoring sheet

Principle Component PI Performance

Indicator

RBF

required?

(y/n)

Likely

scoring

level

Rationale/ Key points

1

Outcome

1.1.1 Stock status WCPO SKJ (UoA 1)

N Pass (≥80) Not overfished or subject to overfishing

1.1.1 Stock status WCPO YFT (UoA 2)

N Pass (≥80) Not overfished or subject to overfishing

Management

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy WCPO SKJ (UoA 1)

N Fail (<60)

WCPO SKK TRP and LRP adopted, and harvest strategy expected to work. No SKJ AW HS. Cannot be harmonised with WCPO certified fisheries. LRP adopted, but no TRP. The harvest strategy has not as yet been fully developed and therefore cannot be tested. 1.2.1 a (Elements of the harvest strategy work together to achieve stock

management objectives) and 1.2.1b (Evidence that the harvest strategy is meeting its objectives) are not met.

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy WCPO YFT (UoA 2)

N Fail (<60)

WCPO LRP adopted, but with WCPFC TRP still to be applied. Working groups in progress. No AW YFT HS. Cannot be harmonised with WCPO Certified Fisheries. LRP adopted, but no TRP. The harvest strategy has not as yet been fully developed

and therefore cannot be tested. 1.2.1 a (Elements of the harvest strategy work together to achieve stock management objectives) and 1.2.1b (Evidence that the harvest strategy is meeting its objectives) are not met.

1.2.2 Harvest Rules WCPO SKJ (UoA 1)

N Fail (<60)

Tools are available (WCPO) and are expected to work if PRI is approached, and evidence suggests that the tools in use are appropriate and effective (80).

Tools have yet to be developed for AW, which are compatible with the measures in place. The fishery cannot be harmonised with WCPFC measures. 1.2.2a (Well defined harvest control rules are in place) and 1.2.2c (Available evidence shows that the tools in place are effective) are not met.

1.2.2 Harvest Rules WCPO YFT (UoA 2)

N Fail (<60)

Tools are available (WCPO) and are expected to work if PRI is approached, and

evidence suggests that the tools in use are appropriate and effective (80). Tools have yet to be developed for AW, which are compatible with the measures in place. The fishery cannot be harmonised with WCPFC measures.




Indicator

RBF

required?

(y/n)

Likely

scoring

level


1.2.2a (Well defined harvest control rules are in place) and 1.2.2c (Available evidence shows that the tools in place are effective) are not met.

1.2.3 Information & monitoring (WCPO)

N Pass with Condition

(>60)

Information is sufficiently robust to support the stock assessments., and

sufficient to support the harvest control rules (SG80), but it cannot be said that information available from Indonesia is good (from other fisheries < 80). Most explicitly weaknesses are identified in WCPFC stock assessment reports, and there is a broad awareness within Indonesia that the system of data collection has not met with national objectives. 1.2.3c (There is good information on all other fishery removals) is not met.

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status (WCPO)

N Pass (< 80)

Robust stock assessment tools in place with some uncertainties.

Number of PIs less

than 60:

WCPFC SKJ

2 HS and HCRs cannot be harmonised because compatible measures not applied in AW

WCPFC YFT

2 HS and HCRs cannot be harmonised because compatible measures not applied in AW

2 Primary Species

2.1.1 Outcome (WCPO) N Pass (≥80) Demonstrably effective strategy between MSC UoAs to ensure that collectively they do not hinder recovery. The cumulative impacts of BET/YFT are below 30%.

2.1.2 Management (WCPO)

N Pass (≥80) Reliant on the above – UoA fishery does not hinder recovery.

2.1.3 Information (WCPO) N Pass with Condition

(>60)

Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact on the UoA. However, there is uncertainty of the quantity of BET relative to YFT.




Indicator

RBF

required?

(y/n)

Likely

scoring

level


Secondary

species

2.2.1 Outcome (WCPO)

Y for small

pelagic (option)

Pass with

Condition (>60)

Main species. The cumulative impacts of Neritic tunas and small pelagics are likely to be below 30%. May be worth assessing small pelagic species using the RBF where small pelagic catches are high. Evidence required (from observer workbooks) that shark finning is not taking place.

2.2.2 Management (WCPO)


(>60)

Whilst it is unlikely that shark finning is not taking place, The FIP should explore observer workbooks to substantiate the claim

2.2.3 Information (Pac) N

Pass with

Condition (>60)

Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact on the UoA.

ETP species

2.3.1 Outcome N Pass (≥80) No evidence of ETP interactions

2.3.2 Management N Pass (≥80) NPOA sharks, Shark finning is assessed as a P 2.2.1 outcome

2.3.3 Information N Pass with Condition

(>60)

Examine Observer workbooks to demonstrate that no ETPs are caught

Some quantitative information is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality

and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species

Habitats

2.4.1 Outcome Y Pass with Condition

(>60)

No benthic impact. Uncertainties on the impact of AFADs on the epi pelagic environment 2.4.1a (The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of commonly encountered habitats) is not met

2.4.2 Management Y Pass with Condition

(>60)

2.4.1 a A partial strategy is in place that is expected to achieve a habitat outcome 2.4.1 c There is quantitative evidence that a partial strategy/measures is

being implemented; 2.4.3 b Information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction;




Indicator

RBF

required?

(y/n)

Likely

scoring

level


2.4.3 Information Y Pass with Condition

(>60)

Strengthening information on FAD displacement. Refer to 3.2.3 c (Compliance).

Ecosystem

2.5.1 Outcome Y Pass (≥80) Low risk

2.5.2 Management N Pass (≥80) Not required for SG 100

2.5.3 Information N Pass (≥80) SPC assessment papers available

Number of PIs less than 60: 0

3

Governance &

policy

3.1.1 Legal and customary framework

Fail

(<60)

The national legal system and framework has not been applied effectively, with WCPFC measures for other commercial fisheries and FAD measures not

applied.

3.1.1 a There is an effective national legal framework for cooperation with other parties to deliver management outcomes) is not met.

3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities Pass (≥80) Institutional and consultation process in place.

3.1.3 Long term objectives Pass (≥80) Precautionary and Ecosystem approaches explicit in management policy

Fishery specific

management

system

3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives

Pass with

Condition (>60)

Fishery specific Management Plan in place, or the means to assess whether the management measures. The Plan does not refer explicitly to the implementation of RFMO measures and does sufficiently take account of ecosystem

requirements. 3.2.3 (Short and long-term objectives are consistent with MSC outcomes and are explicit within the fishery specific management system) is not met

3.2.2 Decision making processes


(>60)

Evidence required to demonstrate that measures take account of research, evaluation and monitoring (TCC Compliance reports?).

Evidence required to demonstrate that the precautionary approach is considered when taking decisions.




Indicator

RBF

required?

(y/n)

Likely

scoring

level


3.2.2b (Decision making respond to serious issues identified in research, monitoring and evaluation); and 3.2.2 c (Decision making use the precautionary approach) are not met

3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement

N Fail

(<60)

Systematic non-compliance with current management measures (Catch log book returns and FAD limits. Evidence will need to demonstrate completion of logbooks and knowledge of FAD displacement. These will need to demonstrate

‘Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery (3.2.3c)’.

3.2.3 a (The compliance system has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures), 3.2.3c (Some evidence is available to demonstrate that fishers comply with the management system); and 3.2.3d (There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance).

3.2.4 Management performance evaluation


(>60) Regular internal and external review for RFMOs and national structures

Number of PIs less than 60: 2


References Acoura Marine (2015). MSC Sustainable Fisheries Certification Fiji Albacore and Yellowfin Tuna longline. Available at https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/fiji-albacore-and-yellowfin-tuna-longline/@@assessments

Acoura Marine (2017). Available at Talley's New Zealand Skipjack Tuna Purse Seine. Available at https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=ZKhrBwndyuZ7Ot/CegBMUnbY73kBoWtjUs1H3hY6APqjmyuZYE9/WrZZeblufMpO

Acoura Marine (2018), 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/@@assessment

Acoura Marine (2018). Eschebastar Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Purse Seine Fishery, Final Report and Determination, Available at https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/Eschebastar-indian-ocean-purse-seine-skipjack-tuna/@@assessments

Allain, V. 2010. Trophic structure of the pelagic ecosystems of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC6-2010/EB- IP 10.

Allain, V., S. Nicol, T. Essington, T. Okey, B. Olson and D. Kirby. 2007. An Ecopath with Ecosim model of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean warm pool pelagic ecosystem. WCPFC-SC3-EB SWG/IP-8.

Cox, S. P., S. J. D. Martell, C. J. Walters, T. E. Essington, J. F. Kitchell, C. H. Boggs, and I. Kaplan. 2002a. Reconstructing ecosystem dynamics in the central Pacific Ocean, 1952-1998: I. Estimating population biomass and recruitment of tunas and billfishes Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:1724-1735

Cox, S. P., T. E. Essington, J. F. Kitchell, S. J. D. Martell, C. J. Walters, C. H. Boggs and I. Kaplan. 2002b. Reconstructing ecosystem dynamics in the central Pacific Ocean, 1952-1998: II. Apreliminary assessment of the trophic impacts of fishing and effects on tuna dynamics. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:1736-1747

DNV-GL (2018), Public Comment Draft Report, Initial Assessment of the PT Citraraja

Ampat, Sorong Pole and Line Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna Fishery

PT. CITRARAJA AMPAT CANNING Https://Fisheries.Msc.Org/En/Fisheries/Pt-Citraraja-Ampat-Sorong-Pole-And-Line-Skipjack-And-Yellowfin-Tuna/@@Assessments Direktorat Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Ikan, Direktorat Jenderal Perikanan Tangkap (2016). Analysis of on-board Observer data

Government of Indonesia (2004), Autonomy Law No. 32/2004, replacing 22/1999.

Government of Indonesia (2004) Law (UU) No. 25/2004 concerning Planning System for National Development, UU No. 31/2004

Government of Indonesia (2005), National Fisheries Development Plan, 7/2005

Government of Indonesia (2009) National Fisheries Law 45/2009, replacing 32/2004

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/fiji-albacore-and-yellowfin-tuna-longline/@@assessments

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/fiji-albacore-and-yellowfin-tuna-longline/@@assessments

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

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

https://fisheries.msc.org/En/Fisheries/Pt-Citraraja-Ampat-Sorong-Pole-And-Line-Skipjack-And-Yellowfin-Tuna/@@Assessments

https://fisheries.msc.org/En/Fisheries/Pt-Citraraja-Ampat-Sorong-Pole-And-Line-Skipjack-And-Yellowfin-Tuna/@@Assessments


Ianelli, J., Maunder, M. N., and Punt, A. E. (2012). Independent review of the 2011 WCPO bigeye tuna assessment. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-01, Busan, Republic of Korea, 7–15 August 2012.

ISSF (2016) Skippers Guidebook to Sustainable Fishing Practices, Third Edition, May 2016. Available at http://www.issfguidebooks.org/downloadable-guides/yn0crgv8bcesfwjfz40a7lv2i6576x

ISSF (2018), Characterization Small and Medium Scale Tuna Purse Seine and Ring Net Vessels in Indonesia, ISSF Technical Report 2018-06

Leroy, B, J. S. Phillips, S. Nicol, G. M. Pilling, S. Harley, D. Bromhead, S. Hoyle, S. Caillot, V. Allain, and J. Hampton. 2013. A critique of the ecosystem impacts of drifting and anchored FADs use by purse-seine tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Aquat. Living Resour.26, 49–61

McKechnie, S. Hampton, J, Pilling, G., Davies, N., (2016) Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/node/27490

McKechnie, S., Pilling, G. and J. Hampton (2017). Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean Rev 1 (23 July 2017). Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/node/29518

MMAF (2012) Ministerial regulation 12/MEN/2012,

MMAF (2012) National Strategy on Fisheries Management Decree PMKDPRI 15/MEN/2012.

MMAF (2012), NPOA, National Plan of Action to Prevent and to Combat Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Fishing, 2012-2016

MMAF (2013) Determination of Full Protection Status, Whale shark fish (Rhincodon Typus), Nomor 18/Kepmen-kp/2013

MMAF (2014) Ministerial decision 54/KEPMEN-KP/2014, Management of tuna 107/KEPMEN-KP/2015.

MMAF (2014) National Plan of Action for the Management of Tuna, skipjack and Neretic tunas.

MMAF (2014) Determination of Full Protection Status of Pari Manta Fish, Nomor 4/Kepmen-KP/2014

MMAF (2014) Prohibition on the export of specified shark species, Decree 59/PERMEN-KP/2014

MMAF (2014) Second Amendment to Regulation of The Minister of Marine and Fisheries No. Per.30 / MEN / 2012 Concerning Fishing Fisheries Business in the Area of State Fishery Management of the Republic of Indonesia, Nomor 57/Permen-Kp/2014

MMAF (2015), Competency standards for practicing the ecosystem approach to fisheries management, 9/PERMEN-KP/2015

MMAF (2015) Enacting the National Plan of Action for Tuna, Number: 107/KEPMEN-KP/2015

MMAF (2016) National Plan of Action (NPOA), Conservation and Management of Sharks and Ray (Draft)

MMAF (2016) Ministerial decree 47/KEPMEN-KP/2016). on Stock Estimation, Total Allowable Catch and Fisheries Resources Utilization at 11 Fisheries Management Areas (FMAs)

MMAF (2016) Tentang Penangkapan Ikan Dalam Satu Kesatuan OperasiNo 1 PER DJPT 2016

http://www.issfguidebooks.org/downloadable-guides/yn0crgv8bcesfwjfz40a7lv2i6576x

http://www.issfguidebooks.org/downloadable-guides/yn0crgv8bcesfwjfz40a7lv2i6576x


MMAF PER.30/MEN/2004; PER.08/MEN/2011 and PERMEN No. 26/PERMEN-KP/2014), Restricting the use of FADs.

MRAG (2009), MRAG (2009) Report on independent review of the commission's transitional science structure and functions [GN-WP-7], 5th Scientific Committee Regular Session Port Vila, Vanuatu 10-21 August 2009.

MRAG Americas (2015). MSC Public Certification Report for Solomon Islands Skipjack and

Yellowfin Tuna Purse Seine Anchored FAD, Purse Seine Unassociated, and Pole and Line. Available at https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/solomon-islands-skipjack-and-yellowfin-tuna-purse-seine-and-pole-and-line/@@assessments

Nugroho, D (Draft), Vulnerability and Productivity Status Assessment of Stock and Proposed Utilization of Non-Target Species for Tuna Fisheries in Samudra Indonesia Wpp 573

SEAFDEC (2016), Report of the 3rd Meeting of the Scientific Working Group on Neritic Tuna Stock Assessment in the Southeast Asian Waters. Available at http://www.seafdec.org/download/report-3rd-meeting-scientific-working-group-neritic-tuna-stock-assessment-southeast-asian-waters/

Tremblay-Boyer, L., McKechnie, S., Pilling G. and Hampton J. (2017). Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean Rev 1 (26 July 2017). Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/node/29519

WCPFC (2000), Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/convention-conservation-and-management-highly-migratory-fish-stocks-western-and-central-pacific

WCPFC (2005). Conservation and Management Measure for Tropical Tunas, WCPFC 2005-01.

WCPFC (2008). Conservation and Management Measure for Tropical Tunas, WCPFC 2008-01.

WCPFC (2008), Eighth Regular Session Tumon, Guam, United States of America 26-30 March 2012. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/WCPFC8-Summary-Report.pdf

WCPFC (2012a), Ninth Regular Session of the Commission, Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/9th-regular-session-commission

WCPFC (2012b), Review of the Performance of the WCPFC. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/node/3050

WCPFC (2014) Conservation and Management Measures (2014-06) to develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for key fisheries and stocks in the WCPO. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2014-06/conservation-and-management-measures-develop-and-implement-harvest-strategy-approach

WCPFC (2015a). Twelfth Regular Session of the Commission. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/12th-regular-session-commission

WCPFC (2015b). Conservation and Management Measure on a Target Reference Point for WCPO Skipjack Tuna, CMM 2015-06. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2015-06/conservation-and-management-measure-target-reference-point-wcpo-skipjack-tuna

WCPFC (2017a). The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Fourteenth Regular Session of the Commission Manila, Philippines, 3 - 7 December 2017. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/WCPFC14%20Summary%20Report%202017_%20Issued%2016%20March%202018_complete.pdf

https://opac.spc.int/cgi-bin/koha/opac-search.pl?q=au:%22Scientific%20Committee%20Regular%20Session%22

https://opac.spc.int/cgi-bin/koha/opac-search.pl?q=au:%22Scientific%20Committee%20Regular%20Session%22

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/solomon-islands-skipjack-and-yellowfin-tuna-purse-seine-and-pole-and-line/@@assessments

https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/solomon-islands-skipjack-and-yellowfin-tuna-purse-seine-and-pole-and-line/@@assessments

http://www.seafdec.org/download/report-3rd-meeting-scientific-working-group-neritic-tuna-stock-assessment-southeast-asian-waters/

http://www.seafdec.org/download/report-3rd-meeting-scientific-working-group-neritic-tuna-stock-assessment-southeast-asian-waters/

https://www.wcpfc.int/node/29519

https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/WCPFC8-Summary-Report.pdf

https://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/9th-regular-session-commission

https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2014-06/conservation-and-management-measures-develop-and-implement-harvest-strategy-approach

https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2014-06/conservation-and-management-measures-develop-and-implement-harvest-strategy-approach


WCPFC (2017b). Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in The Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Available at Https://Www.Wcpfc.Int/Doc/Cmm-2017-01/Conservation-And-Management-Measure-Bigeye-Yellowfin-And-Skipjack-Tuna-Western-And

WCPFC (2017c) WCPFC Tuna Fishery Yearbook - Annual Catch Estimates. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/statistical-bulletins

WWF (2015). National Symposium for Sustainable Tuna Fisheries Management

WWF (2018). Response to the PT Citraraja Ampat, Sorong Pole and Line Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna Fishery Public Consultation Report, August 2018

Widodo, A. A, Wudianto, Proctor, C., Fayakun Satria, Mahiswara, Mohamad Natsir, I. Gede Bayu Sedana, Ignatius Hargiyatno

and Scott Cooper, S, (2016), Characteristics of tuna

fisheries associated with Indonesian anchored FADs in waters of the West Pacific and the Indonesian archipelago, WCPFC-SC12-ST-IP-06

https://www.wcpfc.int/statistical-bulletins



Appendix A. PSA for small pelagic species RBF

prepared for - fisheryprogress.org · pre-assessment of the kendari based tuna purse ... brpl badan...

Documents