costa rica/eastern central pacific longlines (unspecified)

Dolphinfish

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

Costa Rica/Eastern Central Pacific

Longlines (unspecified)

September 7, 2020

Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

DisclaimerSeafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports rev iewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology,fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific rev iew, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or itsrecommendations on the part of the rev iewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF3

®

1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch

Guiding Principles

Summary

Final Seafood Recommendations

Introduction

Assessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under Assessment

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species

Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem

Acknowledgements

References

Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species

2

About Seafood WatchMonterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught andfarmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafoodas originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in thelong-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makes itsscience-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can bedownloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important oceanconservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood WatchAssessment. Each assessment synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystemscience on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at arecommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” This ethic is operationalized in the SeafoodWatch standards, available on our website here. In producing the assessments, Seafood Watch seeks outresearch published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of informationinclude government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and otherscientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch Research Analysts also communicate regularly withecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations whenevaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic;as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch’s sustainability recommendations and theunderlying assessments will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems arewelcome to use Seafood Watch assessments in any way they find useful.

3

Guiding PrinciplesSeafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished or farmed that canmaintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affectedecosystems.

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that fisheries must possess to be considered sustainableby the Seafood Watch program (these are explained further in the Seafood Watch Standard for Fisheries):

Follow the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management.Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant.Fish all affected stocks at sustainable levels.Minimize bycatch.Have no more than a negligible impact on any threatened, endangered or protected species.Managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all affected species.Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of aquatic habitats where fishingoccurs.Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life.Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophiccascades, or phase shifts.Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect thediversity, abundance, productivity, or genetic integrity of wild stocks.

These guiding principles are operationalized in the four criteria in this standard. Each criterion includes:

Factors to evaluate and scoreGuidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings andthe overall recommendation are color coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guideand online guide:

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.

Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm othermarine life or the environment.

“Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates

1

1

4

SummaryDolphinfish or mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus) is found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. Thisassessment focuses on the Costa Rica mahi mahi fishery caught by the drifting longline fleet (Andraka et al2013) The fleet targets several pelagic species over the year including mahi mahi, but the majority of landingsfor the species occurs between November and February when the species "run" along the Costa Rican waters.According to the Costa Rican fisheries law, there are two type of vessels that take part on this fishery, themedium-scale and advanced commercial vessels (Fisheries and Aquaculture Law No. 8436. Article 43). Vesselson average are below 20 meters in length, and there are limitations regarding distance from shore. Forexample, the medium-scale vessels can fish up to 40 nautical miles (nm), while advance are allowed to gofarther (Fisheries Law 8436).

Mahi mahi is short-lived, highly fecund, and therefore moderately resistant to fishing pressure. However, thecurrent status of mahi mahi in the eastern Pacific Ocean is unknown. The fleet targets mahi mahi, butalso targets others species such as tuna, swordfish and several species of shark. In addition, this fisheryinteracts with threatened and endangered species of sea turtles. However, the available data from the CostaRica mahi mahi fishery suggests that sea turtles are captured infrequently. Mahi mahi is a highly seasonalfishery and this species is the primary component of the catch in these fisheries. Improvements in generatinginformation that support an integral management systems are in place and several measures to limit the impacton bycatch species are in place, although specific data on the level of effectiveness are not available. Impactson habitat and ecosystems are limited. Finally, stakeholders and managers are working together to improve thefishery performance. For these reasons, the final recommendation for mahi mahi caught in Costa Rica bylongline is "good alternative"

5

Final Seafood Recommendations

Summary

Dolphinfish caught in drifting longlines in Costa Rica are rated a yellow (good alternative) because the status ofthe dolphinfish stock is unknown and the fishery incidentally catches vulernable endangered and threatenedspecies. The fishery does implement bycatch mitigation measures such as circle hooks, that are known to beeffective.

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishingoperations have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scoresGood Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor BycatchManagement Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and noCritical scoresAvoid/Red = Final Score ≤2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

Because effect ive management is an essent ial component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoidrecommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

SPECIES |FISHERY

CRITERION 1:Impacts onthe Species

CRITERION 2:Impacts onOther Species

CRITERION 3:ManagementEffectiveness

CRITERION 4:Habitat andEcosystem

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

DolphinfishCostaRica/EasternCentral Pacific| Driftinglonglines |Costa Rica

Yellow (2.644) Red (1.000) Yellow (3.000) Green (3.873) Good Alternative(2.354)

2

6

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

This report focuses on the Costa Rican drifting longline fleet that targets mahi mahi (dolphinfish). Mahi mahi istargeted all year long, although the most important season is occurs between November and February (IATTC2014).

Species Overview

Landings records for mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus) or "dorado" by the Costa Rican fleet date from early1980s. The mahi mahi longline fleet is defined by the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law (Law 8436) as medium-scale commercial and advanced commercial fishing classes (Ley 8436). The medium-scale commercial fleet hasauthority to fish up to a maximum of 40 nautical miles offshore. Most of these vessels have hydraulic equipmentto haul the surface (used to target mostly mahi mahi) or bottom longline (used mostly to target other species,including sharks). The duration of fishing trips vary between 8 and 25 days, and ice is used as the primarymethod of preservation of the captured product. In some cases freezers are used, which can extend theduration of the trips. The advanced commercial fleet vessels are authorized to fish more than 40 nautical milesoffshore, and primarily use freezers to preserve the product. The boats also use hydraulic equipment to haulthe fishing gear.

These vessels operate in the Eastern Pacific Ocean, EPO (FAO 077), throughout the Costa Rican ExclusiveEconomic Zone (EEZ) and in international waters (Figure 1), which follow the dorado's distribution andmigratory behavior. The species can be found in tropical and subtropical waters at latitudes 35° 00 N to 35° 00S (Palko et al 1982). Generally, its distribution is limited by the isotherm of 20°C, and is most abundant in watertemperatures between 26° and 28°C (Palko et al 1982). Based on genetic differences (Rocha-Olivares et al2006) and differences in fisheries and management, the populations of the Eastern and Western Pacific areconsidered as two distinct stocks. In the EPO, dorado distribution ranges from San Diego, California (USA) toAntofagasta (Chile).

The species is resistant to overfishing due to its high productivity worldwide (Palko et al 1982). In the EPO inparticular, mahi mahi shows high growth rates during a very short lifespan (approximately three years), earlymaturity (50% maturity at an age of 0.5-1 year), high fecundity (180,000 - 800,000 per spawning), and theability to spawn throughout the year in some areas (Martinez-Ortiz and Zuñiga-Flores 2012). The speciesexhibits sexual dimorphism upon reaching 4 and 5 months of age, exhibited in the shape of the head and angleof the forehead. Males have a square-shaped head, while females have a more rounded head. Dorado formaggregations to defend against predators or possibly to improve their predatory activities. It feeds on smallpelagic species (flying fish, crossbow fish, dove, mackerel, etc.), juvenile pelagic tunas, and invertebrates(cephalopods and crustaceans). Predators of mahi mahi include the following: seabirds (Anous stolidus andSterna fuscata), Istiophoridae (billfishes), Escombridae (mackerel and tunas), Xiphiidae (swordfish), sharks ofthe Carcharhinidae family and cetaceans (whales and dolphins).

Production Statistics

Mahi mahi landings in the EPO increased in the last decade by approximately 50% with an annual average catchof approximately 46,000 t during 2001-2007 to more than 70,000 t during 2008-2012 (Aires da Silva et al 2017).Peru and Ecuador have the highest production. In Costa Rica, catches reached their peak in 2011, exceeding10,000 t. Since then, catches have remained closer to the 2,000 t (Figure 1).

7

Figure 1 Mahi mahi landings in Costa Rica from 1995 to 2015 (Source: INCOPESCA landings data)

There seems to be a strong relationship between the abundance of dorado and certain environmental variablesin the EPO (e.g., sea surface temperature, oxygen levels, chlorophyll, and precipitation) (IATTC 2014). Severalfleets target the species in Costa Rica ranging from sport fishing vessels to commercial small-scale, medium-scale and advanced fleets; in addition, vessels that target other pelagic species such as marlin, swordfish, tunasand sharks also catch dorado as an associated species (MRAG 2018).

Importance to the US/North American market.

Costa Rica reported less than 2,000 mt of mahi mahi were exported in 2013, with the majority going to theUnited States (IATTC 2014). According to the NOAA Fisheries foreign trade data, imports of dorado from CostaRica have fluctuated in recent years (see table below).

Common and market names.

Also known as mahi mahi, dolphinfish, dorado, doradilla, lampuga, and perico, it is one of the most importantspecies caught by artisanal fisheries of the coastal nations of the EPO, including Peru, Ecuador, and Panama.

Primary product forms

Mahi mahi is sold mostly as fresh and frozen fillets (NMFS 2017)

Year Volume (t)

2017 749

2016 2,087

2015 792

2014 1,944

2013 1,524

2012 1,257

8

AssessmentThis section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Standard for Fisheries,available at www.seafoodwatch.org. The specific standard used is referenced on the title page of all SeafoodWatch assessments.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the Species Under AssessmentThis criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. Whenabundance is unknown, abundance is scored based on the species’ inherent vulnerability, which is calculatedusing a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometricmean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical

Guiding Principles

Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant.Fish all affected stocks at sustainable level.

Criterion 1 Summary

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 1.1 - Abundance

Goal: Stock abundance and size structure of native species is maintained at a level that does not impairrecruitment or productivity.

5 (Very Low Concern) — Strong evidence exists that the population is above an appropriate targetabundance level (given the species’ ecological role), or near virgin biomass.3.67 (Low Concern) — Population may be below target abundance level, but is at least 75% of the targetlevel, OR data-limited assessments suggest population is healthy and species is not highly vulnerable.2.33 (Moderate Concern) — Population is not overfished but may be below 75% of the target abundancelevel, OR abundance is unknown and the species is not highly vulnerable.1 (High Concern) — Population is considered overfished/depleted, a species of concern, threatened orendangered, OR abundance is unknown and species is highly vulnerable.

DOLPHINFISHRegion | Method Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

Costa Rica/EasternCentral Pacific |Drifting longlinesCosta Rica

2.33: Moderate Concern 3.00: Moderate Concern Yellow (2.644)

10

Factor 1.2 - Fishing Mortality

Goal: Fishing mortality is appropriate for current state of the stock.

5 (Low Concern) — Probable (>50%) that fishing mortality from all sources is at or below a sustainablelevel, given the species ecological role, OR fishery does not target species and fishing mortality is lowenough to not adversely affect its population.3 (Moderate Concern) — Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortalityrelative to a sustainable level is uncertain.1 (High Concern) — Probable that fishing mortality from all source is above a sustainable level.

DOLPHINFISH


COSTA RICA/EASTERN CENTRAL PACIFICDrifting Longlines | Costa Rica

Moderate Concern

In 2016, an exploratory stock assessment was conducted on mahi mahi from the southeastern Pacific Ocean(Aires da Silva et al 2017). The spawning stock biomass (time series 2007-2015) has remained fairly stablesince 2007, with a slight decrease during 2010 (Aires da Silva et al 2017). There are no reference pointsdefined for mahi mahi in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Some common reference points used for species such astuna were assessed for mahi mahi. According to these reference points, the spawning stock biomass ratio tothat of the unfished stock has averaged 0.20 for the time series (Aires da Silva et al 2017). The IUCN hasassessed mahi mahi as a species of Least Concern (Collete b et al 2011)(Collette 1999) Because there are noreference points or other indications of abundance for the mahi mahi stock, a Productivity and Susceptibilityanalysis (PSA) was conducted. The PSA score = 2.81 (see justification section for PSA details), whichsuggests a medium susceptibility to fishing; therefore we have awarded a score of moderate concern forabundance.

Justification:

Productivity Attribute Relevant Information Score (1 = low risk, 2 = medium risk,3 = high risk)

Average age at maturity 0.5 years (Beardsley 1967) 1

Average maximum age 4 years (Uchiyama et al 1986) 1

Fecundity 85,000 eggs (Froese and Pauly 2019) 1

Average maximum size(fish only)

210 cm (Collette 1999) 2

Average size at maturity(fish only)

55 cm (Beardsley 1967) 2

Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner (Froese and Pauly2019)

1

11


PSA score for mahi mahi in the Costa Rica longline fishery is calculated as follows:

Vulnerability (V) = √(P2 + S)2

V = √(1.57 + 2.33)2

V = 2.81

Trophic level 4.4 (Froese and Pauly 2019)

3

Density dependence(invertebrates only)

- -

Total Productivity(average)

1.57

SusceptibilityAttribute

Relevant Information Score (1 = low risk, 2 = mediumrisk, 3 = high risk)

Areal overlap

(Considers all fisheries)

There is areal overlap between thefishery and mahi mahi. 3

Vertical overlap

(Considers all fisheries)

There is vertical overlap between thefishery and mahi mahi. 3

Selectivity of fishery

(Specific to fishery underassessment)

The selectivity is not available 2

Post-capture mortality

(Specific to fishery underassessment)

Post capture mortality information isunknown.

3

Total Susceptibility(multiplicative)

2.33


Moderate Concern

Fishing mortality rates for mahi mahi in the Eastern Pacific Ocean compared to reference points are unknown.However, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) conducted an exploratory stock assessment

12

which suggests that fishing mortality rates have decreased slightly since 2007 and the fishing mortality neededto produce the maximum sustainable yield is two times more than current levels (Aires da Silva et al 2017). However, according to Aires da Silva et al. 2017, the geographic range of the exploratory stock assessmentincludes the "core" region of the EPO stock, but there is uncertainty in areas north of the Equator (Aires daSilva et al 2017)

Mahi mahi are caught as bycatch and targeted in longline fisheries in the Eastern Pacific Ocean . The IUCNdoes not consider there to be any major threats to mahi mahi from commercial fishing (Collette et al. 2011b).Preliminary analysis shows variable, but somewhat steady, catch per unit effort trends in abundance . Wehave awarded a score of moderate concern because commercial fishing does not appear to be a majorthreat, and the catch per unit effort has been somewhat stable over time and the preliminary stockassessment states that current fishing mortality rates of 50% of the maximum sustainable yield and due to theuncertainty levels in areas north of the Equator.

13

Criterion 2: Impacts on Other SpeciesAll main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated under Criterion 2. Seafood Watch definesbycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples includediscards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. Species are evaluated using the sameguidelines as in Criterion 1. When information on other species caught in the fishery is unavailable, the fishery’spotential impacts on other species is scored according to the Unknown Bycatch Matrices, which are based on asynthesis of peer-reviewed literature and expert opinion on the bycatch impacts of each gear type. The fisheryis also scored for the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. Todetermine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied bythe discard/bait score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤=3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤=2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Crtitical

Guiding Principles

Ensure all affected stocks are healthy and abundant.Fish all affected stocks at sustainable level.Minimize bycatch.

Criterion 2 Summary

Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list andassessment of the main species can be found in Appendix A.

DOLPHINFISHCosta Rica/Eastern Central Pacific | Drifting Longlines | Costa Rica

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

Species | Stock Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Pelagic thresher shark 1.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Scalloped hammerhead 1.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

Silky shark 1.00:High Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Red (1.732)

Swordfish: North Pacific 3.67:Low Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.916)

Striped marlin 3.67:Low Concern 3.00:Moderate Concern Green (3.318)

14

The Costa Rican pelagic commercial fishery, which consists of medium-scale and advanced longline vessels,land a variety of pelagic species, including tunas, billfishes, and sharks. No discard data are available for thefishery (MRAG 2018). In the fishery MSC pre-assessment (PA) report developed in 2018 (that includes yellowfintuna and swordfish as target species), the authors found that the volume of some retained species is greaterthan the target species (Yellowfin tuna, Mahi mahi and Swordfish). For example, silky shark (Carcharhinusfalciformis) constituted more than half of the landings (MRAG 2018).

According to fishermen cited in the document, the specific catch composition of longline vessels varies accordingto the space and time in which the fleet operates. The fleet targets mahi mahi all year round but the mahi"season" runs mainly from November to February, where the fishers use a shallow longlline with no steel leader.While for the other species (the rest of the year) tend to use bottom longline with steel leader for sharks (MRAG2018). Similarly, variations in types of bait that are used and depth of draft vary by fleet and target species(MRAG 2018).

The INCOPESCA's data from 2010 to 2017 were analyzed during the PA. The catch composition, however, didnot make a distinction between when surface longline were used or when bottom longline. Based on thosenumbers and considering that no other information was available, the catch composition of the fleet is normallycomposed of swordfish (Xiphias gladius), mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus), sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus),and wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri); as well as tunas: yellowfin (Thunnus albacares), bigeye (Thunnusobesus) and skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis); marlins: striped (Tetrapturus audax), short tube (T. angustirostris),black (Makaira indica), and blue (M. nigricans); and sharks: blue (Prionace glauca), silky (Carcharhinusfalciformis), oceanic (C. longimanus), pinto fox (Alopias vulpinus), Mako (Isurus spp), and hammers (Sphyrnazygaena, S. lewini).

In addition, numerous ETP species recognized can be affected by longline fisheries in the EPO. Sea turtles inparticular can have high mortality rates, as well as birds and marine mammals. Concerns about indirectinteractions of coral fisheries in Cocos Island areas with abandoned fishing gear were also included within thePA report (MRAG 2018). However, the information available to determine the level of interaction of the fisherywith this ETP species is not sparse.

Based on the percentages reported on the Pre assessment, and the ETP known interactions, we included thefollowing species as part of the Criterion 2 analysis: swordfish (Xiphias gladius), yellowfin tuna (Thunnusalbacares), striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax), Shortbill spearfish (T. angustirostris); silky shark (Carcharhinusfalciformis), scallop hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini), and the following sea turtle species: leatherback, oliveridley, green, hawksbill, and loggerheads, since all are found in Costa Rican waters (IAC 2017). Since there arevery few interactions with seabirds (AGAP 2014), these have not been included in this assessment.


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 2.1 - Abundance(same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Fishing Mortality(same as Factor 1.2 above)

Yellowfin tuna 3.67:Low Concern 5.00:Low Concern Green (4.284)

15

PELAGIC THRESHER SHARK



Factor 2.3 - Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use

Goal: Fishery optimizes the utilization of marine and freshwater resources by minimizing post-harvest loss. Forfisheries that use bait, bait is used efficiently.

Scoring Guidelines: The discard rate is the sum of all dead discards (i.e. non-retained catch) plus bait usedivided by the total retained catch.


High Concern

No full stock assessment of pelagic thresher sharks has been conducted in the eastern Pacific Ocean (NMFS2015). However, a demographic analysis of this species in the northwestern Pacific Ocean has beenconducted. The results suggest pelagic thresher sharks are overexploited (Tsai et al 2010). The IUCN haslisted this and all thresher shark species as "Vulnerable" with declining population trends (Reardon et al2009). We have awarded a score of "high" concern due to the IUCN rating.


High Concern

Pelagic thresher sharks are taken as bycatch in a number of fisheries operating in the eastern Pacific Ocean(Reardon et al 2009). They are considered to be highly vulnerable to overexploitation (Tsai et al 2010). No fullstock assessment has been conducted so fishing mortality rates in this region are unknown. However,demographic modeling in the northwestern Pacific indicates that the current fishing pressure will lead to apopulation decline of 43.3% over the next 20 years (Tsai et al 2010). Pelagic thresher sharks were one of themost common shark bycatch species in the fishery in most recent data (MRAG 2018). We have awarded ascore of "high" concern because fishing mortality rates are unknown and therefore the Seafood WatchUnknown Bycatch Matrix is used, which suggests there is a high concern for sharks being susceptible tolongline capture.

RATIO OF BAIT + DISCARDS/LANDINGS FACTOR 2.3 SCORE

<100% 1

>=100 0.75


< 100%

Discard rates are unknown for the mahi mahi fisheries in Costa Rica. However, discards are rare in Costa Ricadue to the use of most of the species. The average discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%

16

SCALLOPED HAMMERHEAD



Factor 2.3 - Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use

Goal: Fishery optimizes the utilization of marine and freshwater resources by minimizing post-harvest loss. Forfisheries that use bait, bait is used efficiently.

Scoring Guidelines: The discard rate is the sum of all dead discards (i.e. non-retained catch) plus bait usedivided by the total retained catch.

(Kelleher 2005). We have awarded a score of <100%.


High Concern

The scalloped hammerhead is a coastal-pelagic, semi-oceanic shark that can be found in inshore and offshorewaters to about 275 m depth (Froese and Pauly 2019). The IUCN recognizes five subpopulations, one in theEPO. It is the only species of hammerhead shark that tends to form schools near underwater mountains oroceanic islands and is a predator that occupies a high trophic level. It is a viviparous species that presents apseudo-placenta, and has a gestation period between 9 and 12 months (Froese and Pauly 2019). Femalesfirst reach maturity at 15 years and males between 9-10 years. The species is classified as CriticallyEndangered by IUCN and is in Appendix II of CITES. The populations of scalloped hammerhead and Sphyrnamokarran species are the most threatened pelagic and semi-pelagic sharks in the world. For this reason thisfactor is scored as high concern.


High Concern

Based on the Council of Representatives of Scientific Authorities of CITES in Costa Rica (CRACCITES)and information provided by the different countries in Central America, scalloped hammerhead accounted for51% of total shark catches (mainly neonates), in 2009 (CRACCITES 2017). Most recently, and according tothe fishery Pre-assessment report (which used data from INCOPESCA) scalloped hammerheads constituted onaverage around 2% of the landings of longline fisheries (MRGA 2018). In order to limit negative interactionswith the species, Costa Rica has in place several agreements, like the AJDIP/105 from 2013, the AJDIP-102from 2017 and AJDIP 026 from 2018, that overall implement a minimum catch size for hammerhead sharks(46 cm) and the fishing sector is voluntarily releasing hammerhead sharks (Fish Source 2020) although thesurvival rate of these organisms is unclear. Considering that scalloped hammerhead is critically endangered byIUCN this factor is scored as high concern.

RATIO OF BAIT + DISCARDS/LANDINGS FACTOR 2.3 SCORE

<100% 1

>=100 0.75

17


< 100%

Discard rates are unknown for the mahi mahi fisheries in Costa Rica. However, discards are rare in Costa Ricadue to the use of most of the species. The average discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%(Kelleher 2005). We have awarded a score of <100%.

18

Criterion 3: Management EffectivenessFive factors are evaluated in Criterion 3: Management Strategy and Implementation, Bycatch Strategy, ScientificResearch/Monitoring, Enforcement of Regulations, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is scored as either‘highly effective’, ‘moderately effective’, ‘ineffective,’ or ‘critical’. The final Criterion 3 score is determined asfollows:

5 (Very Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for all five factors considered.4 (Low Concern) — Meets the standards of ‘highly effective’ for ‘management strategy and implementation‘and at least ‘moderately effective’ for all other factors.3 (Moderate Concern) — Meets the standards for at least ‘moderately effective’ for all five factors.2 (High Concern) — At a minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy andImplementation and Bycatch Strategy, but at least one other factor is rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern) — Management Strategy and Implementation and/or Bycatch Management are‘ineffective.’0 (Critical) — Management Strategy and Implementation is ‘critical’.

The Criterion 3 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2 = Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Management Strategy and Implementation is Critical.

GUIDING PRINCIPLE

The fishery is managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all impacted species.

Criterion 3 Summary


Factor 3.1 - Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals,and is there evidence that management goals are being met? Do manages follow scientific advice? To achieve ahighly effective rating, there must be appropriately defined management goals, precautionary policies that arebased on scientific advice, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful atmaintaining/rebuilding species.

FisheryManagementStrategy

BycatchStrategy

ResearchandMonitoring Enforcement

StakeholderInclusion Score

Fishery 1: CostaRica/Eastern Central Pacific |Drifting longlines | CostaRica

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

Yellow(3.000)

19


Moderately Effective

Mahi mahi

Management measures have been adopted independently by the different countries that target mahi mahi inthe EPO region. In Costa Rica, there is a minimum size limit for dorado (80 cm total length) as part ofthe agreement AJDIP-105-2013. In addition, the decree 38681-MAG-MINAE establishes a series ofmanagement measures applicable to national (longline) and foreign (purse-seine tuna) fleets that catchpelagic species in the exclusive economic zone of the Costa Rican Pacific (MAG-MINAE 2014). In addition,article 56 of the fisheries' law (Decree No. 36782 2011) establishes that all pelagic longline fisheries will bedeveloped exclusively with the use of circle hooks. However, there are no other specific managementobjectives for mahi at the regional level (EPO) nor national level in Costa Rica. (e.g. reference points).

Sharks

Despite the fact that Costa Rica has in place the "National Action Plan for the Conservation and Managementof Sharks" (PANT-CR), which is a legal framework for the protection and sustainable use and management oftargeted and incidental sharks species (INCOPESCA 2009), it is likely that the fishery is still having seriousnegative impacts on the stocks of other retained species whose ecology, biology and role in the ecosystem arevirtually unknown. For example, some shark species that are caught and retained in this fishery are belowtheir biological limits according to the vulnerable or endangered conservation status (IUCN Red List). Theseinclude Carcharhinus falciformis, Sphyrna zygaena, S. lewini, Alopias pelagicus, and A. vulpinus, and sharkfinning is prohibited by the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law.

Tunas and Billfish

Executive Decree 38681 MAG-MINAE seeks to regulate and optimize the capture of tuna and relatedspecies, to reduce the impact on other species such as sharks (INA-FECOP-INCOPESCA 2018).

Other large pelagic species such as sharks have minimum size established. Additionally, there are another setof measures for mahi mahi and other pelagic fisheries, among others, the fact that 100% of longline landingsare inspected and data are collected in the Fishery Landing Inspection Form (known as its Spanish acronymFID); there is an obligation to maintain an official logbook onboard (known as its Spanish acronym LOP); thelaunch of a Fishery Improvement Project which work plan was adopted by the Agreement AJDIP/062-2019 forthe Costa Rican Medium-scale-Scale and Advanced Longline and Green Stick Commercial Fleet TargetingYellowfin Tuna, Mahi-Mahi and Swordfish and incorporates their actions into the INCOPESCA annual plan.

Overall, for more than 70% of the fishery’s main primary targeted and retained species have somemanagement measures in place, and these are expected to be effective but there is a need for increasedprecaution and for some measures (e.g. shark measures) the effectiveness is unknown. For these reasons,this factor is scored as moderately effective.

Justification:

IATTC has recently addressed the broader ecosystem implications of some EPO fishing practices and hassupported several measures to reduce the impacts of longline fishers on shark populations . Among these area prohibition on the retention and sale of oceanic white tip sharks (Resolution C-11-10, 2011), catch

20

Factor 3.2 - Bycatch Strategy

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fisheryon bycatch species and when applicable, to minimize ghost fishing? How successful are these managementmeasures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, the fishery must have no or low bycatch, or if there are bycatchor ghost fishing concerns, there must be effective measures in place to minimize impacts.

Factor 3.3 - Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the fishery’s impact on the species?Is there adequate monitoring of bycatch? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, regular, robust populationassessments must be conducted for target or retained species, and an adequate bycatch data collectionprogram must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are met.

restrictions for longline caught silky shark (Resolution C-16-06), and the soliciting of funding to support thedevelopment of technologies to allow for the release, and post-release monitoring of sharks and rays(Resolution C-04-05, 2006) (IATTC 2006). As a member of IATTC, Costa Rica is bound by these guidelines.Although some management plan for vulnerable shark populations that are retained is in place, no informationrelated to the level of implementation, compliance and effectiveness was available.



Costa Rica must comply with Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) sea turtle measures includingprohibiting their retention. Circle hooks, which help reduce the incidental capture of sea turtles (Andraka et al2013), are mandatory in this fishery. In addition, shark finning is prohibited in Costa Rica, who also adopted aNational Plan for the Preservation and Management of Shark Fisheries (PANT-CR)(MRAG 2018). The PANT-CRis currently being updated. In Costa Rica, bycatch data are collected in official logbooks since 2017, althoughthe information of these reports was not available. Finally, as part of the active Fishery Improvement Project,fishers have been trained on techniques to increase post-release survival of incidentally captures seaturtles (MRAG 2018) and fishers voluntarily release hammerheads shark and juveniles of other shark species(Andraka, pers. comm. 2020).

We have awarded a score of "moderately effective" because Costa Rica has taken some action to protectbycatch species but level of effectiveness are unknown.



The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission conducts research and monitoring on mahi mahi and has apreliminary stock assessment (IATTC 2013). However, there are no stock assessments available for dorado inthe North EPO, while for the South EPO the initial exploratory assessment used data through 2014, mostlyfrom Peru and Ecuador (Aires da Silva et al 2017) and it has not been repeated nor updated since then. Most

21

Factor 3.4 - Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

recently, in 2019, the IATTC staff developed a monthly depletion estimator approach that could be used as abasis for management advice in data-limited situations (i.e., the North EPO) if CPUE data are available. In a2019 report, the IATTC included ideas of potential reference points and harvest control rules that could beconsidered for dorado in the EPO (IATTC 2019). This report, however, does not suggest any specific harvestcontrol rules nor any reference points for the North EPO due to the lack of information.

On the other hand, information on other species including tuna and sharks is available (IATTC 2016) (IATTC2018b), but research and monitoring is lacking for several species.

At a national level, Incopesca (Costa Rica's government technical branch) has two databases that recordinformation on mahi mahi, and all landings are recorded (IATTC 2014), although the information of thesedatabases was not available for this report. The National Action Plan for Sharks (PANT-CR) has been reviewedand updated and the PANT-CR 2020 is under INCOPESCA revision. New management measures and researchactivities are considered. - Additionally, IATTC is developing a FAO-GEG-ABNJ funded project to improve datacollection of shark species in the EPO coastal longline fisheries. Preliminary analysis are being conducted fordeveloping sampling protocols for catch and effort estimation. The IATTC staff developed a work plan toimprove data collection and stock assessments for sharks, on all EPO fisheries that interact with silky andhammerhead sharks, focused on the coastal longline and gillnet fisheries. The staff is developing anexperimental design for a longterm shark fishery sampling program in the EPO. For all species, the Work Planfor the FIP is in place and the Action Plan for Large Pelagic Species was developed and presented in 2018

Considering that some data are collected analysed, but more information is required and is in process to becollected, we have awarded a score of "moderately effective."



Enforcement in Costa Rica is conducted by the National Coastguard Service (SNG) that carry out enforcementactions in Costa Rican waters, including boarding and inspections of vessels –foreign and national. On theother hand, INCOPESCA has the authorithy to implement inspection procedures and apply sanctions (Fisheriesand Aquaculture Law, Article 14d)(Fisheries Law ).

In Costa Rica, national and foreign vessels need a fishing license (Fisheries and Aquaculture Law. Article136) to be allowed to carry out fishing activities in the Costa Rican territorial sea and the EEZ. In addition, theexecutive Decree No. 38681-MAG-MINAE references the use of vessel monitoring systems (VMS) as controland surveillance elements, which complements the tasks covered by the Satellite Monitoring Center ofINCOPESCA. In addition to this, OSPESCA Regulation 03-10 include the creation and implementation of aRegional System of Monitoring and Satellite Control of Fishing Vessels which is also binding for Costa Rica.

Cases of illegal fishing have been reported (i.e. fishing without a license in EEZ; fishing in areas that do notallow purse seine fishing according to Executive Decree No. 38681-MAG-MINAE). There are no data availableon the volume of illegal fishing or the incidence of illegal activities in Costa Rica (Fish Source 2020). There islittle information at the national level on compliance within the Costa Rican longline fleet, although accordingto the pre-assessment authors, there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance (MRAG 2018) although no

22

Factor 3.5 - Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders areindividuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the managementof the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the managementprocess is transparent, if high participation by all stakeholders is encouraged, and if there a mechanism toeffectively address user conflicts.

data were presented. Overall there is a scarcity of information on compliance aspects for this fishery in CostaRican EEZ.

We have awarded a score of "moderately effective" because Costa Rica has some enforcement inplace although effectiveness of enforcement/monitoring may be uncertain.


Highly Effective

The management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input. For example, the creation of theaction plan for the Large Pelagic species was developed through multi-stakeholder dialogue (Fish Source2020) Similarly, all the different groups have been working together to launch the FIP in 2018 and the fishingsector participants in the research as well as sharing their knowledge. For these reasons we are scoring thisfactor as highly effective.

23

Criterion 4: Impacts on the Habitat and EcosystemThis Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there aremeasures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and theuse of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based FisheriesManagement aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on theenvironment. The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (factor 4.1 +factor 4.2) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 4 rating is determined asfollows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of marine habitats where fishingoccurs.Maintain the trophic role of all aquatic life.Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophiccascades, or phase shifts.Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect thediversity, abundance, productivity, or genetic integrity of wild stocks.Follow the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management.

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 4.1 - Physical Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Goal: The fishery does not adversely impact the physical structure of the ocean habitat, seafloor or associatedbiological communities.

5 - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom4 - Vertical line gear3 - Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap)and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Or bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or midwater trawlthat is known to contact bottom occasionally. Or purse seine known to commonly contact the bottom.2 - Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Or gillnet, trap, or bottomlongline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Or bottom seine except on mud/sand. Or there is

Region | MethodGear Type andSubstrate

Mitigation of GearImpacts EBFM Score

Costa Rica/Eastern Central Pacific |Drifting longlinesCosta Rica

5 0 ModerateConcern

Green(3.873)

24

known trampling of coral reef habitat.1 - Hydraulic clam dredge. Or dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble orboulder)0 - Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain,the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Goal: Damage to the seafloor is mitigated through protection of sensitive or vulnerable seafloor habitats, andlimits on the spatial footprint of fishing on fishing effort.

+1 —>50% of the habitat is protected from fishing with the gear type. Or fishing intensity is very low/limitedand for trawled fisheries, expansion of fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear is specifically modified toreduce damage to seafloor and modifications have been shown to be effective at reducing damage. Or thereis an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.+0.5 —At least 20% of all representative habitats are protected from fishing with the gear type and for trawlfisheries, expansion of the fishery’s footprint is prohibited. Or gear modification measures or other measuresare in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing thatare expected to be effective.0 —No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats or not applicable because gear usedis benign and received a score of 5 in factor 4.1

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Goal: All stocks are maintained at levels that allow them to fulfill their ecological role and to maintain afunctioning ecosystem and food web. Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services providedby any retained species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction ofgenetic diversity. Even non-native species should be considered with respect to ecosystem impacts. If a fisheryis managed in order to eradicate a non-native, the potential impacts of that strategy on native species in theecosystem should be considered and rated below.

5 — Policies that have been shown to be effective are in place to protect species’ ecological roles andecosystem functioning (e.g. catch limits that ensure species’ abundance is maintained at sufficient levels toprovide food to predators) and effective spatial management is used to protect spawning and foragingareas, and prevent localized depletion. Or it has been scientifically demonstrated that fishing practices donot have negative ecological effects.4 — Policies are in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but have not provento be effective and at least some spatial management is used.3 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning but detrimentalfood web impacts are not likely or policies in place may not be sufficient to protect species’ ecological rolesand ecosystem functioning.2 — Policies are not in place to protect species’ ecological roles and ecosystem functioning and the likelihoodof detrimental food impacts are likely (e.g. trophic cascades, alternate stable states, etc.), but conclusivescientific evidence is not available for this fishery.1 — Scientifically demonstrated trophic cascades, alternate stable states or other detrimental food webimpact are resulting from this fishery.

Factor 4.1 - Physical Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

25

Factor 4.2 - Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management


5

Pelagic longlines do not come into contact with bottom habitats; therefore, the effect of fishing gear on thesubstrate is scored 5 according to the SFW criteria.


0

Pelagic longline fishing gear does not come in contact with bottom habitats; therefore, no mitigation methodsare needed.


Moderate Concern

The IATTC has recently addressed the broader ecosystem implications of some EPO fishing practices and hassupported several measures to reduce the impacts of longline fishers on shark populations . Among these area prohibition on the retention and sale of oceanic white tip sharks (Resolution C-11-10, 2011), catchrestrictions for longline-caught silky shark (Resolution C-16-06), and the soliciting of funding to support thedevelopment of technologies to allow for the release, and post-release monitoring of sharks and rays(Resolution C-04-05, 2006). As a member of IATTC, Costa Rica is bound by these guidelines. This fisherycaptures exceptional species, including sharks, and there are no ecosystem-based measures in place (MRAG2018). We have awarded a score of "moderately effective" because detrimental food web impacts arepossible, and there is some ecosystem-based management in place; however, stronger policies may beneeded to fully protect the ecological role of harvested and non-retained species.

26

AcknowledgementsScientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafoodrecommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for theconclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank the consulting researchers and authors of this report, Alexia Morgan andIvan Martinez Tovar, as well as several anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientificaccuracy.

27

ReferencesAbreu-Grobois, A & Plotkin, P. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group) 2008. Lepidochelys olivacea. In: IUCN2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Aires da Silva, A., Valero, J.L., Maunder, M., Minte-Vera, C., Lennert-Cody, C., Roman, M.H., Martinez-Ortiz, J.,Torrejon-Magallanes, E.J. and Carranza, M.N. 2016. Exploratory stock assessment of dorado (Coryphaenahippurus) in the southeastern Pacific Ocean. Seventh Meeting Scientific Advisory Committee.

Andraka, S., Mug, M., Hall, M., Pons, M. et al. 2013. Circle hooks: developing better fishing practices in theartisnal longline fisheries of the eastern Pacific Ocean. Biological Conservation 160:214-223.

Baum, J., Clarke, S., Domingo, A., Ducrocq, M., Lamónaca, A.F., Gaibor, N., Graham, R., Jorgensen, S., Kotas,J.E., Medina, E., Martinez- Ortiz, J., Monzini Taccone di Sitizano, J., Morales, M.R., Navarro, S.S., Pérez, J.C.,Ruiz, C., Smith, W., Valenti, S.V. & Vooren, C.M. 2007. Sphyrna lewini (Eastern Central and Southeast Paci??csubpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3.

Beardsley, G.L., 1967. Age, growth, and reproduction of the dolphin, Coryphaena hippurus, in the Straits ofFlorida. Copeia 1967(2):441-451. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1442132?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

CITES 2018. Autoridad científica CITES para especies de interés pesquero y acuícola Dictamen de Extracción NoPerjudicial para el Tiburón Gris o sedoso (Carcharhinus falciformis) 2018-2019, especie incluidas bajo elApéndice II de la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y FloraSilvestres (CITES) de Costa Rica.

Clarke, S. 2013. Towards and integrated shark conservation and management measure for the Western andCentral Pacific Ocean. Pacific Islands Regional Office and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-08.

Clarke et al. 2014. Bycatch in longline fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species: A global review of status andmitigation measures. FAO Technical Paper 588. 228 pp.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., deOliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Viera Hazin, F.H., Juan Jorda, M., Minte Vera,C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Schaefer, K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P.,Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011a. Coryphaena hippurus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN RedList of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Collette, B.B., 1999. Coryphaenidae. Dolphinfishes, "dolphins". p. 2656-2658. In K.E. Carpenter and V.H. Niem(eds.) FAO species identification guide for fishery purposes. The living marine resources of the Western CentralPacific. Volume 4. Bony fishes part 2 (Mugilidae to Carangidae). FAO, Rome.http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/x2400e/x2400e00.htm

Collette, B., Acero, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., Chang, S.-K., Di Natale, A., Fox, W.,Guzman-Mora, A., Juan Jorda, M., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Salas, E., Schaefer, K., Serra, R.,Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011. Sarda orientalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., deOliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Viera Hazin, F.H., Juan Jorda, M., Minte Vera,C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Schaefer, K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P.,Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011b. Coryphaena hippurus. The IUCN Red List of

28

Threatened Species 2011: e.T154712A4614989.

Consejo de Representantes de Autoridades Científicas CITES de Costa Rica (CRACCITES - Costa Rica). 28marzo 2017. Dictamen de Extracción No Perjudicial (DENP) para el tiburón martillo común (Sphyrna lewini) y lasdos especies semejantes (S. zygaena y S. mokarran) de Costa Rica, incluidas bajo el Apéndice II de laConvención Sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres (CITES). SanJosé, Costa Rica.

Delgado-Trejo C, Alvarado-Díaz J (2012) Current conservation status of the black sea turtle in Michoacan,Mexico. in press In: Sea Turtles of the Eastern Pacific: Advances in Research and Conservation. University ofArizona Press, Tucson. 386 pp. Seminoff JA, Wallace BP (eds).

Fish Source, 2020. Common dolphinfish Eastern Pacific Ocean

FR. 2015. Endangered and threatened species; identification and proposed listing of eleven distinct populationsegments of green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) as endangered or threatened and revision of current listings.FR 80 FR 15271.

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2019. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication.

Hall & Roman. 2013. Bycatch and non-tuna catch in the tropical tuna purse seine fisheries of the world. FAOTechnical Paper 568. 262 pp.

IAC. 2012. IAC Annual Report Panama. Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of SeaTurtles.

Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles (IAC). 2012. Conservation statusand habitat use of sea turtles in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 3rd Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee,15-18 May, 2012, La Jolla, CA.

INTER-AMERICAN TROPICAL TUNA COMMISSION. 74TH MEETING. PUSAN (KOREA) 26-30 JUNE 2006RESOLUTION C-04-05 (REV 2) CONSOLIDATED RESOLUTION ON BYCATCH

IATTC. 2012b. Reference points, decision rules and management strategy evaluation for tunas and associatedspecies in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. 3rd Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee, 15-18 May, 2012.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013. Preliminary results from mahimahi (dorado)collaborative research with IATTC member countries. 4th Meeting of the IATTC Scientific Advisory Meeting, 29April - 3 May, 2013, La Jolla, CA.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013a. Meeting report. Scientific Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 29April - 3 May 2013.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013b. Status of yellowfin tuna in the Eastern Pacific Oceanin 2012 and outlook for the future. Document SAC-04-04b.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013c. Updated indicators of stock status for skipjack tuna inthe Eastern Pacific Ocean. Document SAC-04-06a.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013d. Bycatch management. 4th Meeting of the ScientificCommittee, 29 April - 3 May, 2013, La Jolla, CA.

29

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013e. Status of sailfish in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2011and outlook for the future. Document SAC-04-07c.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013f. Fishery status report No. 11. Tunas and billfishes inthe Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2012. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2013g. Stock status of the silky shark in the Eastern PacificOcean. 4th Meeting of the IATTC Scientific Advisory Meeting, 29 April - 3 May, 2013, La Jolla, Ca.

IATTC. 2014. 1st Technical Meeting on dorado: report of the meeting. Manta, Ecuador, October 14-16, 2014.Available at: http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2014/Oct/_English/DOR-01-Meeting-Report-ENG.pdf

IATTC. 2014b. Scientific Advisory Committee Fifth Meeting. La Jolla, California 12-16 May 2014.

IATTC. 2014d. A collaborative attempt to conduct a stock assessment for the silky shark in the eastern PacificOcean (1993-2010): Update report. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Scientific Advisory CommitteeFifth Meeting Document SAC-05 INF-F.

IATTC. 2014e. Tunas and billfishes in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2013. Fishery status report No. 12. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

IATTC. 2014f. Status of bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2013. Inter-American Tropical TunaCommission.

IATTC. 2014g. Recommendations by the staff for conservation measures in the eastern Pacific Ocean, 2014.Document IATTC-87-03d.

IATTC. 2014h. Unpublished bycatch data. Provided by the Secretariat May 2014.

IATTC. 2016. Updated stock status indicators for silky sharks in the eastern Pacific Ocean (1994-2015).Document SAC-07-06bi.

IATTC. 2016f. Tunas, billfishes and other pelagic species in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2015. Fishery Statusreport No. 14.

IATTC. 2018b. Status of yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2017 and outlook for the future.Document SAC-09-06.

IATTC 2018. Amendment of Resolution C-16-01 on the Collection and Analyses of Data on Fish-AggregatingDevices. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. 93rd Meeting.

IATTC. 2018a. Status of bigeye tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2017 and outlook for the future

IATTC. 2018e. Pacific-wide Silky Shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) Stock Status Assessment. WCPFC-SC14-2018/SA-WP-08.

IATTC. 2018c. Tunas billfishes and other pelagic species in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2017.

IATTC. 2019. Stock status incidators for yellowfin tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Document SAC-10-07.Available at: https://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2019/SAC-10/Docs/_English/SAC-10-08_Yellowfin%20tuna%20Stock%20status%20indicators.pdf

30

IATTC. 2019c. Stock status indicators for skipjack tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Document SAC-10-09.

IATTC. 2019e. Updated stock status indicators for silky sharks in the EPO, 1994-2018.

IATTC. 2019a. Stock status incidators for yellowfin tuna in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Document SAC-10-08.

IATTC. 2019b. Status of yellowfin tuna in the EPO in 2018 and outlook for the future. SAD-10-07

IATTC. 2020b. Risk analysis for management of the tropical tuna fishery in the EPO, 2020.

IATTC. 2020c. Benchmark Assessment for yellowfin tuna in the EPO, 2019.

INTER-AMERICAN TROPICAL TUNA COMMISSION SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ST MEETING La Jolla,California (USA) 31 August -3 September 2010 DOCUMENT SAC-01-10 ASSESSMENT OF STRIPED MARLIN INTHE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2008 AND OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE Michael G. Hinton, Mark N. Maunder,and Alexandre Aires-da-Silva.

IATTC. 2017b. A preliminary metadata analysis of large-scale tuna longline fishery data in the eastern PacificOcean: a precursor to ecological risk assessment.

IATTC. 2019h. The fishery in 2018.

ISC. 2014. North Pacific swordfish stock assessment in 2014. International Scientific Committee for Tuna andTuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean.

ISC. 2017. Stock assessment of albacore in the North Pacific Ocean in 2017. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-09.

ISC. 2018b. Stock assessment of shortfin mako sharks in the North Pacific Ocean through 2016. WCPFC-SC14-2018/SA-WP-11

ISC. 2018a. Stock assessment for swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the western and central north Pacific Oceanthrough 2016. Report of the Billfish Working Group.

ISCBWG. 2014. North Pacific swordfish (Xiphias gladius) stock assessment in 2014. Report of the bill??shworking group. International Scienti??c Committee for tuna and tuna-like ISCBWG. 2014. North Paci??c sword??sh (Xiphias gladius) stock assessment in 2014. Report of the billfish working group. International ScientificCommittee for tuna and tuna-like species in the North Pacific Ocean. species in the North Pacific Ocean.

Jones, T.T., Bostrom, B.L., Hastings, M.D., Van Houtan, K.S., Pauly, D. and Jones, D.R. 2012. Resourcerequirements of the Pacific leatherback turtle population. PLoS ONE7:e45447/dpi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045447.

Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine Fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 470.Rome, FAO. 2005. 131p.

Lamont, M. M., Carthy, R. R., and Fujisaki, I. (2012). Declining reproductive parameters highlight conservationneeds of loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 11, 190–196. doi: 10.2744/CCB-1006.1

Last, P.R. and J.D. Stevens, 1994. Sharks and rays of Australia. CSIRO, Australia. 513 p.

31

Lessa, R., Almeida, Z., Santana, F.M., Siu, S. & Perez, M. 2006. Carcharhinus porosus. The IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species 2006: e.T60220A12324372.

MAG-MINAE. Gaceta No. 213 05/11/2014. Decreto Ejecutivo No 38681-MAG-MINAE “ORDENAMIENTO PARA ELAPROVECHAMIENTO DE ATÚN Y ESPECIES AFINES EN LA ZONA ECONÓMICA EXCLUSIVA DEL OCÉANO PACÍFICOCOSTARRICENSE”. 23 de octubre de 2014.

Martínez-Ortiz, j. & M. Zuniga-flores (eds.) 2012 case study. Current state of knowledge of the gold resource(Coryphaena hippurus) Linnaeus, 1758 in waters of the Southeast Pacific Ocean (2008-2011). Ministry ofagriculture, livestock and fisheries (MAGAP) - Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) - School of fisheries in theEastern Pacific (EPESPO). Manta, Ecuador: 121 pp

Maunder, M. 2017. Updated indicators of stock status for skipjack tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. DocumentSAC-08-04c.

Miller, M. H., Carlson, J., Cooper, P., Kobayashi, D., Mannack, M. and Wilson, J. 2013. Status review report:scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). National Marine Fisheries Service.

Mooney-Seus, M.L. and G.S. Stone, 1997. The forgotten giants: giant ocean fishes of the Atlantic and thePacific. Ocean Wildlife Campaign, Washington, USA. New England Aquarium, Boston. 64 p.

Mortimer, J.A & Donnelly, M. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group). 2008. Eretmochelys imbricata. In: IUCN2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

MRAG, 2018.Informe Final v2.0. Pre-evaluación de la Pesquería Multiespecífica de Palangre en Costa Rica, conAtún Aleta Amarilla, Pez Espada y Dorado como Especies Objetivo. 26 de Noviembre de 2018

NMFS 2013.Estimated Loggerhead and Unidentified Hard-shelled Turtle Interactions in Mid-Atlantic Gillnet Gear,2007-2011.NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NE-225

NMFS. 2014. Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini). NOAA Fisheries Office of Protected Resources.

NMFS. 2015. Pelagic thresher shark. Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

NMFS. 2017. Commercial Fisheries Statistics US Foreign trade. NOAA Office of Science and Technology.

NMFS. 2015 . Pelagic thresher shark. Southwest Fisheries Science Center.

NOAA Fisheries SPECIES DIRECTORY Loggerhead Turtle

NOOA-NMFS, 2019. SPECIES DIRECTORY Loggerhead Turtle

NOOA-NMFS, 2019. SPECIES DIRECTORY Loggerhead Turtle

Palko, B.J., Beardsley G.L., and Richards W.J. (1982). Synopsis of the biological data in dolphin-fishes,Coryphaena hippurus Lin-naeus and Coryphaena equiselis Lninaeus. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, 130: 1-28.

Parga. 2012. Hooks and sea turtles: a veterinarian's perspective. Bulletin of Marine Science 88:731-741. doi:10.5343/bms.2011.1063

Parga, M.L, Pons, M., Andraka, S., Rendon, L., Mituhasi, T., Hall, M., Pacheco, L., Segura, A., Osmond, M. and

32

Vogel, N. 2015. Hooking locations in sea turtles incidentally captured by artisanal longline fisheries in the easternPacific Ocean. Fisheries Research 164:231- 237.

Reardon, M., Márquez, F., Trejo, T. & Clarke, S.C. 2009. Alopias pelagicus. The IUCN Red List of ThreatenedSpecies. Version 2014.3. <www.iucnredlist.org>.

Rigby, C.L., Sherman, C.S., Chin, A. & Simpfendorfer, C. 2016. Carcharhinus falciformis. The IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species 2016: e.T39370A2909465.

Rigby, C.L., Barreto, R., Fernando, D., Carlson, J., Fordham, S., Francis, M.P., Herman, K., Jabado, R.W., Liu,K.M., Marshall, A., Pacoureau, N., Romanov, E., Sherley, R.B. & Winker, H. 2019. Alopias vulpinus . The IUCNRed List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T39339A2900765. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T39339A2900765.en.

Robertson, R., Collette, B., Molina, H. & Guzman-Mora, A.G. 2010. Sphyraena ensis. The IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2015.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/178106/0

A Rocha-Olivares, Bobadilla-Jiménez, Ortega-García, Saavedra-Sotelo y Sandoval-Castillo. 2006.Variabilidadmitocondrial del dorado Coryphaena hippurus en poblaciones del Pacífico. Ciencias Marinas (2006), 32(3): 569–578

Seminoff, J.A. (Southwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S.) 2004. Chelonia mydas. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/4615/0

Spotila, J.R., Dunham, A.E., Leslie, A.J., Steyermark, A.C., Plotkin, P.T. and Paladino, F.V. 1996. Worldwidepopulation decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going extinct? Chelonian Conservation andBiology 2:209-222

Swimmer Y, Gilman E (eds) (2012) Report of the Sea Turtle Longline Fishery Post-release Mortality Workshop,November 15-16, 2011. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-34. National Marine Fisheries Service,Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, Honolulu.

SWOT. 2012. The world's most (and least) threatened sea turtles. The State of the World's Sea Turtles.

Tsai, W., Liu, K. and Joung, S. 2010. Demographic analysis of the pelagic thresher shark, Alopias pelagicus, inthe north-western Pacific using a stochastic stage-based model. Marine and Freshwater Research 61:1056-1066.

Uchiyama, J.H., R.K. Burch and S.A. Kraul Jr., 1986. Growth of dolphins, Coryphaena hippurus and C. equiselis inHawaiian waters as determined by daily increments on otoliths. Fish. Bull. 84(1):186-191.

Villagran et al. 2012. International Symposium on circle hooks in research, management and conservation -abstracts. Bulletin of Marine Science 88:791-815.

Wallace, B.P., Kot, C.Y., MiMatteo, A.D., Lee, T., Crowder, L.B. and Lewison, R.L. 2013. Impacts of Fisheriesbycatch on marine turtle populations worldwide: toward conservation and research priorities. Ecosphere 4:40.

Wallace, B.P., Tiwari, M. & Girondot, M. 2013b. Dermochelys coriacea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species2013: e.T6494A43526147.

33

Appendix A: Extra By Catch SpeciesGREEN SEA TURTLE



Factor 2.3 - Discard Rate


High Concern

The IUCN has classified green sea turtles as Endangered, with a decreasing population trend (Seminoff 2004).Green sea turtles have been listed on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)since 1975 and are currently listed on CITES Appendix 1, meaning that they are threatened with extinction andinternational trade is prohibited (Seminoff 2004). However, this assessment is ten years old and more recentinformation suggests that populations in Mexico have been increasing over the past ten years (Delgado-Trejoand Alvarado-Díaz 2012). A recent analysis of the Eastern Pacific Distinct Population Segment by the USEndangered Species Act found the DPS should be considered 'threatened' and not 'endangered' (FR 2015). Wehave awarded a high concern score due to their threatened status.


Moderate Concern

Incidental capture in fisheries is considered a major threat to green sea turtles worldwide (Seminoff 2004),but there are regional differences. Green sea turtles are reported as incidentally captured in longline fisheriesin the eastern Pacific Ocean (IAC 2012). The bycatch impacts in this region are considered low, but a high riskto the population size (Wallace et al 2013). The longline Costa Rican fleet has a mandatory use of circlehooks, which have been shown to reduce mortality in sea turtles (Andraka et al 2013)(Parga et al 2015). Wehave awarded a score of "moderate" concern because circle hooks are used and known to effectively reducesea turtle bycatch.

Justification:

There have been issues with compliance in other regions of the Pacific Ocean (Clarke 2013). According toAndraka et al., 99% of individual sea turtles caught in surface longlines in the EPO are alive (Andraka et al.2013). However, the severity of the interaction and chances of post-release survival depend on the type ofinteraction, the manipulation of the individual, and release techniques (Parga et al. 2015) (Parga 2012). Forexample, entanglements in the line can increase the mortality rate in some cases (Parga 2012).


< 100%


34

LEATHERBACK TURTLE





High Concern

Leatherback sea turtles have been listed as Endangered on the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1970(Miller et al 2013). In 2000, the IUCN classified leatherback turtles as Critically Endangered, with a decreasingpopulation trend. Leatherback turtles have been listed on Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies (CITES) since 1975 and are currently listed on CITES Appendix 1 (NMFS 2012), meaning that they arethreatened with extinction and international trade is prohibited. Over the past 25 years, the population ofleatherbacks in the Pacific Ocean has decreased significantly (Spotila et al 1996). Recent estimates from thePacific Ocean suggests a population size of 294,068 turtles, and out of these, 6,199 are adults (Jones et al2012). We have awarded a score of high concern based on the ESA, IUCN and CITES listings.


Moderate Concern

Fishing mortality is believed to be a major threat to leatherback turtles, especially for juveniles and adults thatcan be incidentally captured in fisheries along their migration routes (Wallace et al 2013). In the EasternPacific Ocean, bycatch in longline fisheries is thought to be a low impact, but interactions are a high risk to thepopulation size overall (Wallace et al 2013).

There is a mandatory use of circle hooks in Costa Rica, which have been shown to reduce mortality in seaturtles( Andraka et al 2013)(Parga et al 2015). We have awarded a score of "moderate" concern becausecircle hooks are used and have been shown to reduce sea turtle bycatch and associated mortality.

Justification:



< 100%


35

HAWKSBILL TURTLE




LOGGERHEAD TURTLE



High Concern

The IUCN has classified hawksbill turtles as "Critically Endangered," with a decreasing populationtrend (Mortimer and Donnelly 2012). Hawksbill turtles have been listed in the Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species (CITES) since 1977 and are currently listed in CITES Appendix 1, meaning theyare threatened with extinction and international trade is prohibited (Mortimer and Donnelly 2012). It has beenestimated that populations in the Pacific Ocean have declined by over 75% over three generations (Mortimerand Donnelly 2012). We have awarded a score of "high" concern based on the IUCN listing and evidence ofdeclining population size.


Moderate Concern

Incidental capture of hawksbill turtles has been identified as adversely affecting their recovery worldwide,although declines in the population of hawksbill turtles is mainly a factor of historical targeting (Mortimer andDonnelly 2012). Hawksbill sea turtles are reported as incidentally captured in longline fisheries in the EasternPacific Ocean (IAC 2012). The bycatch impacts in this region are considered low, but a high risk to thepopulation size (Wallace et al 2013). Due to the mandatory use of circle hooks, which have been shown toreduce mortality in sea turtles (Andraka et al 2013)(Parga et al 2015). We have awarded a score of"moderate" concern.

Justification:



< 100%


36



OLIVE RIDLEY TURTLE



High Concern

Worldwide, loggerhead sea turtle populations are in decline. Under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA),loggerhead sea turtles are divided into Distinct Population Segments (DPSs), five of which are listed asendangered and four as threatened (NMFS 2013). Loggerheads in the North Pacific and South Pacific Oceanare listed as Endangered under ESA (NMFS 2013). The North Pacific Loggerhead Turtle DPS nests only on thecoasts of Japan. This population has declined 50 to 90 percent during the last 60 years. The South Pacificloggerhead turtle DPS nests primarily in Australia with some nesting in New Caledonia. In 1977 about 3,500females may have nested in the South Pacific —today there are only around 500 per year (NOAA Speciesdirectory 2020). Due to the listing of loggerhead sea turtles by the ESA the abundance is of high concern.


Moderate Concern

The greatest cause of decline and the continuing primary threat to loggerhead turtle populations worldwide isbycatch in fishing gear, primarily in trawls, longlines, and gillnets (NOAA-NMFS 2019). In the eastern PacificOcean, bycatch in longline fisheries is thought to be low impact, but interactions are a high risk to thepopulation size overall (Wallace et al 2013). The Costa Rica fleet has to use exclusively circle hooks (DecreeNo. 36782) (Fisheries Law 2011), which have been shown to reduce mortality in sea turtles (Andraka et al2013) (Parga et al 2015). We have awarded a score of "moderate" concern because circle hooks are used andhave been shown to reduce sea turtle bycatch and associated mortality.

Justification:



< 100%


37




High Concern

The IUCN considers the population of olive ridley sea turtles to be Vulnerable (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin2008). In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, estimates of the total number of nests range from 608 protected nests inMexico to 33,530-68,753 nests in Nicaragua (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). Female population size hasbeen estimated to range from 8,768 in Panama to 1,013,034 in Mexico (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). Theannual nesting female sub-population size has decreased by 99% in some regions in Mexico, increasedsubstantially in others and not changed at all in areas such as Nicaragua (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008)Overall, the annual nesting female sub-population size in the eastern Pacific Ocean has declined to around35% over time (Abreu-grobois and Plotkin 2008), but the risk to populations from longline fishing in this regionis considered low (Wallace et al 2013). A score of high concern is awarded based on the IUCN classification.


Moderate Concern

Incidental capture of olive ridley sea turtles occurs worldwide. Impacts from other fisheries, such as trawl andgillnets, appear to have a larger negative impact in many areas compared to longlines, except for the EasternPacific Ocean (EPO) (Abreu-Grobois, A & Plotkin, P 2008) (Wallace et al 2013). Within this region, the impactfrom incidental captures in longline fisheries is considered high (Wallace et al. 2013). For example, during2000, the Japanese reported the incidental capture of 6,000 sea turtles, the majority of which were oliveridleys (exact number not provided) . Costa Rica has in a place a mandaroty use of only circle hooks, whichhave been shown to reduce mortality in sea turtles( Andraka et al 2013) (Parga et al 2015). Olive ridley arethe most commonly captured turtle in this fishery (Villagran et al 2012). We have awarded a score of"moderate" concern because circle hooks are used and have been shown to reduce sea turtle bycatch andassociated mortality.

Justification:

There have been issues with compliance in other regions of the Pacific Ocean (Clarke 2013). According toAndraka et al., 99% of individual sea turtles caught in surface longlines in the EPO are alive (Andraka etal 2013). However, the severity of the interaction and chances of post-release survival depend on the type ofinteraction, the manipulation of the individual, and release techniques (Parga 2012)(Parga et al 2015) Forexample, entanglements in the line can increase the mortality rate in some cases (Parga 2012}.


< 100%


38

SILKY SHARK




High Concern

Silky sharks are assessed as "Vulnerable" with a decreasing population trend by the International Union forConservation of Nature (IUCN) (Rigby et al 2016). We have awarded a score of "high" concern based on theIUCN status combined with their high vulnerability to fishing and unknown population status.

Justification:

The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission has begun conducting an assessment of silky sharks in theeastern Pacific Ocean (EPO). Preliminary results were presented in early 2013 . According to these results, theabundance of silky sharks caught in purse seine sets made on floating objects in the southern regiondecreased dramatically in the late 1990s, remained stable thereafter, but has been increasing slightly in morerecent years. In the southern region, declines occurred into the early 2000s and have been stable, althoughincreasing slightly in 2008 to 2010. Abundance of silky sharks caught in the northern region on both dolphinand unassociated sets have varied from the early to mid 2000s and increased dramatically in 2010. In thesouthern region, abundance in dolphin sets has been variable with no real trend, and on un-associated setshave been fairly low since the late 1990s, although an increase in 2010 is evident .

Purse seine indices of abundance were updated in 2015, which indicated an increase in silky sharks (index)during 2015, compared to 2014, in the northern area (IATTC 2016). However, environmental variables such asEl Nino may have contributed to this increase and it may not be the result of actual population increases(IATTC 2016).


Moderate Concern

In Costa Rica, a 2018 conditioned non-detriment finding result was granted by a scientific CITES team, thatconcluded that based on the analysis of information on landings, species ecological risk, regulations andmanagement measures, the extraction and commerce of the species could continue with severalrecommendations, that included, constant landing monitoring, an historical analysis of vessels fishing andlanding in country, VMS tracking, and the suspension on the use of steel leader for three months a year,among others (CITES 2018). For these reasons, a "moderate concern" score for silky shark fishing mortalityhas been granted, considering the status of the species.

Justification:

Silky sharks are caught as bycatch in purse seine and longline fisheries operating in the Eastern Pacific Oceanbut are also targeted, in small amounts, in some longline fisheries . Fishing pressure from longline and purseseine fisheries targeting tunas and swordfish is high, and it is the main shark species caught in fisheries usingFADs as well as longline fisheries in the eastern Pacific. Research suggests that silky shark diet compositionparallels FAD-associated prey items, and silky sharks may be modifying their behavior to target FAD sets. Thiscould in turn increase silky shark fishing mortality in FAD-associated sets, where it is already likely very high(IATTC 2018e)(Rigby et al 2016). The most recent attempt at a stock assessment for this species indicatedthat the current fishing mortality rates are unknown but that they have likely increased significantly in the last

39


YELLOWFIN TUNA



20 years (IATTC 2018e). The IUCN assessment indicates that incidental capture in purse seine fisheries is amajor threat to this species (Rigby et al 2016).


< 100%



Low Concern

Annual recruitment of yellowfin has been near or below average since 2003 (IATTC 2019a), (IATTC 2019b),(IATTC 2018c). The 2020 full assessment for yellowfin tuna estimated that SB ranged from 49% - 219% ofthe target reference point SB . The probability that the spawning biomass at the beginning of SB islower than SB is 50% or less for 13/48 models. The risk analyses for yellowfin with model estimatesaggregated indicate there is a 12% chance overall that SB is lower than SB (IATTC 2020b) and theprobability that the SB is below the SB ranges from 0% - 2% (IATTC 2020c).

There are considerable discrepancies in results depending on selected model attributes and the steepness ofthe stock-recruit curve. Additional uncertainty relates to spatial structure and differing trends by fishery(longline, purse seine type, etc.) There are still models that estimate the yellowfin stock may be overfished(IATTC 2019a), however most model runs in aggregate indicate this is highly unlikely (IATTC 2020b; IATTC2020c). In summary, there is some conflicting information about stock status; however the majority of modelsindicate this stock is not overfished, and yellowfin tuna receive a "low concern" score for abundance in theEPO.

2020

MSY 2020

MSY

2020 MSY

2020 LRP

Justification:

Yellowfin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean were last fully assessed during the 2017 cycle (IATTC 2018c). Atthat time, there was a high degree uncertainty concerning recent and future recruitment and biomass levels,with the potential for three different regimes since 1975 (IATTC 2018c). In 2019, the IATTC was unable toreconcile the trend data for the full assessment model, so the assessment and management for 2019/20yellowfin tuna abundance is based on a set of proxy indicators for the most recent year. Indicators from 2019of relative abundance (CPUE across gear types, length) have been at low levels since 2010, however theaverage length of fish has increased (IATTC 2019a).


40


SWORDFISH: NORTH PACIFIC



Low Concern

The average fishing mortality rate has been increasing for all age classes of yellowfin tuna since 2009 (IATTC2019b), in large part due to increasing effort from object associated fisheries. The point estimate of thefishing mortality in 2017-2019 ranged from 40% - 168% of the F (IATTC 2020c). The probability that thefishing mortality of yellowfin in 2017-2019 is higher than the F level is 50% or more for only 14/48 models.The risk analyses with aggregated model runs indicates that there is only 9% chance that F>F (IATTC2020b). Additionally, the point estimate of the F ranged from 22% - 65% of the LRP (IATTC 2020c).The probability that the fishing F > F was estimated to be zero for all models (IATTC 2020b). Insummary, the majority of models indicate that F is within target and limit reference points, and yellowfin tunareceive a "low concern" score for fishing mortality.

MSY

MSY

MSY

2017-2019

2017-2019 LRP


< 100%



Low Concern

An assessment for swordfish in the North Pacific was conducted in 2018. Although there are no agreed-uponreference points, the female biomass in 2016 was estimated to be 29,403 mt, which is around 87% above themaximum sustainable yield (MSY) level (ISC 2018b). The spawning potential ratio of the stock is currentlyestimated at 45% (ISC 2018b). Model sensitivity analysis revealed a few runs that indicated the stock wasoverfished and the assessment does not incorporate model uncertainty (ISC 2018a). Swordfish in the northPacific likely are not overfished, but because the base case model does not incorporate uncertainty and thereis a lack of reference points, we score abundance as low concern rather than very low concern.


High Concern

With updated catch data considered and no new stock assessment, its likely that overfishing is occurring inrecent years. The recent average yield of roughly 23,000 mt is almost four times higher than the 2014-estimated MSY (5,490 mt)(ISC 2014). Its unknown whether fishing mortality rates are sustainable in the longterm, and NEPO swordfish therefore receives a "high concern" score for fishing mortality.

Justification:

41


STRIPED MARLIN



Based on the most recent assessment (2014) of NEPO swordfish using a sex-specific age-structuredassessment method, at the current level of fishing effort, there is negligible risk of the spawning biomassdecreasing to less than 40% of its unfished level . However, catches across the EPO (including the southernregion) have increased dramatically since that time. During 1999-2008 the longline catch averaged 12,000 t,but during 2014-2016 this almost doubled, to over 23,000 t. The cause of this dramatic increase is unknown;it could be due to increased abundance of swordfish, increased effort directed toward the species, increasedreporting, or a combination of all of these (IATTC 2019h).


< 100%



Low Concern

The most recent assessment conducted by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in2010 reported that Eastern Pacific stock was not overfished. According to the report, researchers used a StockSynthesis model and as part of the results, authors found that the stock biomass increased from a low ofabout 750 t in 2003, to around 3,600 t in 2009 (IATTC 2010). In addition, the report found that spawningbiomass ratio in 2003 was estimated to have been about 0.16. and increased to 0.31 by 2009. Authorsconcluded that the ratio of spawning biomass in 2009 was above the level expected to support harvests at theestimated maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of slightly more than 2,000 t. Considering that the most recentassessment is about 10 years old, and it is estimated that the species is above the MSY, we are scoring thisfactor as low concern.


Moderate Concern

The most recent stock assessment was developed on 2010, during this assessment, researchers alsoestimated the level of fishing mortality. The results F = 6.4. indicate that levels of fishing effort werebelow those which would be expected to harvest striped marlin at MSY (IATTC 2010). Authors foundthat catches were around 750 to 850 t, or 40% of MSY. In Costa Rica, striped marlin represented up to 10%of landing reports of the longline fleet (MRAG 2018) although is unclear how much the fishery represents interms of the species fishing mortality, for this reason this factor is scored as moderate concern.

mult

42



< 100%


43

costa rica/eastern central pacific longlines (unspecified)

Documents