© Gregg Yan/ WWF

Global Oceans Practice .
WWF POSITION

16th Regular Session of the Western Central Pacific FisheriesCommission (WCPFC16): Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea –December 5-11, 2019

Introduction
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) would like to again thank the Western and Central PacificFisheries Commission (WCPFC) for the opportunity to attend the 15th Regular Session as an observer
and to address the critically important role that it plays in the proper management of the (Western
Central Pacific Ocean) WCPO fisheries.
WWF once again calls on members of the WCPFC to address the issues and recommendations raisedat SC15, NC15, TCC15, and WCPFC15 as well as observe the experience of other RFMOs in their own
efforts to achieve and maintain improved measures for monitoring and surveillance. WWF would liketo note that this Position Statement is not comprehensive, but that fact does not mean that WWF does
not believe that other issues are not important. WWF wishes to reiterate its position offered in
Honolulu, Hawaii, in December 2018 (WCPFC15) and, taking into account the WCPFC-related
meetings held since, the recommendations listed below as well as other documents submitted to the
WCPFC for review as Observer Papers.

Reference Points, Harvest Control Rules, and Harvest Strategies
WWF remains supportive of the work of the WCPFC and subsidiary bodies in pursuing theimplementation of a Harvest Strategy (HS) approach as agreed under CMM 2014-06 andSupplementary Information on Workplan (workplan) for the adoption of Harvest Strategies.
Consistent with previous WWF position statements and recommendations, WWF continues toencourage WCPFC16 to further endorse and support the adoption of explicit Limit and Target
Reference Points (LRP/TRP), Harvest Control Rules (HCRs), and HSs for all WCPO fishery stocks

WCPFC16
under WCPFC authority. WWF further notes that the original agreed timelines have lapsed and there
is now an urgent need to establish species specific harvest strategies consistent with the workplan.
WWF requests the WCPFC observe the importance of and strong support for these importantmanagement measures, specifically the adoption of TRPs and HCRs for the key target species,
particularly from industry participants with Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification andmany end markets. Therefore, WWF encourages WCPFC16 to maintain momentum on
implementation of HS elements, and, where necessary, take steps to recover timelines under the
workplan.
WWF recommends that the WCPFC:•

Support and endorse further implementation of CMM 2014-06 on Establishing a
Harvest Strategy for Key Tuna Species in the WCPO consistent with proposed
timelines;•

Establish precautionary TRPs for bigeye (BET) and yellowfin (YFT);•

Adopt an HCR for the skipjack (SKJ) purse seine (PS) fishery and the South
Pacific albacore (SP ALB) longline (LL) fishery that fluctuates around theestablished respective TRPs; and•Endorse the continued development and implementation of LRPs and TRPs forproper management of all stocks, including sharks as a priority.

Sharks and Rays
Sharks and Rays continue to make up a large percentage of annual bycatch1 with many shark species
in the WCPO remaining subject to high levels of fishing mortality that current stock assessment trends
suggest is unsustainable.2 Furthermore, WWF is increasingly concerned with shark conservation andsustainability in the WCPFC region as a whole and considers responsible management, trade, andconsumption where shark mortality occurs in all fishing activities, not just in circumstances where
tuna fishing is occurring. Therefore, WCPFC must also recognise the needs of coastal States in the
WCPFC region to manage their shark populations.
WWF is extremely disappointed by the failure of the Inter-sessional Working Group to develop agreed
recommendations for a Comprehensive Shark CMM in 2018. Greater urgency toward shark
conservation is required in the face of declining shark populations, as evidenced by both the shortfin
and longfin mako sharks being upgraded to Endangered globally in March this year, and the perilous
state of the oceanic whitetip shark in the WCPO. SC15 concluded that the oceanic whitetip shark stock
remains overfished and subject to overfishing, and faces possible extinction despite the prohibition on
retention, reflecting poorly on WCPFC’s current approaches to preventing the overfishing of sharks.
Therefore, WWF urges WCPFC16 to prioritize finalizing a Comprehensive Shark CMM that ensures
key shark and ray species, including those prioritized by the Convention on the International Trade ofEndangered Species (CITES), are effectively managed.3 WWF continues to support recommendations
within the proposed CMM to include methods to eliminate finning and incorporate language toencourage CCMs to land sharks with their fins naturally attached to their bodies, as well as supporting
recommendations.4
Equally urgent, is the need to introduce additional management measures as part of a recovery planfor the oceanic whitetip shark, which include addressing catch data quality issues that have arisen due
to the prohibition on retention.
While WWF supports the action of the WCPFC to adopt the Best Handling Practices For The Safe
Release Of Sharks (Other Than Whale Sharks And Mantas/Mobulids), we further recommend that
additional requirements and procedures are necessary for non-retained shark species, including
provisions to ensure species ID and removal of trailing gear. WWF also again asks the WCPFC16 toconsider a prohibition to setting on or retention of manta rays (genus Mobula and Manta) and
WWF Position Statement to the WCPFC – 16th Regular Session, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 5-11 December 20192

WWF Position
support associated best practices for safe handling and release aboard purse seiners, consistent withprevious action by the IATTC.
WWF recommends the WCPFC:•

Adopt a Comprehensive Shark CMM that includes a new framework
incorporating existing CMMs, but also providing for national contributions
toward commonly agreed goals for shark stocks, including:o Mandate bycatch best practices consistent with those found in theCompendium of Best Practice of Conservation and Management
Measures (CMMs) for the of Species Bycatch in Tuna RFMOs;
o Establish Fins Naturally Attached (FNA) as the most effective means toaddress shark finning in the WCPO consistent with the best available
science;o Implement the recommendations for bycatch that were endorsed at Kobe
III and adopt an annually updated report card system against theserecommendations for all of the WCPFC fisheries;o Require, through data collected from observer programs and othermeans, estimation of the number of captures and releases of all sharks
and rays, including the status upon release (dead or alive), and reportingof this information to the WCPFC;o Amends CMM 2014-05 to prohibit vessels carrying wire trace and the useof wire trace branch lines;o Require, through observer programs, recording what gear is used inlongline activities including the use of wire traces and any multimonofilament traces in order to avoid bite-off by sharks; ando Enact recovery plans for the most depleted species;•

Take steps to introduce a recovery plan for the oceanic whitetip shark in the near
term;

•

Adopt the Draft Guidelines for Best Handling Practices for the Safe Release of
Mantas and Mobulids;•

Adopt a retention prohibition for bigeye thresher shark, as the previous
assessment indicates that management action is necessary for this vulnerable
species;•

Encourage the development of harvest strategies, including associated reference
points and control rules, for all shark and ray species, as envisaged under
Articles 5 and 10 of the WCPF Convention; and•Encourage CCMs to develop NPOAs with measures to report all shark and ray
catches from domestic fleets operating in territorial and archipelagic waters toassist CCMs to meet obligations for shark and ray species incorporated under
CITES Appendix II, including making any non-detriment finding publicly
available.

Regional Observer Programme
It is unquestionable that information collected as part of a successful observer programme is criticallyimportant to the proper conservation and management of a fishery. Data collected by observers playsa central role in informing fisheries scientists and managers on everything ranging from stock
assessments to non-target species impacts.5 Furthermore, observers play an indispensable role in
WWF Position Statement to the WCPFC – 16th Regular Session, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 5-11 December 2019

3

WCPFC16
monitoring and documenting compliance with very important CMMs in the WCPO.6 Therefore, the
WCPFC must consider securing appropriate observer coverage a top priority.
All CCMs agreed to the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish
Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPF Convention) text and other Commission
obligations to ensure the best scientific information or evidence available is used in WCPFC
decisions.7 By its plain reading, this obligation not only requires CCMs to actively seek out and use thebest available scientific evidence, but also compels CCMs to ensure that measures taken result in thegeneration of the best available scientific evidence.8 Any other interpretation would be absurd.
Therefore, the WCPFC is obligated under the WCPF Convention to put data collection processes inplace that secure the production and use of the best available scientific evidence in the WCPFC
decision making process.

Observer Safety and Security
WWF again commends the WCPFC’s previous actions to address issues with observer safety andsecurity through the adoption of the observer safety and security provisions as well as the flag andcoastal state requirements. However, WWF continues to strongly believe that more needs to be done
to fully address observer safety and security.
WWF remains concerned with reports that some CCMs are still not meeting their obligations toprovide observers with the required safety and security equipment. It has been more than two years
since CCMs agreed CMM 2017-03 Conservation and Management Measure for the Protection of
WCPFC Regional Observer Programme Observers, so the requirements must be met post-haste.
Additionally, WWF maintains that there is a need for a full and transparent documentation andcatalogue of observer incidents. One of the outstanding gaps in observer safety and security isrepresented by the lack of information available to address observer incidents through proper
followup and documentation. A requirement for full and transparent reporting will allow for
identification and understanding of potentially dangerous situations for future observers across all
RFMOs. Until the WCPFC can fully understand the circumstances surrounding these incidents, itcannot hope to properly address them.
The ROP Annual Report as it currently exists does not provide the necessary level of detail to properly
address these issues. Thus, WWF recommends establishing a required comprehensive andtransparent reporting procedure for observers and observer programmes to report instances of
threats, harassment, intimidation, assault, or death that national programmes and the ROP could
then use to determine solutions to prevent future instances and share that information with other
RFMOs. This procedure must include an annual, publicly available, consolidated, detailed, and fullytransparent report of all infractions against observers.

Calculation of Observer Coverage MetricOver 12 years ago, the WCPFC established CMM 2007-01, which specified that fisheries observer
coverage is to be 5% of effort in each non-purse seine fishery under the jurisdiction of the Commission
and shall be achieved no later than 30 June 2012.9 Specifically, low observer coverage in the longline
fishery was identified as a significant conservation risk. As indicated by the discussion at that time aswell as discussion among CCMs at WCPFC forums since, the arbitrary benchmark established at 5%was considered a starting point for a stepwise progression toward appropriate observer coverage. Not
only has achieving the principal objective of CMM 2007-01 proven difficult, but even measuring how
it is achieved remains unsettled.
At the moment, CCMs self report their longline observer coverage under four separate metrics
including:10•••

Days at Sea - days observer is at sea compared to number of days fleet is at sea;
Number of Trips - number of observer trips compared to trips by the fleet;Days Fished - observed fishing days compared to fleets fishing days; andWWF Position Statement to the WCPFC – 16th Regular Session, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 5-11 December 20194

WWF Position•

Number of Hooks - number of hooks observed compared to fleet hooks used.

Because these metrics are each calculated differently and subject to different biases, it places an undue
burden on the scientific service provider to standardise data in such a way as to properly assesscoverage. First, it forces the scientific service provider, and ultimately the WCPFC, to “compare
apples with oranges” in a way that frustrates efficient analysis and, ultimately, timely and proper
management. Second, by using a metric that is more susceptible measurement error, bias, andestimation error, it leads to greater uncertainty and the problem of “garbage in, garbage out” that
leads to management failures. Moreover, because of the biases of the different metrics, it creates
inequity among CCMs that places more of the conservation burden on those using a more accurate
and precise metric that is less susceptible to bias and manipulation.
The best available scientific information suggests that “number of hooks” represents the best method
for achieving multiple objectives, including effectively calculating effort and accurately assessing rare
events like seabird interactions.11 Furthermore, three CCMs are currently assessing their observer
coverage based on “number of hooks,” hence it is practically feasible. Consequently, WWFrecommends that the WCPFC confirm “number of hooks” as the best practice metric for all CCMs
calculating observer coverage on longline vessels and mandate a 5-year time frame to shift to use ofthis metric. If other metrics for calculating coverage are used in the transition toward “number ofhooks,” the WCPFC should clearly define terms in advance and CCMs must calculate and report each
metric in a way that is comparable to and consistent with “number of hooks.”

Level of Observer Coverage
Recent efforts by the scientific service provider to standardise observer coverage data indicate that
region-wide observer coverage could be at or slightly above 5%. 12 However, the best available
scientific evidence indicates that even a consistently applied level of 5% coverage is statistically andpractically useless to effectively achieve most management13 or compliance objectives.14
Low observer coverage exacerbates bias as a result of fishers altering their fishing practices (e.g.
discarding practices, handling and release practices, effort) and gear when an observer is present,
which is a phenomenon known as the “observer effect.”15 The higher the observer coverage rate, thelower the bias from an observer effect is, as the larger the proportion of fishing effort that is observed,
the more accurately the monitoring data characterize or represent the fishery. Notwithstanding theobserver effect, at just 5%, current observer coverage is neither producing the quality nor quantity ofdata necessary to adequately manage fisheries under WCPFC authority.
At present, a lack of sufficient data that is typically generated through adequate observer coverage
represents the single largest obstacle to establishing appropriate management measures. Uncertainty
is continually cited in the WCPFC process as a reason for inaction, while the improved certainty
offered by better observer coverage is consistently rejected. In fact, at the recent 15th Meeting of the
Scientific Committee (SC15) one member stated that, “they could not accept any requirement for
observer coverage greater than 5%.”WWF concedes that different minimum levels of observer coverage may be appropriate for different
management or compliance purposes, depending on specific identified objectives. However, datacollected under less than 100% coverage may be biased and misrepresent the fishery overall, resulting
in potential management failures. Alternatively, 100% observer coverage, through human orelectronic observers, would result in no bias from an observer effect. Thus, along with a consortiumof other NGOs and with the support of prominent market partners, we have determined that becauseof conservation and compliance problems such as illegal fishing, misreported or unreported catch,and bycatch of endangered, threatened and protected species, that only an observer coverage rate ofno less than 100%, through human or electronic observers, is acceptable.16
By continuing to fail to secure a scientifically or statistically valid level of observer coverage on
longline vessels, the WCPFC fails to meet the charge of the WCPF Convention to generate and use thebest available scientific information. Therefore, the WCPFC must take action to improve observer
coverage across all longline vessels operating in the WCPFC Convention Area.
WWF Position Statement to the WCPFC – 16th Regular Session, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 5-11 December 2019

5

WCPFC16
WWF recommends the WCPFC:•

Ensure the requirements of CMM 2017-03 have been met;•

Endorse further observer safety and security measures, including fullytransparent documentation and catalogue of observer incidents and entities
involved;•

Endorse the calculation of observer coverage on the basis of “number of hooks”
as best practice and mandate a transition to calculation of observer coveragebased on “number of hooks” by 2025; and•Establish a plan to increase observer coverage, by human observers or electronicmonitoring, across all longline vessels operating in the WCPFC Convention Area
on an annual basis to achieve 100% coverage by 2025.

Transhipment Monitoring
Transhipment remains one of the most prominent weaknesses in catch documentation andverification that leads to Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) catch in the WCPO. WWF notesthat the most simple, efficient, and effective solution to the challenges of transhipment-related IUU is
to simply prohibit all at-sea transhipment and require all fishing vessels to either tranship or land
their catch at the nearest available designated port in the WCPO following the conclusion of fishingactivity. However, acknowledging that a prohibition on transhipment is politically unlikely at thistime, WWF supports the establishment of the Transhipment Intersessional Working Group andassociated review and revision of CMM 2009-06 to address deficiencies in the current measure.
Some CCMs remain consistently non-compliant with CMM 2009-06. Reports presented at TCC15
indicate that the number of reported high seas transhipment events increased 155% between 2014 and2018, with an increase of 29% between 2017 and 2018. These CCMs also continue to fail to meet theirreporting obligations. Therefore, given the high risk of transhipment to facilitate IUU fishing and theongoing non-compliance associated with the practice, the WCPFC must urgently address the
deficiencies in CMM 2009-06.
WWF recommends the WCPFC:•

Implement real time, or near real-time, reporting requirements for allcomponents of transhipments, including electronic verification and validation
tools;•

Review and revise CMM 2009-06, including replacing the ‘impracticability’ test
and unfettered flag State authorization with clear criteria and a process for the
WCPFC to review issued flag State authorizations against those criteria toensure compliance;•

Include bunkering vessels in transhipment management arrangements; and•Consider automatically including any vessel that breaches transhipment
regulations on the draft IUU vessel list.

WWF Position Statement to the WCPFC – 16th Regular Session, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 5-11 December 20196

WWF Position* * * This page intentionally left blank. * * *WWF Position Statement to the WCPFC – 16th Regular Session, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 5-11 December 20197

1

For more information
Alfred “Bubba” Cook
WCP Tuna Program Manager
acook@wwf.panda.org
Tel: +64 (0)27 833 0537

WWF-New Zealand
PO Box 6237, Marion Square
Wellington 6141, New ZealandTel. +64 (0) 4 499 2930

© 1986 Panda Symbol WWF - World Wide Fund For Nature (Formerly World Wildlife Fund)® “WWF” is a WWF Registered Trademark.

WWF Position Statement to the WCPFC – 16th Regular Session, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 5-11 December 2019

8

WWF.PANDA.ORG

Status of pelagic eslasmobranchs (sharks and rays) of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean as prepared by the IUCN Shark Specialist
Group at the New Zealand and Oceania Shark Red List Assessment Workshop, Auckland, (June 2017).
2
Clarke, Shelley C., et al. (2013). Population Trends in Pacific Oceanic Sharks and the Utility of Regulations on Shark Finning.
Conservation Biology, Volume 27, Issue 4, pages 197–209, February.
3
Report for Project 78-Analysis of Observer and Logbook Data Pertaining to Key Shark Species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean,Joel Rice, WCPFC-SC14-2018/EB-WP-07.
4
Clarke, Shelley C. (2013). Towards an Integrated Shark Conservation and Management Measure for the Western and Central Pacific
Ocean. WCPFC-SC9-2013/ EB-WP-08. WCPFC-SC, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013.
5
See e.g. Davies, S.L. 2003. Guidelines for Developing an at-Sea Fishery Observer Programme. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper 414, ISSN 0429-9345. Food And Agriculture Organization Of The United Nations, Rome.
6
Id at 5. (Observers can register compliance with fisheries management laws, regulations and plans; record catch composition, prohibited
species, by-catch, size limits, discarding, area and gear restrictions; validate vessel logbooks and the labelling of processed fish.); see also
Palma, M.A.E. 2010. Promoting Sustainable Fisheries: The International Legal and Policy Framework to Combat Illegal, Unreported andUnregulated Fishing. Volume 6 of Legal Aspects of Sustainable Development, ISBN 9789004175754. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, p. 142.
7
The Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western Pacific Ocean (WCPF Convention)
establishes the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, Part II, Article 5, paragraph (b) ("...the members of the Commission
shall...ensure that such measures are based on the best scientific evidence available…"), Sept. 5, 2000, 2275 U.N.T.S. 40532,
https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/text.pdf.
8
Id at Part III, Article 10, paragraph (1)(e) ("...the functions of the Commission shall be to…compile and disseminate accurate and complete
statistical data to ensure that the best scientific information is available…").
9
WCPFC, Conservation and Management Measure for the Regional Observer Programme, at 34, CMM 2009–06 (Dec. 7-11, 2009),
https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2007-01/conservation-and-management-measure-regional-observer-programme [Superseded by CMM
2018–05, which consolidated other observer related issues into a single measure]
10
WCPFC, Status Of Observer Data Management, WCPFC-TCC15-2019-IP04, at 20, Table 4 (Sept. 2, 2019)11
Dietrich, K. et al. Best Practices for the Collection of Longline Data to Facilitate Research and Analysis to Reduce Bycatch of Protected
Species, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-35 March 2007. at 25, March 2007. (“Fishing effort can be derived from informationcollected on number of hooks deployed or retrieved. The number of hooks deployed was ranked as critical or preferred by 81% of data
user[s]…”); see also IATTC, Scientific Advisory Committee, SAC-10-04 – Longline observer program reports, at 2 (13-17 May
2019)(“Number of hooks is considered a more accurate measure of longline effort.”); see also IATTC, Scientific Advisory Committee,
SAC-10 INF-H - Standardization of Reporting Formats and Effort Reporting for Longline Fisheries (Resolution C-11-08), at 3, (13-17 May
2019) (“…number of hooks is the most precise, and is the standard metric used both by the other tuna RFMOs and by the IATTC for
scientific purposes.”)
12
Supra note 10 at 23-24, Tables 5 and 6. (Sept. 2, 2019).
13
See Lawson, T. 2003. Observer coverage rates and the accuracy and reliability of estimates of CPUE for offshore longline fleets targeting
South Pacific albacore. Working Paper SWG–4. Sixteenth Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billifsh, 9–16 July 2003,
Mooloolaba, Queensland, Australia. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia.; Seealso Lawson, T. 2004. Observer coverage rates and reliability of CPUE estimates for offshore longliners in tropical waters of the Western
and Central Pacific Ocean. Working Paper SWG-4, Seventeenth Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, 9-18 August
2004, Majuro, Republic of Marshall Islands.
14
Benoit, H., Allard, J. 2009. Can the data from at-sea observer surveys be used to make general inferences about catch composition anddiscards? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 66: 2025-2039.; Babcock, E.A., E.K. Pikitch, G. Hudson. 2003. How Much Observer Coverage isEnough to Adequately Estimate Bycatch? Pew Institute for Ocean Science, Miami, FL, and Oceana. Washington.
15
Gilman, Eric & Zimring, Mark. 2018. Meeting the objectives of fisheries observer programs through electronic monitoring.
10.13140/RG.2.2.28000.99846.
16
Leading Environmental NGOs Stand Together to Call for 100% Observer Coverage on Industrial Tuna Fishing Vessels (June 29, 2019)
retrievable at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/leading-environmental-ngos-stand-together-to-call-for-100-observer-coverageon-industrial-tuna-fishing-vessels-300873686.html.

● POSITION

WWF.PANDA.ORG/SMARTFISHING

WCPFC16