behind the façade a decade of inaction on non-target...

Behind the FaçadeA decade of inaction on non-target species in

southern bluefin tuna fisheriesMary Lack

The author, Mary Lack, is a consultant from Shellack Pty Ltd.

Front cover photographs:

Loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta. © WWF-Canon / Michel GUNTHER

Wandering Albatross, Diomedea exulans. © savethealbatross.net

Great white shark, Carcharodon carcharias. © WWF-Canon / Wildlife Pictures/ Jêrome Mallefet

Back cover photograph:

© Jim Enticott / savethealbatross.net

Citation: This document should be cited as: Lack, M. (2007). Behind the façade: A decade of inaction on non-target species in southern bluefin tuna fisheries. WWF International, Gland, Switzerland

© 2007 WWF International. All rights reserved.

All material appearing in this publication is copyrighted and may be reproduced with permission. Any reproduction in full or in part of this publication must credit WWF International as the copyright owner.

AcknowledgmentsThe author acknowledges, with much appreciation, the contribution of Lorraine Hitch and Dr Ghislaine Llewellyn from WWF Australia and Dr Barry Baker, Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants. The report also benefited greatly from the helpful and insightful comments provided by reviewers: Brian Macdonald, Executive Secretary CCSBT, 2001-2006; Glenn Sant, Global Marine Programme Leader, TRAFFIC International; and Dr Cleo Small, BirdLife International.

Behind the Façade: A decade of inaction on non-target species in southern bluefin tuna fisheries

Table of contents

Executive summary .......................................................................................................................... i

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Obligations and expectations ......................................................................................................... 2International laws and protocols ..................................................................................................................2

International opinion .....................................................................................................................................4

RFMOs .........................................................................................................................................................5

The mandate of the CCSBT .........................................................................................................................6

Summary ......................................................................................................................................................8

Non-target interactions in SBT fisheries ........................................................................................ 9Longline fleets ............................................................................................................................................10

Seabirds .................................................................................................................................................10

Finfish and sharks ..................................................................................................................................11

Marine turtles ..........................................................................................................................................11

Purse seine fleet .........................................................................................................................................13

Summary ....................................................................................................................................................13

CCSBT framework for managing non-target species.................................................................. 14

CCSBT consideration of non-target species ............................................................................... 16

Effectiveness of management ...................................................................................................... 181. Understanding of the issue .............................................................................................................18

2. Implementation of mitigation measures ..........................................................................................19

3. Assessment of effectiveness of measures ......................................................................................20

4. Review of measures ........................................................................................................................21

5. Compliance with measures .............................................................................................................22

Factors influencing the performance ........................................................................................... 23Structural and operational factors ..............................................................................................................23

Institutional factors .....................................................................................................................................23

Information .................................................................................................................................................24

Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................. 25Recommendations .....................................................................................................................................26

References ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 32

Appendix 1 ..................................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix 3 ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix 4 ..................................................................................................................................... 40

i


Nature of the SBT fishery by participant*Total allowable catch (TAC) 2007-2009 (t)

Catch

2005 (t)

Predominant nature of SBT catch

% catch by method

CCSBT 11,810 15,690 Longline: 67%

Purse seine: 33%

Members

Australia 5,265 5,244 Target Purse seine: 99%

Longline: 1%

Japan 3,000** 7,327 Target Longline

South Korea*** 1,140 38 Target Longline

New Zealand 420 264 Target Longline: 98%

Other: 2%

Taiwan*** 1,140 941 Bycatch and seasonal target

Longline

Co-operating non-members

European Community 10 n.a Bycatch Longline

Philippines 45 53 Bycatch Longline

South Africa 40 24 Bycatch Longline

Other

Indonesia 750 1,799 Bycatch and seasonal target

Longline

* These data are drawn from the historical catch records of the CCSBT. Recent reviews of SBT farming and market data suggest that catches may have been substantially underestimated over the past 10-20 years. This may have consequences for the accuracy of data on total catch and catch by gear.

**In 2006, Japan’s TAC was reduced from 6,065 t to 3,000 t for the period 2007-2011.

***In order to contribute to the recovery of the SBT stock, Taiwan and South Korea undertook to maintain their actual catch to below 1,000 t each for the period 2007-2009.

Sources: CCSBT (2006); CCSBT (2007a); CCSBT (2007b).

The CCSBT Convention and a number of international legal instruments and protocols provide a clear role for the Commission in relation to ecologically related species. The Commission has acknowledged these responsibilities by establishing the Ecologically Related Species Working Group (ERSWG), which is charged with providing the CCSBT with advice on the nature and extent of interactions with ecologically related species in SBT fisheries and with recommendations on measures to reduce those interactions.

The primary objective of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) is the conservation and optimum utilisation of southern bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyii (SBT). Fishing for SBT occurs mainly south of 30ºS and, over the last decade, more than 60% of the catch has been taken by longline (see the table below).

Executive summary

ii


• doesnothaveinplaceproceduresthatconfirm the level of compliance with its single mitigation measure for seabirds and is yet to agree on the information to be provided by members in respect of compliance with any management measures, for target or non-target species, imposed by the Commission

• hasfailedtotakeaprecautionaryoranecosystem-based approach to management of SBT fisheries

• hasfailedtoaddresstheineffectivenessoftheERSWG in meeting its terms of reference

As a result of these failures this report concludes that:

• thereremainsahighlevelofuncertaintyinthelevel and nature of the impacts on non-target species in all SBT fleets as a result of limited independent observations on bycatch and a lack of co-ordinated and consistent data reporting

• itislikelythatincidentalmortalitiesofprotected species of seabirds remain a serious issue for CCSBT’s longline fleets and that significant quantities of sharks are being taken in the longline fleets

• itispossiblethat,particularlyontheSBTspawning grounds, unregulated bycatch of of protected species of marine turtles are occurring

• theCCSBT’slackofactionnotonlyjeopardizes the sustainability of these populations, but also undermines the actions of other RFMOs that are seeking to conserve these, often highly migratory, species

• CCSBTisfailingtomeettherequirementsofits own convention or those of international laws and protocols relating to management of ecologically related species

The following recommendations are made with a view to redressing this situation.

The nature and extent of interactions with ecologically related species vary according to the fishing method used and the area of waters fished. In longline fisheries for SBT there is particular concern for endangered species of seabirds, vulnerable shark species and, in some areas, endangered species of marine turtles. While some data exist on the impact of some SBT longline fleets on seabirds, there are very little data available on the impacts on sharks or turtles or other species of finfish taken incidentally in SBT fisheries.

In 1997, just three years after its formation, the CCSBT was the first regional fisheries management organization (RFMO) to agree on a mandatory mitigation measure for seabird interactions in longline fisheries. This measure, which remains in place, requires the use of tori lines (bird scaring lines) in longline fisheries south of 30ºS. However, the CCSBT’s early momentum in respect of non-target species has not been sustained and few tangible benefits have been delivered. Since 1997, the seabird mitigation measure has not been amended to reflect international developments in effective seabird mitigation measures and no measures have been implemented to mitigate the impact of SBT fisheries on other non-target species. The CCSBT now lags behind other RFMOs in management of non-target species.

This report has reviewed the CCSBT’s experience in the consideration and management of non-target species and identifies a clear lack of progress in achieving positive outcomes. The overwhelming conclusion is that the ERSWG represents little more than a façade from behind which the CCSBT feigns management of ecologically related species. The specific findings of the report are that the CCSBT:

• haslittleunderstandingofthenatureandscaleof the impact of SBT fisheries on non-target species and has failed to adopt data collection and provision protocols that will address this problem

• hasimplementedonemitigationmeasurefor seabirds, but that measure has been superseded by developments elsewhere and is no longer regarded as best practice

• hasfailedtoimplementmeasurestomitigatethe impact of SBT fisheries on other non-target species such as sharks, finfish and turtles

iii


Strengthening of the Commission1. Noting the calls from the United Nations (UN)

General Assembly, the Review Conference of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO) Committee on Fisheries and the joint meeting of tuna RFMOs, for RFMOs to make improvements in their management of non-target species, the CCSBT should:

(a) initiate an independent, external review of its performance against the requirements of key international instruments, including in relation to data collection and management of non-target species, and with special reference to the adoption of precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches to management;

(b) make the results publicly available; and

(c) where the review indicates under-performance, identify and implement changes, as appropriate, to the Convention and the structure or the operations of the CCSBT to remedy this.

2. CCSBT members, individually and collectively, should make strenuous efforts to facilitate Indonesia’s membership of the Commission, noting its significant catch of SBT and the need to ensure that any non-target species issues associated with that catch are addressed. Financial assistance should be provided to encourage Indonesia to participate in meetings of the ERSWG.

Risk assessment3. The CCSBT must adopt the risk assessment

approach to management of non-target species now being taken in other regional fisheries bodies. Management of non-target species should ensure that the most vulnerable species are provided with the greatest protection. This requires information on the species breakdown of groups of non-target catch such as seabirds and sharks and that the relative impacts of the fishery on these species are known.

Data4. The CCSBT should ensure that the collection

of data on catch of and interactions with non-target species is consistent with the requirements of relevant international law and protocols by:

(a) reviewing, within 12 months, the CCSBT observer program standards to ensure that collection of such data is given the appropriate priority and that the levels of observer coverage are adequate to provide meaningful information on the nature and scale of interactions with non-target species (noting the best available international advice that initial levels of observer coverage may need to be considerably higher for this purpose than the 10% target level currently set by the CCSBT);

(b) requiring, within 12 months, members to collect logbook data, on interactions with non-target species at the species level and at an appropriate level of spatial resolution and to submit this data to a central CCSBT database on an annual basis; and

(c) initiating programs to improve the identification of shark and seabird species in fleets where this is considered necessary.

5. The available information on the species and the extent of shark catch in SBT fisheries should be compiled and a preliminary assessment of the fisheries in which shark is taken as a target or a non-target species be conducted. That assessment should identify, clearly and separately, fisheries in which sharks are taken as target catch, retained bycatch and discarded bycatch, in order to determine the factors influencing mortality and to facilitate the development of appropriate management responses.

Mitigation measures6. Noting the requests of CCAMLR for greater

co-operation, the CCSBT should implement, as a matter of urgency, seabird mitigation measures that are consistent with those in place in CCAMLR waters.

iv


7. The CCSBT should take advantage of the advice and offers of assistance available from agencies, such as ACAP and BirdLife International, which have specific expertise in seabird mitigation measures and experience in the development of effective data collection, including observer programs, and storage processes.

8. The IPOA-Sharks and the IPOA-Seabirds should be implemented comprehensively, noting that some members are yet to implement these in respect of their national fleets, and that those provisions that are in place vary in their rigor.

9. Pending the outcome of the recommended assessment of, and the collection of data on, shark catch, the CCSBT should implement measures to limit mortality of sharks. Such measures might include a no retention policy, banning the use of wire traces, imposing total or trip limits, using closures in areas or at times of known high shark catch rates and/or the use of well defined controls on finning (see Lack and Sant, 2006).

Compliance10. The CCSBT should, as a matter of urgency,

agree on the content of members’ annual reports to the Compliance Committee and ensure that such reports include details of each member’s compliance with management measures for target and non-target species, with the requirements of the Commission’s observer program standards and with agreed provisions for the collection and submission of data.

11. The CCSBT should formalize its response to non-compliance with the Commission’s management measures and other requirements it places on members and co-operating non-members. It should consider, for example, extending the application of sanctions for non-compliance with SBT quota limits to non-compliance with management measures for non-target species and making the continuation of the co-operating non-member status of non-members, contingent upon compliance with the revised observer program standards and the collection and submission of logbook data on non-target species.

Operational factors12. The priorities for the work of the ERSWG must

be established by the Commission.

13. The terms of reference for the ERSWG should be reviewed to ensure that they reflect the Commission’s priorities and obligations and facilitate delivery of the advice required by the Commission to meet these obligations.

14. An independent chair and independent expert advisors should be appointed to the ERSWG.

15. With the input of the independent expert advisors to the ERSWG, an agreed program of work for the ERSWG should be developed, reflecting the priorities identified by the Commission.

16. The operations of the ERSWG should be adequately resourced to ensure the capacity to meet annually and to fund intersessional, collaborative work as required.

17. Issues related to the key non-target species, as identified in the Commission’s priorities, should be incorporated, as a standing item on the agenda of the annual meeting of the CCSBT.

Transparency18. The CCSBT should improve the transparency

of its operations by adopting the best practice guidelines identified by Lodge et al. (2007) including by:

(a) ensuring that its website contains all meeting documents, including background papers and reports; and

(b) facilitating the participation of observers from intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations at meetings of the ERSWG and other Commission bodies by streamlining the processes for applications, providing for multi-annual approval of observer status and clearly specifying the information required in support of applications for observer status.

1


Introduction

The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) came into force in 1994 with the primary objective of the conservation and optimum utilisation of southern bluefin tuna Thunnus maccoyii (SBT). The following year, the Commission established an Ecologically Related Species Working Group (ERSWG) to provide it with advice on the nature and extent of inter-actions with ecologically related species in SBT fisheries and with recommendations on measures to reduce those interactions.

The CCSBT’s early momentum in respect of non-target species has, however, not been sustained and few tangible benefits have been delivered. The CCSBT’s performance in management of non-target species has been criticized in a number of reports (see, for example, Small, 2005; Willock and Lack, 2006) and the CCSBT is clearly lagging behind other RFMOs in management of non-target species. The reports of the ERSWG reflect considerable frustration on the part of some members with the lack of progress, especially on data collection and provision, strengthening of seabird bycatch mitigation measures and management of shark bycatch.

The need for improved performance by regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) in their data collection, management and enforcement of management measures for non-target species is now widely accepted. In just the last two years, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the 2006 Review Conference on the Implementation of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA)1, the 27th meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (FAO) Committee on Fisheries (COFI) and the joint meeting in Kobe, Japan, of tuna RFMOs have each identified this need.

This report reviews the CCSBT’s experience in the consideration and management of non-target species and identifies a clear lack of progress in achieving positive outcomes. It examines the reasons for the CCSBT’s lack of progress and makes recommendations for improved performance in this area of the Commission’s responsibilities.

Context for the review is provided by an overview of the obligations and expectations of members of RFMOs in relation to management of non-target species, and a description of the role, structure and history of the CCSBT and of the nature of SBT fisheries. This is followed by an examination of the key non-target species issues facing the Commission, a review of the consideration of these issues by the CCSBT, an assessment of the effectiveness of management measures to date and recommendations for improved performance.

1 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks.

2


Obligations and expectations

conservation and management measures; and develop data collection and research programs to assess the impact of fishing on non-target species.

The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995) promotes, among other things:

• minimization of pollution, waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species, and impacts on associated or dependent species through measures including, to the extent practicable, the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and techniques

• protection of endangered species

• assessment of the impacts of environmental factors on target stocks and species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon the target stocks, and of the relationship among the populations in the ecosystem

• the adoption of a precautionary approach, taking into account, inter alia, uncertainties relating to the size and productivity of the stocks, reference points, stock condition in relation to such reference points, levels and distribution of fishing mortality and the impact of fishing activities, including discards, on non-target and associated or dependent species, as well as environmental and socio-economic conditions

Under the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, International Plans of Action (IPOAs) relating to the incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries (IPOA-Seabirds) (FAO, 1998) and the conservation and management of sharks (IPOA-Sharks) (FAO, 2000) have been developed. The implementation of IPOAs is voluntary but is widely accepted as good practice (see, for example, Willock and Lack, 2006; and Lodge et al., 2007).

International laws, a range of supporting international protocols and the weight of international opinion expressed at high level meetings and in reports concerned with sustainability of the marine environment, have established a range of obligations and expectations with relation to the management of non-target species. The Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (the Convention) as well as the conventions and management measures of other RFMOs in which SBT-catching countries participate, also impose a range of obligations relating to non-target species. Some of the key obligations and commitments in relation to these species are outlined below.

International laws and protocolsThe United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) requires, among other things, States to co-operate to take into consideration the effects on species associated with or dependent upon harvested species with a view to maintaining or restoring populations of these species above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened.

The UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) requires that its signatories, individually and collectively through RFMOs: apply the precautionary approach to management of both target and non-target species; implement management strategies that seek to maintain or restore populations of target and non-target species at levels consistent with previously agreed precautionary reference points; where the status of target or non-target stocks is of concern, implement enhanced monitoring of those stocks in order to determine the effectiveness of

3


The IPOA-Seabirds:

• applies to States in the waters of which longline fisheries are being conducted by their own or foreign vessels and to States that conduct longline fisheries on the high seas and in the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) of other States

• encourages States with longline fisheries to assess incidental catch of seabirds in these fisheries and, if a problem exists, to adopt a national plan of action for seabirds (NPOA-Seabirds), taking into account experience acquired in regional management organizations

• encourages States, within the framework of their respective competencies and consistent with international law, to co-operate through regional and subregional fisheries organizations or arrangements, and other forms of co-operation, to reduce the incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries

The IPOA-Sharks:

• applies to States in the waters of which sharks are caught by their own or foreign vessels and to States the vessels of which catch sharks on the high seas

• encourages States to adopt a national plan of action for the conservation and management of shark stocks (NPOA-Sharks) if their vessels conduct directed fisheries for sharks or if their vessels regularly catch sharks in non-directed fisheries, taking into account experience of subregional and regional fisheries management organizations

• encourages States, within the framework of their respective competencies and consistent with international law, to strive to co-operate through regional and subregional fisheries organizations or arrangements, and other forms of co-operation, with a view to ensuring the sustainability of shark stocks, including, where appropriate, the development of subregional or regional shark plans

• where transboundary, straddling, highly migratory and high seas stocks of sharks are exploited by two or more States, encourages the States concerned to strive to ensure effective conservation and management of the stocks

Other international agreements that impose obligations on their parties in relation to non-target species taken in SBT fisheries are the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of

Table 1: Participation of SBT-catching countries/entities in relevant instruments

UNFSA CBD CMS ACAP IOSEA-MOU

Members

Australia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Japan Yes Yes No No NR*

South Korea Yes Yes No No No

New Zealand Yes Yes Yes Yes NR

Taiwan No No No No No


European Community (EC)** Yes Yes Yes No NR

Philippines Yes Yes Yes No Yes

South Africa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Other

Indonesia Yes Yes No No Yes

* NR: not a range state eligible to participate in the IOSEA-MOU (participation is restricted to countries in the Indian Ocean and south-east Asia).

** Some members of the EC (France, Spain and the UK) are Parties to ACAP.

4


Wild Animals (CMS). Of particular relevance are instruments developed under the CMS, namely the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) and the South-East Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding (IOSEA-MOU).

A summary of the participation of SBT catching countries in key relevant instruments is provided in Table 1. All significant SBT catching countries/entities, except Taiwan2, are parties to the UNFSA and the CBD. However, only five of the nine relevant countries/entities are Parties to the CMS and, of those, only three are signatories to ACAP. Four of the six countries/entities eligible to participate in the MOU on marine turtles are signatories.

International opinionAn increasing recognition of the need for improved management of non-target species is evident from recent conferences and reports dealing with fisheries-related matters. Relevant conclusions of some of these are reviewed below.

1. The Review Conference on the UNFSA, held in 2006, concluded that “while many regional fisheries management organizations have adopted measures to minimize the catch of non-target and associated and dependent species, the scope and effectiveness of these measures could be improved, particularly with respect to the species covered, compliance and data reporting” (UNGA, 2006a).

2. The UNGA has passed a number of resolutions including references to non-target species in recent years. The most recent of these (A/Res/61/105):

a) expressed concern over the “continued losses of seabirds, particularly albatrosses and petrels, as well as other marine species, including sharks, fin-fish species and marine turtles, as a result of incidental mortality in fishing operations, particularly longline fishing, and other activities …”

b) encouraged States to “apply the precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach in adopting and implementing conservation and management measures

addressing inter alia, by-catch…taking into account existing guidelines developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations”

c) urged States and RFMOs “to take action to reduce or eliminate by-catch, catch by lost or abandoned gear, fish discards and post-harvest losses, including juvenile fish, consistent with international law and relevant international instruments, including the Code, ….”; and

d) requested States and RFMOs to urgently implement, as appropriate, the measures recommended in the Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations (FAO, 2004) and the IPOA-Seabirds “…in order to prevent the decline of sea turtles and seabird populations by reducing by-catch and increasing post-release survival in their fisheries, including through research and development of gear and bait alternatives, promoting the use of available by-catch mitigation technology, and promotion and strengthening of data-collection programmes to obtain standardized information to develop reliable estimates of the by-catch of these species”(UNGA, 2006b).

3. The joint meeting of tuna RFMOs, held in January 2007, agreed, as part of its Course of Action, that the implementation of the precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management, improved data collection on incidental bycatch and non-target species and the establishment of measures to minimize impacts on ecologically related species, particularly, sea turtles, seabirds and sharks were key areas that should be addressed urgently by the tuna RFMOs (Anon., 2007a).

4. The 27th meeting of COFI, in 2007, recognized that bycatch was a serious concern in many fisheries and agreed that FAO should, in co-operation with relevant bodies (particularly the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), ACAP and BirdLife International), develop best practice guidelines to assist countries and RFMOs to implement of the IPOA–Seabirds,

2 Taiwan’s disputed legal status precludes it from participating in treaties negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations.

5


that the best practice guidelines should be extended to other relevant fishing gears, and that further intensive work was required to implement the IPOA-Sharks (FAO, 2007a).

5. The report, Recommended Best Practices for Regional Fisheries Management Organizations, (Lodge et al., 2007) recommends, among other things, that RFMOs should have:

a) “…identified limits for the acceptable impact on key non-target species (both fish and non-fish species), including associated or dependent species and especially protected or endangered species, and for bycatch of any non-target species as a whole. These limits are intended to ensure that populations and stocks are not excessively depleted, that wastage is avoided, that there is minimal impact on protected or endangered species, and that the functional ecosystem of which fisheries are a part is maintained. The FAO’s international plans of action for relevant bycatch should be implemented”; and

b) effective provisions and mechanisms for the collection and reporting of data for the monitoring and management of fishery operations and for tracking the status of the resources and ecosystems and that these include “quality assurance and verification mechanisms to ensure

that the data are sufficiently accurate and reliable to ensure optimal and sustainable utilization of the resources and ecosystem.…The provisions and mechanisms meet the requirements of UNFSA Annex I.…Scientific observer programmes are used as appropriate and particularly to gather information about the impact on the fishery non-target species and habitats.”

RFMOsParticipants in the SBT fishery are, to varying degrees, bound by management measures established by other RFMOs in which they participate. Each of the nine relevant SBT catching countries/entities is a member or co-operating non-member of at least two other RFMOs that deal with similar non-target species issues to those of the CCSBT (See Table 2). The distribution of SBT, and hence the area of competence of the CCSBT3, overlaps with that of each of the other four tuna RFMOs (the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)4, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)) as well as that of CCAMLR. In recent years, these other bodies have agreed to more stringent, although not always comprehensive, management measures for bycatch mitigation than those in place in the

Table 2: Participation in other bodies dealing with similar bycatch issues*

CCSBT IATTC ICCAT IOTC WCPFC CCAMLR

Australia M NM NM M M M

Japan M M M M M M

South Korea M M M M M M

New Zealand M NM NM NM M M

Taiwan M CNM CNM NM CNM NM

EC CNM CNM M M M M

Philippines CNM NM M M M NM

South Africa CNM NM M CNM NM M

Indonesia NM NM NM CNM CNM NM

* M denotes ‘Member’ or ‘Party’; NM denotes Non-member; CNM denotes Co-operating Non-member.

3 The area of competence of the CCSBT is not defined geographically, but is taken to cover all waters in which SBT is taken (see Figure 1).

4 While FishBase (FAO, 2007b) includes the Southeast Pacific Ocean as an area in which SBT occurs there remains some doubt as to whether the range of this species includes the Convention Area of the IATTC.

6


CCSBT (see Appendix 1). Since tuna fleets are known to move between the waters of these RFMOs, many of the vessels which participate in the SBT fishery would be subject to these more stringent mitigation measures in waters covering the fishing grounds for SBT.

The mandate of the CCSBT Australia, Japan and New Zealand established informal, trilateral scientific and management arrangements for SBT in the early 1980s. These arrangements were formalized with the establishment of the CCSBT in 1994. South Korea joined the Commission in 2001 and Taiwan became a member of the Extended Commission

in 2002. The EC, the Philippines and South Africa are co-operating non-members. Indonesia advised the CCSBT in 2006 that it was expecting to lodge an application for co-operating non-member status in the near future. The CCSBT currently provides Indonesia with financial assistance to facilitate its attendance at CCSBT meetings.

The CCSBT is concerned with the management of a single target species, SBT. The stated objective of the Convention is “…to ensure, through appropriate management, the conservation and optimum utilisation of southern bluefin tuna.”

There is considered to be one stock of SBT, which is found in the southern hemisphere mainly in waters between 30 and 50ºS (see Figure 1). The only known breeding area is in the Indian Ocean,

Table 3: Nature of the SBT fishery by participant*Total allowable catch (TAC) 2007-2009 (t)

Catch

2005 (t)

Predominant nature of SBT catch

% catch by method

CCSBT 11,810 15,690 Longline: 67%

Purse seine: 33%

Members

Australia 5,265 5,244 Target Purse seine: 99%

Longline: 1%

Japan 3,000** 7,327 Target Longline

South Korea*** 1,140 38 Target Longline

New Zealand 420 264 Target Longline: 98%

Other: 2%

Taiwan*** 1,140 941 Bycatch and seasonal target

Longline


European Community 10 n.a Bycatch Longline

Philippines 45 53 Bycatch Longline

South Africa 40 24 Bycatch Longline

Other

Indonesia 750 1,799 Bycatch and seasonal target

Longline

* These data are drawn from the historical catch records of the CCSBT. Recent reviews of SBT farming and market data suggest that catches may have been substantially underestimated over the past 10-20 years. This may have consequences for the accuracy of data on total catch and catch by gear.

**In 2006, Japan’s TAC was reduced from 6,065 t to 3,000 t for the period 2007-2011.

***In order to contribute to the recovery of the SBT stock, Taiwan and South Korea undertook to maintain their actual catch to below 1,000 t each for the period 2007-2009.

Sources: CCSBT (2006); CCSBT (2007a); CCSBT (2007b).

7


south-east of Java, Indonesia. A summary of the nature and extent of the fisheries for SBT by participant is provided in Table 3.

There have been clear signs that the SBT stock is overfished since the early 1980s (Bureau of Rural Sciences, 2007). The CCSBT’s management objective of rebuilding the spawning stock to its 1980 level by 2020 has been recognized as unattainable (CCSBT, 2003). The 2006 advice of the CCSBT’s Scientific Committee indicated that the SBT spawning biomass is at a low fraction of its original biomass, well below the 1980 level, and below the level that could produce the maximum sustainable yield. The median ratio of the current biomass to the un-fished biomass was estimated to be between 10% and 13% (CCSBT, 2006).

Rebuilding of the SBT stock has been hampered by the inability of the members of the CCSBT to agree on the status of the stock, the resultant failure to reduce, between 1989 and 2006, the TAC for SBT, and the expansion in catch of non-members. Internal disagreements between the members over the status of the stock and the appropriate level of the TAC led, in 1999, to the dispute between the members being taken to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. This environment of internal conflict rendered the Commission largely dysfunctional for a number of years.

In recent years, however, there has been a more co-operative and productive approach in the CCSBT. In 2000, a trade information scheme was introduced to address illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and the CCSBT

has facilitated the participation of non-member catching countries. In addition, the CCSBT agreed to develop a management procedure5 for SBT.

However, implementation of the management procedure has been delayed and the positive developments in the CCSBT severely undermined by the revelation in 2006 of anomalies in the Japanese market data for SBT which suggested significant and long-term under-reporting of SBT catch. It is estimated that the illegal catch in the years 1985 to 2005 is 178,000 t of longline caught SBT (CCSBT, 2006). In addition, there remains uncertainty in relation to whether the Australian purse seine catch, used for farming purposes, has also been under-reported (CCSBT Stock Assessment Group, 2006). These issues, particularly the over-catch in the longline sector on which the catch per unit effort (CPUE) data of the Commission relies heavily, has severely compromised the CCSBT database, the stock assessments based upon those data and, consequently, the appropriateness of the selected management procedure. In addition, these issues have, once again, created disharmony in the Commission, with Japan’s TAC being reduced to 6,065 t to 3,000 t for the period 2007-2011.

In addition to its focus on the conservation and management of SBT, the Convention includes a number of references to ecologically related species, which it defines as “living resources which are associated with southern bluefin tuna, including but not restricted to both predators and prey of southern bluefin tuna.” The Convention requires that:

5 A management procedure, or management or harvest strategy, is a management decision-making framework that involves agreed operational objectives, an agreed monitoring program, stock assessment and decision rules.

Figure 1: Distribution of SBT

Source: FAO, 2007b.

8


• the Parties shall expeditiously provide to the CCSBT scientific information, fishing catch and effort statistics and other data relevant to the conservation of SBT and, as appropriate, ecologically related species (Article 5 (2))

• the Parties shall co-operate in collection and direct exchange, when appropriate, of fisheries data, biological samples and other information relevant for scientific research on SBT and ecologically related species (Article 5(3))

• the Commission shall collect and accumulate information including scientific information, statistical data and other information relating to SBT and ecologically related species (Article 8(1)(a))

• the Scientific Committee shall, among other things, report to the Commission its findings or conclusions, including consensus, majority and minority views, on the status of the SBT stock and, where appropriate, of ecologically related species (Article 9 (2)(c))

It is clear that the Convention intends that members of the CCSBT will, ‘where appropriate’ provide data to the Commission on ecologically related species and share information on such species for the purposes of research, that the CCSBT will be a repository for scientific, statistical and other information on ecologically related species, and that the Scientific Committee will, ‘where appropriate’, report on the status of those species.

The CCSBT’s website reinforces the view that the CCSBT is concerned with ecologically related species, noting that, in pursuit of the objective of ensuring the conservation and optimum utilisation of SBT, the Commission, among other things, “fosters activities directed towards the conservation of ecologically related species (living marine species which are associated with the SBT fishery) and bycatch species.” (CCSBT, 2007c)

Despite this apparently clear mandate, some members of the CCSBT have at various times expressed differing interpretations of the responsibility of the Commission with respect to ecologically related species. For example, in 1997 one member stated:

“There is increasing and justified international scrutiny of both SBT stock status and environmental impacts in the global SBT fishery, such as seabird bycatch. This Commission has a strong mandate to deal with both issues and must be prepared to explore new mechanisms for securing a sustainable and environmentally responsible future for the SBT resource and the fishing industries which depend on it” (CCSBT, 1997a).

Yet, as recently as 2006, another member queried, in the ERSWG, whether or not the CCSBT has competence to adopt binding conservation and management measures for ecologically related species (CCSBT ERSWG, 2006). This question was to be put to the Commission for advice but the 2006 meeting of the CCSBT did not consider this issue.

SummaryThe Convention under which the CCSBT operates imposes clear obligations on members with respect to non-target species. The actions of the CCSBT in forming an Ecologically Related Species Working Group and establishing mandatory mitigation measures for seabird bycatch confirm that the members of the CCSBT consider that they have an obligation and a mandate to manage these species, despite the apparent lack of clarity on this issue in the minds of at least one member. Further, the international community has left the participants in the CCSBT in no doubt as to its expectations with regard to management of non-target species and, in particular, management of seabird, shark and turtle bycatch.

9


Non-target interactions in SBT fisheries

However, the proportion of catch taken by longline will fall and that taken by purse seine will rise as a result of the reduction in Japan’s national allocation from 2007. The major target, longline fisheries for SBT are carried out by Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia and New Zealand (see Table 3).

Figure 2: Distribution of fishing effort for SBT

Source: Bureau of Rural Sciences (2007).

The composition and extent of interactions with, or catch of, non-target species taken in tuna fisheries vary by fishing method and by area. Around two-thirds of the reported catch of SBT has been taken by longline and around one-third by purse seine in recent years.

10


Indonesia takes its catch of SBT as bycatch to its fishing operations for bigeye and yellowfin tuna, on the only known spawning ground for SBT between Indonesia and the north-west coast of Australia (see Figure 2). Anecdotal advice suggests that the Indonesian fleet may also be targeting SBT on the spawning grounds. Japan now reports mainly fishing for SBT in the Indian Ocean and Pacific Oceans while Taiwan fishes predominantly in the southern and central Indian Ocean (CCSBT, 2006). New Zealand fishes for SBT in its EEZ in the western Pacific Ocean. Australia is the major catcher of purse seine-caught SBT with fishing occurring within the Australian EEZ, in the Great Australian Bight (see Figure 2).

Non-reporting and under-reporting of data on non-target species characterize all gear types in tuna fisheries worldwide and estimates tend to be ad hoc and to rely on specific research or observer programs that may be limited in terms of their coverage of the fleet, the level of fishing effort and the fishing area. The situation in SBT fisheries is no exception to this, however the extent of the problem is particularly severe in the CCSBT, where: there are no summary data available on catch of non-target species; the Parties are not required to submit logbook data on this catch; and the collection of data on these species is given a lower priority under CCSBT’s observer program, which has, in any case, very limited coverage in most fleets (CCSBT, 2007d).

Members have agreed to submit national reports to meetings of the ERSWG and a format has been agreed for these. These reports provide for reporting on seabirds, other non-target fish, marine mammals and marine reptiles. However, the extent of the data, and the degree to which the data are verified, varies across members and the basis for reporting of data is not standardized. The CCSBT makes no attempt to collate the information provided in these reports. Further, national reports and other papers submitted to the ERSWG, like all papers presented at CCSBT meetings, are not made available on the CCSBT’s website, although they are available on request to the Secretariat after the relevant annual meeting of the Commission. This contrasts starkly with practices in, for example, the IOTC and the WCPFC, where all working papers presented to meetings are accessible on the relevant websites, in many cases prior to the meetings.

In addition, the credibility of any data non-target species is, in any case, called into question by the recent revelations regarding under-reporting of catch of, and presumably fishing effort on, SBT. If members are prepared to misreport compulsory data relating to target fishing, there can be little confidence in the accuracy of voluntary reporting of interactions with non-target species.

Under these circumstances an assessment of the nature and scale of non-target species issues in SBT fisheries must rely on: issues identified by the CCSBT; data reported in ERSWG meetings; information provided to other RFMOs; and publicly available analyses in similar fisheries. The reports of the ERSWG and the CCSBT indicate that consideration of non-target species issues has related predominantly to seabirds, with some attention given to sharks and very little to turtles. There does not appear to have been any attention paid to catch of other finfish.

Longline fleetsThe available literature on catch rates of non-target species in tuna longline fisheries in the areas where fishing for SBT occurs indicates that SBT longline fleets are likely to take incidental catch of endangered species of seabirds as well as sharks and other finfish, including other tunas. The potential for interactions with marine turtles seems relatively low in the main target fisheries.

SeabirdsOf the world’s 22 species of albatrosses, 19 are classified as threatened with extinction (Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered) according to the ‘red-list’ criteria of the World Conservation Union (IUCN, 2007). Most of the longline fishing effort for SBT occurs in the southern waters of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, concentrated between 30-50º south. Of the regional fisheries bodies, the area over which the CCSBT has management responsibility, has the greatest overlap with albatross distribution, followed by WCPFC, IOTC, ICCAT and CCAMLR (BirdLife International, 2004). BirdLife International has provided the ERSWG with information from the Global Procellariiform6 Tracking Database, identifying that global breeding distribution of albatrosses and petrels of conservation concern have a 67% overlap with CCSBT fishing effort, which is markedly higher

6 The Procellariiformes is an order of birds ranging in size from the least storm petrel (six inches) to the giant wandering albatross (wingspan close to 12 feet). They are distributed throughout the world, but they tend to be found primarily in southern waters (Anon., 2007b).

11


than the level of other tuna RFMOs (BirdLife International, 2006a).

In the 1980s and 1990s, Japanese longline vessels targeted SBT and other tunas in the waters of Australia and New Zealand, under agreement with the governments of these two countries. These operations were subject to a number of conditions, including observer coverage. The presence of observers provided a reliable source of data on incidental catch from these operations. For example, observer records of Japanese longline fishing vessels in the Australian Fishing Zone during 1992-1995 indicated an annual bycatch of at least 2,800 to 3,600 seabirds, of which 78% were albatrosses (Klaer and Polacheck, 1998). However, Japanese longline vessels have been excluded from Australian waters since 1997 and foreign licensed distant water fishing vessels have not fished in New Zealand waters since 1995. As a result, this time series of observer-based data is no longer available.

In 1995, the ERSWG identified nine species of albatrosses, six species of petrels, two species of shearwaters and one pigeon species as species taken incidentally by SBT longliners in the south east Indian Ocean and Australian and New Zealand waters (CCSBT ERSWG, 1995). The ERSWG went on to note that “two published studies using long time series data provide strong evidence regarding the link between the population change [of wandering albatross] and SBT fisheries related incidental mortality”.

In 2004, Japan presented information to the ERSWG that its longline SBT fishery took between 6000 and 9000 seabirds per year in the 2001 and 2002 fishing seasons, that these levels had been stable since 1995, and that 74% of the species taken were albatrosses and 21% petrels (Kiyota and Takeuchi, 2004)7. This information was examined, in 2005, by CCAMLR’s Scientific Committee. The Committee noted that most of these species breed in the CCAMLR Convention Area and estimated that, given that the Japanese fleet probably represents about two/thirds of the longline fishing effort in the CCSBT fishery, the total annual mortality of seabirds from SBT fishing operations could approach or even exceed 13,500 seabirds, including about 10,000 albatrosses (CCAMLR Scientific Committee, 2005).

Finfish and sharksAn indication of the finfish and shark species likely to be taken incidentally in SBT fisheries is provided in Table 4. This list was included in a draft resolution on data collection and provision considered by the ERSWG in 2006 (CCSBT ERSWG, 2006).

In 1995, the ERSWG noted that domestic and foreign longlining operations for SBT in the EEZs of New Zealand and Australia reported a wide range of species including bony fish, sharks, rays, some marine mammals and a turtle. Further, most of the non-target catch was sharks, principally blue shark, and albacore tuna was common (CCSBT ERSWG, 1995). From 1991, Australia prohibited Japanese longline vessels operating in Australian waters from retaining shark fins unless the shark carcasses were also retained and required that details on individual shark species hooked were recorded and that sharks were released alive and undamaged where possible (Rose and McLoughlin, 2001).

Marine turtlesThere are seven species of marine turtles: the loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta, green turtle Chelonia mydas, hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata, Kemp’s Ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempii, olive Ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea, flatback turtle Natator depressus and leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea. Three of these (hawksbill, Kemp’s Ridley and leatherback turtles) are classified by the World Conservation Union as critically endangered, three (green, loggerhead and olive Ridley turtles) as endangered and one (flatback turtle) as data deficient. Each of these species is listed in Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES), which means that international, commercial trade is prohibited. Five of the seven species are found around the globe (mainly in tropical and subtropical waters) while two species have relatively restricted ranges: Kemp’s Ridley occurs mainly in the Gulf of Mexico and the flatback turtle around northern Australia and Southern Papua New Guinea (see Figure 3). The loggerhead and leatherback turtles are the most migratory of the marine turtle species and are therefore more likely to be susceptible to interactions with longline fishing operations.

7 It is understood that the ERSWG meeting in July 2007 was provided with updated information on seabird bycatch in Japanese longline fisheries for SBT that demonstrated a reduction from the results reported in 2004. However, the papers presented to that meeting remain confidential pending consideration of the meeting report by the CCSBT in October 2007.

12


Figure 3: Distribution of marine turtle nesting beaches

Table 4: Indicative list of non-target species of finfish and sharks in SBT fisheriesBlue shark Prionace glauca

Albacore Thunnus alalunga

Ray’s bream Brama brama

Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus

Dealfish Trachipterus trachypterus

Lancetfish Alepisaurus ferox & A. brevirostris

Moonfish Lampris guttatus

Oilfish Ruvettus pretiosus

Deepwater dogfish Squaliformes

Swordfish Xiphias gladius

Butterfly tuna Gasterochisma melampus

Mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus

Rudderfish Centrolophus niger

Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus

Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares

Striped marlin Tetrapturus audax

Bigscale pomfret Taractichthys longipinnis

Thresher shark Alopias vulpinus

Source: CCSBT ERSWG (2006).

loggerhead kemps ridley flatback hawksbillolive ridley leatherback green turtles

Source: WWF, 2007.

13


Data available from South Africa suggest that there are significant catch rates of turtles (species not specified) in tuna and swordfish longline fisheries in South African waters in the Indian Ocean (Petersen and Honig, 2006). While the higher latitudes in which the majority of the fishing effort for SBT occurs, would appear to reduce the potential for interaction of the SBT fishery with marine turtles, the actual level of interaction remains unconfirmed in the absence of the collection and analysis of reliable data. Further, there is considerable likelihood that turtles might be taken in the Indonesian longline fisheries, on the SBT spawning grounds.

Purse seine fleetAnalyses of logbook data from 2000/01 to 2005/06 and observer data from 2003/04 to 2005/06 in the purse seine sector of the Australian SBT fleet indicate that this fishery has negligible fisheries incidental catch and a small level of interaction with seabirds, all of which were released alive (SBT Management Advisory Committee, 2006). A recent ecological risk assessment of the purse seine fishery for SBT conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization found that:

“The targeted nature of the fishery, the depth at which it is conducted, and the fact that the catch is not crushed during harvest (fish are transferred live and in water to tow cages), minimizes risk of capture of non-target species, and those that might be captured, have the opportunity for escape or release. Interactions with white sharks have been reported, and releasing this species alive is challenging both logistically and from an employee health and safety perspective. The status of white sharks is uncertain and any incidental mortality is considered a risk at this time.” (SBT Management Advisory Committee, 2006)

The ecological risk assessment considered that, apart from SBT itself, only one species, great white shark Carcharodon carcharias, was at high risk in the purse seine fishery. Other species, including a range of finfish, sharks, seabirds, marine mammals and marine reptiles were considered at low or medium risk from the SBT purse seine fishery.

There would appear to be limited potential for interactions with marine turtles in the purse seine fishery for SBT in the Great Australian Bight. The ecological risk assessment conducted for this fishery rated green turtles and leatherback turtles at medium risk.

It should be noted that the observer data for this fishery are relatively limited, the observer program having been in place only since 2003 with annual coverage of 10% or higher of catch and effort (Bureau of Rural Sciences, 2007).

SummaryThe data on non-target species available to the CCSBT depends on decisions by members as to what data to collect from their fleets and what data to make available for consideration by the ERSWG. As a result, the data available are un-standardized and piecemeal and there is no clear picture of the nature, scale and trend of catch of non-target species in SBT fisheries. Based on the available information, it seems reasonable to conclude that:

• itislikelythatincidentalmortalitiesofseabirdsremain a serious issue for CCSBT’s longline fleets

• itislikelythatsignificantquantitiesofsharksare being taken in the longline fleets

• there remains a high level of uncertainty in the level and nature of the catch of non-target species in all SBT fleets as a result of limited independent observations on bycatch and a lack of co-ordinated and consistent data reporting

14


CCSBT framework for managing non-target species

drivers for the formation of the Group was concern about the incidental catch of seabirds (CCSBT ERSWG, 1997). However, the proposed subsidiary objective of reducing seabird incidental take had not been reflected in the Convention.

According to the terms of reference, the ERSWG reports to the Commission through the CCSBT Scientific Committee and the Scientific Committee may provide comments to the Commission on the reports of the ERSWG.

In summary, the role of the ERSWG in relation to non-target species8 is to:

• provide information and advice on issues relating to species (both fish and non-fish) that may be affected by SBT fisheries operations

• monitor trends and review existing information and relevant research, including but not limited to studies on these species relating to: population biology; factors affecting their populations; the assessment of the effects of SBT and other fisheries on these species; and modifications to gear and operational aspects of the SBT fishery to minimize the effects on these species

• make recommendations on data collection programs and research projects with respect to these species, including recommendations on research priorities and estimated costs of such research

• provide advice on measures to minimize fishery effects on these species, including but not limited to gear and operational modifications, and on measures that may enhance the conservation and management of these species

• respond to requests for advice on specific matters from the Commission

The terms of reference for the ERSWG provide broad scope in terms of species coverage, as

8 The ERSWG has also been charged with providing information and advice on predator and prey species which may affect the condition of the SBT stock. This report has focused on the performance of the ERSWG in relation to species affected by SBT fishing operations, these are referred to throughout this report as non-target species, noting that it is assumed that SBT is the only target species.

The CCSBT has a number of subsidiary bodies:

• a Scientific Committee and a Stock Assessment Group reporting to the Scientific Committee (an independent chair and three independent scientific advisors participate in the meetings of each body)

• a Compliance Committee

• an Ecologically Related Species Working Group

• a Standing Committee for Finance and Administration

Prior to the establishment of the Commission, Australia, Japan and New Zealand acknowledged the “importance of addressing issues relating to ecologically related species under the Convention. Seabirds and krill were identified as ecologically related species which warranted the attention of the parties and the three countries recognized that a specific group within the competence of the proposed commission should be established to address these issues.” (Anon., 1993). Even at this time, however, it was clear that the parties saw the work of such a group as secondary to the management of the target stock, noting “the need to prioritise issues and ensure that the group’s work did not conflict with that necessary for assessment of the SBT stock” (Anon., 1993). Australian and New Zealand did, however, support the inclusion in the Convention of “a subsidiary objective of progressively minimizing seabird incidental take” in the management strategies of the parties (Anon., 1993).

The CCSBT agreed to the formation of the ERSWG in 1995 and adopted the terms of reference and data handling criteria provided here in Appendix 2. In establishing the ERSWG the CCSBT sought advice on a specific list of questions. These questions were elaborated upon in 1997 (see Appendix 3). It is apparent from the terms of reference and questions that one of the main

15


they provide for fish and non-fish species to be addressed in the work of the Group. Further, the questions on which the Commission sought advice from the ERSWG confirm that seabirds and sharks were identified by the Commission, a decade ago, as priority issues for the CCSBT.

In theory, the structure and mandate is in place for the delivery of advice on management of non-target species to the CCSBT. However, in practice, the operations of the ERSWG have not been a priority for the Commission. This is indicated by:

• theviewsofsomeparties,withonemembernoting in 1997 that the work of the ERSWG was not “essential to the functioning of the organisation in the same way as are finance, administration and compliance” (CCSBT, 1997b)

• the infrequency of ERSWG meetings which have been held only seven times since the formation of the Group in 1995 and which were not held at all between June 1998 and November 2001, largely because of the pre-occupation of the Commission with its dispute over the status of the SBT stock and the appropriate level of the SBT TAC

• Commission reports, which indicate that the Group is regarded as expendable. For example, in 2004 the CCSBT decided, as a cost cutting measure, to defer the next meeting of the ERSWG from 2005 to 2006

In addition, the scope and role of the ERSWG remains subject to question by members of the Commission. For example, in 2001, members expressed differing views as to whether sharks and turtles, and interactions between cetaceans and SBT, should be included in the ERSWG’s work (CCSBT, 2001). Further, the role of the ERSWG in providing management advice on ecologically related species has been questioned and the Commission has noted that in the absence of such advice there would be a need to discuss these issues as part of the annual meeting of the Commission rather than in a stand alone group (CCSBT, 2005).

More fundamentally, some members continue to question whether the CCSBT has the mandate to establish binding measures for ecologically related species (CCSBT ERSWG, 2006). This is despite the CCSBT having adopted a requirement for the mandatory use of tori poles to mitigate against seabird mortalities in 1997.

An examination of the reports of the Scientific Committee and the Commission indicate that little attention is given to the reports of the ERSWG. Over the years, the main concern in relation to the work of the ERSWG, as expressed in the reports of the Scientific Committee, has been the lack of data on non-target species. This concern has, however, been driven largely by the constraints that this lack of data places on interpretation of the CPUE of the target species, rather than concern for the conservation of non-target species. For example, the report of the ninth meeting of the Scientific Committee, noted:

“…the similarity in debates taking place at the ERSWG and the SC regarding data requirements for addressing the respective terms of reference of these groups, and problems associated with providing by-catch data. In particular, there is increasing awareness of the need for data on other species by-catch to understand important issues related to fleet behaviour patterns, and their effects on SBT management” (CCSBT Scientific Committee, 2004).

Similarly, in discussing the lack of data on non-target species, the Commission noted in 2005 “that the recommended management procedure for SBT requires a good understanding of changes in targeting to ensure that changes in CPUE are not incorrectly interpreted” and agreed that “information on bycatch species was important to aid interpretation of CPUE data” (CCSBT, 2005).

Overall, it appears that despite quite clear terms of reference for the ERSWG, members of the Commission have different expectations of the Group, that the operations of the Group have not been prioritized by the Commission and that both the Scientific Committee and the Commission see that the main value of collecting data on non-target species is its potential contribution to a better understanding of the fishery for the target stock, rather than to a better understanding of the impact of fishing for that target stock on non-target species.

The operations of the ERSWG and the CCSBT’s consideration of non-target species are discussed in more detail below.

16


CCSBT consideration of non-target species

issues signaled underlying differences in the group in relation to the priority of confirming the extent and nature of seabird bycatch and the collection and provision of data on this bycatch from all SBT fisheries. This failure was compounded by the fact that the Group did not meet again for nearly three and a half years.

When the ERSWG met for the fourth time in November 2001, the CCSBT was in the process of developing consistent standards for observers on SBT fishing vessels and South Korea had joined the Commission. Again, the Group agreed on some operational issues relating to the format for national research, research priorities, educational material and the operational framework but failed to take the opportunity to discuss a proposal by one member to include the collection of information on ecologically related species in the CCSBT’s proposed Scientific Observer Program.

The Group met again in February 2004, by which time Taiwan had become a member of the Extended Commission and the Scientific Observer Program Standards had been implemented. The Program included the collection of data on bycatch, but seabird bycatch was included in the lowest priority group. The ERSWG agreed that its ability to address its terms of reference was constrained by the lack of data and noted that it was yet to achieve the objective of providing the Commission with an estimate of the level of incidental seabird take in SBT fisheries. However, the Group was unable to agree on the quality and level of resolution of the data required and whether the Group should recommend that the Scientific Observer Program Standards be revised to reflect the importance of ecologically related species issues such as the incidental catches of seabirds.

In considering the report of the ERSWG, the October 2004 meeting of the Commission noted the concern of some members about the need to improve the collection and provision of data on non-target species but took no action to address this issue. In the context of improving the information available for assessment of the SBT stock, the Commission included as a medium, non-essential, priority, that members “evaluate

A summary of the outcomes of the ERSWG meetings and the Commission’s response to the recommendations and reports of the Group is provided in Appendix 4. This summary shows that the ERSWG and the Commission made a promising start to their consideration of bycatch issues.

At its first meeting the ERSWG compiled available data on bycatch of seabirds and sharks and on available mitigation measures for seabirds. The Commission recognized the key issues and reflected these in its, albeit nonbinding, recommendation to the members (CCSBT, 1997b). However, even at this early stage, the report of the ERSWG indicates that there was frustration by some parties with the lack of progress on bycatch issues (CCSBT ERSWG, 1995).

By the time the ERSWG met again, in 1997, all three members of the CCSBT had adopted mandatory use of tori lines in their longline fleets and the Commission took the relatively easy option of adopting the ERSWG’s recommendation to mandate the use of tori line by longline vessels operating south of 30ºS. While the second meeting of the ERSWG noted the effectiveness of night setting on reducing the incidental catch of seabirds and the potential to maximize the effectiveness of mitigation measures by the use of an integrated suite of measures, it did not make recommendations to the Commission regarding the adoption of such measures.

The third meeting of the ERSWG, in 1998, finalized guidelines for deployment of tori lines, research priorities and agreed on research priorities and plans, an operational framework, a format for national reports and a resource list for improving fishers’ awareness of bycatch issues. The Group discussed, but failed to agree on, scientific processes for collaborative assessment of seabird bycatch and on a protocol for seabird data exchange. The failure to agree on these last two

17


options for monitoring and reporting on bycatches of species other than SBT”. This was the first recognition by the Commission, since its non-binding recommendation in 1997 for members to collect information on non-target species, that such information was important. Even in 2004, however, this was not considered a high priority and was driven by concern for the target stock rather than for the conservation of non-target species.

The ERSWG met for the sixth time in February 2006. The Group appeared to make some progress at this meeting and prepared draft recommendations on reducing incidental catch of seabirds, conservation and sustainable utilization of sharks and collection and provision of data on ecologically related species. In relation to seabirds, the draft recommendation sought, among other things, to:

• revise the mandatory seabird mitigation measure to include the use of other mitigation measures (night setting, or line weighting, or bait thawing or avoiding offal discharge when setting and hauling)

• require the collection of seabird interactions by observers according to agreed data collection and provision standards

However, there was disagreement as to whether the data should also be collected in logbooks, whether a target level of seabird interactions should be established and whether it was necessary to require the use of more than one mitigation measure for seabirds.

The draft recommendation on sharks sought, among other things, to:

• require the collection of shark catch and interactions by observers according to agreed data collection and provision standards

• promote the full utilization of retained sharks by either setting trip or overall catch limits; requiring that fins be landed only when attached to their carcass; or setting fin to whole weight ratios for catches to the first point of landing

Issues raised in respect of the draft recommendation on sharks related to the scale at which logbook data was reported, noting confidentiality provisions applying to some domestic fleets.

The draft recommendation on collection and provision of data on ecologically related species, sought, among other things, to require:

• retained and discarded catch of a specified list of non-target species to be recorded at species level in logbooks (by fishing operation, by numbers and, if appropriate, weight) and by observers

• observers to record all species caught in observed hauls, whether the specimen was retained, landed and discarded or released without landing, life status at time of landing and time of release

• that logbook and observer data be included as part of the annual data exchange between the parties and that the CCSBT develop an appropriate data base for the storage of this information

• members to submit available historical data

However, there was no agreement on the extent of the list of species of interest and it was noted that changing logbooks to meet these requirements may take several years.

Given its inability to agree on key aspects of the draft recommendations, the ERSWG undertook to finalise these recommendations in 2007 (CCSBT ERSWG, 2006). The report of the July 2007 meeting of the ERSWG is not yet available, however anecdotal advice indicates that any momentum apparent at the 2006 meeting has been lost and that the recommendations on these three critical issues were not finalized for consideration by the Commission at its 2007 meeting.

Thus, for the last decade, the CCSBT has effectively made no progress in management of non-target species. The minimal extent of the CCSBT’s actions on non-target species is reflected by its own website which notes that, in relation to ecologically related species matters, the Commission has taken decisions to:

• require mandatory use by all Commission members of tori poles in all long-line fisheries below 30ºS

• require non-members to adopt mandatory use of tori poles in all long-line SBT fisheries below 30ºS

• publish education pamphlets on sharks and seabirds for fishers involved in the SBT fishery (CCSBT, 2007e)

18


Effectiveness of management

efforts on the part of some members (see Appendix 4), the ERSWG has, as at July 2007, been unable to agree on recommendations to the Commission on the collection and provision of data on ecologically related species.

The level of observer coverage under the CCSBT Program may not, in any case be adequate to assess the level of incidental take of non-target species. Currently, the Program has a target of 10% coverage of catch and effort. However, the actual coverage of many of the fleets of SBT members remains below this target. The Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences notes that “to date, only the Australian purse-seine fishery and New Zealand charter (longline) fishery have met or exceeded this target. Most other sectors have achieved less than half of the CCSBT target level for observer coverage” (Bureau of Rural Sciences, 2007).

BirdLife International (2006b) notes that a high initial rate of observer coverage may be necessary if statistically rare events such as catch of seabirds and turtles are to be adequately recorded. Agnew (2001) has suggested that the level of observer coverage needed to accurately estimate catch levels of non-target species in longline fisheries is 20% of hooks set. Similarly, Lawson (2006) notes that “While reliable estimates for species with extremely low catch rates, such as certain species of special interest (ie., marine reptiles, marine mammals and sea birds), will require almost complete observer coverage……increases in the coverage rate beyond 20% result in smaller incremental improvements in the coefficient of variation of estimates of CPUE. If financial or other constraints limit the level of observer coverage, then the fact that the reliability of estimates of CPUE improves less rapidly with increasing coverage, once coverage rates of 20% are achieved, will be an important consideration in determining target coverage rates.”

Attempts to improve the collection of data on non-target species by the CCSBT have met with opposition based on: the additional burden such collection would place on fishers in some fleets, particularly, longline fleets; the inability of fishers to identify non-target catch to

An assessment of the effectiveness of CCSBT’s management of non-target species can be based on whether the CCSBT has:

1. An understanding of the nature and scale of interactions with, or catch of, non-target species in SBT fisheries.

2. Implemented measures to mitigate the impacts of SBT fisheries on non-target species.

3. Assessed whether those measures have reduced the impact.

4. Reviewed those measures to reflect best practice.

5. Monitored compliance with those measures.

Each of these questions is addressed below.

1. Understanding of the issueThe CCSBT’s understanding of the nature and scale of catch of non-target species in fishing operations for SBT is drawn from national reports provided to the ERSWG, research papers provided to the ERSWG and advice provided by representatives of groups with expertise in relation to specific non-target species.

The CCSBT has no mandatory requirement for the collection and submission of data on non-target species to the Commission. Information that is provided, for example, on seabird interactions, is not provided in a standardized format. The Commission does not collect or collate data on non-target species. The CCSBT’s standards for observer programs conducted by members do not give a high priority to collection of data on non-target species. In any case, data from observer programs is maintained by the members rather than by the Commission. Despite considerable

19


species level; differences in the relevant range of species between the areas where members fish; confidentiality of data where relatively few vessels are fishing; and the additional burden this would place on “already limited manpower, financial resources and research capacity, possibly jeopardizing the major task of managing SBT” (CCSBT ERSWG, 2004).

Issues such as these continue to be used as reasons for not initiating comprehensive collections of data on non-target catch in SBT fisheries. However, the CCSBT is by no means the only RFMO where data on non-target species are limited. For example, while the IOTC has agreed to collect data on non-target and associated species the IOTC secretariat noted in 2006 that “to date, the IOTC secretariat has not received any reports from members or co-operating parties on the amounts of seabirds, sea turtles or other fauna incidentally caught by their vessels” (IOTC, 2006). There are no consistent standards or specified coverage of observers in the IOTC area and the data available provide no basis for estimation of overall catch of non-target species. Similarly, while there is good data on catch of non-target species in the purse seine sector of the IATTC due to 100% observer coverage of larger purse seiners, data on such catch in the longline sector is lacking.

Conclusion:

The CCSBT does not have an understanding of the nature and scale of the impact of SBT fisheries on non-target species and has not adopted data collection and provision protocols that will address this problem.

2. Implementation of mitigation

measuresIn 1997, the CCSBT implemented a requirement for the longline vessels of members fishing for SBT to use tori poles when fishing south of 30ºS to mitigate impacts on seabirds. At the time the CCSBT adopted this measure, the ERSWG had reported to the Commission that:

• observations in the Australian Fishing Zone and New Zealand EEZ had indicated that night setting is the single most effective, reliable, and practical mitigation measure for seabirds

• tori lines are an effective reliable and practical mitigation measure

• bait throwing machines can be an effective mitigation technique

• the use of thawed baits can reduce the incidental take of seabirds

• other available mitigation techniques included the use of weighted branch lines, not discharging offal during line setting and reducing lighting during night setting

However, the Commission failed then, and subsequently, to adopt any further measures to mitigate seabird catch. This is despite a growing body of work on effective mitigation measures in other RFMOs, particularly CCAMLR, the membership of which includes all but one of the CCSBT members.

The agreed Course of Action arising from the joint meeting of tuna RFMOs, held in January 2007, specifies one of the key areas requiring urgent attention by RFMOs as the “Development of data collection, stock assessment and appropriate management of shark fisheries under the competence of tuna RFMOs.” The ERSWG has considered proposals for the conservation and sustainable utilisation of sharks taken in SBT fisheries in both 2006 and 2007 but has failed to finalize recommendations to the Commission on this issue. As a result, the CCSBT has not implemented any measures to manage sharks. In contrast, all the other tuna RFMOs (see Appendix 1) have implemented restrictions on the finning9 of sharks.

Most of these restrictions rely on the application of specific ratios, typically 5% of fin weight to the weight of shark on board. The rationale for these restrictions is that the requirement to retain shark carcasses will provide a disincentive to kill sharks only for their fins and ultimately reduce shark mortality. Recent studies (Hindmarsh, 2007; Hareide et al., 2007; Lack and Sant, 2006) have suggested that the most effective method of implementing restrictions on finning is to require the fins to be landed attached to the carcass. This is already required by a number of participants in CCSBT, including in many Australian fisheries, in domestic South African fisheries and in EC fisheries. However, the effectiveness of finning restrictions in reducing shark mortality is yet

9 Finning is the practice of removing the fins of the shark, retaining them and discarding the carcass.

20


to be proven. CCAMLR has adopted a more direct approach to reducing shark mortality. It has prohibited targeted fishing of sharks in its Convention Area until shark populations and the effects of fishing on them have been assessed. CCAMLR also encourages the release of sharks captured alive.

The CCSBT has not imposed any mitigation measures for turtles and it appears that member countries have not implemented any such measures either, although a number of them are undertaking trials of the effectiveness of measures. For example, Australia is undertaking a project to quantify the effectiveness of circle and tuna hooks, together with various bait types, on catches of target and common non-target species (Stobutzki et al., 2006) As noted earlier, turtle interactions are not considered to be a major issue for CCSBT given the area in which targeted fishing effort is concentrated. However, there is potential for interaction with turtles in the Indonesian longline fishery in which SBT is taken.

The bycatch mitigation measures used in the longline fleets of other, relevant RFMOs to reduce non-target catch of species, sharks, turtles and finfish are summarized in Appendix 1. The CCSBT is conspicuous by the paucity of the mitigation measures it has in place. This situation is clear to some members of the CCSBT who have expressed frustration with the lack of progress on non-target issues in the Commission. For example, in 2006 one member noted that the ERSWG had “failed to agree to any significant measures to control or mitigate catch of non-target species or the collection of data on these species” and, acknowledging the overlap between the area of competence of the CCSBT with that of the IOTC and the WCPFC, noted that both these organizations had “agreed on the implementation of measures to mitigate bycatch of sharks and seabirds” (CCSBT, 2006).

It should be noted, however, that some members of the CCSBT have introduced a range of additional mitigation measures for non-target species in their own fleets since 1997. Japan, New Zealand and Taiwan have each implemented a NPOA-Seabirds, under the IPOA-Seabirds. Australia has had a Threat Abatement Plan in place for seabirds in longline fisheries since 1998 and will be releasing its draft NPOA-Seabirds in 2007. Similarly, Australian, Japan and Taiwan have each implemented an NPOA-Shark and New Zealand’s NPOA-Shark has been released for consultation.

South Korea, while now only a minor catcher of SBT (see Table 3), has not implemented an NPOA for sharks or seabirds and imposes no mandatory measures, not even the CCSBT’s requirement to use tori lines, on its fleet in relation to non-target species. The nature of the requirements imposed by individual members, and the extent to which they are enforced varies and their effectiveness across the whole of the SBT catching fleet is therefore piecemeal. Any reduction in catch of non-target species arising from these measures cannot be attributed to the collective work of the CCSBT members.

Conclusion:

The CCSBT has implemented one measure for seabirds, but that measure has been superseded by developments elsewhere and is no longer regarded as best practice. The ERSWG has discussed but failed to agree on recommendations to strengthen seabird bycatch or for the conservation of sharks taken in SBT fisheries.

3. Assessment of effectiveness of measures

The CCSBT has no process in place to monitor trends in seabird interactions over time. As noted above, data collection and provision is ad hoc, data are generally not validated and are not provided in a standardized format that facilitates analysis of trends across all fleets in the fishery. As a result, it is virtually impossible to determine the effectiveness of the seabird mitigation measure and there is very limited capacity for the ERSWG to meet its terms of reference in relation to monitoring trends in the impacts of the SBT fishery on ecologically related species.

Data provided to the ERSWG in 2004 indicated that, despite the introduction of the mandatory use of tori lines in 1997, Japan’s interactions with seabirds, predominantly albatrosses, had remained stable between 1995 and 2002. These data alone suggest that the mitigation measure was not effective in reducing the catch of seabirds. Remarkably, neither the report of the ERSWG to which this information was provided nor the report of the Scientific Committee meeting that considered the outcomes of that ERSWG meeting, include any discussion of these data or their implications. Only CCAMLR’s Scientific Committee

21


appears to have recognized the significance of the data (CCAMLR Scientific Committee, 2005).

An area where CCSBT has been relatively proactive has been the development and dissemination of educational material to fishers. However, there has been no assessment of whether the educational campaigns have fostered an improved understanding of the need to minimize impacts on seabirds and sharks or whether they have improved the capacity of fishers to identify seabirds and sharks to species level, noting that, in some cases fishers (e.g., in Korean fisheries) are still not required to report non-target catch at species level in logbooks.

Conclusion:

There are no data to suggest that the CCSBT’s seabird mitigation measure and educational campaigns in relation to seabirds and sharks have reduced the mortalities of non-target species or improved the reporting of data on non-target species.

4. Review of measuresThe CCSBT’s single seabird mitigation measure has not been altered since it was implemented in 1997. Even at that time, as outlined above, there was strong evidence that other mitigation measures could play a useful role in seabird mitigation. This evidence has become stronger over time, and the range of effective measures and combinations of measures has grown10. The ERSWG has considered the results of trials of mitigation measures by members but has failed to

agree, as at July 2007, on a recommendation to the Commission to strengthen the existing measure.

Most of the catch of seabirds found in CCAMLR’s Convention Area now occurs in adjacent regions. CCAMLR has been very successful in reducing seabird interactions incurred by fishing operations in its own Convention Area. However, these results are being undermined by the continuation of high levels of catch of seabirds in fisheries in waters adjacent to those of CCAMLR, such as the SBT fisheries managed by CCSBT. CCAMLR is therefore keen to collaborate with adjacent RFMOs and with relevant CCAMLR members fishing in areas adjacent to the Convention Area, including CCSBT, to “ensure that seabird bycatch (especially of birds breeding in the Convention Area) is eliminated or minimized by the use of a suite of measures similar to those employed by CCAMLR” (Croxall et al., in press). Despite some intersessional correspondence between the two agencies, the CCSBT failed to finalise its consideration of the issue of future cooperation with CCAMLR at its 2006 meeting.

There is considerable information and advice available to CCSBT in relation to best practice in seabird mitigation measures. While no single measure or even combination of measures completely addresses the problem, and some measures are more effective and practical than others depending on the size of vessels and operational characteristics of the fleet, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that combinations of measures are effective in significantly reducing seabird interactions. In 2006, an international workshop on mitigation of seabird catch in pelagic longline fisheries endorsed the approach proposed by the WCPFC of identifying combinations of

Table 5: Principal types of types of seabird mitigation measures implemented by CCAMLR

Action Rationale

No offal discharge Avoid attracting birds

Streamer lines Keep birds away from sinking longlines

Weighted lines Sink lines too fast for birds to access

Night setting Albatrosses are diurnal

Closed seasons Protect birds when breeding

Scientific observers on every vessel Collecting data on seabird bycatch and effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Source: Croxall et al. (in press)

10 See Melvin and Baker (2007) for a summary of the most recent consideration of effective seabird bycatch mitigation measures.

22


measures that could be used and selected on the basis of the operational characteristics of the vessel (Melvin and Baker, 2006).

There is no need for CCSBT to initiate new research to identify appropriate mitigation measures for seabirds. The approach adopted by CCAMLR to its demersal longline fisheries (Table 5) and the WCPFC to pelagic longline fisheries (Table 6) are examples of best practice with respect to seabird mitigation measures that are readily transferable to CCSBT. Further, as noted earlier, four of the five members of the CCSBT are also members of CCAMLR and all CCSBT members are members of the WCPFC.

Conclusion:

The ERSWG has considered the need to strengthen the existing seabird mitigation measure but has failed to agree on an alternative recommendation for consideration by the Commission, despite the growing acknowledgement of the effectiveness of the combinations of measures designed to reflect the operational characteristics of the fleet.

5. Compliance with measuresResponsibility for compliance with the seabird mitigation measure of the CCSBT rests with the members. While members appear to report on the nature of their compliance activities in annual reports to the ERSWG, they do not report on the level of enforcement activity or the rate of compliance. Further, despite having agreed to do so, not all members regularly submit national reports to the ERSWG.

The terms of reference for the CCSBT’s Compliance Committee were adopted in 1997. However, the Committee did not meet for the first time until 2006. Assessment of compliance with seabird mitigation measures was included on the agenda for the first meeting, however the record of the meeting includes no reference to seabird mitigation and the discussion appears to have centered on the failure of the Commission to ensure compliance with the TAC for the target stock and how this might be addressed (CCSBT Compliance Committee, 2006).

Small (2005) highlighted CCSBT’s failure to monitor compliance with its seabird mitigation measure in her overall assessment of the CCSBT’s performance in fulfilling its duties to minimize catch of non-target species, especially albatrosses. Small concluded that “CCSBT is not monitoring the compliance with, or effectiveness of, this measure and has not taken a central role in collecting data on bycatch. Further, CCSBT has not established bycatch mitigation measures for any other species.”

Conclusion:

The CCSBT does not have in place procedures that confirm the level of compliance with its seabird mitigation measure and there is no indication that this issue is regarded as a priority. Further, the CCSBT is yet to agree on the information to be provided by members in annual reports to the Compliance Committee in respect of any management measures, for target or non-target species, imposed by the Commission.

Table 6: Seabird mitigation measures to be used in the WCPFC*

Column A Column B

Side setting with a bird curtain and weighted branch lines

Tori line

Night setting with minimum deck lighting Weighted branch lines

Tori line Deep setting line shooter

Weighted branch lines Underwater setting chute

Management of offal discharge

* Longline vessels must use at least two of the mitigation measures listed, including at least one from column A in areas south of 30ºS and north of 30ºN. These measures have yet to take effect (see Appendix 1).

Source: WCPFC, 2007.

23


Factors influencing performance

species has not been based on the technical need for such data but has reflected the ‘political’ issues associated with implementation of such proposals, such as the imposts on fleets and data collection costs (CCSBT ERSWG, 2004). Such considerations are not issues with which the ERSWG participants should be concerned. They are issues that are rightly discussed in the Commission in response to the best technical advice that the ERSWG can deliver. Instead, the raising of these issues in the ERSWG prevents such advice even being developed by the ERSWG. Delaying and diversionary tactics such as these have compromised the effectiveness of the ERSWG (B. Baker, Director, Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants, pers. comm., 30 July 2007).

That the meetings of a technical group, such as the ERSWG, have been allowed to be sidetracked in this way, may suggest that the chairing responsibilities have not been exercised effectively. The Chair is rotated between the members of the Commission represented at the meeting and appears to be chosen as a representative of the host country of the meeting. While this procedural issue is unlikely to the main cause of the inertia of the ERSWG, the appointment of an independent chair may help to overcome the ‘politicization’ of the Group. The CCSBT has adopted this approach for both its Scientific Committee and Stock Advisory Group in response to external advice that the effective operation of the Scientific Committee would be facilitated by the inclusion of independent advisors, including an independent chair (Maguire et al., 1998).

Institutional factorsThe CCSBT does not have a strong track record in terms of its acknowledgement and application of the precautionary or ecosystem approaches to management. Its failure to rebuild the SBT stock is indicative of the unwillingness of its members to take a precautionary approach to setting the total allowable catch for SBT. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the CCSBT has also failed to manage non-target species affected by SBT fishing operations.

The above analysis leaves little doubt that the CCSBT has failed to manage non-target species effectively. The possible reasons for this failure are examined below.

Structural and operational factorsThe CCSBT recognized the need to focus on issues related to ecologically related species and gave reasonably clear initial guidance to the ERSWG, by way of both the terms of reference and a series of questions. However, successive reports of the annual meetings of the CCSBT demonstrate that the Commission has subsequently shown a lack of interest in non-target species issues and has been largely unresponsive to the reports of the ERSWG. While the Group failed to provide advice or recommendations to the Commission, the reports of the ERSWG clearly indicate that the Working Group was struggling to meet its terms of reference and that it was not focused on its role as a technical, advisory body. The Commission’s failure to clarify questions about the role of the Group, or to provide clear directions about the Commission’s expectations of it, has impeded progress in the development of technical advice.

The reports of the ERSWG indicate that the work of the Group has been distracted by the raising of questions of a non-technical nature that are not the concern of the group and are more properly discussed in the Commission. For example, at the 2006 meeting of the ERSWG, Japan raised the issue as to whether or not the CCSBT has competence to adopt binding conservation and management measures for ecologically related species (CCSBT ERSWG, 2006). This is clearly a question that technical experts are not equipped to answer and that is outside the scope of the terms of reference of the ERSWG. Similarly, the opposition of Japan, Korea and Taiwan to proposals to improve data collection on non-target

24


Until each of the members of the CCSBT acknowledges their responsibility to adopt a precautionary and ecosystem-based approach to management, and until this acknowledgment is reflected in the Convention or, at a minimum, as a formal, consensus resolution of the members, there is little likelihood of better assessment and management of impacts on non-target species.

This acknowledgement must include equal priority to data collection, research and management considerations for target and high risk non-target species. The CCSBT has been slow to recognize the merits of a risk-based approach to management of non-target species. Such an approach is increasingly common in other RFMOs. For example, ICCAT has agreed that an ecological risk assessment (ERA) framework may be a good way to prioritize research activities and has recommended that an ERA be conducted using the available data on species taken by ICCAT fisheries (ICCAT Sub-committee on Ecosystems, 2007). Similarly, the WCPFC Scientific Committee has endorsed ERA, in general, and productivity-susceptibility analysis in particular, as an appropriate way to assist the Commission in prioritizing species for management action or further research (WCPFC Scientific Committee, 2006).

The level of transparency of the CCSBT’s operations is also considerably lower than that of many other RFMOs. For example, as noted earlier, the CCSBT’s website does not make the working papers of the ERSWG publicly available. Also, the CCSBT’s Rules of Procedure do not facilitate participation of non-governmental organizations in the meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies. While such participation is not precluded, the requirements in terms of both justification and time frames are onerous in comparison to many other RFMOs and requests for observer status can be blocked by a single member. To date, Greenpeace has twice applied unsuccessfully for observer status at CCSBT (Greenpeace, 1998). At the time of writing the requests of WWF, TRAFFIC and HSI for observer status at the October 2007 meeting of the Commission had not been approved since one member of the Commission had requested further evidence of the ‘competence’ of these members in relation to SBT. This ‘closed’ approach to management impedes the exchange of ideas and expertise and increases, justifiably or not, suspicion and opportunities for misunderstanding about the CCSBT’s approach to management.

The CCSBT has not undertaken a review of its performance throughout its 13 year history, although certain aspects of its operations have been reviewed (see, for example, Maguire et al., 1998). A number of RFMOs are now undertaking reviews of their performance, including in some cases, amendments to their Conventions, to ensure that they are operating in accordance with the obligations and expectations of international law and the international community. The UNGA and the Review Conference of the UNFSA have highlighted the need for the strengthening of RFMOs, and the joint meeting of tuna RFMOs has agreed to develop a common performance assessment framework. The recent work of Lodge et al. (2007) provides additional guidance to RFMOs as to what constitutes best practice in a range of aspects of their operations and a basis upon which performance assessment might be based.

InformationThis review has highlighted the lack of information available on non-target species in SBT fisheries. While this reflects in part the focus of the CCSBT on its target species, it is also symptomatic of a general reluctance on the part of the CCSBT members to implement rigorous requirements for the collection, submission and collation of reliable information on fishing operations. For example, the agreed observer program in the CCSBT relies on national observers from the member countries, has a target level of 10% coverage and no minimum level, does not require the members to submit the data to the Commission and has a focus on target species data collection. This is in contrast to observer programs in other RFMOs which may provide for international, independent observers, and/or coordination by the Commission, and/or provision of data to the Commission and/or collection of data on both target and non-target species. In addition, the requirements of CCSBT members in relation to collection and submission of catch and effort data on SBT operations are far less rigorous than those imposed by many other RFMOs. Members submit only monthly data on catch of SBT and annual data on catch and effort of SBT fishing operations to the Secretariat.

Without agreement on provisions for collection and provision of reliable and timely data on all aspects of SBT fishing operations there is no consistent, standardized time series of data on which to determine the nature (i.e., species breakdown)

25


or the scale of bycatch/interactions, to assess the impact of SBT fisheries on these species, to prioritize research or to determine the need for and appropriateness of measures to minimize these impacts.

Conclusions and recommendationsIt is a decade since the CCSBT took a decision in relation to management of non-target species. The measure implemented under that decision is now far from best-practice. The CCSBT remains ill-informed about the nature and extent of catch of, and interactions with, non-target species. Despite the lack of consistent and standardized data there is no doubt that some SBT fisheries account for substantial mortalities of seabirds and sharks. In comparison to the management challenges facing many other RFMOs, the management of SBT and interactions with a relatively limited range of high risk non-target species, would appear straightforward. However, experience to date suggests that, in its current form, the CCSBT is not up to that challenge. In relation to the best practice identified by Lodge et al. (2007) it is clear that the CCSBT is far from best practice in relation to its conservation and management practices and collection and reporting of data for non-target species.

The apparent failure of the 2007 meeting of the ERSWG to finalize its advice on collection and provision of data on non-target species, on tightening measures for seabird mitigation and for implementing measures to mitigate shark catch must be seen as a symptom of the overall failure of the CCSBT to prioritize management of the ecosystem in which SBT occurs. The status of the SBT stock and its failure to rebuild indicates that the CCSBT has failed to take a precautionary approach to management of its target stock. Until the members of the CCSBT accept the rationale for a precautionary and an ecosystem approach to management, it is unlikely that progress will be made in relation to effective management of non-target species. There is nothing in the reports of the Commission to suggest that it acknowledges that there are non-target species problems in SBT fisheries. As a result, the Commission is not driving good outcomes from the ERSWG.

The ill-feeling between members and the destructive behaviour of members which has

characterized the Commission at certain times have been allowed to infiltrate the operations of the ERSWG. This, together with a lack of data and a lack of strong guidance from the Commission on the scope and priorities for the work of the ERSWG has effectively rendered the Working Group redundant. Currently, the operations of the ERSWG incur considerable costs and produce few if any benefits. At best, the existence of the ERSWG allows the CCSBT to ‘tick the box’ in relation to having an identifiable process in place for provision of advice on non-target species. The ERSWG provides a convenient façade behind which the CCSBT feigns management of ecologically related species.

It is clear that, depending on the method of fishing used, some members will be affected more than others by the imposition of mitigation measures directed at reducing seabird and shark catch in longline operations. In addition, the sophistication of fisheries management varies across members and non-members. It is, therefore, not surprising that there are also differences in the preparedness to acknowledge these issues and to address them. Progress on management of non-target species will require acknowledgement of these differences by all parties, recognition that agreement on management responses will involve flexibility and acceptance that progress may be incremental.

In addition, the CCSBT must ensure that it has the means to ensure that any management measures, including requirements relating to data, for non-target species are complied with. Recently, in response to overfishing of SBT quota, the CCSBT has imposed sanctions on one of its members, in the form of a reduced national allocation. The adoption of this approach more widely may be a means by which the CCSBT could encourage compliance with management measures including those relating to the non-target species.

The following recommendations are made with a view to redressing the failure of the CCSBT to manage non-target species interactions. Ultimately, however, the strength of an RFMO depends on the collective will of its members to address non-target species issues in a meaningful way. In the decision-making environment of the CCSBT, which relies on consensus, the adoption and effectiveness of the recommendations below will depend on the commitment of each of the members to addressing the issues. The 2006 agreement on a multi-annual TAC for SBT for the period 2007-2009 may reduce the annual workload

26


of the Commission, its subsidiary bodies and its members by removing the need for annual stock assessments and annual negotiations around the appropriate level of the TAC. This may provide the CCSBT with a window of opportunity in which the recommendations below can be considered.

Recommendations

Strengthening of the Commission1. Noting the calls from the UNGA, the Review

Conference of the UNFSA, COFI and the joint meeting of tuna RFMOs for RFMOs to make improvements in their management of non-target species, the CCSBT should:

(a) initiate an independent, external review of its performance against the requirements of key international instruments, including in relation to data collection and management of non-target species, and with special reference to the adoption of precautionary and ecosystem-based approaches to management;

(b) make the results publicly available; and

(c) where the review indicates under-performance, identify and implement changes, as appropriate, to the Convention and the structure or the operations of the CCSBT to remedy this.

2. CCSBT members, individually and collectively, should make strenuous efforts to facilitate Indonesia’s membership of the Commission, noting its significant catch of SBT and the need to ensure that any non-target species issues associated with that catch are addressed. Financial assistance should be provided to encourage Indonesia to participate in the meetings of the ERSWG.

Risk assessment3. The CCSBT must adopt the risk assessment

approach to management of non-target species now being taken in other regional fisheries bodies. Management of non-target species should ensure that the most vulnerable species are provided with the greatest protection. This requires information on the species breakdown of groups of non-target catch such as seabirds and sharks and that the relative impacts of the fishery on these species are known.

Data4. The CCSBT should ensure that the collection

of data on catch of and interactions with non-target species is consistent with the requirements of relevant international law and protocols by:

(a) reviewing, within 12 months, the CCSBT observer program standards to ensure that collection of such data is given the appropriate priority and that the levels of observer coverage are adequate to provide meaningful information on the nature and scale of interactions with non-target species (noting the best available international advice that initial levels of observer coverage may need to be considerably higher for this purpose than the 10% target level currently set by the CCSBT);

(b) requiring, within 12 months, members to collect logbook data, on interactions with non-target species at the species level and at an appropriate level of spatial resolution and to submit this data to a central CCSBT database on an annual basis; and

(c) initiating programs to improve the identification of shark and seabird species in fleets where this is considered necessary.

5. The available information on the species and the extent of shark catch in SBT fisheries should be compiled and a preliminary assessment of the fisheries in which shark is taken as a target or a non-target species be conducted. That assessment should identify, clearly and separately, fisheries in which sharks are taken as target catch, retained bycatch and discarded bycatch, in order to determine the factors influencing mortality and to facilitate the development of appropriate management responses.

Mitigation measures6. Noting the requests of CCAMLR for greater

co-operation, the CCSBT should implement as a matter of urgency seabird mitigation measures that are consistent with those in place in CCAMLR waters.

27


7. The CCSBT should take advantage of the advice and offers of assistance available from agencies, such as ACAP and BirdLife International, which have specific expertise in seabird mitigation measures and experience in the development of effective data collection, including observer programs, and storage processes.

8. The IPOA-Sharks and the IPOA-Seabirds should be implemented comprehensively, noting that some members are yet to implement these in respect of their national fleets, and that those provisions that are in place vary in their rigor.

9. Pending the outcome of the recommended assessment of, and the collection of data on, shark catch, the CCSBT should implement measures to limit mortality of sharks. Such measures might include a no retention policy, banning the use of wire traces, imposing total or trip limits, using closures in areas or at times of known high shark catch rates and/or the use of well defined controls on finning (see Lack and Sant, 2006).

Compliance10. The CCSBT should, as a matter of urgency,

agree on the content of members’ annual reports to the Compliance Committee and ensure that such reports include details of each member’s compliance with management measures for target and non-target species, with the requirements of the Commission’s observer program standards and with agreed provisions for the collection and submission of data.

11. The CCSBT should formalize its response to non-compliance with the Commission’s management measures and other requirements it places on members and co-operating non-members. It should consider, for example, extending the application of sanctions for non-compliance with SBT quota limits to non-compliance with management measures for non-target species and making the continuation of the co-operating non-member status of non-members, contingent upon compliance with the revised observer program standards and the collection and submission of logbook data on non-target species.

Operational factors12. The priorities for the work of the ERSWG must

be established by the Commission.

13. The terms of reference for the ERSWG should be reviewed to ensure that they reflect the Commission’s priorities and obligations and facilitate delivery of the advice required by the Commission to meet these obligations.

14. An independent chair and independent expert advisors should be appointed to the ERSWG.

15. With the input of the independent expert advisors to the ERSWG, an agreed program of work for the ERSWG should be developed, reflecting the priorities identified by the Commission.

16. The operations of the ERSWG should be adequately resourced to ensure the capacity to meet annually and to fund intersessional, collaborative work as required.

17. Issues related to the key non-target species, as identified in the Commission’s priorities, should be incorporated, as a standing item on the agenda of the annual meeting of the CCSBT.

Transparency18. The CCSBT should improve the transparency

of its operations by adopting the best practice Guidelines identified by Lodge et al. (2007) including by:

(a) ensuring that its website contains all meeting documents, including background papers and reports; and

(b) facilitating the participation of observers from intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations at meetings of the ERSWG and other Commission bodies by streamlining the processes for applications, providing for multi-annual approval of observer status and clearly specifying the information required in support of applications for observer status.

28


References

Agnew, D.J. (2001). A simple investigation of the effects of % observer coverage on estimated bird bycatch rates. CCAMLR, WG-FSA-01/40.

Anon. (1993). Southern Bluefin Tuna Trilateral Management Discussions. Canberra, October-November 1993.

Anon. (2007a). Course of Actions for RFMOs from the Kobe meeting of joint tuna RFMOs. January 26, 2007, Kobe, Japan. Appendix 14 in Report of the Joint Meeting of Tuna RFMOs. Available at:http://www.tuna-org.org

Anon. (2007b). Characterization of Procellariiformes. Available at: http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/Procellariiformes.html

BirdLife International (2004). Tracking ocean wanderers: the global distribution of albatrosses and petrels. Results from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Workshop, 1–5 September, 2003, Gordon’s Bay, South Africa. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife.

BirdLife International (2006a). Incidental Mortality in Fisheries: Opportunities for ACAP in making progress in the conservation of albatrosses and petrels through regional fisheries management organisations. Paper presented to the Second Meeting of the Advisory Committee, ACAP, Brasilia, Brazil, 5-8 June 2006.

BirdLife International (2006b). Summary of seabird bycatch rates recorded in the Western and Central Pacific. Paper prepared for the Second session of the WCPFC Ecosystem and Bycatch SWG, Manila, Philippines, 10 August, 2006.

Bureau of Rural Sciences (2007). Fishery Status Reports 2006: Status of Fish Stocks Managed by the Australian Government. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

CCAMLR Scientific Committee (2005). Report of the 24th Meeting of the Scientific Committee. Hobart Tasmania.

CCSBT (1997a). Report of the Fourth Annual Meeting First Part, 1997. 8-13 September 1997. Canberra, Australia.

CCSBT (1997b). Report of the Resumed Third Annual Meeting (Revised). 18-22 February 1997. Canberra, Australia.

CCSBT (1999). Report of the Fifth Annual Meeting First Part. 22-26 February 1999. Tokyo, Japan.

CCSBT (2000). Report of the Sixth Annual Meeting Second Part. 21-23 March 2000. Canberra, Australia.

CCSBT (2001). Report of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the Commission. 18-21 April 2001. Sydney, Australia.

CCSBT (2002). Report of the Ninth Annual Meeting of the Commission. 15-18 October 2002. Canberra, Australia.

CCSBT (2003). Report of the Extended Commission of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Commission. 7-10 October 2003. Christchurch, New Zealand.

CCSBT (2004). Report of the Extended Commission of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Commission. 19-22 October 2004. Busan, Republic of Korea.

CCSBT (2005). Report of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Commission. 15 October 2006. Narita, Japan.

CCSBT (2006). Report of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Commission. 10-13 October 2006. Myazaki, Japan.

CCSBT (2007a). The Commission for the conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna: About the Commission. Available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/about.html.

CCSBT (2007b). The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna: Management of SBT. Available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/management.html.

29


CCSBT (2007c). Global Southern Bluefin Tuna Catch by Gear. Available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/data.html.

CCSBT (2007d). Scientific Observer Program Standards. Available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/about.html

CCSBT (2007e). Ecologically Related Species. Available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/eco.html. Viewed 16 July 2007.

CCSBT Compliance Committee (2006). Report of the First Meeting of the Compliance Committee. 8-9 October 2006. Miyazaki, Japan.

CCSBT ERSWG (1995). Report of the First Meeting of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group. 18-20 December 1995. Wellington, New Zealand

CCSBT ERSWG (1997). Report of the Second Meeting of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group. 3-6 June 1997. Canberra, Australia.

CCSBT ERSWG (1998). Report of the Third Meeting of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group. 9-12 June 1998. Tokyo, Japan.

CCSBT ERSWG (2001). Report of the Fourth Meeting of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group. 26-28 November 2001. Tokyo, Japan.

CCSBT ERSWG (2004). Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group. 2-5 February 2004, Wellington, New Zealand.

CCSBT ERSWG (2006). Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group. 20-23 February 2006. Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

CCSBT Scientific Committee (2003). Report of the Eight Meeting of the Scientific Committee.1-4 September 2003. Christchurch, New Zealand.

CCSBT Scientific Committee (2004). Report of the Ninth Meeting of the Scientific Committee. 13-16 September 2004. Seogwipo City, Jeju, Republic of Korea.

CCSBT Scientific Committee (2005). Report of the Tenth Meeting of the Scientific Committee. 9 September 2005. Narita, Japan.

CCSBT Stock Assessment Group (2006). Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Stock Assessment Group. 4-11 September 2006. Tokyo, Japan.

Croxall, J.P., Rivera, K. and Moreno, C.A. (in press). Seabird by-catch mitigation: The southern Ocean (CCAMLR) experience. In Kennelly, S.J. (ed.) (in press) By-catch reduction in the World’s Fisheries.

FAO (1995). Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, FAO, Rome.

FAO (1998). The International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. FAO, Rome.

FAO (2000). The International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. FAO, Rome.

FAO (2004). Report of the Technical Consultation on Sea Turtles Conservation and Fisheries, Bangkok, Thailand, 20 November-2 December 2004. FAO Fisheries Report No. 765. FAO Rome.

FAO (2007a). Report of the Twenty-seventh Session of the Committee on Fisheries, 5-9 March 2007. FAO Fisheries Report No. 830. Rome.

FAO (2007b). Species Fact Sheet: Thunnus maccoyii (Castelnau, 1872). Available at: http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=species&fid=3298

Greenpeace 91998). Rainbow Warrior goes into Action as Fate of a species is Decided. Available at: http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/97/ocean/press.january19html.

30


Hareide, N.R., Carlson, J., Clarke, M., Clarke, S., Ellis, J., Fordham, S., Fowler, S., Pinho, M., Raymakers, C., Serena, F., Seret, B. and. Polti S. (2007). Strengthening European Fisheries Management: Options for Enforcing the Shark Finning Ban. Available at:http://www.lenfestocean.org/publications/shark_finning.html.

Hindmarsh, S. (2007). A review of Fin-Weight Ratios for Pelagic Sharks. Paper prepared for the Third Regular Session of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, 13-24 August 2007. Honolulu, USA.

ICCAT Sub-committee on Ecosystems (2007). Report of the 2007 Meeting of the Sub-committee on Ecosystems, 19-23 February 2007. Madrid, Spain.

IOTC (2006). Report of the Second Session of the IOTC Working Party on Bycatch. 31 July-1 August 2006. Seychelles.

IUCN (2007). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org.

Kiyota, M. and Takeuchi, Y. (2004). Estimation of incidental take of seabirds in the Japanese Southern Bluefin Tuna longline fishery in 2001-2002. Paper presented to the Fifth Meeting of the ERSWG. 2-5 February 2004. Wellington, New Zealand.

Klaer, N. and Polacheck, T. (1998). The influence of environmental factors and mitigation measures on bycatch rates of seabirds by Japanese longline fishing vessels in the Australian region, EMU Vol. 98: 305-316.

Lack, M. and Sant, G. (2006). Confronting Shark Conservation Head On! TRAFFIC International.

Lawson, T. (2006). Scientific Aspects of Observer Programmes for Tuna Fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Paper submitted to the Second Regular Session of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, 7-18 August 2006. Manila, Philippines.

Lodge, M., Anderson, D., Lobach, T., Munro, G., Sainsbury, K. and Willock, A. (2007). Recommended Best Practices for Regional Fisheries Management Organizations: Report of an independent panel to develop a model for improved governance by regional fisheries management organizations. Chatham House, London.

Maguire, J.J., Sullivan, P.J. and Tanaka, S. (1998). Report of the Southern Bluefin Tuna 1998 Peer Review Panel. Available at: http://www.ccsbt.org/docs/about.html.

Melvin, E.F. and Baker, G. B. (Eds) (2007). Summary Report: Seabird Bycatch Mitigation in Pelagic Longline Fisheries Workshop. Hobart Tasmania, October 14 2006.

Petersen, S. and Honig, M. (2006). Seabird, Turtle and Shark Bycatch in South African Pelagic Longline Fisheries, Paper submitted to the Second Meeting of the IOTC Bycatch Working Party, Victoria, Seychelles, 31 July – 1 August 2006.

Rose, C. and McLoughlin, K. (2001). Review of Shark Finning in Australian Fisheries. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

SBT Management Advisory Committee (2006). Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing: Abridged Report for the Southern Bluefin Tuna Purse Seine Fishery. Provisional Minutes of the SBTMAC Meeting September 2006 (SBTMAC 29). Agenda Item 6.4 Attachment A. Available at: www.afma.gov.au.

Small, C. (2005). Regional Fisheries Management Organisations: Their duties and performance in reducing bycatch of albatrosses and other species. Cambridge, UK, BirdLife International.

Stobutzki, I., Lawrence, E., Bensley, N. and Norris, W. (2006). Bycatch Mitigation Approaches in Australia’s Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: Seabirds, Turtles, Marine Mammals, Sharks and Non-Target Fish. Paper presented to the Second Regular Session of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, 7-18 August 2006. Manila, Philippines.

UNGA (2006a). Report of the Review Conference on the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. A/CONF.210/2006/15.

31


UNGA (2006b). Resolution A/RES/61/105:Sustainable fisheries, including through the 1995 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, and Related Instruments. Available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/r61.htm.

WCPFC (2007). Conservation and Management Measures and Resolutions. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int/.

WCPFC Scientific Committee (2006). Scientific Committee Second Regular Session Executive Summary. 7-18 August 2006. Manila, Philippines.

Willock, A. and Lack, M. (2006). Follow the Leader: Learning from experience and best practice in regional fisheries management organizations. WWF International and TRAFFIC International.

WWF (2007). Marine Turtles – Population and Distribution. Available at: http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/about_species/species_factsheets/marine_turtles/marine_turtles_population_distribution/index.cfm.

32


Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACAP Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

CCSBT Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna

CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

CNM Co-operating non-member

COFI Committee on Fisheries (FAO)

CPCs Parties and co-operating non-contracting parties

CPUE Catch per unit effort

EC European Commission

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

ERS Ecologically related species

ERSWG Ecologically Related Species Working Group

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission

ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas

IOSEA-MOU South East Asian Marine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding

IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

IPOA International Plan of Action

IPOA-Seabirds The International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries

IPOA-Sharks The International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks

IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated (fishing)

MSY Maximum sustainable yield

NPOA National Plan of Action

RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization

SBT Southern Bluefin Tuna

SCRS Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (ICCAT)

TAC Total allowable catch

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

33


Appendix 1

Bycatch management measures in longline fisheries managed by RFMOsCCSBT IATTC ICCAT IOTC WCPFC CCAMLRSeabirdsBinding:Parties to use tori poles in all longline SBT fisheries below 30ºS.

Non-Binding:Parties encouraged to collect data on the nature and extent of ecologically related species (ERS) captures in SBT fishing operations.

Binding:Parties and Co-operating non-contracting parties (CPCs) to report status of their NPOA–Seabirds.

CPCs encouraged to collect and voluntarily provide data on interactions with seabirds to the Commission.

Where feasible and appropriate, the Working Group on Stock Assessment to assess the impact of IATTC’s fisheries on seabirds.

Non-Binding:CPCs to implement the IPOA-Seabirds and advise the Commission of the status of their NPOA-Seabirds.

CPCs to collect and voluntarily provide information on interactions with seabirds.

When feasible and appropriate, the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) should conduct an assessment of the impact on incidental catch of seabirds of ICCAT fisheries.

Binding:The Commission will develop a mechanism to enable CPCs to record and exchange data on seabird interactions.

CPCs to collect and provide all available information on interactions with seabirds.

CPCs shall seek to achieve reductions in levels of seabird bycatch through the use of effective mitigation measures.

Vessels fishing south of 30°S shall carry and use bird scaring lines (tori poles).

Binding:CPCs to implement the IPOA-Seabirds and to report annually to the WCPFC on its implementation including the status of their NPOA-Sharks.

CPCs to require their longline vessels to use at least two of a group of specified mitigation measures when operating in areas south of 30°S (from 1 January 2008 for vessels > 24 m length overall and from 1 January 2009 for vessels < 24 m) and north of 23°N (by 30 June 2008 for vessels greater than 24 m) and advise the Commission of the measures adopted.

WCPFC will adopt in 2007 minimum technical specifications for mitigation measures.

CPCs to provide the WCPFC with all available information on interactions with seabirds.

Binding:Hooklines must sink beyond reach of seabirds as soon as possible after they are put in the water.

Autoline systems must add weights to hooklines or use integrated weight hooklines.

Spanish method of longlining must release weights before line tension occurs.

Night setting only with minimum lighting (unless complying with Cons. measure 24-02).

Dumping of offal prohibited while setting and, during the haul discharge can only occur on the opposite of the vessel.

Fish hooks must be removed from fish heads prior to discharge.

Streamer line must be deployed while setting (as per specifications).

In areas of average-to-high risk of seabird bycatch a device to discourage birds from accessing baits during hauling must be employed.

Every effort must be made to release birds captured alive.

34


CCSBT IATTC ICCAT IOTC WCPFC CCAMLRSharksNon-Binding:Parties encouraged to collect data on the nature and extent of ERS captures in SBT fishing operations.

Binding:IATTC staff to develop techniques to facilitate release of sharks from the deck or net, seek funds to determine the survival rates of released sharks, and define areas and periods in which shark species are most likely to be caught.

CPCs to establish a NPOA–Sharks.

In relation to sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by IATTC:

The Commission sought preliminary advice on stock status of sharks and a research plan for assessment of shark stocks; fishers to fully utilize retained catches of sharks; the maximum weight of fins onboard shall not exceed 5% of the weight of sharks; encouraged the release of live sharks.

CPCs to report data for catches, effort by gear type, landing and trade of sharks by species.

Non-Binding:CPCs to:

encourage the release of live sharks that are caught incidentally, especially juveniles;

minimize waste and discards from shark catches; and

provide information on shark catches, by effort or gear type, landings and trade.

Binding:In relation to sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT:

CPCs to report data for sharks in accordance with ICCAT data reporting procedures;

fishers to fully utilise retained catches of sharks;

maximum weight of fins onboard shall not exceed 5% of the weight of sharks; and release of live sharks encouraged.

Binding:In relation to sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by IOTC:

CPCs to report data for sharks in accordance with IOTC data reporting procedures;

fishers to fully utilise retained catches of sharks; maximum weight of fins onboard shall not exceed 5% of the weight of sharks;

release of live sharks encouraged.

Scientific Committee to provide preliminary advice in 2006 on the stock status of key shark species and propose a research plan and timeline for a comprehensive assessment of stocks.

Binding:In relation to sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by WCPFC and to sharks listed in Annex 1 of UNCLOS:

CPCs to implement the IPOA-Sharks and to report annually to the Commission on its implementation including the status of their NPOA-Sharks;

fishers to fully utilise retained catches of sharks; and

release of live sharks encouraged.

CPCs to report data for key shark species in accordance with the WCPFC convention and agreed reporting procedures.

Maximum weight of fins on board vessels of more than 24 m length shall not exceed 5% of the weight of sharks.

Binding:Directed fishing on shark species is prohibited.

Bycatch of shark, especially juveniles and gravid females, shall as far as possible, be released alive.

35


CCSBT IATTC ICCAT IOTC WCPFC CCAMLRTurtlesNon-Binding:Parties encouraged to collect data on the nature and extent of ERS captures in SBT fishing operations

Binding:CPCs encouraged to collect and provide data on interactions with turtles to the IATTC and adopt measures to improve collection of scientific data on sea turtle bycatch.

CPCs and IATTC should review available information and data regarding sea turtle biology, conservation measures and mitigation measures.

Fishers required to promptly release unharmed, where practicable, all sea turtles.

Disposal of plastic trash prohibited at sea.

Vessels must carry equipment for releasing sea turtles.

Non-Binding:CPCs encouraged:

to trial circle hooks in pelagic longline fisheries; and

exchange ideas regarding safe handling and release of incidentally caught species.

When feasible and appropriate, the SCRS should assess the impact of circle hooks on the dead discard levels in ICCAT pelagic longline fisheries.

Nil Non-Binding:CPCs to implement, as appropriate, the FAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations.

CPCs encouraged to collect and provide the WCPFC with data on interactions with sea turtles in fisheries managed under the WCPFC.

CPCs to enhance the implementation, and conduct further trials of turtle mitigation measures.

CPCs urged to require specific mitigation measures by purse seine vessels.

Nil

FinfishNon-Binding:Parties encouraged to collect data on the nature and extent of ERS captures in SBT fishing operations.

Binding:Identify areas of high bycatch of large pelagic fish of interest to the artisanal fishery, particularly Dorado Coryphaena hippurus.

Develop techniques to facilitate release of billfish, seek funds to determine the survival rates of released billfish, define areas and periods where billfish are most likely to be caught.

Binding:A two phase program to rebuild Blue Marlin Makaira nigricans and White Marlin Tetrapturus albidus populations has been adopted.

Nil Non-Binding:CPCs shall encourage their vessels operating in fisheries managed under the WCPFC Convention to avoid to the extent practicable, the capture of all non-target fish species that are not to be retained.

Non-target, discarded fish species shall, where practicable, be promptly released to the water unharmed.

Binding:A range of bycatch limits are in place for specific species and/or particular areas.

36


Appendix 2

Terms of reference for the Ecologically Related Species Working Group (ERSWG)

(b) With respect to species identified in 2 b) above, to monitor trends and review existing information and relevant research, including but not limited to studies on:

(i) the population biology of ecologically related species;

(ii) the identification of factors affecting population of ecologically related species;

(iii) the assessment of the effects of ecologically related species on the condition of the SBT stock.

4. To provide recommendations on data collection programs and research projects with respect to species and issues identified in 2 above, including recommendations on research priorities and estimated costs of such research.

5. To provide advice on measures to minimise fishery effects on ecologically related species, including but not limited to gear and operational modifications.

6. To provide advice on other measures which may enhance the conservation and management of ecologically related species.

7. To review these terms of reference and to recommend to the Commission changes as and when appropriate.

8. To co-operate and liaise with relevant experts, scientists (from Convention parties and elsewhere) and inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, in data collection and analysis on ecologically related species subject to the provisions of the data handling criteria (Annex1).

9. To respond to requests for advice on specific matters from the Commission.

1. The Ecologically Related Species Working Group will report to the Commission through the Scientific Committee. The Scientific Committee may provide comments to the Commission on the reports (including advice and recommendations) of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group.

2. To provide information and advice on issues relating to species associated with southern bluefin tuna (SBT) (ecologically related species), with specific reference to:

a) species (both fish and non-fish) which may be affected by SBT fisheries operations;

b) predator and prey species which may affect the condition of the SBT stock.

3. (a) With respect to species identified in 2 a) above, to monitor trends and review existing information and relevant research, including but not limited to studies on:

(i) the population biology of ecologically related species;

(ii) the identification of factors affecting populations of ecologically related species;

(iii) the assessment of the SBT and other fisheries effects on ecologically related species and of the proportion of the SBT and other fisheries effects to the overall effects;

(iv) modification to gear and operational aspects of the SBT fishery to minimise the effects on ecologically related species.

37


Annex 1 Data handling criteria for the Ecologically Related Species Working Group

1. Collection of data and samples

a) The ERS Working Group will provide recommendations on the information required and advice on how to collect the relevant data and samples.

b) The collection of data on and samples of ERSWG should follow agreed data collection protocols consistent with those of the Scientific Committee, and those of the relevant national authority.

c) The collection of data and samples of ERSWG should be conducted in a way that dose not interfere with the safe and smooth operation of the vessels.

2. Management of the data and samples

a) The ERS Working Group shall use procedures that ensure strict confidentiality in the use and distribution of data.

b) Unless otherwise agreed, samples of ERSWG collected on the high seas will be held by the flag States; that flag States should facilitate access by other interested scientists to the ERSWG samples.

c) Participants in the ERS Working Group should assist each other’s work by sharing data and samples on ERS.

3. Analyses of data and samples

Analyses of the data and samples on behalf of the Commission may be conducted by scientists from the Convention Parties and other relevant experts designated by the ERS Working Group.

4. Consideration of the results of the analyses

Results of analyses which use data and samples collected under these criteria will not be published without the consent of the parties who provide the data and samples (CCSBT, 2007e).

38


Appendix 3

Questions for the Ecologically Related Species Working Group (CCSBT, 1997b).

non-fishing related factors impact seabird species as identified in the above question?

V. To what extent does seabird mortality caused by the SBT fisheries and other relevant fisheries contribute to the decline of seabird populations?

A. Estimate the level of mortality of seabird species taken incidentally by SBT fisheries, identify the causes of that mortality and estimate the relative contribution of each cause.

B. Determine the level of reliability of the estimates mentioned in V a) above.

C. Investigate means to improve the reliability of these estimates.

Seabird population trends

VI. Review the information available on current overall abundance and recent trends in abundance for populations of seabirds that are incidentally caught in the SBT fishery.

Mitigation measures

VII. Develop sets of specifications for tori poles and streamer lines which most effectively reduce the incidental capture of seabirds for the different types of longline vessels fishing for SBT.

VIII. What are the most effective and practical ways of minimising impacts of the SBT fishery on seabird populations?

A. Determine methods to assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures and their effects on fishing operations when used.

B. Develop guidelines for the most effective use of mitigation measures.

IX. What information and analyses are available on mitigation measures, including the effectiveness of those measures in reducing seabird bycatch and their effect on catch of target species?

The Commission requests the Ecologically Related Species Working Group (ERSWG) to address the following questions and issues:

SEABIRDS

Research priorities

I. What are the priorities for research on ecologically related species among the research requirements identified in Appendix 6 of the report from first meeting of the ERSWG?

Improved understanding of the interaction between fishing operations and seabirds

II. What is the nature and extent of the incidental seabird mortality in SBT and other relevant fisheries including the development of best estimates of incidental capture of seabirds in longline fisheries in southern waters?

A. Review the collection of information on historical seabird mortality by area, season, time and species.

B. Examine measures to collect data on seabird mortality including the incidental catch by SBT and other relevant fisheries.

C. Determine the level and type of data required to obtain reliable estimates of incidental catch of seabird species.

D. Determine the level and type of information currently collected on the incidental capture of seabirds in SBT.

E. Identify additional data which should be collected to enable reliable estimates of incidental catch of seabird species to be obtained.

F. Define appropriate standards and methods for the collection of data and samples.

III. Which seabird species caught in SBT fishing operations are of particular concern?

IV. To what extent do non-SBT fisheries and

39


X. How effective is night setting in reducing incidental capture of seabirds, and what are the costs, benefits and impact on catch of target species?

Evaluate the costs and benefits of implementing nightsetting, including an assessment of the impact which the catch of target species?

Educational and information dissemination

XI. Which groups, including fishers, international organisations and countries, would benefit most from efforts to provide information on the mitigation of incidental seabird captures in SBT fisheries?

XII. What information would be best provided to the groups identified in the question above to assist in mitigating incidental seabird capture in SBT fisheries? In what format should this information be presented?

XIII. What practical information would be best provided to fishers to assist in: the mitigation of incidental seabird capture; reduction in interactions; and engineering and operational solutions?

OTHER INCIDENTALLY TAKEN SPECIES

XIV. What is the nature and extent of information on the incidental take of non-teleost species, in particular sharks, in SBT fisheries?

XV. What is the relationship between SBT abundance and their prey species abundance?

XVI. What is the relationship between SBT abundance and predator species abundance?

ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS

XVII. What additional data or other information is required to address the preceding questions and issues?

40


Appendix 4

Issues and Recommendations Commission Response

First ERSWG Meeting December 1995:

The ERSWG compiled a summary of the existing information relating to questions raised by the Commission in establishing the Group:

1. What is the nature and extent of the incidental seabird mortality in the SBT and other relevant fisheries?

2. What is the information available on the current overall abundance and recent trends in abundance for populations of seabirds that are incidentally caught in the SBT fishery?

3. To what extent does seabird mortality caused by SBT fisheries and other relevant fisheries contribute to the decline of seabird populations?

4. What are the most effective and practical ways of minimizing impacts of the SBT fishery on seabird populations?

5. What further data is required to address the issues raised in 1-4 above?

6. What is the nature and extent of information on the incidental take of other species in SBT fisheries?

7. What species are important prey of SBT?

8. What is the relationship between SBT abundance and predator species abundance? (CCSBT ERSWG, 1995)

In February 1997 the CCSBT agreed to a non-binding recommendation on ERS. The CCSBT recommended that its parties:

• continueinformationcollectiononthenatureandextentofthetake of ERS in SBT fishing

• collectdataconcerningtheincidentalcatchofseabirdsandinformation concerning the state and trend of these seabird populations in co-operation with appropriate international organizations, other States and entities concerned

• developasetofquestionsfortheERSWGtoaddress

• promotetheuseofappropriatelydesignedanddeployedtorilines in SBT longline fishing operations

• testtheeconomicviability/effectivenessoftheuseofnightsetting in SBT longline fishing operations

• considerthepromotionofmitigationmeasures,eithersinglyor as a suite, as they are developed, refined or shown to be effective, in fishing operations where the incidental capture of seabirds occurs

• avoidthedumpingofoffalasfaraspossiblewhilelonglinesarebeing set or hauled and use thawed baits

• notethattheweightingofthemainline,branchlineorhooksandbait throwers accelerate the sinking rate of hooks

• makeeveryefforttoensurethatbirdscapturedaliveduringlonglining are released alive and that, wherever possible, hooks are removed without jeopardizing the life of the bird concerned

• exchangeinformationconcerningneworrefinedtechniquestoreduce incidental catch of seabirds and co-operate in developing and assessing the effectiveness of such techniques, including those with the objective of preventing the approach of seabirds to fishing vessels or restraining the feeding activities of seabirds

• continuetoassesstheeffectivenessofthemeasuresdescribedabove

• promote,amongfishers,understandingoftheincidentalcaptureof seabirds and mitigation measures in longline operations and disseminate information, to be developed by the Commission, containing best practice guidelines to reduce incidental catch of ERS species

• encouragenon-partiesengaginginlonglinefishingtakingSBTtoimplement the above measures

• invite/requesttherangestatesofseabirds,especiallyalbatrosses, to investigate the causes of historic decline in seabird populations, if any, and take appropriate measures to protect and help recovery of the populations. Furthermore, in the case where habitat of those seabirds exists within their national boundary, the Parties invite relevant organizations in their country to implement appropriate management measures (CCSBT, 1997b)

Consideration of ecologically related species issues in the CCSBT, 1995-2007

41



Second ERSWG Meeting June 1997

The Group noted that all current members of the Commission have adopted domestic provisions for the mandatory use of tori poles.

The Group recommended that the Commission encourage non-members to adopt the mandatory use of tori poles during setting operations at least south of 30ºS.

The Group drafted, but did not finalise, eight Technical Papers:

1. Guidelines for Design and Deployment of Tori Poles (Australia)

2. Research Plan to Evaluate Effect of Day/Night Setting on SBT CPUE (Australia, New Zealand and Japan)

3. Research Priorities for Mitigation Methods (Australia)

4. Mitigation Research Plan for Parties to CCSBT (New Zealand)

5. Proforma for Reporting Public Relations and Education Information to CCSBT (Australia)

6. Example List of Information to be distributed to Fishers (Australia)

7. Scientific Process for Collaborative Assessment of Seabird Bycatch (New Zealand)

8. Protocol for Seabird Data Exchange (Australia) (CCSBT ERSWG, 1997)

In September 1997 the CCSBT:

• agreedtorequirethemandatoryusebyCommissionPartiesoftori poles in all longline SBT fisheries below 30ºS;

• requestednon-partiestousetoripolesinalllonglineSBTfisheries below 30ºS

• notedtheongoingworkontheimpactsandfeasibilityofnightsetting and the effectiveness of other mitigation measures such as underwater setting

• notedtheworktofinalisethedrafttechnicalpapers(CCSBT,1997a)

42



Third ERSWG Meeting June 1998

The ERSWG agreed, for the consideration of the Commission:

1. A set of guidelines for the design and deployment of tori lines (Finalized Technical Paper 1)

2. A research plan to evaluate the effect of day/night setting on SBT CPUE and catch (Finalized Technical Paper 2)

3. ERSWG Research Priorities for Mitigation Measures (Finalized Technical Papers 3 & 4)

4. A resource list for improving fishers’ awareness of ERS issues (Finalized Technical Paper 6)

5. An operational framework to guide the activities of the ERSWG

The ERSWG agreed that members would provide annual reports including information on the number and rates of incidental catch of seabirds, seabird species caught, numbers and rates of catch of sharks and the predominant non-target fish species by area and fleet, summary of total numbers of marine mammal and marine reptiles incidentally caught, mitigation measures and education activities (as per Technical Paper 5) in an agreed format.

Technical Papers 7 and 8, on Scientific Process for Collaborative Assessment of Seabird Bycatch (New Zealand) and Protocol for Seabird Data Exchange (Australia) respectively, were retained for future discussions (CCSBT ERSWG, 1998).

In February 1999 the CCSBT:

• adopted the guidelines for design and deployment of tori poles for tuna longline fisheries for use by members

• requested non-members to urgently adopt mandatory use of tori poles for tuna longline SBT fisheries below 30ºS using the above guidelines

• endorsed the ERSWG’s operational framework

• requested that ERSWG4:

- consider issues associated with collaborative research process and data collection/exchange

- provide advice about how CCSBT might fulfill the FAO’s call for regional fisheries management bodies to co-operate in the implementation of international plans of action in seabirds and sharks

- consider SBT predator and prey relationships (CCSBT, 1999)

In March 2000 the CCSBT developed draft terms of reference for the establishment of a CCSBT Database. The draft included provision for the incorporation of data on tuna species other than SBT and other bycatch species after consultation with the Scientific Committee and the ERSWG (CCSBT, 2000).

In April 2001 the CCSBT discussed the scope of the work of the ERSWG but there was no agreement:

• some members sought for sharks and turtles to be included in the ERSWG’s work, another believed that the FAO was the appropriate forum for discussion of these species

• one member sought to have the interactions between cetaceans and SBT to be included in the ERSWG’s report, other members considered that this was inappropriate (CCSBT, 2001)

43



Fourth ERSWG Meeting November 2001

The meeting noted:

• thenationalreportsofAustralia,JapanandNewZealand.SouthKorea, which had become a CCSBT member in October 2001, did not attend or submit a report

• thatnon-members,Taiwan,SouthAfricaandIndonesiahadnot submitted any information on ecologically related species issues to the Secretariat

• papersaddressingimpactsoflonglinefisheriesonseabirds,sharks and non-target fish species, results of research into the effectiveness of seabird mitigation measures; and the predation of SBT

• butdidnotdiscuss,aproposaltoincludethecollectionofinformation on ERS in the development of the CCSBT Scientific Observer Program

The members:

• undertooktoconsiderintersessionallyJapan’sproposaltomodifythe guidelines for deployment of tori lines

• agreedtoworkintersessionallytofinaliseaneducationpamphlet

• agreedonrevisedresearchprioritiesformitigationmeasuresbut did not agree to a proposal to extend the research priorities to include research on bycatch in the purse seine fishery, on prey species of SBT, on predators of SBT and the impact of other human activities on the SBT stock

• updatedtheERSWGOperationalFramework

• agreedonarevisedformatfornationalreportstotheERSWG (CCSBT ERSWG, 2001)

In October 2002 the CCSBT discussed the operational practices of the ERSWG including the frequency of meetings, the volume of business and the late submission of documentation. The CCSBT agreed:

• thattherewasnoneedtoalterthetermsofreferencefortheWorking Group

• tosomeproceduralchangestobettermanagethebusinessofthe Group

• thatthetimebetweenmeetingswascontrarytotheeffectivemanagement of the ERSWG’s business and that a meeting should be scheduled for 2003 and to save costs should be held back to back with other meetings

Members again noted their difference of opinion in relation to the focus of the Group with one member advocating more research and study of prey and predators, while other members sought more attention on data collection processes (CCSBT, 2002).

In October 2003 the CCSBT approved the CCSBT Scientific Observer Program Standards which, among other things, require that observers record:

• inthelonglinefleet,‘totalprocessedweight(kg)andProcessedState by species of SBT, and other species caught. (i.e. all fish, birds, turtles etc)’ and where the hauling process was observed, the‘totalprocessedweight(kgbyspeciesandprocessedstateofall species caught and retained during the observed period’ and the‘Totalnumberandweightwhenpossible(wholeweight,inkilograms) by species caught but discarded during the observed period and life status’

• inthepurseseinefleet,‘estimatedweight(kg)and/ornumberby species of SBT and other species caught’ and where the shootingandhaulingoperationisobservedthe‘Numberofspecies identified as escaped from commencement of fishing to endoftransfertocage’andthe‘Numberofspeciesidentifiedasdiscarded from commencement of fishing to end of net hauling’

The Standards also prescribe hierarchies/priorities for the collection of data when monitoring hauls and collecting biological samples. Priority 1 is given to data on SBT, Priority 2 to data on other tunas, billfishes, Gasterochisma and sharks, and Priority 3 to all other species. (CCSBT Scientific Committee, 2003; CCSBT, 2003).

44


Issues and Recommendations Commission ResponseFifth ERSWG Meeting February 2004

All members provided national reports and Indonesia made a verbal presentation.

The meeting was advised of the approach to seabird bycatch mitigation taken by CCAMLR and of its effectiveness.

Longstanding members of the Commission offered assistance to new members, Taiwan and South Korea, to build their capacity to address and report on ERS matters.

The Group noted that the educational pamphlet on seabirds and sharks had been finalized and were nearly ready for distribution and that the pamphlet would need to be updated in the future to reflect the revisions to the taxonomy of albatrosses.

The ERSWG discussed data requirements necessary to address the terms of reference but was unable to reach agreement with unresolved issues relating to:

• thequalityofdataandlevelofresolution

• whetherthedatacollectionhierarchiescontainedintheCCSBTScientific Observer Program Standards should be revised to reflect the importance of ecologically related species issues such as the incidental catch of seabirds

• whethertheCommissionshouldbeaskedtoprovideadviceto the ERSWG on policy issues surrounding data collection on ecologically related species

In relation to progress made against its Operational Framework the Group noted:

• theERSWGisyettoachievetheobjectiveofprovidingtheCommission with an estimate of the level of incidental seabird take in SBT fisheries

• therehasbeensomeprogressinidentifyingthefactorsthatinfluence the incidental take of seabirds in SBT fisheries

• asignificantnumberofmitigationmeasureshavebeendeveloped and assessed and positive steps taken to further research and implement additional mitigation measures

• pamphletsonseabirdsandsharkbycatchhavebeendevelopedand printed

The ERSWG prioritized research on the use and costs of blue dyed bait as a mitigation measure and the use of multiple mitigation measures to reduce seabird bycatch (CCSBT ERSWG, 2004).

In October 2004 the CCSBT:

• inresponsetoconcernsabouttheescalatingcostsintheCCSBTbudget, deferred the next ERSWG from 2005 to 2006

• adoptedthereportofthefifthmeetingoftheERSWG,notingthatsome members remained concerned about the need to improve data collection and provision for ecologically related species

• included,asamediumpriority,theevaluationof‘optionsformonitoring and reporting on by-catches of species other than SBT’initslistofissuesthatmembersshould‘attempttoaddress...to the best of their abilities’ (CCSBT, 2004)

In September 2005 the Scientific Committee considered agenda items for the next meeting of the ERSWG. Two members suggested that, in light of agreement to further evaluate data requirements for member observer programs, the ERSWG should consider options for the collection, analysis and exchange of observer and logbook data on interactions with ERS. The Committee noted that the Scientific Committee and the ERSWG had previously highlighted the value of data on catches of species other than SBT (CCSBT Scientific Committee, 2005).

In October 2005 the CCSBT discussed the need for the ERSWG to provide management advice on ERS matters, noting that:

• theERSWGTermsofReference(Items4,5and6)provideforsuch advice

• ifsuchadvicedidnotcomefromtheERSWG,whetherERSissues should be discussed as part of the annual meeting of the Commission rather than in a stand alone group

• theCCSBTScientificResearchPlandoesnotincludetheprovisions of bycatch data as part of the regular data submission requirements

• theissueofprovisionofdataonbycatchspecieshadbeentossed back and forward between the ERSWG and the Scientific Committee but that no progress had been made

• therecommendedmanagementprocedureforSBTrequiresa good understanding of changes in targeting to ensure that changes in CPUE are not incorrectly interpreted

The CCSBT agreed that information on bycatch species was important to aid interpretation of CPUE data (CCSBT, 2005).

45


Issues and Recommendations Commission ResponseSixth ERSWG Meeting February 2006

Members provided national reports, however neither Indonesia nor the Philippines attended or provided reports. The ERSWG recommended that the CCSBT request Co-operating Non-Members and Indonesia to submit national reports.

Issues raised in response to the national reports included:

•thepotentialforpotentialforsharkandturtleinteractionswithSBTfarm cages

• thelevelsofobservercoverageofsomefleetsorcomponentsoffleets

• educatingcrewoperatingfromforeignportsonERSissues

• theneedtomonitorwhethernationalreportsmettheagreedrequirements

The Group prepared draft management advice for consideration by the Commission on reducing the incidental bycatch of seabirds, conservation and sustainable utilization of sharks and data collection and provision for ERS. In relation to seabirds, the Group could not agree as to whether the advice should include the setting of a target for the reduction in seabird bycatch or whether the types of data to be collected and provided should be specified clearly. In relation to sharks, the Group could not agree to text on the provision of shark data.

The Group undertook to finalise their advice to the CCSBT on these issues at its meeting in 2007.

Group agreed that the Commission should consider whether the CCSBT has competence to adopt binding conservation and management measures for ecologically related species.

The Group agreed to work intersessionally to consider ways of revising the shark and seabird educational brochures.

The Group agreed that the development of standardized methodologies for estimating seabird interactions should be progressed intersessionally and discussed at ERSWG7 (CCSBT ERSWG, 2006).

In October 2006 the CCSBT:

• adoptedthereportofERSWG6

• notedthattheERSWGwouldfinaliseitsadvicetoCCSBTonreducing incidental bycatch of seabirds, on conservation and sustainable utilization of sharks and on data collection and provision at ERSWG

• agreedthatERSWG7beheldin2007

Seventh ERSWG Meeting July 2007

The report of this meeting is not yet available. Anecdotal advice indicates that, while revised draft resolutions on seabirds, sharks, and data collection and provision were discussed, no agreement could be reached.

The CCSBT will consider the report of ERSWG7 in October 2007.

WWF is one of the world’s largest and most experienced independent conservation organizations, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active in more than 90 countries.

WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of our planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by: • conservingtheworld’sbiologicaldiversity

• ensuringthattheuseofrenewablenaturalresource is sustainable

• promotingthereductionofpollutionandwastefulconsumption.

For more information contact:

Marine ProgrammeWWF InternationalAvenue du Mont Blanc1196 GlandSwitzerlandt. +41 22 364 9025f. +41 22 364 [email protected]/marine

© Copyright 1986 Panda symbol WWF - World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund) & “WWF” & “living planet” are WWF Registered Trademarks - 02.06 (13M)

behind the façade a decade of inaction on non-target...

Documents