foreword - food and agriculture organization · foreword this is the third issue of the state of...
TRANSCRIPT
FOREWORD
This is the third issue of The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. It follows thepattern set by the previous issues, published in 1996 and 1998. The purposecontinues to be to provide policy-makers, civil society and those who derive theirlivelihood from the sector a comprehensive, objective and global view of capturefisheries and aquaculture, including associated policy issues.
The concerns of consumers and fishers, which are central to the state of worldfisheries and aquaculture, are reflected in a number of topics examined in The Stateof World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2000. A discussion of current issues iscomplemented by summary reports on national and international activitiesundertaken to address them. Some issues are well known and figure prominently inthe international debate – the issue of fish quality and safety, for instance, and thatof genetically modified organisms and fisheries. Also discussed are two importantissues that are much less known and understood: the first is fishers’ safety; thesecond is the culture of fishing communities. It is not commonly known that fishingat sea is probably the most dangerous occupation in the world. The State of WorldFisheries and Aquaculture 2000 reports on this issue in the hope that a morewidespread realization of this aspect of fisheries will lead to effective measures toimprove fishers’ safety. Recent developments in fisheries governance seem to lead toa larger role for fishers in fisheries management. However, for fishers to becomeeffective partners in management, a better understanding of their communities’culture is essential. Highlights from a recently completed FAO study of this subjectare included in this publication on the premise that reaching a better understandingof such cultures is a key to fisheries management and food security in most artisanaland small-scale fisheries.
Sustainable exploitation continues to be a desirable goal for all fisheries andaquaculture operations. This year, we report on some aspects of the progress madeby the international fisheries community towards achieving this goal. Summaryinformation is provided on the state of fisheries management, and several factorsto be considered in efforts to improve management are discussed, for example:i) property rights – seen as a means for defining and specifying the entitlements,privileges and responsibilities created by different types of fisheries managementregimes; ii) the role of indicators of sustainable development and their integrationwith the precautionary approach, as the use of such indicators is set to become apractice leading towards an ecosystems framework for management; iii) a plausibleapproach for dealing with illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; andiv) ecolabelling, the basic principles of which are described, together with thesomewhat controversial standing of this practice and its potential contribution tofisheries management.
As in the past, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2000 begins byreviewing recent developments in the status of resources, production fromcapture fisheries and aquaculture, utilization and trade. Recent advances infishing technology are also covered. This information is complemented by a
iii
report – in Part 3 – on the economic viability of selected commercial fishing fleets.A general outlook is provided in Part 4, which examines recent trends and theirpossible impact on the nature and character of the fishing industry, as well as on thelevel and distribution of future fish consumption.
It is my hope that The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2000 will generateawareness of the increasing global interaction inherent in the sector. In turn, thisgreater awareness should stimulate global, regional and national efforts to improveresponsible practices and promote sustainability in fisheries and aquaculture.
Ichiro NomuraAssistant Director-GeneralFAO Fisheries Department
iv
v
CONTENTS
ForewordAcknowledgementsGlossary
Part 1WORLD REVIEW OF FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE
Fisheries resources: trends in production, utilization and tradeOverviewCapture fisheries productionThe status of fisheries resourcesThe status of the ecosystemsThe status of the fishing fleetFishing technology developmentFisheries policy and managementAquacultureFish utilizationFish trade
PART 2SELECTED ISSUES FACING FISHERS AND AQUACULTURISTS
Fishers’ safetyThe issuePossible solutionsRecent actionsGlobal perspectiveFish quality and safetyThe issuePossible solutionsRecent actionsGlobal perspectiveProperty rights and fisheries managementThe issuePossible solutionsRecent actionsGlobal perspectiveIllegal, unreported and unregulated fishingThe issuePossible solutionsRecent actionsGlobal perspectiveIndicators of sustainable development and theprecautionary approach in marine capture fisheries
The issuePossible solutionsRecent actionsGlobal perspectiveMonitoring the impact of fishing on marine ecosystemsThe issuePossible solutionsGlobal perspective
iiixii
xiii
336
1012121317232832
4141434346474748484952525255565757575959
606060606666667071
vi
Genetically modified organisms and fisheriesThe issuePossible solutionsRecent actionsGlobal perspectiveEcolabelling in fisheries managementThe issueHow ecolabelling worksRecent actionsGlobal perspective
PART 3HIGHLIGHTS OF SPECIAL FAO STUDIES
Understanding the cultures of fishing communities: a key to fisheriesmanagement and food security
BackgroundHighlights from case studiesHighlights of main findingsThe economic viability of marine capture fisheriesBackgroundFindingsOutlook: sustainability and economic viabilityTrends in world fisheries and their resources: 1974-1999IntroductionRelative production levelsGlobal levels of exploitationThe state of stocks by regionGlobal trendsDiscussion
PART 4OUTLOOK
Recent trends and possible consequences for world fisheries andaquaculture
OverviewFish as foodFish as a source of incomeMedium-term outlook: fish consumption in 2010Long-term outlook: some plausible structural changes in productionand demand
PART 5FISHERIES ACTIVITIES OF COUNTRY GROUPINGS
Association of Southeast Asian NationsCaribbean Community and Common MarketCommonwealth of Independent StatesEconomic Community of West African StatesEuropean CommunityLatin American Economic SystemLeague of Arab StatesNorth American Free Trade AgreementSouth Asian Association for Regional CooperationSouthern African Development CommunitySouth Pacific Forum
71717576777777788083
878787909191929698989898
101101101
107107107111113
115
119121123125127131133135136138140
vii
BOX 1Registration and reflagging of fishing vessels
BOX 2Objective and reliable fishery status and trends reporting
BOX 3Regional fishery bodies: IOTC and NEAFC
BOX 4Cyclone in India
BOX 5Accidents
BOX 6Safety and survival training
BOX 7Small boats going offshore
BOX 8Self-help groups
BOX 9Risk policy: the case of ciguatera control in Cuba
BOX 10The economics of fish safety
BOX 11Factors affecting the concept of property rights in fisheries management
BOX 12Property rights and conflict minimization
BOX 13IUU fishing in the CCAMLR region
BOX 14Nomenclature
BOX 15Labelling for origin and species
BOX 16FAO statistical areas
BOX 17The relationship between fish consumption, wealth and economic growth
BOX 18Rent and rent extraction
BOX 19Fish consumption and long-term income elasticities
BOXES
14
18
21
42
42
44
45
46
50
50
53
54
58
72
82
99
109
113
115
viii
TABLE 1World fisheries production and utilization
TABLE 2Top ten countries in inland fisheries production
TABLE 3Inland fisheries production by economic class
TABLE 4Indicators for the main dimensions of sustainable development
TABLE 5Some aquatic GMOs (transgenic species) being tested for use inaquaculture
TABLE 6ASEAN: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
TABLE 7CARICOM: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
TABLE 8CIS: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
TABLE 9ECOWAS: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
TABLE 10EC: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
TABLE 11LAES: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
TABLE 12League of Arab States: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balanceand trade
TABLE 13NAFTA: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
TABLE 14SAARC: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
TABLE 15SADC: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
TABLE 16SPF: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
6
11
11
61
73
119
121
123
125
127
131
133
135
136
139
141
TABLES
ix
FIGURES
FIGURE 1World capture fisheries and aquaculture production
FIGURE 2World fish utilization and supply, excluding China
FIGURE 3China’s fish utilization and supply
FIGURE 4World fishers and fish farmers (including full-time, part-time andoccasional workers)
FIGURE 5Marine and inland capture fisheries production: top producercountries in 1998
FIGURE 6Capture fisheries production by principal fishing areas in 1998, comparedwith 1996
FIGURE 7aCapture fisheries production: top species in 1998, compared with 1996
FIGURE 7bFisheries production trends in selected major fishing areas
FIGURE 8Fisheries production in the Northwest Pacific
FIGURE 9Aquaculture production in 1998: breakdown by environment
FIGURE 10Global aquaculture production by species groups in freshwater, brackishwater and marine environments in 1998
FIGURE 11Global aquaculture production: major species groups in 1998
FIGURE 12Aquaculture production: major producer countries in 1998
FIGURE 13Trends in aquaculture production volume
FIGURE 14Aquaculture production: contribution of LIFDCs in 1998
FIGURE 15Utilization of world fisheries production (breakdown by percentage),1989-1998
4
4
5
5
7
8
9
9
10
24
25
25
26
26
27
29
x
FIGURE 16Utilization of world fisheries production (breakdown by volume),1989-1998
FIGURE 17Food fish supply by continent and economic grouping in 1997
FIGURE 18Food fish supply by species groups in 1997
FIGURE 19Contribution of food fish to animal protein supply in 1997
FIGURE 20World fishery exports by major commodity groups
FIGURE 21Imports and exports of fishery products for different regions, indicatingthe net deficit or surplus
FIGURE 22Hierarchical subdivision of a sustainable development framework
FIGURE 23Kite diagram
FIGURE 24Type of precautionary plot used to monitor fisheries in ICES or NAFO
FIGURE 25Precautionary plot position of several North Atlantic stocks in 1970
FIGURE 26Northeast Atlantic: piscivore-zooplanktivore index
FIGURE 27Average log-landings
FIGURE 28Smoothed index of the variation between landings categories
FIGURE 29Example areas showing the trends between the average and variationof landings categories
FIGURE 30Cost structure of bottom trawl fisheries
FIGURE 31Operation costs per US dollar of gross earnings in bottom trawlfisheries
FIGURE 32Cost structure for small-scale fishing vessels
29
30
31
33
34
35
62
63
65
65
67
69
69
70
93
94
95
xi
FIGURE 33Operation costs per US dollar of gross earnings for small-scale fishingvessels
FIGURE 34Productivity and financial performance of bottom trawl fisheries
FIGURE 35Productivity and financial performance of small-scale fishing vessels
FIGURE 36Ratio between recent (1998) and maximal production
FIGURE 37The state of stocks in 1999
FIGURE 38Percentage, by FAO Fishing Area, of stocks exploited at or beyond MSYlevels (F+O+D+R) and below MSY levels (U+M)
FIGURE 39Percentage, by FAO Fishing Area, of stocks exploited at or below MSYlevels (U+M+F) and beyond MSY levels (O+D+R)
FIGURE 40Global trends in the state of world stocks since 1974
FIGURE 41Trends in the percentage of stocks exploited beyond MSY levels (O+D+R)in the Northern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
FIGURE 42Trends in the percentage of stocks exploited beyond MSY levels (O+D+R)in the tropical (Central and Southern) Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
FIGURE 43Total food fish supply and per capita food fish supply in LIFDCs,1961-1997
FIGURE 44Total food fish supply and per capita food fish supply in Africa,1961-1997
95
96
97
99
100
102
102
103
103
104
110
110
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2000 wasprepared by FAO Fisheries Department staff, led by a teamcomprising U. Wijkstrom, A. Gumy and R. Grainger.General direction was provided by the department’smanagement staff, including: L. Ababouch; J. Csirke;S.M. Garcia; J. Jiansan; Z. Karnicki; I. Nomura; B. Satia;J. Valdemarsen; and G. Valdimarsson.
The preparation of Part 1, World review of fisheries andaquaculture, was the overall editorial responsibility ofP. Medley and R. Grainger, who coordinated thecontributions made by R. Grainger (production, capturefisheries); J. Csirke (resources); P. Medley (ecosystems,management); I. Orzsesko (management information);A. Smith (fishing vessels); J. Valdemarsen (fishingtechnology); R. Subasinghe (aquaculture); D.M. Bartley(inland fisheries); A. Crispoldi (consumption); andS. Vannuccini (trade).
Contributors to Part 2, Selected issues facing fishersand aquaculturists, included: J. Turner (fishers’ safety);H.M. Lupin (fish quality and safety); R. Metzner, who iswith Fisheries Western Australia (property rights andfisheries management); D. Doulman (illegal, unreportedand unregulated fishing); S.M. Garcia (indicators ofsustainable development and the precautionary approachin marine capture fisheries); P. Medley (monitoring theimpact of fishing on the marine ecosystems); D.M. Bartley(genetically modified organisms and fisheries); andR. Willman (ecolabelling in fisheries management).
Contributors to Part 3, Highlights of special FAO studies,included: J.R. McGoodwin (understanding the cultures offishing communities: a key to fisheries management andfood security); U. Tietze (economic viability of marinecapture fisheries); and S. Garcia and J. de Leiva Moreno(trends in world fisheries and their resources).
Part 4, Outlook, was written by U. Wijkstrom.Part 5, Fisheries activities of country groupings, was
written by A. Gumy.Several other staff members as well as non-FAO authors
have contributed texts on specific issues, and they arecited in the relevant boxes throughout the publication.Information of relevance for all five parts has beenprovided by FAO staff in the Regional and SubregionalOffices.
The Editorial Group of the FAO Information Division wasresponsible for the editing, design and production of TheState of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2000.
xii
ACFRAdvisory Committee on FisheriesResearch (FAO)
ACPAfrican, Caribbean and Pacific Group ofStates (EU)
AFFPArab Federation of Fish Producers
AISautomatic identification system
AMAFAsian Ministers of Agriculture andFisheries (ASEAN)
APFICAsia-Pacific Fisheries Commission
ASEANAssociation of Southeast Asian Nations
ASFAAquatic Sciences and FisheriesAbstracts
CACCodex Alimentarius Commission
CAPCommon Agricultural Policy (EC)
CARICOMCaribbean Community and CommonMarket
CCAMLRCommission for the Conservation ofAntarctic Marine Living Resources
CCSBTCommission for the Conservation ofSouthern Bluefin Tuna
CDCCenters for Disease Control andPrevention (USA)
CDQcommunity development quota
GLOSSARY
CECAFFishery Committee for the EasternCentral Atlantic
CEMARECentre for the Economics andManagement of Aquatic Resources (UK)
CFPCommon Fisheries Policy (EC)
CFRAMPCARICOM Fisheries ResourceAssessment and Management Program
CIDACanadian International DevelopmentAgency
CISCommonwealth of Independent States
COFICommittee on Fisheries (FAO)
COMESACommon Market for Eastern andSouthern Africa
CPUEcatch per unit effort
CSDCommission on SustainableDevelopment (UN)
DANIDADanish International Development Agency
DWFNDistant Water Fishing Nations
ECEuropean Community
ECOWASEconomic Community of West AfricanStates
EECEuropean Economic Community(superseded by EC)
xiii
EEZexclusive economic zone
EUEuropean Union
FADfish attraction device
FCAfisheries cooperative association
FFASouth Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency
FIFGFinancial Instrument for FisheriesGuidance (EC)
FIGISFisheries Global Information System
GAAGlobal Aquaculture Alliance
GFCMGeneral Fisheries Commission for theMediterranean
GISgeographic information system
GMDSSGlobal Maritime Distress Safety System
GMOgenetically modified organism
GPSglobal positioning system
GRTgross registered ton
GTgross tonnage, or tonnage (abbrev.)
HACCPHazard Analysis and Critical ControlPoint (system)
HPhorsepower
IASRIcelandic Association for Search andRescue
IBSFCInternational Baltic Sea FisheryCommission
ICCATInternational Commission for theConservation of Atlantic Tunas
ICESInternational Council for the Explorationof the Sea
ICLARMInternational Centre for Living AquaticResources Management
IFPRIInternational Food Policy Research Institute
IFQindividual fishing quota
ILOInternational Labour Organization
IMOInternational Maritime Organization
IOTCIndian Ocean Tuna Commission
IPHCInternational Pacific Halibut Commission
IPTPIndo-Pacific Tuna Development andManagement Programme
IQindividual quota
ISOInternational Organization forStandardization
ITEindividual transferable effort
ITLOSInternational Tribunal for the Law of theSea
ITQindividual transferable quota
ITSQindividual transferable share quota
xiv
IUCNWorld Conservation Union
IUUillegal, unreported and unregulated(fishing)
IVQindividual vessel quota
IWCInternational Whaling Commission
LAESLatin American Economic System
LIFDClow-income food-deficit country
LMISLloyd’s Maritime Information Services
LMOliving modified organism
MACMarine Aquarium Council
MAGPMulti-Annual Guidance Programme (EC)
MCSmonitoring, control and surveillance
MHLCMultilateral High-Level Conference onthe Conservation and Management ofHighly Migratory Fish Stocks in theCentral and Western Pacific
MLTAYmaximum long-term average yield
MSCMarine Stewardship Council (WWF)
MSYmaximum sustainable yield
NACANetwork of Aquaculture Centres inAsia-Pacific
NAFONorthwest Atlantic FisheriesOrganization
NAFTANorth American Free Trade Agreement
NASCONorth Atlantic Salmon ConservationOrganization
NCMNordic Council of Ministers
NEAFCNortheast Atlantic Fisheries Commission
NGOnon-governmental organization
OECDOrganisation for Economic Co-operationand Development
OLDEPESCALatin American Organization forFisheries Development
PSRpressure-state-response (framework)
QMPQuality Management Programme(Canada)
RFSResponsible Fisheries Society (USA)
SAARCSouth Asian Association for RegionalCooperation
SADCSouthern African DevelopmentCommunity
SCRSStanding Committee on Research andStatistics (ICCAT)
SCUSector Coordinating Unit (SADC)
SEAFDECSoutheast Asian Fisheries DevelopmentCentre
SEAFOSoutheast Atlantic FisheriesOrganization
xv
SPFSouth Pacific Forum
STCW-FConvention for the Standards of Training,Certification and Watchkeeping forFishing Vessel Personnel
SURFSstock use rights in fisheries
TACtotal allowable catch
TRIPS(Agreement on) Trade-RelatedAspects of Intellectual PropertyRights (WTO)
TURFSterritorial use rights in fisheries
UNCEDUnited Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development
UNCLOSUnited Nations Conference on the Lawof the Sea
UNDPUnited Nations DevelopmentProgramme
USDAUnited States Department of Agriculture
USFDAUnited States Food and DrugAdministration
VMSVessel Monitoring System
WECAFCWestern Central Atlantic FisheriesCommission
WHOWorld Health Organization
WRIWorld Resources Institute
WTOWorld Trade Organization
WWFWorld Wide Fund for Nature
xvi
PART 1World review of fisheries and aquaculture
2
3
World review of fisheries and aquaculture
FISHERIES RESOURCES:TRENDS IN PRODUCTION,UTILIZATION AND TRADE
OVERVIEWDespite fluctuations in supply and demand,caused by the changing state of fisheriesresources, the economic climate andenvironmental conditions, fisheries andaquaculture remain very important as a sourceof food, employment and revenue in manycountries and communities.
Reported global capture fisheries andaquaculture production contracted from afigure of 122 million tonnes in 1997 to 117million tonnes in 1998. This was mainly owingto the effects of the climate anomaly, El Niño,on some major marine capture fisheries(Figure 1, p. 4 and Table 1, p. 6). However,production recovered in 1999, for which thepreliminary estimate is about 125 milliontonnes. The production increase of 20 milliontonnes over the last decade was mainly due toaquaculture, as capture fisheries productionremained relatively stable.
For the two decades following 1950, worldmarine and inland capture fisheries productionincreased on average by as much as 6 percentper year, trebling from 18 million tonnes in1950 to 56 million tonnes in 1969. During the1970s and 1980s, the average rate of increasedeclined to 2 percent per year, falling toalmost zero in the 1990s. This levelling off ofthe total catch follows the general trend ofmost of the world’s fishing areas, which haveapparently reached their maximum potentialfor capture fisheries production, with themajority of stocks being fully exploited. It istherefore very unlikely that substantialincreases in total catch will be obtained. Incontrast, growth in aquaculture production hasshown the opposite tendency. Starting from aninsignificant total production, inland andmarine aquaculture production grew by about5 percent per year between 1950 and 1969 andby about 8 percent per year during the 1970sand 1980s, and it has increased further to 10percent per year since 1990.
The global patterns of fish production owemuch to the activities of China, which reportsproduction in weight that accounts for 32percent of the world total. Other major
producer countries are Japan, India, the UnitedStates, the Russian Federation and Indonesia.
When China is excluded, however, theproduction of fish used as food for humans hasremained relatively stable (Figure 2), but theproduction of fish destined for animal feed hasdecreased in recent years – the declineregistered in 1998 was largely due to the ElNiño effect, particularly on the anchovetafishery which supplies a significant proportionof the fish used for fishmeal and fish oil.However, the event had much less impact onthe supply of fish for food, which declined onlyslightly to 11.8 kg per capita. Outside China,the world’s population has been increasingmore quickly than total fish production and theper capita fish supply has declined since themid-1980s.
In contrast, China has reported increases infish production and shows little sign of slowinggrowth (Figure 3). Most of the production isused domestically and for human consumption,but there has also been a recent expansion inthe production of feed. There has been a majorgrowth of aquaculture, which now dominatesChina’s production, although capture fisherieshave also seen increases. Per capita fishsupply, based on reported production, hasincreased dramatically over the last 20 years,indicating the growing importance of fish asfood. This increased supply has been helped byChina’s slowing population growth.
Employment in the primary capture fisheriesand aquaculture production sectors in 1998 isestimated to have been about 36 millionpeople, comprising about 15 million full-time,13 million part-time and 8 million occasionalworkers. For the first time, there is anindication that growth in employment in theprimary sectors of fisheries and aquaculturehas ceased (Figure 4). Employment in inlandand marine aquaculture has been increasing,and is now estimated to account for about 25percent of the total. Marine capture fisheriesaccount for about 60 percent and inlandcapture fisheries for the remaining 15 percent.
International trade in fishery commoditiesfell back from a peak of US$53.5 billiondollars (f.o.b.) in 1997 to US$51.3 billion in1998. This is probably the result of acombination of factors, including a recessionin East Asia which weakened demand,
4
Note: Aquaculture quantities prior to 1984 are estimates
Source: FAO
FIGURE 1World capture fisheries and aquaculture production
Million tonnes
1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 19980
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Capturefisheries
Aquaculture
Source: FAO
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
1
2
3
4
5Food
Feed
FIGURE 2World fish utilization and supply, excluding China
Fish utilization(million tonnes)
and food supply (kg/capita)
Population
Per capitasupply
Population(billions)1950 19581954 19661962 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998
5
Source: FAO
0
10
20
30
40
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0Food
Feed
FIGURE 3China's fish utilization and supply
Fish utilization(million tonnes)
and food supply (kg/capita)
Population
Per capitasupply
Population(billions)1950 19581954 19661962 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998
FIGURE 4World fishers and fish farmers (including full-time,part-time and occasional workers)
Millions
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 20000
10
20
30
40
Source: FAO
6
particularly in Japan, and lower fishmealproduction and trade resulting from decreasedcatches of anchoveta. Preliminary 1999 dataindicate a 4 percent growth in the value ofworld fishery trade (US$53.4 billion).However, there are no indications of increasedcapture fisheries production in the long term,so any long-term rise in the value of exports islikely to depend on increased aquacultureproduction or product prices. Developingcountries registered a net fishery trade surplusof US$16.8 billion, slightly down from the 1997level of US$17.3 billion.
CAPTURE FISHERIES PRODUCTIONTotal capture fisheries production in 1998amounted to 86 million tonnes, a noticeabledecline from the maximum of about 93 milliontonnes recorded in 1996 and 1997, althoughthere was a considerable recovery to anestimated 92 million tonnes in 1999. In 1998,China, Japan, the United States, the RussianFederation, Peru, Indonesia, Chile and India (inthat order) were the top producing countries,together accounting for more than half of totalcapture fisheries production by weight for 1998(Figure 5). Although in decline, marine capturefisheries continue to account for more than 90
percent of world capture fisheries production.The remainder comes from inland waterfisheries, which have increased their output byalmost 0.5 million tonnes per year since 1994.
World marine capture fisheries productiondropped to 78 million tonnes in 1998 (Table 1),representing a 9 percent decline with respectto the all-time production highs of about 86million tonnes in 1996 and 1997. The declineappears to have been caused essentially byclimatic conditions. However, it does notaffect the previously reported slowdown in therate of increase of marine catches for the lastdecade. The estimated first sale value of thelandings also decreased, from about US$81billion in 1996 and 1997 to US$76 billion in1998.
Most of the decline in the world’s marinefisheries landings in 1998 can be attributed tochanges in the Southeast Pacific, which wasseverely affected by the El Niño event in 1997-1998. Total capture fisheries production fromthis area dropped from 17.1 million tonnes in1996 to 14.4 million tonnes in 1997,decreasing even more dramatically to 8million tonnes in 1998. These figures representannual declines of 15 and 44 percent,
TABLE 1
World fisheries production and utilization
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 19991
(million tonnes)
PRODUCTION
INLAND
Capture 6.7 7.2 7.4 7.5 8.0 8.2
Aquaculture 12.1 14.1 16.0 17.6 18.7 19.8
Total inland 18.8 21.4 23.4 25.1 26.7 28.0
MARINE
Capture 84.7 84.3 86.0 86.1 78.3 84.1
Aquaculture 8.7 10.5 10.9 11.2 12.1 13.1
Total marine 93.4 94.8 96.9 97.3 90.4 97.2
Total capture 91.4 91.6 93.5 93.6 86.3 92.3
Total aquaculture 20.8 24.6 26.8 28.8 30.9 32.9
Total world fisheries 112.3 116.1 120.3 122.4 117.2 125.2
UTILIZATION
Human consumption 79.8 86.5 90.7 93.9 93.3 92.6
Reduction to fishmeal and oil 32.5 29.6 29.6 28.5 23.9 30.4
Population (billions) 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0
Per capita food fish supply (kg) 14.3 15.3 15.8 16.1 15.8 15.4
1Preliminary estimate.
7
respectively, occurring over two consecutiveyears in one of the most important fishingareas of the world. Apart from the SoutheastAtlantic, the Southwest Pacific and theWestern Central Pacific, which have shownpositive trends in catches in recent years, allof the world’s major fishing areas showedminor changes or declines in landings.
The Northwest Pacific had the largestreported landings in 1998, followed by theNortheast Atlantic and the Western CentralPacific (Figure 6). Typically, high landings aredependent on one or two productive stocks,such as Alaska pollock and Japanese anchovyin the Northwest Pacific, Atlantic herring inthe Northeast Atlantic and skipjack andyellowfin tunas in the Western Central Pacific.The dependence of some areas on the
production of a few species is illustrated by thelow ranking of the Southeast Pacific, whichwas the result of the 1998 El Niño event. Thisarea would usually rank second after theNorthwest Pacific.
Alaska pollock from the North Pacific hadthe highest landings in 1998 (Figure 7a). This,too, is unusual, as anchoveta landingsgenerally exceed this quantity and those ofChilean jack mackerel equal it. However, thefisheries for both these species were severelyaffected in 1998. Alaska pollock catches havefallen by 0.5 million tonnes since 1996,continuing a general decline in productionsince the mid-1980s, when landings exceeded6 million tonnes.
The Western Central Pacific shows anoverall trend of increasing production, with no
Note: For statistical purposes, data for China do not include Taiwan Province and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Source: FAO
FIGURE 5Marine and inland capture fisheries production: top producer countries in 1998
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
China
Japan
United States
Russian Fed.
Peru
Indonesia
Chile
India
Thailand
Korea, Rep.
Norway
Philippines
17.2
5.3
4.7
4.5
4.3
3.7
3.3
3.2
2.9
2.0
2.9
1.8
Million tonnes
Phili
ppin
es
Kor
ea, R
ep.
Nor
way
Thai
land
Indi
a
Chi
le
Indo
nesi
a
Peru
Rus
sian
Fed
.
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Japa
n
Chi
na
Perc
enta
ge
Cumulative catches aspercentage of world total
0
20
40
60
8
evidence of levelling off in the near future.This overall trend depends not only on themajor tuna stocks but also on very widecategories of marine fish, which makes itdifficult to assess the underlying trends ofdifferent species and stocks. In contrast tothese two regions, production in the NortheastAtlantic has remained stable at around 11million tonnes since the mid-1970s (Figure 7b),although the biomass of cod stocks is currentlyat a very low level.
It is worth noting that production from theNorthwest Pacific has shown a constantoverall increase since 1950. However, since1992, this has continued only because China’sreported increases in production have morethan made up for combined declines of
all the other countries in the area (Figure 8).Major fluctuations have been recorded for
some individual species over the last threeyears. Of particular relevance are theincreases in landings between 1997 and 1998for some of the 30 highest-producing species,such as Patagonian grenadiers (up by 285percent), blue whiting (up by 67 percent),Japanese Spanish mackerel (up by 51 percent),South American pilchard (up by 30 percent)and Japanese anchovy (up by 26 percent).However, overall, the increases in productionof some species have been outweighed by theproduction declines for others, particularlythose of major high-producing species, such asanchoveta (down by 78 percent), Chilean jackmackerel (down by 44 percent), capelin (down
Note: Fishing areas listed are those with a production volume of more than 2 million tonnes in 1998
Source: FAO
FIGURE 6Capture fisheries production by principal fishing areas in 1998, compared with 1996
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Atlantic, Southwest
Pacific, Northeast
Atlantic, Eastern Central
Indian Ocean, Western
Indian Ocean, Eastern
Asia, Inland waters
Pacific, Southeast
Pacific, Western Central
Atlantic, Northeast
Pacific, Northwest
2.3
Million tonnes
2.5
2.82.9
3.63.5
3.94.1
4.03.9
5.04.5
8.017.1
9.38.8
10.911
24.823.5
1998
1996
Atl
anti
c,So
uthw
est
Paci
fic,
Nor
thea
st
Atl
anti
c,Ea
ster
n C
entr
al
Indi
an O
cean
,W
este
rn
Indi
an O
cean
,Ea
ster
n
Asi
a,In
land
wat
ers
Paci
fic,
Sout
heas
t
Paci
fic,
Wes
tern
Cen
tral
Atl
anti
c,N
orth
east
Paci
fic,
Nor
thw
est
Perc
enta
ge
Cumulative catches aspercentage of world total
0
20
40
80
60
9
Source: FAO
FIGURE 7aCapture fisheries production: top species in 1998, compared with 1996
1998
1996
Million tonnes0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Alaska pollock
Atlantic herring
Japanese anchovy
Chilean jack mackerel
Chub mackerel
Skipjack tuna
Anchoveta
Largehead hairtail
Atlantic cod
Blue whiting
Yellowfin tuna 1.21.11.2
0.61.21.31.4
1.31.7
8.91.9
1.61.9
2.22.0
4.42.1
1.32.4
2.34.0
4.5
Yel
low
fin t
una
Blu
e w
hiti
ng
Larg
ehea
d ha
irta
il
Atl
anti
c co
d
Anc
hove
ta
Skip
jack
tun
a
Chu
b m
acke
rel
Chi
lean
jack
mac
kere
l
Japa
nese
anc
hovy
Atl
anti
c he
rrin
g
Ala
ska
pollo
ck
Perc
enta
ge
Cumulative catches in 1998 aspercentage of world total
0
10
20
Note: Species listed are those with a production volume of more than 1 million tonnes in 1998
Atlantic,Northeast
Pacific,Southeast
Pacific, Western Central
FIGURE 7bFisheries production trends in selected major fishing areas
Million tonnes
5
10
15
20
25
0
1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998
10
by 38 percent), Japanese flying squid (down by37 percent), Argentine shortfin squid (down by33 percent), Atlantic horse mackerel (down by22 percent) and chub mackerel (down by 21percent).
In 1998, production from inland capturefisheries was 8 milion tonnes, which representsa 6 percent increase over 1997 levels. The topten countries with regard to inland fisheriesproduction are listed inTable 2. These countries account for 65percent of the world’s total inland catch. Morethan 90 percent of this production in 1998came from developing countries, and only 3.5percent from industrial countries.
Much of the information on harvests ofinland fisheries is not broken down byindividual species. Some 46 percent of thecatch comprises freshwater fish that are notidentified by species, while unidentifiedcrustaceans and molluscs contribute 7.6 and7 percent, respectively, to production. Overall,80 percent of the catch in inland waters is notidentified by species.
THE STATUS OF FISHERIES RESOURCESAlthough the situation regarding some of thehighest-producing stocks has worsened, globalexploitation of the main marine fish stocks forwhich assessment information is availablecontinues to follow the general trend observedin previous years. Overall, the number of
underexploited and moderately exploitedfisheries resources continues to declineslightly and, as fishing pressure increases,the number of fully exploited stocks remainsrelatively stable while the number ofoverexploited, depleted and recoveringstocks is increasing slightly.
Among the major marine fish stocks orgroups of stocks for which information isavailable, an estimated 25 to 27 percent areunderexploited or moderately exploited andthus represent the main potential source forexpansion of total capture fisheries production.About 47 to 50 percent of stocks are fullyexploited and are, therefore, producingcatches that have either reached or are veryclose to their maximum limits, with no roomexpected for further expansion. Another 15 to18 percent are overexploited and have nopotential for further increase. Moreover, thereis an increasing likelihood that catches fromthese stocks will decrease if remedial action isnot taken to reduce or revert overfishingconditions. Only then will sustained highercatches be possible. The remaining 9 to 10percent of stocks have been depleted or arerecovering from depletion. As they are lessproductive than usual, depleted and recoveringstocks tend to have ample potential forrecuperation that is commensurate with theirpre-depletion catch levels. Realizing thispotential, however, can be a major
30
20
10
40
FIGURE 8Fisheries production in the Northwest Pacific
Million tonnes
Source: FAO
1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998
0
Othercountries
China
11
TABLE 2
Top ten countries in inland fisheriesproduction
Country Production Percentage ofin 1998 world production
(tonnes) (65% for top ten
countries)
China 2 280 000 28.5
India 650 000 8.1
Bangladesh 538 000 6.7
Indonesia 315 000 3.9
Tanzania, United Rep. 300 000 3.7
Russian Federation 271 000 3.4
Egypt 253 000 3.2
Uganda 220 000 2.8
Thailand 191 000 2.4
Brazil 180 000 2.3
undertaking and usually implies the adoptionof drastic management measures in order torevert uncontrolled and excessive fishingpressure as well as any other condition thatcould have contributed to the stock’soverexploitation or depletion.
Total catches from the Northwest and theSoutheast Atlantic are levelling off afterreaching their maximum levels a decade ortwo ago. In the Eastern Central Atlantic andthe Northwest Pacific, total catches areincreasing again, after a short declinefollowing their maximum production levels ofa decade ago. Most of these changes resultfrom increases in landings of small pelagics. Inthe Northeast Atlantic, the Western CentralAtlantic, the Northeast Pacific, theMediterranean and Black Sea, the EasternCentral Pacific and the Southwest Pacific,annual catches have stabilized or aredeclining slightly, having reached theirmaximum potentials a few years ago. In theSouthwest Atlantic and the Southeast Pacific,total annual catches have declined sharplyonly a few years after reaching their all-timehighs. These two areas have been seriouslyaffected by the decline, and in some cases theserious depletion, of important stocks. Amongsuch stocks are Argentine shortfin squid andArgentine hake in the Southwest Atlantic andanchoveta and horse mackerel in theSoutheast Pacific.
The areas where total catches are stilltending to grow, and where – at least inprinciple – there is the highest potential for
production increases, are the Eastern andWestern Indian Ocean and the WesternCentral Pacific. These areas tend to have alower incidence of fully exploited,overexploited, depleted or recovering fishstocks, and a prevalence of underexploited ormoderately exploited stocks, although theyalso have the highest incidence of stockswhose state of exploitation is unknown oruncertain and for which overall productionestimates are consequently less reliable.
Inland aquatic resources continue to beunder pressure from loss or degradation ofhabitat and overfishing. Freshwater species arereported to be the most threatened group ofvertebrates harvested by humans; however,accurate data are difficult to collect. In areaswhere studies have been carried out, about 20percent of freshwater species are threatened,endangered or extinct.1 Inland fisheriesstatistics reflect the poor state of informationon many inland fisheries resources; only threeof the top ten taxa in terms of production areidentified by species, and these three accountfor less than 8 percent of total production. Ashas already been noted,2 in many areas, theactual yield from inland fisheries may beseveral times higher than reported, but work isunder way to correct this situation. TheMekong River Commission has revised itsunofficial estimates of fisheries productionfrom the Mekong basin, increasing them fromapproximately 300 000 to 1.2 million tonnes byincluding family and small-scale fishers whosecatches were previously not counted. It is
TABLE 3
Inland fisheries production by economicclass
Economic class Production Percentage ofin 1998 world production
(tonnes)
Developing
countries or areas 7 347 000 91.8
Economies in transition 370 000 4.6
Industrial countries 284 000 3.6
Total 8 003 000
1 M. Bruton. 1995. Have fishes had their chips? The dilemma of
threatened fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 43: 1-27;
and World Resources Institute at www.wri.org/wri/wr2000/
index.html/.2 FAO. 1999. Fisheries Circular No. 942. Rome.
12
extremely difficult to assess the state of inlandfisheries resources when reporting does notinclude all the sectors of the fishery and whenthe catch is not broken down by species.
THE STATUS OF THE ECOSYSTEMSIn addition to the concerns expressed aboutindividual stocks, there is increasing interest inecosystems and the impact that fishing may behaving on their structure and function. There isa shortage of general information on therelationship between the state of marineecosystems and fishing. Broad indicators ofchange are available from data on capturefisheries production in the major fishing areasbut it is usually difficult to separate changes inexploitation patterns from changes in theunderlying ecosystem.
The trend has been for the variety ofresources being exploited to increase,probably reflecting the reaching of productionlimits for major stocks and an expansion ofmarkets for a wider range of fishery products.Indicators regarding the ecologies in whichfisheries can develop suggest that theecosystems in most areas are close to fullexploitation. The Eastern Indian Ocean and theWestern Central Pacific are the only areasshowing little sign of stress, and hence thepotential for continued development ofresources.
The Northeast Atlantic has followed a trendof declining catches together with a shifttowards landings of fish from lower levels inthe food web, which may indicate anunderlying ecological change (see Monitoringthe impact of fishing on marine ecosystems,Part 2, p. 65). The indices that were developedto monitor such change suggest thatecosystems may be shifting away from theunexploited state, giving cause for concernthat continued heavy fishing may lead to morewidespread changes.
Rivers, lakes and wetlands account for lessthan 1 percent of the global surface area, butyield at least 8 percent of global fisheriesproduction. However, these productiveecosystems are under pressure from the needsof a growing human population. The WorldResources Institute (WRI)3 reported that half ofthe world’s wetlands were lost in the lastcentury and that dams, diversions and canalsfragment almost 60 percent of the world’s
largest rivers. Per capita water consumptionincreased by 50 percent between 1950 and1990, and human use of available waterresources is expected to increase from itscurrent level of about 54 percent to more than70 percent by 2025.4 Although inland waterecosystems have improved in some areas ofNorth America and Europe, their condition iscontinuing to deteriorate in much of the world.
THE STATUS OF THE FISHING FLEETLarge fishing vesselsSince the last issue of The State of WorldFisheries and Aquaculture (1998), 1 124 fishingvessels have been added to Lloyd’s database ofvessels over 100 tons,5 548 of which were builtin the period 1997-1999. The remainder werebuilt earlier and their inclusion in the databaserepresents an improvement in its coveragerather than a real increase in the fleet. Thetrends are similar to those identified in 1998,with decreased numbers of vessels indeveloped countries’ fishing fleets andincreased numbers in some developingcountries. Late reporting is still a problem so,although the data should refer to 1998 and1999, it is more practical to consider theperiod as mid-1997 to mid-1999. There were955 deletions from the database, but this isprobably an underestimate as some of thevessels scrapped were of unknown flag. Theestimated decrease in the fleet (i.e. the vesselsremoved from the database minus the vesselsbuilt in 1998-1999) is 407 vessels, giving atotal of 23 014 vessels at the end of 1999.
The United States shows an increase ofroughly 10 percent, mainly because about 300vessels that should have been in the 1997 andearlier databases were added in 1998-1999. Infact, the United States fleet really decreasedby 26 vessels. Belize showed an increase inflagged fishing vessels from 158 to 427. Newvessels and flagging in from other countriescontributed to this increase. The Panama fleetdecreased from its maximum of 574 vessels in1994 to 226 in 1999. The recent decreasefollowed efforts by the InternationalCommission for the Conservation of AtlanticTunas (ICCAT) to control the activities of the
3 World Resources Institute at www.wri.org/wri/wr2000/
freshwater.html/.
4 S.L. Postel et al. 1996. Human appropriation of renewable
freshwater. Science, 271.5 Figures are as of January 2000 and refer to gross tonnage (GT).
Information drawn from Lloyd’s Register of Shipping is provided
under exclusive licence by Lloyd’s Maritime Information
Services (LMIS).
13
high seas tuna fleet. The Philippines increasedits fleet from 367 to 436 (16 percent) by buildingnew vessels and flagging in. The Cuba fleetdecreased from 113 to 49 through the scrappingof a fleet of vessels built mainly in the 1960s.
Some countries prepared fishing capacityreduction plans according to the InternationalPlan of Action for the Management of FishingCapacity.
New vessels builtThe database records 548 new vessels built inthe two-year period since the previous studyreported in The State of World Fisheries andAquaculture 1998, including 171 vessels builtin 1997 but reported late, 243 in 1998 and 134in 1999 (this will probably increase owing tolate reporting). Five countries made up 58percent of this total: the United States (75vessels), Belize (47), Spain (99), Norway (43)and Japan (56). The other countries of theEuropean Community (EC) account for a further82 vessels, bringing their contribution up to 73percent of the total. The significant number ofnew vessels built under the Belize flag meansthat 15 percent of the total new buildings arerecorded in open registers. Despite the numberof vessels built during the two-year period, theUnited States, Japan and Spain achievedreductions in their national fleets by scrappingand flagging out.
The decrease in building since the early1990s is significant, not only in terms ofnumbers, but also in terms of average andaggregate tonnage. In the period 1991-1993,2 126 vessels were built, with an aggregatetonnage of 990 000 tons. In the period 1997-1999, 1 127 fishing vessels were built with anaggregate tonnage of 418 000 tons. Theaverage tonnage dropped from 465 to 370 tons,although this decrease is highly likely to be anunderestimate because there was also achange in the unit of measurement during thisperiod from gross registered tonnage (GRT) togross tonnage (GT).
Scrapping and lossSome 955 vessels were removed from thedatabase in the two-year period, i.e. fewerthan were predicted in The State of WorldFisheries and Aquaculture 1998. However,there has been a substantial increase in thenumber of vessels changing their flags to“unknown”; from six in 1994, to 694 in 1997and 931 in 1999. The average age of thesevessels is 27 years, so it is likely that most areintended to be scrapped. Nevertheless, the
share of vessels over 40 years of age is slightlymore than 1 percent of the total. The averageage of vessels scrapped or lost was 30.6 yearscompared with 27.3 two years ago, and theaverage age of the fleet was 21.3 years,against 22.1 years two years ago. The averageage decreased because, although very fewnew vessels were built, some very old vesselswere removed from the fleet.
ReflaggingDuring the two-year period, 1 216 vesselswere reflagged. The most significant reflaggingwas to the Belize flag (182), which alsoacquired a large number of new vessels (47).The number of fishing vessels under the Belizeflag increased from 211 to 427. Honduras, StVincent, Vanuatu and Cyprus slightly increasedthe numbers of vessels registered in their openregisters. On the other hand, following ICCATmeasures for improved flag state responsibility,Panama showed a significant decrease, from321 to 226 vessels. Registration and reflaggingof fishing vessels are described in Box 1.
FISHING TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTFishing technologies evolve in response to awide variety of factors. Demand-drivendevelopments are particularly important.Another, and probably even more prominentfactor, is development resulting from generaltechnical innovations in disciplines that arenot always directly related to fisheries. Thefollowing recent developments will probablyhave a significant impact on fisheries in thefuture.
Limiting the environmental impactof fishingThe impact of fishing on the environment is aglobal issue of growing concern. Various gearsand fishing methods have attracted attentionfor their potential impact on the environment.Concerns are mostly related to gear selectivityand habitat damage, the major issues being:
• trawls are non-selective and can takeconsiderable by-catch, which is oftendiscarded. In addition, trawls sometimesinteract with the bottom, leading toirreversible modifications to bottomecosystems.
• purse seines can catch mammals andjuvenile fish.
• longlines and gillnets catch seabirds andlost gillnets can continue to catch and killfish unintentionally.
14
BOX 1Registration and reflagging of fishing vessels
To avoid duplication in administration, it iscommon practice for most states to include largefishing vessels on their shipping registers as aseparate class of vessel. It is less important forstates to include smaller vessels that fish withintheir national jurisdiction on the register, althoughmany have made registration compulsory.
Increasingly, shipping and fishing regulationsrequire vessels to carry national certificates ofregistry, particularly on the high seas and inwaters under the jurisdiction of another state. Thisrequirement is summarized as follows in the UNConvention on the Law of the Sea, Part VII, HighSeas:
Article 91Nationality of ships
1. Every State shall fix the conditions for thegrant of its nationality to ships, for theregistration of ships in its territory, and for theright to fly its flag. Ships have the nationality ofthe State whose flag they are entitled to fly.There must exist a genuine link between theState and the ship.
2. Every State shall issue to ships which it hasgranted the right to fly its flag documents tothat effect.
The international standards for the registration ofships have been codified in the UN Convention onthe Conditions for the Registration of Ships (1986).Although this Convention is not yet in force andexempts fishing vessels, it clearly describes theprocedures to be followed in order to avoid anymisuse or fraudulent practice associated withregistration. For instance, it describes theprocedures to be followed in bare-boat charteringwhen the vessel is subject to dual registry.
The issue of “open registers” stems from thestipulation quoted above: “There must exist agenuine link between the State and the ship”.While many states have implemented regulationsand requirements to establish such a genuine linkfor registration, there have been no agreedinternational criteria for what constitutes a“genuine link”. Regulations usually establishlinkages through nationality of ownership and/orof the crew. It then becomes a question of thedegree of linkage, described in vaguely definedterms – in decreasing degree of linkage – as“genuine national registers”, “offshore registers”,
“open registers” and “flag of convenienceregisters”.
Owners choose to register their fishing vesselsunder foreign flags for a variety of reasons. Similarpatterns of registration in the trading and fishingfleets would suggest that a major reason forregistering under a particular flag may be to avoidtaxation. Some countries with open registers arealso well-known offshore tax havens. However,increasingly, the reflagging of fishing vessels inparticular fisheries has been directly associatedwith the avoidance of fisheries managementmeasures, and the share of large fishing vesselsregistered in open registers has increased toaround 6 percent of the global total.
Source: A. Smith, FAO Fisheries Department.
15
Much has been done recently to addresssuch problems, and gear and techniques arebeing modified to reduce the possible impacts.The selective performance of trawl gear isbeing improved continuously and selectivegrids have, to a large extent, eliminated theby-catch of fish in the northern shrimpfisheries. Selective grids and square meshesare used in several trawl fisheries to reducethe capture of small-sized individuals.Technologies that depend on behaviourdifferences between shrimp and fish areincreasingly being introduced in tropicalshrimp fisheries, resulting in reduced fishby-catches. Another prevailing tendency intropical shrimp fisheries is an increase inlandings of fish by-catches.
The impact of trawling on the bottom habitatis being investigated in many countries. Exceptfor the obvious damage caused to coral reefsby large trawlers, for example in some areasoff the coast of Norway, little is known aboutthe long-term effects. In 1999, Norwayintroduced non-trawling areas where the riskof damage to deep-water coral reefs was high.
One widespread practice is to encircle driftingobjects – fish attraction devices (FADs) – withpurse seines when fishing for tuna. FADs oftenattract many small fish, and the capture of smalltunas and other fish species around FADs arenow considered a major problem in some purseseine fisheries. No way of mitigating thisproblem has yet been found, apart from reducingthe use of such practices. One possible solutionnow being investigated is to insert selectivedevices made from panels of larger meshes orsorting grids into the purse seine.
A number of measures can be adopted toreduce the incidental catch of seabirds bylonglines, including attaching extra weight tothe line while setting; setting during darkness;and the use of scaring devices when settinglongline gear. Such mitigation techniques arebeing introduced in several longline fisheries,either as part of national regulations or throughvoluntary adoption by fishers who recognizethe benefits of not having bait stolen from theirhooks by seabirds. The International Plan ofAction for Reducing Incidental Catch ofSeabirds in Longline Fisheries adopted byFAO’s members in 1999 will most likelyaccelerate the implementation of measures toreduce seabird by-catch in longline fisheries.
New fibresSince the introduction of such synthetic fibresas polyamide, polyester and polypropylene to
fishing gear in the 1950s, there were no majorintroductions of new fibres in fishing gear untilthe arrival of Dynema fibre – a polyethylene ofultra-high molecular weight. The fishingindustry now has a material that might have asignificant impact on the catchingperformance of fishing gear. The basicproperty of Dynema fibre is that it has adensity of slightly less than 1, which makes itfloat in water. Its tensile strength on a diameterbasis exceeds that of steel by 50 to 100percent and that of polyamide (nylon) by 300to 400 percent. Another feature of Dynema isits low elongation compared with othersynthetic fibres, which makes it nearly asinelastic as steel.
At present, the fibre is relatively expensiveand its application is therefore limited.However, there are several signs of increaseduse, particularly in pelagic trawls, wherethinner twine results in reduced towingresistance and can therefore be used to savefuel (by using a similar-sized trawl) or, whenthe trawl size is increased, improves thecatching efficiency of the vessel comparedwith others of its size. This latter feature isused to develop viable trawl fisheries onscattered fish concentrations, which requirelarge trawl mouth areas. Other fisheries forwhich the fibre might make profitableimprovements are those aimed at smallerindividuals, such as small crustaceans andmesopelagic fish, which require large volumesof water to be filtered.
Multirig trawlingThe towing of two or more trawlssimultaneously was, until recently, onlypractised by outrigger shrimp trawlers.Thousands of such trawlers fish penaeidshrimps in tropical waters. Towards the end ofthe 1990s, multirig trawling was successfullyintroduced into fisheries of such species asnephrops, deepwater shrimp and, to someextent, flatfishes. Particularly in Iceland andNorway, large trawlers equipped for towingtwo trawls have been built for harvestingdeepwater shrimp. The catching efficiency ofvessels using multirig trawls increases by 50 to100 percent, clearly indicating an expandedcapacity to exploit shrimp resources. Multirigtrawling is now widely used in the North Seanephrops fishery and is increasingly replacingsingle-otter trawling. An important innovationthat facilitates the operation of twin trawls isthe symmetry sensor, which monitors the twotrawls during towing.
16
Electronic aids for navigation and fishingIn the last few years, the introduction ofsatellite communications, which are replacingmedium-frequency radios, has had a greatimpact on skippers’ ability to manage allaspects of the fishing operation. The newequipment is controlled by microprocessors,including an inbuilt global positioning system(GPS) module. Some of the better knownapplications of satellite communicationsequipment include the Global MaritimeDistress Safety System (GMDSS) or the VesselMonitoring System (VMS). When the GMDSSis activated, a distress message is sent bypushing a button. An electronic message,which includes the identity of the vessel andits position, is sent to all other vessels andradio stations in the immediate area. The crewof the vessel can then concentrate on theemergency, secure in the knowledge that thedistress message will be effective. Themessage activates alarms on the other vesselsand allows them to go straight to theemergency without having to search for it.
VMS is used by fisheries managementauthorities to observe the positions of vessels.At predetermined intervals, the satellitecommunications system automatically sends amessage, containing the identity and positionof each vessel to the fisheries monitoringcentre. The sequence of positions of anindividual vessel can be stored andsubsequently displayed on a monitor, to givean indication of that vessel’s activities. If thevessel is considered to be acting suspiciously,a patrol craft can be sent directly toinvestigate further.
VMS is playing an increasingly importantrole in monitoring, control and surveillance(MCS), and it makes such activities more cost-effective. The EC's implementation of the VMSscheme for most of its fishing vessels over24 m will bring the total number of vesselsreporting their identity and position tofisheries management authoritiesusing VMS technology to around 8 000worldwide.
Satellite surveillance of fishing vessels isbecoming a tool for MCS. Longline vessels areparticularly easy to locate by microwavesensors because they carry radar reflectors ontheir buoys. The complementary informationfrom VMS and satellite surveillance will makeit possible to locate non-compliant vessels,which are more likely to be involved in illegalfishing. Satellite surveillance could beimplemented far more quickly than VMS has
been because it is completely independent ofthe vessel and does not rely on cooperation.
The integration of three separate modules ofequipment into one unit (i.e. computer, GPSand a satellite communications system) isexpected to increase efficiency. Electronicfishing logbooks are being tested, and willmake it possible to send information, atpredetermined intervals or on demand, througha satellite link to the fisheries managementauthorities. The information can also be sent tofish markets, resulting in a quicker, moreefficient sales process and a better quality ofproduct because of minimal handling. Evenfish stock assessment and fisheriesmanagement will benefit from the almost real-time reporting of fish catches and moredetailed information on where the fish arecaught. One fishery in Australia is alreadybeing managed by these means. Attachingvideo cameras with a wide enough band to thesatellite communications systems allows thetransmission of video images. This could beused to assist in treating injured or sickpersonnel on fishing vessels. The repair ofequipment such as engines, winches orelectronic equipment, which normally requiresthe intervention of specialized engineers, canalso be undertaken following advice givenover the satellite link. This would avoid thecostly and time-consuming travel that iscurrently needed for specialized engineers.
The most up-to-date navigation equipment,GPS, now has an accuracy of +/-10 m becausethe satellite signal is no longer artificiallydegraded. However, the size of other pieces ofequipment and their dependence onmicroprocessors mean that they can be linkedtogether to become more interactive. Monitorsare already being used to provide displays orreadouts from multiple pieces of equipment.Monitors can also overlay the informationobtained from radar, sonar and navigationequipment.
These developments may lead to some ofthis new equipment becoming a legalrequirement for larger vessels over 300 tonswithin the next decade. An example is voyagedata recorders, which are similar to the flightrecorders carried on aircraft. The use of anautomatic identification system (AIS) will alsobecome mandatory in busy sea lanes for thissize of fishing vessel. AIS uses automaticinterrogation by satellite communication, sothat the name, type and size of the ship, alongwith details of its course and speed, can bedisplayed on the radar in the traffic control
17
centre. This is potentially useful for fisheriespatrol vessels when they are passing throughareas with a high density of fishing vesselsbecause it would obviate the necessity ofboarding and checking the licences of eachfishing vessel.
FISHERIES POLICY AND MANAGEMENT6
ObjectivesMost countries have similar managementobjectives, although the emphasis differsbetween developed and developing nations.Developed countries are usually faced withfully or overexploited stocks, so theirmanagement objectives concentrate on stockrebuilding and capacity reduction, althoughmost countries also have significant aimsregarding markets and social conflict. Themost urgent objective is to scale fleet sizes sothat they become commensurate withsustainable exploitation of the resources.Management plans also increasingly recognizethe need for a policy that integrates fisherieswith management of the coastal zone or inlandwaters.
In contrast, developing countries tend toconcentrate on fisheries development in termsof new resources and technology. Although itis recognized that some stocks are overfished,objectives are concentrated more onenhancing and diversifying fisheries ratherthan on limiting fishing efforts. This is perhapsbecause the underlying concern for manycountries is the relatively important rolefisheries play in employment and food securityfor some of their poorest people. More specificaims include building infrastructure(particularly for processing to reduce post-harvest losses and increase the value added);fishery enhancement, through restocking; andreducing social conflicts, not only amongdifferent fishing groups but also betweenfisheries and other sectors.
The current state of managementFisheries management is widely considered tobe ineffective because of the poor state ofmany important fish stocks. However, in manyrespects, management has improved a greatdeal over recent years. Policies and objectivesappear more realistic, concentrating more onmanagement and less on development, and
making the best social use of resources.Explicit recognition of risk and considerationof longer-term production, for example in theadoption of the precautionary approach (seeIndicators of sustainable development and theprecautionary approach in marine capturefisheries, Part 2, p. 60), are increasinglyreflected in decision-making, and there hasbeen growing recognition of the need toprotect the ecosystem as well as individualstocks, through measures that include theprovision of marine reserves. Technicalinnovations for improving management advicehave been developed rapidly, butimplementation has been slow because of theshort-term economic and politicalconsequences. As a result, the rate of realchange in management has been slow, and itis debatable whether improvements have keptpace with the increasing pressures onresources. Nevertheless, there are situationswhere management has improved and clearbenefits are apparent. Some countries havereported the successful implementation ofproperty rights schemes for fisheries (seeProperty rights and fisheries management, Part2, p. 52).
It is becoming increasingly clear thateffective fisheries management, at both thepolicy-making and the implementationstages, depends critically on consensusand participation that utilize objectiveand reliable reporting of fishery status andtrends (see Box 2).
AdministrationThe FAO Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries7 is being used as a foundation onwhich to base fisheries policy andmanagement. Together with the guidelines forits implementation, the Code contains a broadset of principles and methods for developingand managing fisheries and aquaculture. It iswidely recognized by governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as settingthe aims for sustainable fisheries over the nextfew decades and as a basis for nationallegislation as well as industry-supported Codesof Conduct.
Some countries have no officially approvedfisheries management policy. While such anapproach appears to leave fisheries
6 This section is based on information provided to the FAO
Fisheries Department by member countries. Most of it was
obtained over the last two years.
7 Adopted by the 28th Session of the FAO Conference in October
1995, the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is referred
to throughout this publication as “the Code”.
18
BOX 2Objective and reliable fishery status and trends reporting
Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture requireinformed decisions and actions at all levels, frompolicy-makers to individual fishers, as well asenvironmentalists – who are increasinglyconcerned about fisheries – consumers and thepublic. Decision-making based on the bestscientific evidence requires reliable, relevant andtimely information. There are growing demandsfor objective, unbiased, peer-reviewed andtransparent information on the status and trends offisheries and fisheries resources as a basis forpolicy-making and fisheries management. Thedriving forces behind such demands includeincreasing recognition that overfishing ispervasive and effective management oftenlacking; the widespread adoption of theprecautionary approach to fisheries managementas embodied in the United Nations Fish StocksAgreement1 and the FAO Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries; ecolabelling issues; andconcerns about rare or endangered species andthe environment.
Status and trends reporting has become an issuebecause of the risk of misinformation. A study bythe University of Washington2 evaluated thevalidity of 14 statements commonly made aboutthe state of marine fisheries resources and foundthat ten of these were unsupportable orquestionable, whereas only four were supportable.(Most of the supportable statements and only a fewof the unsupportable ones were attributed to FAO.)Irrespective of whether such inaccurateinformation is generated deliberately to promote aspecific cause or inadvertently through ignorance,it can have a major impact on public opinion andpolicy-making that may not be in the best interestsof either sustainable use of fisheries resources orthe conservation of aquatic ecosystems.
FAO is addressing this issue by proposing theimprovement of fishery status and trends reportingusing a multifaceted approach as outlined by theFAO Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research(ACFR). ACFR has proposed that this could be
facilitated by an international plan of action onfishery status and trends reporting, which stateswould adopt through FAO’s Committee onFisheries (COFI). As envisaged, the plan of actionwould be a voluntary instrument that wouldspecify actions and procedures to be undertakenby states, both individually and through regionalfishery bodies or arrangements, and by FAO toimprove fishery status and trends reporting. Theplan of action could be built around the followingprinciples:
Sustainability and security. States woulddemonstrate their commitment to sustainabledevelopment of fisheries resources and fisheriesby providing, inter alia, the best informationpossible on the status and trends of fisheries withintheir jurisdictions and in other areas in which theyparticipate.
Best scientific evidence. States would seek toimprove their collection, compilation anddissemination of the best scientific evidenceavailable on the nature and conduct of fisheries,including environmental and socio-economicinformation, in conformity with the United NationsConference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
Participation and cooperation. States wouldadopt mechanisms for inclusion of all relevantparticipants in the preparation, analysis andpresentation of fisheries information, includingfishers, government and NGOs. States wouldcooperate with other states in developing andmaintaining such information either directly orthrough regional fishery bodies or arrangements,as appropriate.
Objectivity and transparency. States wouldindividually, and through regional fishery bodiesand FAO, prepare and disseminate fisheriesinformation in an objective manner, taking intoaccount the best scientific evidence available(including uncertainty), the precautionaryapproach and national and internationalobligations related to it, and applying quality
management with a free licence, the result isoften a lack of transparency and effectiveness.The problem arises in both developed anddeveloping countries and leads to managementauthorities having poor accountability to thefisheries sector and the public. It is being
addressed specifically through extensiveconsultation procedures among stakeholders(e.g. in Australia and New Zealand), and byemphasis on comanagement systems in manycountries. Participatory approaches, wherefishing communities are involved in the
19
criteria and quality assurance protocols. The planof action would be implemented in a transparentmanner in conformity with Article 6.13 of theCode.
A mechanism to collate and exchange fisheriesinformation, including status and trends reports isunder development at FAO, and it could serve asthe key vehicle for implementation of the plan ofaction. FAO is making a major effort to develop aFisheries Global Information System (FIGIS),which will facilitate the exchange of fisheriesinformation from a wide variety of domains suchas fisheries statistics, exploited species, fisheriesresources and stocks, the fisheries themselves,fishing methods, fishing fleets, fish processing andfood safety, fish marketing and trade, speciesintroductions and fish diseases. The informationarchitecture will be designed so that the complexsystem can be presented in a simplified waythrough logical navigation channels. FIGIS willnot be just a dissemination system, but also ameans for partners to contribute information. Theinformation will be exchanged according toarrangements specified in partnership agreementsinvolving FAO, regional fishery bodies andnational centres of excellence, and using agreedprotocols. Thus, the main novelty will be the moresystematic and transparent assembly and synthesisof information from national to regional and thento global scales, with users having the possibilityof accessing a much more comprehensive rangeof information. Another main focus andbeneficiary of this approach will be the synthesisof the global state of marine fisheries resources.
FAO has a major responsibility to supportcapacity building in developing countries, therebyallowing users to access, utilize and contribute tofisheries information and knowledge systems,including FIGIS. For example, the AquaticSciences and Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA)bibliographic database may be linked to FIGIS,and work is under way to provide low-incomefood-deficit countries (LIFDCs) with access toASFA as well as to ensure more input to thedatabase from those countries. Communication
between FIGIS and FAO regional informationsystems, such as those for Mediterranean capturefisheries and aquaculture or a geographicinformation system (GIS) project for the WestAfrican coast, will be given precedence duringthe early phases of the FIGIS initiative. Likewise,software for the collection and processing offisheries statistics has been implemented in manydeveloping countries to improve the quality ofnational statistics and facilitate their exchange atthe regional and global levels.
1 Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
of 10 December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and
Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks.2 D.L. Alverson and K. Dunlop. 1998. Status of world
marine fish stocks. University of Washington School of
Fisheries, United States.
Source: R. Grainger, FAO Fisheries Department.
planning, implementation and evaluation ofmanagement systems, are widely supported,at least in principle.
Fishing controlsTotal allowable catches (TACs) are probably
the most common fisheries management tool,at least for major fisheries and those in theNorthern Hemisphere. There is a growingrecognition of the need to control capacity,including fleet sizes, in order to protect stocksand improve economic performance. Gear
20
controls are also a common conservationmeasure and include the prohibition ofdestructive methods such as fish poisons anddynamite, the introduction of gears that reduceby-catch, such as turtle excluder devices andmesh size restrictions.
There is also concern about gears that haveattracted criticism from environmentalists,such as drift nets, longlines and demersaltrawls, and such gears are likely to be moreselectively used. Many countries have a policyof developing fishery enhancement throughrestocking heavily fished resources, therebyavoiding the need to rebuild stocks throughreductions in fishing. This is done particularlyin inland fisheries, where enhancement,rehabilitation of habitat and reduction ofpollution are major aims, alongside thereduction of fishing in order to conserveresources.
Fishing capacity control and reduction is afeature of many countries’ policies.Approaches include licensing, buy-backschemes or individual transferable quotas (seeProperty rights and fisheries management, Part2, p. 52). Reducing the access of othercountries is also seen as a useful method ofconserving resources, and is often adoptedbefore controls and limits are imposed on thenational effort capacity. Diversifying fisheriesby encouraging vessels to exploit underutilizedresources where these are available is seen asthe best alternative to fleet reduction, eventhough such resources are very scarce and,without control of the fishing effort, cannot beexploited sustainably.
Conflicts among user groups are resolvedthrough zoning, stock enhancement, publiceducation, better enforcement of legislationand, too rarely, resource allocation and controlof access. A common problem is conflictbetween industrial and artisanal fleets. Theartisanal sector is particularly vulnerable asit often depends on set gears that areincompatible with towed gears, such asindustrial trawls. The solution is often clear –i.e. introduce zones that separate the gears(particularly when stocks do not move) – butenforcement may be difficult.
Social and economic developmentImproved post-harvest processing is seen as away of developing the fishing industry withoutincreasing harvests. As well as reducing lossesthrough poor handling, improved processingcan raise the value added of fish products andestablish uses for otherwise discarded catch.
Food safety remains important and has becomeincreasingly stringent for exported products; inmany cases Hazard Analysis and CriticalControl Point (HACCP) procedures must beapplied by processors. The distribution ofmarine fish to inland areas, distant from thecoast, appears to be a problem for many of thecountries that depend on capture fisheries andhave poor infrastructure. This is often a reasonfor developing freshwater aquaculture closerto markets.
For low-income food-deficit countries(LIFDCs), food security, employment, povertyalleviation and equitable access to resourcesare seen as priority concerns. Women andeconomically disadvantaged groups areidentified in many management plans forspecial consideration in the provision offinance and training.
Budget and general resource constraints areseen as a significant problem for management.While there is a general shortage of humanand financial resources for fisheriesmanagement in developing countries, othercountries are concentrating on methods tocover management costs from resourcerevenue.
Regional and global managementRegional cooperation has many other benefitsin addition to cost savings. Many fisherypolicies explicitly concern themselves with theneed to harmonize management measuresamong and even (in the larger ones) withincountries. Benefits stem mainly from improvedMCS, which is one of the most expensiveaspects of management. Regional cooperationcan greatly reduce these costs. The sharing ofinformation and technical expertise, as well asthe joint management of shared stocks, arealso of increasing interest to multilateralcooperation. To support these there is a need tostrengthen regional fisheries managementorganizations and make them more efficient(see Box 3 for examples of activities inregional fishery bodies).
Although there has been a general decline indistant-water fishing, some developingcountries still rely on long-range fleets, usuallyfrom developed countries, to exploit theiroffshore resources. Because of the need toshare information on foreign fleets, regionalmanagement is particularly valuable indealing with fisheries that have a large foreigncomponent.
However, regional bodies improve thecooperation between states even when distant-
21
Indian Ocean Tuna CommissionThe Atlantic and the Eastern Pacific Oceans havehad tuna management bodies for several decades.Discussions leading to the creation of the IndianOcean Tuna Commission (IOTC) started in 1986.The agreement establishing IOTC entered intoforce with the accession of the tenth member in1996. This body was established under Article XIVof the FAO Constitution and now has 18 members,including the EC and 17 states. Membership isopen to coastal countries of the Indian Ocean aswell as non-riparian countries that are fishing fortuna in this ocean. The commission’s objective isthe optimum utilization of 16 species of tuna andtuna-like fishes in its area of competence, which isdefined as the Indian Ocean and adjacent seas.This commission is the first of its kind in FAO, as ithas management powers and is funded totallyfrom member party contributions.
Initially, tuna catches in this area were halfthose of the Atlantic or the Eastern Pacific Oceans,but they have increased rapidly and now accountfor more than a quarter of world tuna landings.The value of the annual catch of 1.2 million tonnesis also very high (estimated to be betweenUS$2 billion and US$3 billion), as there is a largeproportion of valuable fish caught by longlines.Another significant fact is that nearly half thecatch comes from artisanal fisheries, whereas inthe other oceans most of the catch comes fromlong-range industrialized operations.
The technical activities that gave rise to IOTCstarted in 1982 through the Indo-Pacific TunaDevelopment and Management Programme(IPTP), which was funded by the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) and executedby FAO. The programme was entrusted with thecollection of statistical data on tuna fisheries andprovided participating countries with a forum forresearch and the discussion of stock status.Scientific support was provided throughout thelifetime of IPTP through a project funded by Japan.
water fishing is in decline. Regional fisheriesmanagement bodies have an important role toplay in combating illegal, unreported andunregulated (IUU) fishing (see the section onIUU fishing, Part 2, p. 57).
Inland fisheries managementManagement of inland fisheries is constrained
by the same factors that make accuratedata collection difficult: the diverse anddiffuse nature of the fisheries; incompleteor inaccurate reporting; andcompetition for water resources from othersectors such as agriculture and energyproduction. In efforts to rebuild fisheries or toadd value to the catch of certain water bodies,
BOX 3Regional fishery bodies:IOTC and NEAFC
22
As of 1986, member parties provided all thefunding for the operation of the programme.
The IOTC secretariat has been operational at itsheadquarters in Seychelles since the beginning of1998. During this period, staff have beenappointed, statistical databases have beenconstituted, data from tuna fishing countries havebeen collected and the dissemination of data andinformation through the Internet and electronicand print media has been organized. Thesecretariat also provides support in datacollection, training and scientific activities tocontracting and cooperating parties. Thesecretariat takes an active role at the internationallevel, cooperating closely with FAO and otherregional fishery bodies in such fields as status andtrends reporting, the establishment of statisticalstandards, the exchange of data and informationand the international plans of action on seabirdby-catch, sharks and fishing capacity. Acoordination mechanism has been introducedamong tuna management bodies in all the oceansin order to counter the threat posed by illegal,unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing.
The commission meets every year. Advice ontechnical and scientific matters is providedthrough a scientific committee and scientific workis undertaken through working parties. To date,working parties have been constituted for statisticsand tagging, as well as for tropical, temperate andneritic tunas and billfish. In the short time since itscreation, IOTC has already taken decisions onminimum data reporting standards, theconfidentiality of data and measures to regulateIUU fishing. It has also created a new status ofCooperating Party, intended to facilitate theaccession of countries that might be hesitant tojoin or might not have the necessary financialresources. It is anticipated that resourcemanagement measures will be taken at the nextsession.
Source: D. Ardill, IOTC Secretary.
Northeast Atlantic Fisheries CommissionThe foundation of NEAFC can be traced back tothe period between the First and Second WorldWars. In the 1930s, several conferences were heldto address the issue of rational exploitation of fishresources, but attempts to organize aninternational agreement were interrupted by theSecond World War. In 1946, the United Kingdomorganized an International Conference onOverfishing, which resulted in the establishment ofa Permanent Commission.
This commission, founded in 1953, was theforerunner of NEAFC. Its first meeting wasattended by delegations from 12 contractingparties and dealt mainly with minimum fish sizeand the use of various fishing gears. In 1955, thecommission set up an ad hoc scientific committeeto look into the issues under discussion and seekadvice from the International Council for theExploration of the Sea (ICES).
During its first years of operation, it wasapparent that the measures it could establish wereinsufficient to protect stocks adequately. Between1954 and 1958 several informal discussions tookplace to consider new types of internationalregulation. In 1959, a conference resulted in theNortheast Atlantic Fisheries Convention, whichentered into force in 1963. NEAFC, which wasformed under this convention, succeeded thepermanent commission. The new commission wasgiven additional powers and was able to establishstricter conservation and management measures.
NEAFC formed the framework for internationalcooperation in the area of fisheries regulationbeyond national fishing limits. Its main purposewas to recommend measures to maintain therational exploitation of fish stocks in theconvention’s area, taking scientific advice fromICES. In 1967, NEAFC established a Scheme ofJoint Enforcement that contained rules for mutualinspection and control outside national fisheryjurisdictions. Although all decisions regardingjudicial processes were the responsibility of theflag state, this scheme was considered a
stocking (often of exotic species) and otherenhancement measures have been adopted.Aquaculture can also be an enhancementmeasure, but in many rural areas aquacultureproduction accounts for only a small fractionof inland fisheries production and should notbe seen as a substitute for fisheriesmanagement. Access to fishing areas is often
controlled by powerful individuals within thecommunity. As recreational fisheries becomean increasingly valuable source of revenue indeveloping countries (e.g. through accesscharges and tourism), local subsistence andcommercial fishers are losing access to manywater bodies. This poses a problem for themanagement of individual fisheries, so there is
23
significant achievement. In 1969, the commissionrecommended a complete ban on salmon fisheriesoutside national limits. It also agreed to enforce aclosed season for the North Sea herring fisheryfrom 1971. In 1975 a recommendation to bandirected industrial fishing for North Sea herringwas agreed.
During this period, the commission’s powersincreased, as it was allowed to set limits for totalallowable catches (TACs) and effort limitations,including the allocation of quotas. The first quotarecommendation was on North Sea herring in1974 and, the following year, NEAFCrecommended TACs and quota allocations for15 stocks. By the end of 1976, NEAFC was awarethat developments taking place after the ThirdUnited Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS III) would result in the extension offishing limits to 200 miles. In 1977, when thecoastal states in the North Atlantic declared 200miles jurisdiction off their coasts, most of the areasof stocks regulated by NEAFC became nationalzones. The management of joint stocks became amatter of bilateral or multilateral responsibility,instead of NEAFC’s responsibility.
An agreement on membership of theorganization was reached between NEAFC’scontracting parties and the European EconomicCommunity (EEC) in 1980, enabling the EEC tobecome a signatory. The 1980 meeting resultedin the Convention on Future MultilateralCo-operation in the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries.A new commission was established in 1982.
The duties and obligations of the newcommission were similar to those of the former: itshould serve as a forum for consultation and theexchange of information on fish stocks andmanagement and it had the power to makerecommendations concerning fisheries ininternational waters in the convention area.However, since most fisheries activities tookplace inside coastal state jurisdiction, NEAFClacked any real responsibility for managing them.
The development of the legal framework for
fisheries management following UNCLOS, inparticular the Rio Declaration and the UnitedNations Agreement on the Conservation andManagement of Straddling Fish Stocks and HighlyMigratory Fish Stocks, resulted in a new dawn forNEAFC. The commission decided to consider thefuture of NEAFC in the light of recentdevelopments in the legal framework for fishing inwaters outside national jurisdiction.
Recent years have seen increased fishingactivity and NEAFC has become responsible formanaging several stocks in the convention area.In 1998, the current contracting parties –Denmark (in respect of the Faroe Islands andGreenland), the EC, Iceland, Norway, Poland andthe Russian Federation – agreed to strengthenNEAFC by establishing an independent secretariatin London. An agreement was reached on a newScheme on Control and Enforcement to be appliedto waters outside national jurisdiction. This permitsthe mutual inspection of contracting parties’vessels. Contracting parties are also required tonotify the secretariat of vessels authorized to fishin international waters and report the catchestaken.
Contracting parties have agreed that, as from1 January 2000, they require the satellite trackingof vessels fishing outside national jurisdiction inthe Northeast Atlantic. The secretariat will supplyup-to-date information about ongoing fishingactivities to contracting parties with an inspectionpresence in the area. NEAFC’s contracting partieshave also agreed measures to be taken whendealing with non-contracting parties fishing in thearea; for example, if fishing of NEAFC-regulatedstocks takes place contrary to NEAFCrecommendations, non-contracting parties mayface prohibition of the landing of catches.
Source: S. Engesaeter, NEAFC Secretary.
a move to manage watersheds andhabitats instead. Protecting the habitat inwatersheds and developing access andownership schemes for inland waterbodies are two measures that could helppromote responsible inland fisheries, evenwhen there is no accurate information onspecies catch.
AQUACULTUREProduction and valueMost aquaculture has developed in freshwaterenvironments (Figure 9), and mainly in Asia.The development of inland aquaculture isseen as an important source of food securityin Asia, particularly in land-locked countries.
Freshwater aquaculture production is
24
dominated by finfish, particularly silver, grassand other carps (Figures 10 and 11). Brackishwater aquaculture has most frequently beendeveloped for shrimp production, notably thegiant tiger prawn, which accounts for thegrowth in shrimp export markets. Milkfishproduction dominated brackish water finfishaquaculture in the 1980s, but has subsequentlygrown more slowly. In volume terms,mariculture has been dominated by seaweeds,notably Japanese kelp, and molluscs, mainlythe Pacific cupped oyster. However, asproduction figures are given in live weight(including the high water content of seaweedsand the heavy shells of molluscs), the statisticsgive the impression that these products aregreater sources of food and employment thanthey actually are.
Brackish and saltwater aquaculture has seena growth in high-value salmon in particular,and in brackish water, shrimp is the majorhigh-value product. Both these types ofaquaculture are oriented towards the exportmarket. Shrimp (crustaceans) and salmon(diadromous fishes) make up a lower volumethan freshwater fishes such as tilapia and carpbut attract a high price, making them asignificant component in value terms.
Production is dominated by Asian countries(Figure 12), particularly China which hasreported increases in production of 0.7million tonnes per year until 1992 and 2.6millions tonnes per year thereafter. For the
rest of the world, combined growth inproduction has averaged 0.4 million tonnesper year. Within the last decade, LIFDCs,excluding China, have shown an encouragingoverall upward trend in production and, interms of quantity, the increase has kept pacewith that reported in non-LIFDCs (Figure 13).China and other Asian countries dominateLIFDC aquaculture production (Figure 14)because they have been much more active inpromoting aquaculture, particularly forsubsistence. While Asia, the Americas andEurope have seen an expansion inaquaculture production, Africa has been slowto develop its potential. Unlike Asia, Africahas little aquaculture tradition and has beenaffected by a number of external problemsthat have prevented proper management anddevelopment despite investment.Nevertheless, aquaculture production inAfrica has risen from 37 000 tonnes in 1984 to189 000 in 1998, the majority of which isfreshwater carp and tilapia.
Development and policyIn the Asia region, aquaculture has developedmainly as a rural activity integrated intoexisting farming systems. Rural aquaculture,including enhancement and culture-basedfisheries, has made significant contributions tothe alleviation of poverty, directly throughsmall-scale household farming of aquaticorganisms for domestic consumption or
FIGURE 9Aquaculture production in 1998:breakdown by environment
58.7(18.1million tonnes) 35.0
(10.8million tonnes)
6.3(1.9
million tonnes)
Brackish waterculture
Mariculture
Freshwaterculture
Percentage
Note: Data do not include aquatic plants
Source: FAO
25
(A) (B)
(C)
Finfish
Crustaceans
Molluscs
Aquaticplants
FIGURE 10Global aquaculture production by species groups in freshwater (A),brackish water (B) and marine (C) environments in 1998
1
35
7
57
98
2
44
47
1 8
Source: FAO
Percentage
Source: FAO
FIGURE 11Global aquaculture production: major species groups in 1998
0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000
Freshwater fish
Molluscs
Aquatic plants
Diadromous fish
Crustaceans
Marine fish
Other aquaticanimals
Thousand tonnes US$ millions
Quantity
17 355
9 143
8 568
1 909
1 564
19 737
8 479
5 377
5 907
9 234
3 396
330
781
111
0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000
Value
26
Source: FAO
FIGURE 12Aquaculture production: major producer countries in 1998
0 10 000 20 000 30 000
Other countries
Viet Nam
Thailand
Bangladesh
Korea, Rep.
Indonesia
Philippines
Japan
India
China
Thousand tonnes US$ millions
Quantity
0 10 0005 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000
Value
Note: Data include aquatic plants. Countries listed are those with a production volume of more than 500 000 tonnes
27 072
2 03025 449
4 126
2 223
639
2 150
766
1 494
1 807
1 357
12 448
1 290
955
814
797
584
570
538
4 782
20
10
30China
LIFDCs,excludingChina
Non-LIFDCs
FIGURE 13Trends in aquaculture production volume
Million tonnes
Source: FAO
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
0
Note: Data include aquatic plants
27
income, and indirectly by providingemployment for the poor or low-cost fish forpoor rural and urban consumers. Recentexperiences in these countries indicate thatthere are wide opportunities for the poor, whocan integrate aquaculture into their existingfarming systems.
All countries in the region have a largeunfulfilled potential for growth, although ruralaquaculture is far better developed incountries such as China and India. In China,significant expansion and intensification ofaquaculture are taking place. Intensivesystems, based increasingly on formulatedfeeds, are more common in coastal provinces,where small-scale farms account for 60percent of production, while in poorer andremoter provinces traditional integratedsystems, based mainly on manuring, stillpredominate. In India, rural aquaculture usingextensive to semi-intensive modes ofproduction in ponds and tanks contributessignificantly to rural household incomes. Inthe Philippines, small-scale holders dominatecoastal seaweed and mollusc farming. InBangladesh, where most fish farmers arerelatively poor, there is vast potential for thepoorest members of society to become newentrant aquaculture farmers. In Nepal, poorfishers are the owner-operators of fish cages,while in the Philippines poor farmers aremore likely to be hired to operate suchsystems and are less likely to be owners. InIndonesia, about 78 percent of farming
households cultivate fish in small ponds ofless than 500 m2, and aquaculture is the mainsource of income for 66 percent of thehouseholds that cultivate fish in paddies andponds. Aquaculture is also the main sourceof income for 65 percent of households withbrackish water ponds of an area less than1 ha. It has been reported that the traditionalintegrated farming system in Viet Nam maycontribute as much to household income asrice cultivation, while occupying a farsmaller area.
However, the contribution of ruralaquaculture to development is uneven,suggesting that there is still significantunfulfilled potential. Rural aquaculture isincreasingly recognized as a way to improvethe livelihoods of poor people, and manygovernments and development agencies attachimportance to this sector in the Asia andPacific region.
Aquaculture still faces a number ofproblems. Among these are access totechnology and financial resources for thepoor; environmental impacts; and diseases.The priority areas for further research include:
• the adoption of aquaculture by poor ruralhouseholds;
• technologies for sustainable stockenhancement, ranching programmes andopen ocean aquaculture;
• the use of aquatic plants and animals fornutrient stripping;
FIGURE 14Aquaculture production:contribution of LIFDCs in 1998
China
India
Philippines
Indonesia
Other countries
Korea, Dem.People's Rep.
Bangladesh84
6
33 2 1 1
Percentage
Source: FAO
Note: Data do not include aquatic plants
28
• integrated systems to improveenvironmental performance;
• managing the health of aquatic animals;• nutrition in aquaculture;• the quality and safety of aquaculture
products;• emerging technologies, including
recirculating systems, offshore cageculture, integrated water use, artificialupwelling and ecosystem food webmanagement, domestication and selectivebreeding and genetic improvement.
Although many policies are developedspecifically for aquaculture, the resulting plansare often integrated with those of the capturefisheries sector. Aquaculture is seen not onlyas having greater development potential thancapture fisheries, but also as an important toolfor increasing food security. Many countrieshave identified a future shortfall in the supplyof fishery products and support aquaculturedevelopment in order to avoid the importationof scarce fishery products.
Aquaculture is often proposed as a way ofproviding fish to non-coastal communities,high-value exports, seed stock for replenishingresources and bait for fisheries. As well as thedevelopment of new areas, most plans foraquaculture include support for areas that areunderutilized as a result of inefficiencies inproduction, a common problem for manydeveloping countries. Other significant issuesaddressed by management and developmentplans include disease control, conflicting landuses and general environmental problemsarising from aquaculture development, such ascritical habitat loss, species introductions andpollution.
The future development of aquaculture willdepend on improvements in new and adaptiveresearch and management. A framework forsuch cooperation, provided in the BangkokDeclaration and Strategy for AquacultureDevelopment Beyond 2000,8 is particularlyimportant to developing countries, which needto share expertise and technology. Regionalmanagement of aquaculture is beingdeveloped for the Mediterranean regionthrough the application of Article 9 of theCode. This is the first institutional attempt toharmonize the different national principlesconnected with the Code. The principles
address integrated and improved planning withthe participation of all sectors, environmentalconservation and economic and trade issues.
FISH UTILIZATIONSince 1994, there has been a tendency toincrease the proportion of fisheries productionused for direct human consumption rather thanfor other purposes (Figure 15). Of the productsfor human consumption, fresh fish showedsignificant growth during the 1990s,complemented by a decline in the use ofcanned fish. This pattern has largely beendriven by growth in consumption, whichincreased the demand for fresh fish and causeda slight decline in other uses (Figure 16).
Fish has a significant capacity forprocessing. In 1998, only 36 percent of worldfisheries production was marketed as freshfish, while the remaining 64 percentunderwent some form of processing. Fish forhuman consumption had a 79.6 percent share,while the remaining 20.4 percent went to non-food purposes, almost exclusively for reductionto meal and oil. Of the fish destined for directhuman consumption, fresh fish was the mostimportant product, with a share of 45.3percent, followed by frozen fish (28.8 percent),canned fish (13.9 percent) and cured fish (12percent). Fresh fish increased in volume from25 million tonnes in 1988 to 42 million tonnesin 1998, live weight equivalent. Processed fish(frozen, cured and canned) increased from 46million tonnes in 1988 to more than 51 milliontonnes, live weight equivalent, in 1998.
ConsumptionThe total food fish supply has been growing ata rate of 3.6 percent per annum since 1961,while the world’s population has beenexpanding at 1.8 percent per annum. Theproteins derived from fish, crustaceans andmolluscs account for between 13.8 and 16.5percent of the animal protein intake of thehuman population.
Total food fish supply grew from 27.6 milliontonnes in 1961 to more than 93 million tonnes atthe end of the twentieth century. Averageapparent per capita consumption increased fromabout 9 kg per annum in the early 1960s to 16 kgin 1997. The per capita availability of fish andfishery products has therefore nearly doubled in40 years, outpacing population growth, whichalso nearly doubled in the same period.
In industrialized countries, where dietsgenerally contain a more diversified range ofanimal proteins, the supply increased from8 Available at www.fao.org/fi/default.asp.
29
Source: FAO
80 60 40 20 0 20 40
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
FIGURE 15Utilization of world fisheries production (breakdown by percentage), 1989-1998
Marketingas freshproduce
Freezing
Curing
Canning
Other purposesHuman consumption
Percentage
10
20
30
40
50
Million tonnes(live weight)
Source: FAO
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
0
Non-foodpurposes
Marketing asfresh produce
Freezing
Canning
Curing
FIGURE 16Utilization of world fisheries production (breakdown by volume), 1989-1998
30
13.2 million tonnes in 1961 to 26.7 milliontonnes in 1997, implying a rise in per capitaprovision from 19.7 to 27.7 kg. This representsa growth rate close to 1 percent per annum. Inthis group of countries, fish contributed anincreasing share of total protein intake until1989 (accounting for between 6.5 and 8.5percent), but its importance has graduallydeclined since then and, in 1997, itspercentage contribution was back to the levelprevailing in the mid-1980s.
In the early 1960s, per capita fish supply inLIFDCs was, on average, one-fifth of that ofthe richest countries. The gap has graduallylessened, however, and in 1997 average LIFDCfish consumption was close to half that of themore affluent economies. If China is excluded,per capita supply in LIFDCs increased from 4.9to 7.8 kg over the period – an annual growthrate of 1.3 percent.
Despite the relatively low consumption byweight in LIFDCs, the contribution of fish tototal animal protein intake is considerable(nearly 20 percent). Over the last four
decades, however, the share of fish proteins toanimal proteins has exhibited a slight negativetrend owing to faster growth in theconsumption of other animal products.
As well as income-related variations, therole of fish in nutrition shows markedcontinental, regional and national differences(Figure 17). For example, of the 93.9 milliontonnes available worldwide for consumption in1997, only 5.2 million tonnes were consumedin Africa (with a per capita supply of 7.1 kg),whereas two-thirds of the total were consumedin Asia – 31.7 million tonnes in Asia excludingChina (13.7 kg per capita) and a similaramount in China alone (where the apparentsupply amounted to 25.7 kg per capita).
Currently, two-thirds of the total food fishsupply are obtained from fishing in marine andinland waters; the remaining one-third isderived from aquaculture. The contribution ofinland and marine capture fisheries to percapita food supply has stabilized (at 10 to11 kgper capita in the period 1984-1998). Recentincreases in per capita availability have,
Wor
ld
Afr
ica
Nor
th a
nd C
entr
alA
mer
ica
Sout
h A
mer
ica
Asi
a
Euro
pe
Oce
ania
Indu
stri
aliz
edco
untr
ies
Dev
elop
ing
coun
trie
s(e
xcl.
LIFD
Cs)
LIFD
Cs
0
20
40
60
80
100
Total food fishsupply in live weight
(million tonnes)
Per capita food fishsupply (kg)
Total foodfish supply
Per capitafood fishsupply
FIGURE 17Food fish supply by continent and economic grouping in 1997
0
10
20
30
40
50
Source: FAO
16.1
5
17.7
13.7
7.1
14.9
27.7
19.918.5
10.0
16.7
94
50
63
8
14 14
25
13
31
therefore, been obtained from aquacultureproduction, from both traditional ruralaquaculture and intensive commercialaquaculture of high-value species. Onaverage, for all countries in the world exceptChina, aquaculture’s contribution to per capitafood availability grew from 1.2 kg in 1984 to2.1 kg in 1998 – at an average rate of 4.1percent per annum. In China, where fishfarming practices have long traditional roots,the per capita supply from aquaculture isreported to have increased from 6 kg to nearly17 kg in the same period, implying an annualaverage growth of 15 percent.
The total amount of fish consumed and thespecies composition of the food supply varyaccording to region and country, reflecting thedifferent levels of natural availability ofaquatic resources in adjacent waters, as wellas diverse food traditions, tastes, demand andincome levels. Demersal fish are muchpreferred in northern Europe and NorthAmerica, and cephalopods are consumed inseveral Mediterranean and Asian countries,
but to a much lesser extent in other regions.Despite the fast-growing contribution ofaquaculture to production, crustaceans are stillhigh-priced commodities and theirconsumption is mostly concentrated in affluenteconomies. Of the 16.1 kg of fish per capitaavailable for consumption in 1997, the vastmajority (75 percent) was finfish (Figure 18).Shellfish supplied 25 percent – or 4 kg percapita, subdivided into 1.4 kg of crustaceans,2.2 kg of molluscs and 0.4 kg of cephalopods.
In terms of total supply, 25 million tonneswere made up of freshwater and diadromousspecies. Marine finfish species provided 45million tonnes, subdivided into 16 milliontonnes of demersal species, 19 million tonnesof pelagics and 10 million tonnes ofunidentified and miscellaneous marine fish.The remaining 20 percent of the food supplywas shellfish, comprising 8 million tonnes ofcrustaceans, 2.5 million tonnes of cephalopodsand 13 million tonnes of other molluscs.Historically, there have not been dramaticchanges in most of the broad groups’ shares in
Fres
hwat
er a
nddi
adro
mou
s fis
h
Dem
ersa
l mar
ine
fish
Pela
gic
mar
ine
fish
Mar
ine,
uns
peci
fied
Cru
stac
eans
Mol
lusc
s
Cep
halo
pods
Oth
er a
quat
ican
imal
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
Total food fishsupply in live weight
(million tonnes)
Per capita food fishsupply (kg)
Total foodfish supply
FIGURE 18Food fish supply by species groups in 1997
0
1
2
3
4
5
Source: FAO
4.4
26
16
19
108
13
21
0.1
0.4
2.2
1.4
1.7
3.2
2.7
Per capitafood fishsupply
32
average world consumption: demersal fishspecies have stabilized at about 2.7 kg percapita and pelagic fish at 3.2 kg. Two groupsare exceptions in that they showedconsiderable increases between 1961 and1997: the availability of crustaceans per capitamore than trebled from 0.4 to 1.4 kg, largelybecause of the production of shrimps andprawns from aquaculture practices; andmolluscs similarly increased from 0.6 to 2.2 kgper capita.
Fish contributes up to 180 calories per capitaper day, but reaches such high levels only in afew countries where there is a lack ofalternative protein foods grown locally andwhere a preference for fish has beendeveloped and maintained (examples areJapan, Iceland and some small island states).More typically, fish provides about 20 to 30calories per day. Fish proteins are essentialand critical in the diet of some denselypopulated countries, where the total proteinintake level may be low (e.g. fish contributesmore than or close to 50 percent of totalproteins in Bangladesh, the DemocraticPeople’s Republic of Korea, the Republic ofCongo, Ghana, Guinea, Indonesia, Japan andSenegal), and it is very important in the dietsof many other countries (e.g. Cambodia, Benin,Angola and the Republic of Korea).
Worldwide, about 1 billion people rely onfish as their main source of animal proteins.Dependence on fish is usually higher incoastal than in inland areas. About 20 percentof the world’s population derives at least 20percent of its animal protein intake from fish(Figure 19), and some small island statesdepend on fish almost exclusively.
FISH TRADEFish is traded widely – mostly as a frozen food,and increasingly less as a canned or heavilydried food. Its trade has been stimulated by theeconomic conditions prevailing in mostconsumer markets and by notions about thehealth benefits of seafood consumption. Inresponse to higher prices in recent years,production from aquaculture has had a positiveinfluence on supply and consumer prices.However, in 1998 import demand in someimportant markets was sharply reduced.Although, in some cases, the weak importdemand for certain species resulted fromincreased domestic production, more generallyit was a result of the financial crisis affectingsome of the more rapidly growing industrialeconomies. In addition, the global economic
crisis, which began in the summer of 1997 andspread rapidly through East Asia to the RussianFederation and Latin America, dominated theworld economy and resulted in reduced tradeand lower commodity prices in seafoodproducts. In Japan, the world’s largest fish-consuming country and import market,domestic supply remained at more than 8million tonnes with small fluctuations until1995, but since then the trend has been todecrease.
Over the last two years, the consumption offish and fishery products has been stronglyinfluenced by the economic crisis in the Asiancountries, in particular Japan. The crisis andthe subsequent low value of the yen led to adecline in imports and consumptionin 1998.The main supplying countries had to reduceprices and find alternative outlets for theirproduction. In 1999, the Japanese economystarted to recover, but not as quickly asoriginally forecast because Japanese peoplewere not spending as freely as they had donebefore the crisis. Food items that consumersconsider to be expensive have had difficulty inregaining their pre-crisis market shares. Onthe other hand, the United States economy hasbeen particularly strong, and consumption offish continues to increase in that country. Thenorthern European market was strong in thesecond part of 1999 because of good economicconditions and higher consumption inrestaurants. Europe is not the only region to beexperiencing a general trend of increased fishconsumption in restaurants as people spendmore on eating out. Dietary habits arechanging, especially in developed countries.Markets have become more flexible and newproducts and species have found marketniches. The trend is for fish to receive greatervalue added in the catering and retail markets,thus making it easier for consumers to prepare.
Alongside traditional preparations,developments in food science and technology,combined with improved refrigeration and theuse of microwave ovens, are makingconvenience foods, ready meals, coated fishproducts and other value-added items a fast-growing industry, especially in the EU and inthe United States. The reasons for this rapidexpansion include changes in social factorssuch as the increasing role of women in theworkforce, the fragmentation of meals inhouseholds as well as the general decrease inaverage family size, and the increase insingle-person households. The need for simplemeals that are ready to eat and easy
33
to cook has thus become more important.Another trend is the increasing importance offresh fish. Unlike many other food products,fish is still more favourably received on themarket when it is fresh rather than processed.However, historically, fresh fish has been oflittle importance in international trade owingto its perishable nature and very limited shelf-life. Improvements in packaging, reduced airfreight prices, and more efficient and reliabletransport have created additional sales outletsfor fresh fish. Food chains and departmentstores are also taking an increasing share ofthe fresh seafood sector, and many haveopened fresh seafood counters with anextensive variety of fish and freshly preparedfish dishes or salads next to their frozen foodcounters. Social changes have greatlyinfluenced the structure of the fish and retailmarkets. Large food chains and departmentstores are increasingly common. More andmore consumers are limiting their shopping toone day a week and tend to prefer larger foodoutlets for the sake of convenience.
The United States and EU markets for fishery
products are expected to expand in comingyears as a result of consumer healthconsciousness and belief in the positive impactthat fish consumption can have on health.Healthy food is a growing concern in developedcountries, and calorie counts, dietary andnutritional plans and recipes on packed fish area useful addition to value-added products.
Outside Japan, the consumption of sashimiand sushi is increasing in other Asiancountries, the United States and Europe. Inaddition, the consumption of farmed speciessuch as tilapia, catfish and salmon is analternative to traditional products that arecharacterized by low supplies and high prices.
The structure of the fish industry indeveloped countries is also changing. Large,vertically integrated multinational companiesare buying smaller producers.
Among the factors that could influence futuredemand for seafood products are populationgrowth; changes in economic and socialconditions (such as lifestyle and familystructure); developments in fish production,processing, distribution and marketing
Up
to 5
.0
5.1-
10.0
10.1
-15.
0
15.1
-20.
0
20.1
-25.
0
25.1
-30.
0
30.1
-35.
0
35.1
-40.
0
40.1
-45.
0
45.1
-50.
0
50.1
-55.
0
55.1
-60.
0
Mor
e th
an 6
0.1
0
0.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
Population(billions)
Percentage shareof fish in total animal
protein supply
Population
Cumulativepercentageby class ofconsumptionas percentageof worldtotal
FIGURE 19Contribution of food fish to animal protein supply in 1997
0
25
50
100
75
Source: FAO
31.334.4
57.0
81.9 83.4 85.2 86.989.9
99.0 99.4 10095.1
12.7
47 c
ount
ries 42
cou
ntri
es
25 c
ount
ries
22 c
ount
ries
15 c
ount
ries
7 co
untr
ies
5 co
untr
ies
6 co
untr
ies
5 co
untr
ies
1 co
untr
y
13 c
ount
ries
7 co
untr
ies
14 c
ount
ries
34
strategies; and the prices of fish comparedwith those of competing foodstuffs. The priceof chicken, for example, is making itincreasingly attractive on all major markets,resulting in a shift in consumer interest awayfrom fish and towards chicken. Furthermore,globalization and increasing internationaltrade in seafood commodities, as well asinternational agreements on trade rules,tariffs, quality standards (see Fish quality andsafety, Part 2, p. 47) and fisheriesmanagement are all having an impact. Long-term global trends in supply and demand,including developments in distribution andconsumption, have broad implications for thedomestic industry and for domesticconsumers. Projections of demand based onpopulation and income growth point to anincreasing gap between supply and demand,which could lead to an increase in prices.This, in turn, could lead to a widening of theexisting gap in average fish consumptionbetween developed countries and LIFDCs.The consumption trend, as far as species areconcerned, points increasingly towardsfarmed species, whitefish, crustaceans andmolluscs in the developed countries and tolow-value species, such as small pelagics, indeveloping countries.
A large share of fish production entersinternational trade, with about 33 percentexported in 1998 (live weight equivalent).
LIFDCs play an active part in this trade and,at present, account for almost 20 percent ofexports. Developing countries as a whole supplynearly 50 percent of total exports in value terms.In 1998, total exports of fish and fishery productswere US$51 300 million in value terms, a 3.8percent decrease compared with 1997.
More than 90 percent of trade in fish andfishery products consists of processed productsin one form or another (i.e. excluding live andfresh whole fish). Frozen, fresh and chilled fishmake up the majority of exports (Figure 20).Although live, fresh or chilled fish representsonly a small share of world fish trade owing toits perishability, trade is growing, reflectingimproved logistics and increased demand.
In 1998, total imports of fish and fisheryproducts were US$55 000 million, representinga slight decline of 2.8 percent compared with1997 and 3.9 percent compared with 1996.Japan was again the largest importer of fisheryproducts, accounting for some 23 percent oftotal imports, but Japanese imports of fish andfishery products have declined recently as aresult of the economic recession (Figure 21).The EC further increased its dependence onimports for its fish supply. The UnitedStates, despite being the world’s fifth majorexporting country, was also its second mainimporter. More than 77 percent of the totalworld import value is concentrated in thesethree areas.
Million tonnes
Source: FAO
FIGURE 20World fishery exports by major commodity groups
Fresh, chilledor frozen fish
Fishmeals
Dried, saltedor smoked fish
Canned fish
Cannedcrustaceansand molluscs
Fish oil
Fresh or chilledcrustaceansand molluscs
12
10
8
6
4
2
0.5
1
14
1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998
0
0
35
Source: FAO
FIGURE 21Imports and exports of fishery products for different regions,indicating the net deficit or surplus
US$ billions
Import value
Export value
1976
1978
1982
1988
1984
1980
1986
1990
1992
1996
1994
1998
0
3
2
1
Africa
1976
1978
1982
1988
1984
1980
1986
1990
1992
1996
1994
1998
0
30
20
10
Asia excluding China
1976
1978
1982
1988
1984
1980
1986
1990
1992
1996
1994
1998
0
12
3
6
9
China19
76
1978
1982
1988
1984
1980
1986
1990
1992
1996
1994
1998
0
8
2
4
6
1976
1978
1982
1988
1984
1980
1986
1990
1992
1996
1994
1998
0
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1976
1978
1982
1988
1984
1980
1986
1990
1992
1996
1994
1998
0
30
20
10
Europe
Canada and United States Latin America and the Caribbean
Oceania
Trade surplus Trade deficit
1976
1978
1982
1988
1984
1980
1986
1990
1992
1996
1994
1998
0
3
1
2
36
ShrimpShrimp is the main fish trade commodity invalue terms, accounting for some 20 percent ofthe total value of internationally traded fisheryproducts. The international economic crisis inthe main producer countries and in theirmarkets, together with disease problems,caused setbacks for shrimp producers, tradersand investors in 1998 and 1999. The mainproducers had to reduce prices and look foralternative outlets in order to sell theirproduction.
In 1998 and 1999, many shrimp-producingcountries, particularly in South America,experienced a decline in production mainlyowing to disease or weather problems. InEcuador, Peru, Mexico, Bangladesh and India,shrimp production and exports weredisappointing compared with previous years.In contrast, shrimp output in Thailand pickedup in 1998 and 1999 after the disease problemsof 1996 and 1997. This country continues to bethe main shrimp-culturing nation in the world.
After poor trading in 1998, the Japaneseshrimp market recovered in 1999, particularlyin the second half of the year. The strong yenand high demand were the main reasons forthis upturn. The United States market forshrimp was very active in 1999, with recordshrimp consumption of 400 000 tonnes,330 000 tonnes of which were imported.
After a slow start, the European shrimpmarket was strong in the closing months of1999. Trade improved in the northern part ofthe continent as a result of good economicconditions and higher consumption inrestaurants. Spain is the main fresh and frozenshrimp importer among the EC countries,followed by France, the United Kingdomand Italy.
TunaTuna catches in 1999 were well ahead of thoseof 1998 in practically all major fishing areas.Catches in the Eastern Pacific, in particular (upby 40 percent on 1998), continued the positivetrend experienced in 1998. Estimates put the1999 tuna catch at close to a record of 4million tonnes. The international tuna marketwas oversupplied during 1999 and this led tounprecedented low prices, which had alreadystarted to decline in mid-1998. In November1999 skipjack was quoted in Bangkok at a lowof US$400 per tonne.
Japanese imports of fresh and frozen tunawere 307 400 tonnes in 1999, a 9.7 percentdecrease compared with 1998. Japanese
imports of canned tuna expanded slightly in1999 to reach 21 000 tonnes.
The two main markets for canned tuna arethe United States and the EC. While UnitedStates imports increased in 1999, the Europeanmarket was rather weak. United States importsof canned tuna reached 151 700 tonnes in1999, 32 percent more than the 1998 figure.Canned whitemeat still represents only a smallshare of United States canned tuna imports,but the product is expanding its presence. TheUnited States accounts for about one-third ofthe world’s canned tuna consumption, butconsumption has decreased in recent years.The overall quality of canned tuna in theUnited States is declining, although the higher-quality segment is growing.
Italian canners’ use of tuna loins as rawmaterial is increasing, and loins account forabout 60 percent of Italy’s total canned tunaproduction. Spain is now the major tunaprocessor in Europe, having overtaken Italy.
After the United States, Thailand is thesecond largest producer of canned tuna in theworld, and Thai tuna canning companies arepromoting this product on domestic markets byhighlighting its low cholesterol content.
GroundfishA number of the main groundfish species haveexperienced reduced stocks and decreasedquotas for several consecutive years. In theUnited States this development has made themarket entry of new farmed species such ascatfish and tilapia much easier, and in Europesalmon seems to be replacing groundfish. Lowsupplies of cod have increased the industry’sinterest in farming cod. However, there arenot many alternatives on the market forsuch traditional products as salted anddried groundfish. Prices in the UnitedStates and Europe were relatively depressedin 1999, with an increase towards the end ofthe year.
Reduced supplies of traditional groundfishspecies seem to be compensated by increasedsales of other products, especially ready-to-eatmeals and farmed salmon. In general, worldconsumption of salmon is rising and farmedAtlantic salmon is becoming more popular, infresh, smoked and canned forms. Farmedsalmon production grew considerably in 1999,reaching nearly 890 000 tonnes compared with798 000 tonnes in 1998. Chile experiencedseveral problems with its farmed salmonproduction during 1999, and Norway increasedits share in the United States market.
37
CephalopodsCephalopod fisheries performed well in 1999,especially for Illex catches, and supplies onthe world market were very strong. Theincreased supply of squid was initiallyabsorbed without problems, with a strongbuying interest reported in Spain and Japan.However, at the end of the year, demanddeclined suddenly and market prices started todrop.
Squid imports into Japan reached a high of62 500 tonnes in 1999, almost 30 percent morethan in 1998.
In 1999, Japanese cuttlefish imports droppedby 3.1 percent to 43 400 tonnes, with Thailandsupplying nearly half of this total. Octopuscatches in the Eastern Central Atlantic weregood in 1999, leading to higher exports toJapan and lower prices on the world market.
In many of the countries that are nottraditional cephalopod eaters, squidconsumption is increasing. The best example isthe United States, where “calamari” is nowwell established in fast-food chains. Incountries with a low seafood consumption,such as Argentina, squid has found a marketniche in the fried fast-food sector.
Small pelagicsThe Russian Federation’s financial problemsled to a strong price drop in 1998, followed byan upwards trend in mackerel prices duringthe second half of 1999. Norwegian mackerelexports to the Russian Federation and theBaltic states fell by almost 50 percent between1998 and 1999. Norway began to focus moreon Asia and Eastern European countries suchas Poland, Turkey and Ukraine.
In 1999, EC exports of Atlantic mackerel toEastern Europe dropped compared with 1998,so the EC strongly increased its exportstowards African markets (particularly Nigeria).
At the end of 1998, the world herring marketcollapsed as a result of an oversupply from the1997/98 season and the economic crisis in theRussian Federation and Japan, the two majormarkets for herring. The world market price forherring dropped substantially, in some casesby 75 percent. In 1999, imports into Centraland Eastern Europe started to pick up and itappears that the Russian Federation will againbecome the major importer of herring. Pricesincreased slightly in 1999.
FishmealFishmeal production for 1999 is estimated at 6.6million tonnes, close to the annual average for
1976-1997 of 6.5 million tonnes. This is 29percent up on the 4.8 million tonnes producedin 1998, which was one of the worst productionyears ever. Increased production was due to therecovery of fishing in South America after the ElNiño phenomenon. Peruvian fishmealproduction in 1999 was more than twice the1998 figure of 815 000 tonnes, representing areturn to normal levels. Export earnings fromfishmeal increased by 35 percent in 1999compared with 1998, reaching US$534 million.On the other hand, the situation in Chile did notcompletely return to normal. Total fishmealoutput from this country was 980 000 tonnes in1999, up from 640 000 tonnes in 1998, but stilllower than the 1.2 million tonnes recorded in1997. Chilean fishmeal exports in 1999 wereclose to 600 000 tonnes, some 100 000 tonnesmore than in 1998.
Increased production led to a strongreduction of prices during 1999. Pricesimproved somewhat at the end of the year,but competition with soybean meal is still infishmeal’s favour. The present price ratio of2:1 is one of the lowest in recent history.
Fishmeal exports from the five mainexporting countries doubled in 1999, to reach2.85 million tonnes. China was the mainimporter, followed by Japan, Taiwan Provinceof China and Germany.
Fish oilWorld fish oil production reached 1.2 milliontonnes in 1999, up from 0.8 million tonnes in1998. Latin American producers, Peru inparticular, reported a strong increase in output,and fish oil production levels went back to pre-El Niño levels. The increase in fish oilavailability was coupled with price reductionsand, in December 1999, fish oil prices werearound US$290 per tonne, compared withUS$740 per tonne in mid-1998.
Fish oil use is now dominated byaquaculture, which takes 60 percent of totalproduction. Low production levels in 1998 hada negative impact on the use of edible fish oil,while 1999 saw a recovery in the use of fishoil for direct human consumption.
Live ornamental fishTrade in ornamental fish has been increasingsince the 1980s. At present, total wholesaletrade is estimated at US$900 million and totalretail trade at about US$3 billion (live animalsfor aquariums only). Asia represents more than50 percent of the world’s total ornamental fishsupply. Singapore is by far the leading
38
exporter, followed by the United States, HongKong Special Administrative Region, Japan,Malaysia, the Czech Republic, Israel, thePhilippines and Sri Lanka. Fish farming is aleisure activity that is practised mainly
in industrialized countries because it isrelatively costly. The main importers arethe United States, Japan and Europe,particularly Germany, France and the UnitedKingdom. �
PART 2Selected issues facing fishers and aquaculturists
40
41
indicating that fatality rates are increasing in theartisanal sector of developing countries. In mostcases, the increase in fatalities can be tracedback to changes in the basic nature of fishingoperations: overexploitation of coastal resources;advances in vessel and fishing technologies,including motorization and new types of fishinggear; lack of training, experience and skills;commercial pressure; and new fisheriesmanagement regimes.
Where inshore resources have beenoverexploited, fishers are often opting to workfarther away from shore, sometimes forextended periods, in fishing craft that arebased on designs for inshore fishing, which islimited to daily operations. Such vessels areoften built by untrained builders who copytraditional and imported craft, and cost-cuttingpractices and the builders’ lack of experienceresult in vessels that are unsound. Frequently,they do not comply with national regulations.Furthermore, older generations have noexperience of fishing offshore, so there is alack of traditional knowledge for today’s crewsabout such essential issues as navigation,weather forecasting, communications, livinghabits during extended periods at sea (severaldays instead of only one) and the vital cultureof safety at sea. The problem is compoundedby fishing being a potential source of incomefor casual workers and the landless or urbanunemployed; the fishing industry frequentlyprovides employment for those who have nohope of an alternative source of income.
International voluntary guidelines do nothave much effect on artisanal fisheries, largelybecause standards are directed towardsdecked vessels of more than 12 m. TheTorremolinos Protocol, which is the onlyinternational instrument formulatedspecifically for fishing vessels (decked fishingvessels of at least 24 m in length), is unlikelyto come into force because its provisions areseen as being either too stringent or too lenientby the countries whose signatures arerequired. In the absence of an internationalinstrument, fishers must often rely on nationallegislation to ensure the safety of their craft,particularly when the vessel owner does notparticipate as a crewmember. While mostcountries have regulations concerning thedesign, construction and equipment of vessels,
FISHERS’ SAFETY
THE ISSUEFishing at sea is the most dangerousoccupation in the world. The data gatheredfrom countries that keep accurate recordsshow that occupational fatalities in thosecountries’ fishing industries far exceed theoverall national averages. For example, in theUnited States the fatality rate among fishers is25 to 30 times the national average;1 in Italy itis more than 21 times the national average;2
and in Australia it is 143 per 100 000,compared with the average of 8.1 per 100 000.However, very few countries are able tosupply these data. Although the members ofthe International Maritime Organization (IMO)agreed that the collection and analysis ofstatistical information on casualties, includingfishing vessels and fishers, should be preparedon an annual basis,3 they acknowledged in1999 that there had been only a very limitedresponse to their appeal.4
It seems plausible that the fatality rate incountries for which information is notavailable might be higher than it is in thosethat do keep records. Thus, the InternationalLabour Organization’s (ILO) estimate of 24 000fatalities worldwide, per year, may beconsiderably lower than the true figure.
Of the 36 million people engaged in fishingand fish farming, FAO estimates that roughly15 million fishers are employed aboard deckedor undecked fishing vessels operating inmarine capture fisheries, and that more than90 percent of these fishers are working onvessels that are less than 24 m in length.
The consequences of loss of life fall heavilyon dependants. In developing countries, theconsequences can be devastating: widowshave a low social standing; there is no welfarestate to support bereaved families; and,lacking an alternative sources of income,widows and children may face destitution.
Of particular concern are the reports fromfishing administrations and fishers’ organizations
Selected issues facing fishers and aquaculturists
1United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998.2ILO. 1998. Yearbook of Labour Statistics, 1998. Geneva.3IMO. MSC/Circ.539/Add.2 and FSI 6/6/1.4IMO. FSI 7/6/2.
42
BOX 5Accidents
BOX 4Cyclone in India
On the night of 6 November 1996, during a severecyclone, approximately 1 435 fishers perished inthe state of Andhra Pradesh on the east coast ofIndia. Of these fishers, 569 were lost while fishingin mechanized boats at sea and 830 were lostwhile carrying out shrimp seed collection andother shore-based activities in areas remote fromthe villages. The causes of death differed betweenthe two groups; the former were lost at sea inconditions of high winds and heavy seas, and thelatter were lost on land, largely as a result of thestorm surge.
The 569 fishers who were reported lost at seawere working on 110 trawlers, which founderedwhen struck by the cyclone. They had departedfrom Kakinada port several days before thecyclone struck and were fishing in an area to thesoutheast of Kakinada, along the coast of theGodavari delta. These trawlers were typically 11to 15 m long and engaged in fishing trips of 10 to15 days duration. They were poorly designed and
built, yet significant numbers of similar vessels arestill being constructed. Few, if any, of the vesselswere equipped with safety equipment or evensimple transistor radios. Thus, despite the media’stransmission of cyclone warnings, the fishers wereunaware of the intensity of the approachingcyclone and of its speed of advance.
Coastal fisheries and coastal sea transport inGuinea (West Africa) depend on open, plankedcanoes ranging from 6 to 22 m in length. Thelarger boats are powered by outboard motors of upto 40 HP.
In 1991, Guinea established a National SeaSafety Working Group, which brought together thenational Fisheries Department, the Port Authority,the Guinean Navy, national fishers’ groups andassociated fisheries projects. As its first action, thisgroup established a systematic survey of artisanalcanoe accidents along the Guinean marine coast.
In the first three years of the survey, 110 peopledied in canoe accidents along the coastal stretchof 120 nautical miles – that is nearly one personfor each mile of coast. About half of the deathsoccurred in fishing canoes, while the other halfresulted from transport canoe operations.Comparing deaths at sea with the number ofregistered small-scale fishers gave an indicativefatality rate of 0.53 percent, or approximately 500deaths per 100 000 fishers per year. Principal
causes associated with the fatalities were given(in order of importance) as capsizing, wind,disorientation (in winter months the sun canbecome invisible through dust clouds blown offthe desert), overloading, waves and motor failure.
A number of other countries along the WestAfrican coast, where similar studies have beendone, appear to have artisanal canoe fatality ratesin the range of 0.3 to 1 percent of fatalities peryear.
Source: J. Johnson, FAO Fisheries Department.
43
in developing countries these are sometimesoutdated, inappropriate and inadequatelyenforced. In developed countries, theapplication of more stringent regulations hasnot always led to any significant decrease infatalities; it seems that, as vessels are madesafer, operators take greater risks in their ever-increasing search for good catches.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSThere are a number of areas whereimprovements can be made, including:provision and analysis of data that identify thecause of accidents; training of crews andtrainers; and formulation of regulations that areenforced through increased collaborationamong fishers, fishers’ organizations and theauthorities.
It has been argued that the root and causesof accidents in the fishing industry are easy todiscern intuitively. While this may often be thecase, reliable quantified data would show howthe trends vary according to different regions,countries and fisheries, thereby contributing toan understanding of the main causes offatalities. In order to focus and prioritize theactions to be taken to increase fishers’ safety,the most frequent causes of danger and vessellosses must be investigated fully. Vastlyimproved accident reporting is therefore seenas central to the quest for improved safety inthe industry.
Even when accidents are reported, the manydiverse approaches to collecting informationon their types and causes make it difficult toproduce comparable data and statistics and,thus, to identify and address key issues. Thenature of the employment arrangements infishing, which may place many fishers outsidetraditional occupational accident and diseasereporting systems, contributes to this lack ofinformation.5
National-level regulations and technicalstandards must be formulated, reviewed andamended through dialogue among builders,owners, fishers and administrations, to ensurethat all parties share a sense of ownership andresponsibility in the application of newregulations.
Enforcement of safety regulations is essentialand requires collaboration withinadministrations and, particularly, betweenfisheries and the marine authorities. However,
very few of the individual inspectors attached tofisheries divisions have a background inboatbuilding, marine engineering or navalarchitecture, nor have they received anytraining in how to conduct condition surveys ofvessels at the level normally required forclassification or insurance purposes. Thus,while part of the solution may lie in regulatingthe quality standard to which boats areconstructed and equipped, attention must alsobe paid to the necessary skills of the enforcers.Ensuring adequate enforcement implies asignificant commitment on the part of theadministration, taking into account the cost ofestablishing, staffing and training a new section.
The training of fishers is clearly one meansof channelling the results of lessons learnedfrom the analysis of improved data.Historically, the training of fishers has beenlimited to skippers, mates and engineers indeveloped countries. The British MerchantShipping Act (1894), provided the basis forregulations that covered most of theCommonwealth, including India, Australia andCanada. The IMO Protocol to the Standards ofTraining, Certification and Watchkeeping forSeafarers (1978) provided standards forcountries to follow, but it was never ratifiedand was superseded by the Convention for theStandards of Training, Certification andWatchkeeping for Fishing Vessel Personnel(1995) (STCW-F). These provisions referredonly to vessels over 24 m or powered by morethan 750 kW. For smaller vessels, the FAO/ILO/IMO Document for Guidance onFishermen’s Training and Certification gavefurther information on courses and syllabuses.This document has recently been revised inline with STCW-F and retitled Document forGuidance on the Training and Certification ofFishing Vessel Personnel (referred to as theDocument for Guidance in this publication).
RECENT ACTIONS
●●●●●
The application of instruments on training,despite the lack of ratification, has been verygood in some regions and virtually absent inothers. Countries in Europe, theCommonwealth of Independent States (CIS)and South America, along with Canada, Japanand Australasia, have now adopted standardsthat are in excess of the STCW-F’srequirements and in line with the
5 ILO. 1999. Report on safety and health in the fishing industry.
Geneva.
44
recommendations laid out in the Document forGuidance. The United States has recentlystarted to issue certificates of competency andimplement other fishing vessel safetylegislation. In Central America, Africa andAsia, many fisheries schools were establishedin the 1970s and 1980s, and safety training is amajor component of their curricula.Unfortunately, the effectiveness of fisheriestraining schools has been limited by lowliteracy rates in some countries. In manyothers, the low status attached to fisheriesoccupations has resulted in them attracting ahigh percentage of illiterate workers. Literateindividuals with fisheries qualifications havebeen regarded as potential governmentemployees rather than recruits to the fishingindustry. Some training centres have opted totrain trainers in order to produce extensionagents who can disseminate the training tolarge numbers of artisanal fishers at the villagelevel. It would appear that the wide disparityin training provision among countries isparalleled by disparities in safety legislationand the compilation of accident statistics.Recent developments have seen a shift in theformal training of fishers from academic tofunctional training (i.e. assessment is carriedout on the basis of what trainees can do ratherthan what they know). Such training meansthat lecturers and examiners must havemastered the skills required in order to teachand examine the candidates. Increasingly,
administrations require that entrants into thefishing industry should complete a pre-seatraining course in basic safety training, firstaid, survival at sea and fire-fighting. Ownersand skippers are being encouraged to “thinksafety” by compiling safety managementreports in which they list the main hazards onboard their particular vessel and identifyingprecautions and procedures to minimize thepotential effect of such hazards.
●●●●●
A substantial report, entitled Safety andhealth in the fishing industries, was preparedby the International Labour Office as the basisfor discussions at the Tripartite Meeting onSafety and Health in the Fishing Industry, heldin Geneva in December 1999. Itcomprehensively examines recent informationconcerning safety and health in the fishingindustry with a view to illustrating these issuesand exploring actions that are being taken byinternational organizations, governments,employers, vessel owners, trade unions, thefishers themselves and other organizations.The meeting concluded that the industry haschanged considerably as a result of newmanagement regimes, technology advancesand overcapacity, resulting in fishingoperations and employment arrangements thatcreate an incentive to work long hours andminimize the number of crewmembers. This,in turn, results in more frequent accidents. The
BOX 6Safety and survival training
The first safety courses for fishers were offered inNorway (1981), where they became obligatory in1989. The other Nordic countries followed thisinitiative, and all of them established safetyeducation when Finland introduced safety coursesfor fishers in 1999. Although dispensations are stillbeing granted, the courses will have becomeobligatory in all Nordic countries within a few years.The length and content of the courses varyconsiderably. The Nordic Council of Ministers isfunding an ongoing project to improve and facilitatesafety and survival training by comparing therequirements, courses, instruction materials andpractical exercises that each of the Nordic countrieshas developed and by promoting the sharing oftraining material, instructors and expertise.
Owing to the different training requirements,Nordic fishers may have difficulty obtainingpermits to work as fishers in other Nordiccountries. The project aims at facilitatinginterchange of the workforce by suggestingminimal safety training requirements to beadopted by all the countries, along with guidelineson how to obtain additional training if required.
Source: G. Petursdottir, Director, Fisheries Research
Institute, University of Iceland.
45
meeting also concluded that internationalstandards and training related to safety andhealth in fishing may not be reaching themajority of the world’s fishers.
●●●●●
Two sets of guidelines to improve the design,construction and equipment of fishing vesselswere formulated in the 1960s and 1970s, not asa substitute for national laws but to serve as aguide to those concerned with framing nationallaws and regulations. Revision of the twopublications FAO/ILO/IMO Code of Safety forFishermen and FAO/ILO/IMO VoluntaryGuidelines for the Design, Construction andEquipment of Fishing Vessels is being
undertaken by the IMO Subcommittee onStability, Load Lines and Fishing Vessels,through a correspondence group led byIceland.
●●●●●
FAO’s Fisheries Department hasimplemented a number of projects aimed atimproving sea safety. These have beendirected particularly at developing countriesand carried out in the field, in cooperationwith local people. The issue has been tackledfrom various perspectives, including improvedvessel design and construction, betterpreparedness for natural disasters, improvedcollaboration between governments and
BOX 7Small boats going offshore
In Samoa, a number of safety problems have beenencountered in the development and expansion ofthe domestic, small-craft (alia) tuna longlinefishery. In a 15-month period during 1997 andearly 1998, at least 14 major accidents occurred,many resulting in the loss of human life. In these14 accidents, 25 fishers were lost at sea andanother 24 were rescued. In addition to the loss oflife, nine vessels were not recovered.
In many cases, the specific cause of theseaccidents is unclear because the vessels and crewdisappeared without trace. It is believed, however,that the causes could be attributed to a range ofpossibilities, including: lack of seaworthiness andstability of the alia when loaded in rough weather;poor strength and stability of the alia design, whichhas been modified and “stretched” by builders atthe request of owners; an inadequate level of basicskills among many skippers; lack of navigationalskills; limited (or non-existent) safety equipment onboard; and the rough weather that some skippersand crewmembers were working in.
The national Fisheries Division is working withother government departments to address seasafety issues. The construction of a radio basestation in Apia and nine repeater stations aroundSamoa was completed and put into use in June1997. The radio is operated around the clock. Avessel registration programme has also beenstarted with a main requirement that every vesselbe fitted with a radio. Fishers have to radio inwhen they are going out to sea, while they are atsea and when they return to port.
As well as the radio requirement for registration,each vessel now undergoes an inspection tocheck that:
•flotation (foam) is according to the original FAOdesign;
•the hull is in good condition (with no leaks);•the main engine is in good running condition;•the spare engine is in good running condition;•the boat number is clearly displayed;•the radio is in good working condition.
Regulations regarding the qualifications ofvessel skippers and crewmembers, as well ascrew numbers, have been implemented andtraining in sea safety, vessel surveys, safetyequipment requirements and communications hasbeen carried out. A committee to ensure theenforcement of regulations has been set up andincludes representatives from the Ministry ofTransport, the Police Department and the FisheriesDivision.
Source: SPC Fisheries Newsletter, 84 (Jan/March 1998),
Pacific Community. Updated by P. Watt, Adviser to
Samoa Fisheries Division, June 2000.
46
BOX 8Self-help groups
The Icelandic Association for Search and Rescue(IASR) is an NGO that has played a major role inpromoting fishers’ safety. It was established in1929. From the very beginning, women – thewives, daughters and mothers of fishers – werevery active members of the organization. The firstgoal was to establish search and rescue groups inall fishing communities around the coast. Thesewere made up of men, but women formed theirown affiliates. The groups’ main tasks were toraise funds to buy search and rescue equipment,erect shelters in places prone to shipwrecks andbuild rescue vessels, which were placed instrategic harbours along the coast. IASR has takenan active part in formulating recommendations forsafety regulations and in lobbying for theirpromotion with the authorities.
Another of IASR’s major tasks was to organizeand carry out safety instruction in fishingcommunities. At first, this was done by visitinginstructors who lectured to voluntary listeners but,with time, the scope broadened considerably andIASR now runs the official obligatory 40-hoursafety training courses for fishers on vessels over12 m. The courses are offered on board a well-equipped teaching vessel, which pays regular
visits to the communities around the coast. IASRhas grown to be a mass movement in Iceland andis a respected consultant and close cooperatorwith the authorities. At very short notice, it cancall out hundreds of well-trained volunteers, bothmen and women, for search and rescue missionsat sea or on land and using the most up-to dateequipment. Volunteers are ready to operate underany circumstances, including wrecked or strandedships, volcanic eruptions, avalanches and otherunforeseen natural catastrophes.
Source: G. Petursdottir, Director, Fisheries Research
Institute, University of Iceland.
fishers’ representatives, provision of assistancein the setting up of national sea safetyprogrammes, and institutional support tofisheries training centres.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEIMO, ILO and FAO are the three specializedagencies of the United Nations system thatplay a role in fishers’ safety at sea. IMO isresponsible for improving maritime safety andpreventing pollution from ships; and theadoption of maritime legislation is still IMO’sbest-known responsibility. ILO formulatesinternational labour standards in the form ofconventions and recommendations, which setminimum standards for basic labour rights. Italso promotes the development of independentemployers’ and workers’ organizations,providing training and advisory services tothese organizations. However, the workingmethods and measures of ILO and IMO tend to
have little impact on the safety of artisanal andsmall-scale fishers.
A safe working environment cannot simplybe imposed from above. Measures to improvesafety can only be truly effective where thereis the motivation to apply them. Theestablishment and maintenance of a culture ofsafety is a continuous task that demands theparticipation of fishers and their families,boatowners, legislators and the community atlarge. There are many examples of individualsinterested in safety at sea who have formedfishers’ self-help groups or other NGOs andestablished successful cooperation with theauthorities to promote safety in theircommunities (see Box 8).
In the countries where appropriateregulations, enforcement procedures andtraining are in place, there has been ameasurable (but not always significant)reduction in the annual number of fatalitiesover the last 15 years. Although thesecountries account for less than 5 percent of the
47
world’s fishers, they demonstrate that resultscan be achieved. Recognition of safety at seaas a major and continuing problem is the firststep towards its mitigation. It is considered thatthe responsibility for safety at sea should beborne by both administrators and fishers, andsimilarly that effort and assistance should beshared between those two groups to ensure aneffective partnership and hence enable a saferprofession.
FISH QUALITY AND SAFETY
THE ISSUESome 200 different types of illness have beenidentified as being transmitted by food. In1999, the Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC) in the United Statesestimated the following numbers of cases offood-borne disease in the United States:6
• 76 million cases of gastrointestinalillnesses;
• 325 000 serious illnesses resulting inhospitalization;
• 5 000 deaths.
These data represent one of the best existingestimates of the impact of food-borne diseaseson a developed country. Similar figures(adjusted by the number of inhabitants) couldbe expected to be found in other developedcountries.
Humans have suffered from illnessestransmitted by food throughout the ages.However, in the early 1980s professionalsconcerned with food safety in developedcountries observed what seemed to be asignificant increase in the number of diseaseoutbreaks linked to food. This was perplexing,given that an increasing proportion of foodswere being – and continue to be – producedunder stringent hygienic conditions. Possiblereasons for such a “food safety paradox” are:
• increased urbanization;• improved systems for recording the
incidence of illnesses transmitted by food;• human and industrial pollution;
• non-rational use of antibiotics;• new emerging pathogens;• uncontrolled recycling of organic material;• increased susceptibility to contaminants;• increased consumption of mass-produced
foods;• the introduction of new technologies for
“minimally processed foods”;• prolonged rains, droughts and/or increases
in average temperatures, favouring theecologies of pathogens.
In poorer areas of developing countries,poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy and inadequatepublic facilities are likely to compound thesituation. Although the lack of data makes itimpossible to provide quantitative estimates ofthe situation in developing countries, it seemsreasonable to expect that cases of food-bornedisease in general are at least as frequent asthey are in developed countries and, in mostdeveloping countries, probably far morefrequent. In poor areas, newborn babies, smallchildren, the elderly, the undernourished andthe immune-deficient are the categories mostexposed to food-borne diseases. A studyconducted in the United Republic of Tanzaniafrom 1992 to 19987 indicates that food-borneand water-borne disease is probably one of thefour major causes of adult death in thelocations studied.
Food-derived illnesses can have severaltypes of cause, including specific toxicsubstances, pathogenic micro-organisms andparasites that can develop and/or be conveyedby foods. Some toxic substances (biotoxins)may develop naturally in the environment,while others are human-generatedcontaminants (chemicals). Some pathogenicmicro-organisms are part of the normal flora(e.g. of fish) and some are contaminants.
Fish, as is true of any other food, can causehealth problems. It can be contaminated at anytime from the moment of capture until it iseaten. Contamination may occur becausepathogenic micro-organisms form part of thenormal flora of the fish. In other cases, toxicsubstances are introduced through cross-contamination, recontamination or faultyhandling and processing.
The extent to which fish products are asource of food-borne diseases is a function of
7 P.W. Setel and Y. Hemed. 2000. Cause-specific adult mortality:
evidence from community-based surveillance – selected sites,
Tanzania, 1992-1998, p. 416-419. Atlanta, Georgia, USA, CDC.
6 P.S. Mead, L. Slutsker, V. Dietz, L.F. McCaig, J.S. Bresee,
C. Shapiro, P.M. Griffin and R.V. Tauxe. 1999. Food-related
illness and death in the United States (review). Emerging
Infectious Diseases, 5: 607-25. Available at: www.cdc.gov/
ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm.
48
general food habits, the frequency of fishconsumption and the type of products andspecies consumed. Sometimes, a set ofunfavourable circumstances combine to createextremely hazardous health situations. Forinstance, a recent study conducted by FAO inthe village of Xai Udom (Vientiane, the LaoPeople’s Democratic Republic) showed that67.3 percent of the population was infected byparasites and many villagers were infected bymore than one type. The prevailing parasite(affecting 42.1 percent of the population) wasliver fluke (Opistorchis viverrini), transmittedthrough the consumption of raw fish, which isthe host to an intermediate form of thisparasite. Large numbers of people die from aform of liver cancer (cholangiocarcinoma) thatit causes.
A study published by the World HealthOrganization (WHO) in 1995 estimated thatabout 39 million people worldwide wereinfested with parasites transmitted by theingestion of raw or improperly cookedfreshwater fish and crustaceans. Almost all ofthese people – about 38 million – lived in Asia,with the remainder living in Europe and LatinAmerica. In Asia, the problem is concentratedin Southeast Asia and China. Data from Africawere not included in the study, but this type ofparasitic infestation is known to occur on thatcontinent in, inter alia, Cameroon, Egypt andNigeria.
Parasitic infestation through the ingestion offish is only one of the many possible causes ofdisease, but there is a shortage of reliableinformation about many of the others. There isa clear need for more information regardingillnesses caused by fish and other foods indeveloping countries.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSWhen the trend of increasing outbreaks offood-related diseases was first identified in theearly 1980s, food and fish inspection servicesin developed countries increased end productsampling. This translated into an increasednumber of samples of finished foods beinganalysed and a growing number of inspectors.The effort did not halt the trend of morefrequent outbreaks of food-related diseases,however, showing that dependence on endproduct sampling alone was an inadequateresponse to the problem.
By the end of the 1980s, it had become clearto public health authorities in developedcountries that a new system was necessary.The system had to address all the relevant
hazards in food production and had, therefore,to be incorporated into the harvesting,processing and distribution of fish products.This would require its use on board fishingvessels and by aquaculturists, as well as in fishprocessing factories, the vehicles used totransport fish and storage and retailing areas.The system that was developed is called theHazard Analysis and Critical Control Point(HACCP) system. In the HACCP system,8 eachsubstance, micro-organism or condition of foodthat can cause disease is called a “hazard”.Initially, the system gained credibility throughits proven efficiency in controlling the hazardcreated by Clostridium botulinum, a commontoxinogenic bacterium, in low-acid cannedfoods. By applying the HACCP principle,processors were consistently able to ensureadequate timing and temperature controlduring retorting and improved seaming ofcans. This, in turn, virtually eliminated thebacterium from canned foods.
RECENT ACTIONS
●●●●●
By the beginning of the 1990s, a number offood processing companies, including fishprocessors, in developed countries werealready applying the HACCP system on avoluntary basis. They were soon followed byintermediate and even small food processingcompanies. Canada was the first country todepart from the traditional approach of fishinspection when it introduced the QualityManagement Programme (QMP), a set ofregulations that proved to be very similar tothose constituting the HACCP system.Eventually, several governments decided tomake the HACCP system compulsory.
●●●●●
Regulatory agencies in the EuropeanCommunity (EC) and the United States madefish and fishery products the first category offoods in the food industry to be subject tomandatory application of HACCP systems. TheEC issued the first regulation for fish products,“laying down the health conditions for the
8 FAO. 1997. Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)
System and Guidelines for its Application. Annex to CAC/RCP
1-1969, Rev. 3. Available at: fao.org/codex/standard/
fh_basic.pdf.
49
production and the placing on the market offishery products”, in 1991. In May 1994, theEC adopted an additional regulation whichmade it mandatory to impose more exact rulesfor the application of “own health checks”.9
The United States’ HACCP-based regulation,Procedures for the Safe and SanitaryProcessing and Importing of Fish and FisheryProducts – Final Rule, was published on 18December 1995 and entered into force oneyear later. Other developed and developingcountries soon followed these initiatives.
●●●●●
In 1997, the HACCP system wasincorporated into the WHO/FAO CodexAlimentarius in the form of a generalguideline.10 This makes the HACCP system thebasic reference for international trade disputesunder the World Trade Organization (WTO)Agreement on the Application of Sanitary andPhytosanitary Measures. However, theinclusion of the HACCP system as a generalguideline for the Codex Alimentarius does notmake all HACCP systems identical. Forinstance, the United States’ HACCP regulationsapply to processors, while the EC regulationsapply to the whole production chain, fromhandling fish on board fishing vessels toretailing of fish. In both cases, the HACCPsystem is therefore very closely linked to theindividual food safety and hygiene regulationframework.
●●●●●
Over the last ten years, both the fishingindustry and the fish and food inspectionservices in many developing countries havemade a very determined effort to adaptprocessing and inspection methodologies thatsatisfy HACCP requirements. Many countrieshave been successful. Among the countriesthat were authorized to export fish and fisheryproducts to the EC in mid-1999, 50 operate infull accordance with the EC’s HACCP-basedregulations.11 Of these 50 countries, 37 are inAfrica, Asia and the Pacific or Latin Americaand the Caribbean, most received technicalassistance from FAO which, during the period1995 to 1999, organized (mainly throughextrabudgetary funding received from
Denmark) 44 workshops and trained more than1 300 professionals from industry andgovernment in HACCP principles.
However, not all developing countries wereable to make the necessary initial investments.Sometimes credit for this purpose was scarceor non-existent and, as a result, some countriessuffered a drastic reduction in the number ofestablishments authorized to export to ECmarkets. Cape Verde and Guinea-Bissaubecame extreme examples of this in mid-2000,when the EC banned all imports of fish fromthese countries.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEIt is generally agreed that the HACCP systemis an improvement on traditional fishinspection and that its use will lead to reducednumbers of food-borne diseases. However, sofar little information to prove this point isavailable. For instance, in a recent report,12
the CDC stated that “new estimates provide asnapshot of the problem and do not measuretrends and do not indicate that the problem isgetting better or worse”.
The HACCP system is likely to evolve.Developed countries are beginning tointroduce a regulatory scheme called riskpolicy into their food industries. The policy isbased on quantitative risk assessment, riskmanagement and risk communication.13 Riskpolicy requires additional epidemiologicaldata and studies.
Since there is no possibility of achievingzero risk, the specific relevant hazards to beincluded in an HACCP system need to beidentified. The severity of the hazard thereforeneeds to be determined. One way ofmeasuring severity is to obtain epidemiologydata and establish the ratio between thenumber of deaths caused by an illness and thetotal number of diagnosed cases of that illness.Clearly, the first hazards to be controlledthrough the HACCP system and risk policyshould be those that cause illnesses that canlead to death. Listeria monocytogenes andEscherichia coli O157:H7 are clear examplesof this type of hazard. However, control ofonly these hazards is not enough, and
12 Op. cit., footnote 6, p. 47.13 According to the Codex Alimentarius, risk is “A function of the
probability of an adverse health effect and the severity of that
effect, consequential to a hazard(s) in food”.
9 EC regulations do not use the term “HACCP”. Instead they
refer to “own health checks”.10 See op. cit., footnote 8, p. 48.11 List No. 1. Commission Decision 97/296/EC.
50
BOX 9Risk policy: the case of ciguateracontrol in Cuba
Ciguatera is a form of human poisoning caused bythe consumption of marine fish that hasaccumulated naturally occurring toxins. Toxinsoriginate from several algae species(dinoflagellate) that are common to ciguatera-endemic regions, particularly in tropical countries.When the HACCP system was introduced in Cubain the mid-1990s, the available epidemiology datashowed that ciguatera was one of the main causesof disease from fish products. Between 1993 and1998, 1 086 outbreaks of ciguatera were recordedin Cuba, representing 3 116 individual cases.Mortality attributed to ciguatera during this periodreached 6 percent of all recorded deaths resultingfrom food hazards. Ciguatera peaked in 1996 with279 recorded outbreaks. Since 1996, the followingmeasures have been introduced to reduce theimpact of this hazard on the population:
•Improved hazard analysis for ciguatera wasestablished to determine locations, seasonalvariation, species involved, consumers at risk,sources of contaminated fish, etc.
•Detailed analyses of epidemiological recordsled to dose/response data being defined asfunctions of the size of fish consumed andallowed limit weights (critical limits) to be setfor five of the most important species andpotential toxicity to be set for another 15species (regardless of their weight). Thisinformation was included in regulations.
•Fish inspection was made functionallyindependent of capture and production andincluded the control of artisanal andrecreational fishing. A new regulation wasintroduced in May 1996.
•A targeted information campaign was conductedin the locations and during the periods of the yearin which the problem is more acute.
The industry incorporated this knowledge intheir HACCP plans and this led to a drasticreduction in the number of outbreaks caused byindustrially processed fish. The total number ofciguatera outbreaks has decreased steadily from1997 and, in 1999, the minimum level so far – 47cases – was recorded. Most of these outbreakswere caused by unauthorized capture thatresulted in the consumption of fish from ciguatera-endemic areas.
BOX 10The economics of fish safety
The economics of regulatory HACCP systems canbe seen from two different point of view, that ofthe government and consumers and that of theproducers. From the viewpoint of government andconsumers, the introduction of the HACCP systemcan be justified in economic terms owing to thepossible reduction of illness or death caused byfood poisoning, which implies a possible reductionin public and private health costs, insurance costsand lost workdays. In 1993, it was estimated thatthe total cost of food-borne illnesses caused by theseven major pathogens was between US$5.6billion and US$9.4 billion per year in the UnitedStates alone.
From the point of view of the producers, theapplication of HACCP systems implies aninvestment. Some of the initial costs are linked torefitting plants, rearranging processing lines,buying new utensils, purchasing and installing
measurement instruments, training and monitoringof processing activities. The actual figures that arefound in practice vary from a few thousand UnitedStates dollars, for plants that are already very nearto HACCP control requirements, to millions ofdollars for large plants that have had to undergosignificant refitting. In some cases, it was deemedmore convenient to construct a new plant ratherthan refit an old one, or reduce the level of risk bychanging the final product (e.g. from cooked tofrozen or fresh product) in order to reduce thelevel of investments. In even more extreme cases,producers decided to cease production.
During the execution of the FAO/DanishInternational Development Agency (DANIDA)project GCP/INT/609/DEN, a number of plants indeveloping countries agreed to be monitored tocheck the effect of HACCP implementation. Theplants concerned produced fresh and frozen hakefillets, salted and ripened anchovy, cooked crabmeat and cooked lobster tail. They were locatedin Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador and Uruguay. In all
51
governments usually rule that relevant hazardsalso include micro-organisms, chemicals andconditions known to impair human health,temporally or permanently, or cause injury.
Most developing countries do not haveuseful data about the relevant hazards linkedto various food products. Access to better andmore refined data would certainly provide avaluable insight into the problem, but the lackof data is not an excuse for failing to takepreventive action. In particular, a developingcountry’s lack of information about a possiblehazard that is well known in other countriescannot be taken as evidence of that hazard’sabsence.
Only few developing countries have decidedto make the HACCP system obligatory for fishproducts sold and consumed in internalmarkets. This may reflect the fact that somepeople in developing countries see HACCPsystems mainly as non-tariff barriers erectedby developed countries and submit to themonly so that they can export their products toindustrial economies. Developing countriesthat extend the HACCP system to their internalmarket should expect to reap public healthbenefits (see Box 9). In fact, HACCP systemscould have an enormous impact on fish (andfood) safety in developing countries.
The benefits of the HACCP system indeveloping – and developed – countries arenot all linked exclusively to improved publichealth. Private entrepreneurs would also reapdirect benefits because, in order to apply theHACCP, it is first necessary to ensure basichygiene for all of the activities related to fishproduction and to improve knowledge of theoverall process. FAO’s experience in this fieldhas shown that the introduction of the HACCPsystem has helped entrepreneurs to improvetheir profits (see Box 10). The investmentsmade to introduce the system are recoveredthrough declining rejection rates and fine-tuning of the production process.
The HACCP system contributes to betterquality, because safety is an indispensablerequirement for quality. For conceptual andregulatory reasons, the fishing industryseparates safety and quality, but in-plant safetyand quality go together. Implementation of theHACCP system requires an improvedunderstanding of all aspects of the processesthat lead to the final product, and thisknowledge can be used immediately to reducecosts and improve overall product quality. Theintroduction of HACCP principles is shapingthe fishing industry of tomorrow.
The case of ciguatera control in Cuba isrevealing because it shows that application of theHACCP system at the industry level, even ifeffective, may not be enough to decrease thenumber of outbreaks associated with a givenhazard. It was necessary to enforce policydecisions, including timely communication toplaces where the population was at risk. It alsoproved necessary to conduct more in-depthhazard analysis than that ordinarily required forHACCP purposes.
Source: Based on data from the Cuban Ministry of
Public Health and Ministry of Fishery Industries (FAO/
MIP Workshop on Quantitative Risk Assessment in the
Fishery Industry, Havana, March 2000).
cases losses from rejections decreased which, inturn, allowed the plants to recover theirinvestments over periods that ranged from a fewmonths to a few years. In general, the moredemanding (risky) the product, the larger theeconomic gain.
For instance, an Ecuadorian company exportingcooked crab meat managed to reduce internaland external rejections from 4.75 percent of thetotal production in weight from before the HACCPsystem was implemented (1997) to 0.81 percentwith the system in operation (1998). The companyhad invested around US$40 000 to implement itsHACCP system and, given its level of production(126 tonnes of final product per year), theinvestment was recuperated within six months.
52
14 D.E. Lane. 1999. Applications of rights-based fisheries:
experiences and consequences. In A. Hatcher and K. Robinson,
eds. The definition and allocation of use rights in European
fisheries. Proceedings of the second Concerted Action Workshop
on Economics and the Common Fisheries Policy, Brest, France,
5-7 May 1999. University of Portsmouth: Centre for the Econom-
ics and Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE)
Miscellaneous Publications No. 46, p. 19. Portsmouth, UK.
PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FISHERIESMANAGEMENT
THE ISSUESince the 1950s, economists concerned withthe management of capture fisheries havebeen aware that the rules for access toresources create incentives and participatoryresponses, and that these rules and incentivescan have a fundamental effect on the long-term status of fisheries. In most fisheries,ineffective strategies for regulating access canlead to situations where the level of fishingeffort wastes society’s resources andoverexploits species.
There is a growing realization that part ofthe remedy to this management problem liesin designing appropriate access rights to wildstocks, and fishery administrators are nowincreasingly considering how to provideexplicit rights of various sorts to fisheriesparticipants. This process is sometimesreferred to as “applying rights-based fisheriesmanagement”, but the precise meaning of thisterm and of the concept of assigning “propertyrights” is often unclear.
The basic concept of property and the rightsassociated with property is a simple one. So-called “property rights” are bundles ofentitlements that confer both privileges andresponsibilities. The establishment of propertyrights in fisheries management thereforeinvolves the definition and specification of theentitlements, privileges and responsibilitiescreated by all the various types of fisheriesmanagement. However, it is not uncommon tohear about a lack of clearly defined propertyrights in fisheries management, and it is quiteaccurate to note that “property rights, like thedorsal fins on different fishes, come in manydifferent shapes and sizes”.14
To complicate the matter further, referencesto rights-based management systems can bereferences to just about anything along thevery broad spectrum of different types offisheries management systems. Rights-basedfisheries management systems may be based
on the use of input controls or on the use ofoutput controls. Some property rights arecreated by licensing and other forms of accesslimitation systems. Some are created byfisheries management systems and specify theuse of fisheries resources for particularcommunities (community development quotas[CDQs]), in particular areas or territories(territorial use rights in fisheries [TURFS]) and ofparticular stocks (stock use rights in fisheries[SURFS]). Other property rights are created byindividual quota (IQ), individual fishing quota(IFQ), individual transferable share quota (ITSQ)and individual transferable quota (ITQ) systems.
Ultimately, the basic issues of property rightssystems in fisheries management are related toan understanding of:
• how the rights are defined – namely, whohas the right to use the resources of afishery, which portion of the fishery may beused, and how and when it may be used;
• how the rights are conferred and upheld;• precisely how the respective rights create
incentives for those involved – by virtue ofthe fact that they, to lesser or greaterdegrees, allocate potential benefits, whichmay or may not reinforce managementobjectives.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSIn very general terms, there are three basicways in which the difficulties of understanding,discussing and applying property rights infisheries management can be mitigated, if notovercome.
First, one of the major sources of confusionwhen discussing the matter of propertyrights and fisheries management ismiscommunication. Difficulties frequentlyarise simply because the term “propertyrights” means different things to differentpeople and can refer to vastly diverse bundlesof entitlements, privileges and responsibilities,each of which will produce very differentincentives and, hence, management outcomes.It is important to have a very clear definitionof exactly what the property rights inquestion are, even though this information isnot typically part of discussions on theuse of property rights in fisheriesmanagement.
Before any possible solutions can bedeveloped, the property rights (and theirassociated issues) that are part of fisheriesmanagement need to be defined, and thisdepends on describing the following attributes
53
BOX 11Factors affecting the concept of property
rights in fisheries management
Rights-based fisheries management systems andthe property rights conferred by them are afunction of the legislative, legal, economic, social,cultural, biological and political institutions thatshape the environment in which they occur. Forexample, the legal system of a country will have adirect effect on what entitlements can beconferred under property rights in fisheries. Inmany instances, fisheries rights do not conveyactual ownership of the resources themselves toindividuals. For example, in the United States andAustralia, natural resources such as fisheries are,respectively, the public’s and the Crown’sresources, and property rights in fisheries aredefined in terms of an individual’s right to try toharvest or otherwise use fisheries resources. In
other countries, such as in Japan and TaiwanProvince of China, there are instances where theproperty rights for fisheries resources belong tolocal communities.
Third, as part of the design process of amanagement strategy, and before work startson the design of a particular regulatorysolution to the rights-related issues of a fishery,managers and participants need to giveexplicit descriptions of:16
• the fishery management unit;17
• the total amount that can be caught;18
• to what extent the different participants canassume a successful harvest.19
Possible regulatory solutions can then beconstructed on the basis of the nature of theproperty rights that can be conferred (i.e. their
of the property rights granted or assigned by afisheries management strategy or plan:15
• the exclusivity of participation in thefishery;
• the durability (duration) of the rightsconferred;
• the security or quality of the title conferredby the rights;
• the transferability of the rights;• the divisibility of the rights assigned;• the flexibility associated with the use of the
rights.
Second, there needs to be recognition andacceptance of the fact that, just as for anyother management situation, there is no singlefisheries management strategy that will solveall fisheries problems. When working to findsolutions, fisheries management requires themost appropriate combination of the availablemanagement tools and the rights associatedwith them. This is another simple point that isoften overlooked.
15 Anthony Scott described his characterization of the elements
of property rights in a keynote address, entitled Moving
through the narrows: from open access to ITQs and self-
government, at the Fremantle conference FishRights99, Use of
Property Rights in Fisheries Management. Available at:
www.fishrights99.conf.au.
16 L.G. Anderson. 1992. Consideration of the potential use of
individual transferable quotas in US fisheries overview docu-
ment. The National ITQ Study Report Volume 1. Washington,
DC, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).17 Preferably, the management unit is the fish stock throughout
its range, but this may not always be possible. When the
management unit is not the stock throughout its range, it becomes
critical that other uses of the stock are accounted for.18 If total allowable catches (TACs) cannot be quantitatively
determined and/or set, it is still important to try to set them
qualitatively in order to help guide regulatory decision-making
and compare the incentives created by different TACs.19 Focusing attention on individual allocations, regardless of
whether they are explicit or implicit, helps to identify possible
regulatory options and their impact on participants’ behaviour.
54
exclusivity, durability, security, transferability,divisibility and flexibility). The managementsolutions that are created in this way are likelyto reflect either:
• bundles of rights where some of the sixelements of the entitlements held byparticipants are relatively weak andunspecified (such as those conveyed bymanagement programmes based firmly onspatial or temporal limitations to access,the use of other input controls such as gearrestrictions or total quota systems); or
• bundles of rights where the elements ofentitlements are relatively well specified(such as those conveyed by the use of IQsor community development quotas, SURFS,individual transferable effort [ITE] orindividual vessel quota [IVQ] systems, orsuch systems as ITQs, ITSQs and IFQs).
This approach to the issue of property rightsin fisheries leads to the following basicquestions:
When is it useful to take property rightssystems into consideration? What sorts ofsociological, biological and economicconditions will shape property rights? Whatinstitutions, administrative conditions and legalneeds (instruments, legislative practices, etc.)are useful?
Who holds and who should hold propertyrights? What are the requisite legal bases forproperty rights? If property rights arechanged, who should receive the new rights?Are there advantages in defining communalproperty rights? How are different scales offishing activities accommodated? How dodifferent property rights systems ofmanagement accommodate indigenous orother user groups?
How can property rights systems improve theincentives for economic efficiency,stewardship, conservation and profitability?Where and how do the incentives created bydifferent types of property rights becomeapparent? What sorts of distributionalimplications are there? What sorts ofoperational requirements do different types ofproperty rights management strategies requirein terms of research, enforcement,administration and actual fishing operations?
The solution to the issue of property rights infisheries management requires a return to thefundamental elements on which all fisheriesmanagement systems are based, allowing forthe comparative assessment of the managementoptions offered by different types of propertyrights. Although there is little need for newfisheries management tools, current use of theavailable tools must be improved so that theycan impart incentives more vigorously.
BOX 12Property rights and conflict
minimization
Most conflicts over fisheries resources arise whenthe resource is (or is perceived to be) so scarcethat sharing it becomes difficult. When rights,particularly those relating to participants’activities regarding their own portions of a stock,are well defined, understood and observed,allocation conflicts tend to be minimized.However, when rights to the use of a stock arenot well defined, understood or upheld, divergentassumptions about what the rights may conveyoften result in conflicts over scarce fisheriesresources.
Fisheries resources are becoming increasinglyscarce, so conflicts over the allocation andsharing of these resources are likely to becomemore frequent, unless there are mechanisms that
allocate resources explicitly. Conflicts can beminimized by clarifying the property rightsconferred by the management of a fishery,following risk-based decision strategies and usingconflict mitigation processes.
55
RECENT ACTIONS
●●●●●
Over the last decade, there has beenconsiderable international interest in the issuesof property rights in fisheries management. Theproperty rights associated with fisheries thatextend beyond or occur outside nationaljurisdictions are being clarified by a rapidlygrowing set of international memoranda andagreements. In addition, internationalorganizations are increasingly interested inhow different types of rights-based fisheriesmanagement systems can affect theconservation and sustainable use of fisheries.
The ongoing maturation of the conceptsembodied in the 1982 United NationsConvention on the Law of the Sea, coupledwith conflicts over the issue of who has therights to catch fish in situations where stockscross national jurisdictions and/or national andinternational areas,20 has led to thedevelopment of the following agreements,which clarify and define more preciselyvarious aspects of property rights in fisheries:
●●●●●
In 1993, the FAO Compliance Agreement21
was adopted to strengthen the exclusivity ofthe property rights of those fishing on the highseas. The Agreement focused on which vesselshad the authority to fish on the high seas, andit also underlined the responsibilities offisheries management authorities in controllingsuch activity.
●●●●●
Two years later, the adoption of the UN FishStocks Agreement22 extended the definition ofproperty rights relating to the fishing ofstraddling and highly migratory fish stocks bystrengthening both the flag state’sresponsibilities associated with the right of
exploiting such stocks and the enforceabilityand security of the privileges conferred bythose rights with provisions on compliance andenforcement.
●●●●●
Currently, the development of aninternational plan of action to deal with illegal,unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing willserve to define more clearly and enforce theproperty rights to harvest fish on the high seas.Various types of property rights systemscontinue to be discussed in more general termsat such meetings as:
• the Expert Group on Economic Aspects ofBiodiversity, held by the Organisation forEconomic Development and Co-operation(OECD) in 1998 to consider the pros andcons of using ITQs in a property rights-based fisheries management system thatwould create positive incentives for theconservation and sustainable use of marinebiodiversity;
• the 1999 Fremantle Conference,FishRights99, on the use of property rightsin fisheries management, whereparticipants from 49 countries examinedthe use of rights-based managementsystems from the perspectives ofgovernments and administrators, thecommercial fishing industry and varioustypes of communities.
●●●●●
While such institutions as the United Nationsand the World Bank are addressing issuesarising from the conservation of marinebiodiversity, there is increasing interest inexamining fisheries management tools andtheir property rights characteristics to see ifthese are of use in effecting ecologicallysustainable development.
At the regional level, discussions regardingthe use of property rights in fisheriesmanagement have been benefiting from boththe growing recognition that the use of ITQs isonly one of a range of relevant types of rights-based fisheries management and therealization that adjustment programmes needto be coupled with new management strategiesif their results are to be consolidated. Oneexample of this was the 1999 Concerted Actionon Economics and the Common FisheriesPolicy workshop on the Definition andAllocation of Use Rights in European Fisheries,funded by the EC and its Agriculture and
20 For example, Canada’s enforcement actions against Spanish
vessels fishing for Greenland halibut in 1995.21 The Agreement to Promote Compliance with International
Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on
the High Seas was adopted by the FAO Conference in November
1993 but has not yet entered into force.22 The Agreement on the Implementation of the Provisions of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10
December 1982 Relating to the Conservation and Manage-
ment of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks
was adopted and opened for signature in 1995.
56
Fisheries Programme (FAIR).23 This workshopwas followed by another, held in Bergen,Norway in October 2000, focusing on specificrights-based solutions to EC fisheriesmanagement problems.
At the national level, interest in the use ofproperty rights is continuing to develop, albeitcautiously. Politicians are aware that there arepotentially significant political ramificationswhen property rights are made increasinglyspecific and when allocation issues have to beaddressed explicitly. For example, in Iceland,allocation issues have inspired first politicaland then legal battles to challenge theimplementation of ITQ programmes. InAustralia, recent efforts to discuss andimplement fisheries management systemsbased on clearly specified property rights suchas ITQs have been stalled in the politicalarenas of several states, while fishers aremaking increasing demands on fisheriesmanagement agencies for clarification of theircommercial fishing rights and mechanisms thatallocate fisheries resources in ways that aredefensible and predictable.
●●●●●
Since 1998, governments and the industry insome Latin American countries have beendebating the merits of introducing more clearlydefined rights for those involved in industrialpelagic fisheries (in Chile and Peru) andgroundfish fisheries (in Uruguay andArgentina). So far, however, it is not clear thatagreements on how to proceed will emerge.
In contrast, the characteristics of the rightsheld by artisanal fishers in Latin America aregradually becoming more clearly andexclusively defined.24 Although generallyapplied to situations where there are stocks offish dwelling on the bottom or in otherlocalized and non-migratory areas (includingrelatively small bodies of freshwater), thesearrangements have given rights-holders thelegal wherewithal to exclude those who do nothave rights in such fisheries. For example, in1998 Peru began to provide artisanal fishers’organizations with exclusive rights in some
inshore marine resources, and in Ecuadorfishers have received exclusive rights toenhance and exploit fisheries in some inlandwaters. In Brazil, moves to allocate exclusivefishing rights – and management obligations –to local communities are currently under way.In Chile, Mexico and Cuba, similarprogrammes have been under way for sometime and are now relatively well established.
Although there has not yet been anysystematic assessment of all the economic andother impacts of such issues as the assignmentof rights to fishers and the state of stocks, somepotentially positive outcomes have alreadybeen recorded. Initial regional assessmentsindicate that, for many communities, theassignment of rights has meant that wildresources have recovered, the prices receivedby fishers have improved (sometimes becausefishers have become involved in processingand marketing) and fishers’ organizations havebeen able to grow stronger through theaccumulation of capital.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEIt is clear that open access utilization of suchnatural resources as fisheries is notsustainable. It is also clear that currentapproaches to controlling and regulating theuse of fisheries resources do not necessarilylead to sustainable use, and in addition oftencreate incentives that work againstmanagement objectives.
Around the world, in artisanal and industrialfisheries, both large- and small-scale, theincreasing scarcity of resources is drivingstakeholders to demand greater clarification oftheir property rights in fisheries. As increasingnumbers of people exploit fisheries resources(often using better technology than wasavailable in the past) there is an ever-growingneed to examine the advantages andlimitations of the existing role of propertyrights in fisheries management and to considerstrategies that are based on more clearlydefined rights.
At all levels, political and administrativeinterest regarding property rights and fisheriesmanagement, and the opportunities created bythe spectrum of rights that may be conferred,will continue to grow, particularly as fisheriesresources come under even greater pressureand the linkages between well-specifiedproperty rights and fisheries managementbecome more widely understood. This interest
23 The Concerted Action Workshops Series is being organized by
CEMARE. Held in Brest, France, from 5 to 7 May 1999, the
meeting focused explicitly on The Definition and Allocation of
Use Rights in European Fisheries.24 Workshop on the Management and Allocation of Fishery
Resources to Artisanal Fishers in Latin America, Valparaiso,
Chile, 25-28 April 2000.
57
is likely to be coupled with a growing use ofcapacity adjustment programmes asmechanisms for shifting fisheries managementsystems towards the use of more clearlydefined and specified property rights.
In the future, all those involved with fisheriesand their management will give greaterconsideration to the property rights –entitlements, privileges, responsibilities andincentives – that are conferred by differenttypes of fisheries management strategies.
ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED ANDUNREGULATED FISHING
THE ISSUEIllegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU)fishing is found in all capture fisheries,irrespective of the location, species targeted,fishing gears employed or level and intensityof exploitation (see Box 13). IUU fishingoccurs in small-scale and industrial fisheries,inland and marine fisheries, and fisheries inzones of national jurisdiction as well as thoseon the high seas. IUU fishing is not confined tohigh seas fisheries, to particular groups offishers or to specific fisheries. Regionalfisheries management organizations see casesof IUU fishing by both contracting and non-contracting parties and by vessels fromcountries with open registers.
IUU fishing is not a new phenomenon. It hasbeen a source of concern for resourcecustodians ever since fishing communities firststarted to implement measures to conserve fishstocks. In societies where indigenous resource-use practices continue (e.g. Melanesiancommunities in the South Pacific Islands),infringements of these practices by fisherscarrying out IUU fishing often carry substantialsocial and economic sanctions.
Efforts are under way to assess how seriousand widespread IUU fishing is, but nocomplete and comprehensive picture of thesituation has yet emerged. FAO has beeninformed that, in some important fisheries, IUUfishing accounts for up to 30 percent of totalcatches, and in one instance it has beenindicated that IUU catches could be as high asthree times the permitted catch level. Many ofthe world’s regional fisheries managementorganizations have taken steps to address theproblem. Where IUU fishing is common, it hasmajor consequences for national and regionalscientific assessments and, in turn, for thedetermination of catch levels and other
management measures adopted andimplemented by national administrations andregional fisheries management organizations.
The international community has identifiedIUU fishing as a major fisheries managementissue because of its far-reachingconsequences for the long-term sustainablemanagement of fisheries resources; when IUUfishing is unchecked, the system on whichfisheries management decisions are basedbecomes fundamentally flawed. This situationleads to a failure to achieve fisheriesmanagement goals and the loss of both short-and long-term social and economicopportunities (see Box 13). In extreme cases,IUU fishing can lead to the collapse of afishery or seriously affect efforts to rebuildfish stocks that have been depleted.
IUU fishing has many facets andmotivations, although the most obviousunderlying incentives are economic in nature.Other factors that may encourage IUU fishinginclude the existence of excess fleet capacity,the provision of government subsidies (wherethey maintain or increase capacity), strongmarket demand for particular products, weaknational fishery administration (includinginadequate reporting systems), poor regionalfisheries management and ineffective MCS,including a lack of VMS.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSTo combat IUU fishing, concerted internationalcooperation is required, and this depends onthe collaboration of all states, irrespective ofwhether their primary roles are as coastalstates, flag states, port states or fish-importingcountries. A clear focus on the issues thatcontribute to IUU fishing and a commoninternational resolve to address them in atimely and realistic manner should enableprogress to be made towards greatly reducingor eliminating IUU fishing.
In zones of national jurisdiction where IUUfishing is practised by both authorized andunauthorized fishers, national administrationsneed to strengthen, inter alia, licensingprocedures; conservation and managementmeasures; data reporting, collection andanalysis; and MCS. An international plan ofaction to combat IUU fishing will be helpful.Such a plan, if comprehensively developedand effectively implemented, should reduce, ifnot eliminate, the incidence of IUU fishing.Based on recent international discussions ofthis issue, it seems likely that an internationalplan of action to address this type of fishing
58
BOX 13IUU fishing in
the CCAMLR region
The term “IUU fishing” is new to the fisheriesliterature. It first emerged during recent sessions ofCCAMLR, where it evolved from discussionsconcerning fishing activities that are illegal and/ornot compliant with CCAMLR on the part of Parties(illegal and unreported) and non-Parties (illegaland unregulated) in the Convention1 area. The firstformal mention of IUU fishing on a CCAMLRmeeting agenda occurred in 1997.
The IUU fishing problem in CCAMLR waters hasnot been confined to the vessels of non-contracting parties. In some instances, vesselsflagged to CCAMLR member countries have beeninvolved in IUU fishing. To date, the measuresadopted by CCAMLR in seeking to address theIUU problem have not included elements relatedto the control of nationals, or the control of flagvessels, by members of the Commission.
The scale of IUU fishing that has taken place inCCAMLR toothfish fisheries is unlikely to berepeated in many other fisheries. In 1997/98,CCAMLR estimated that the toothfish catches fromIUU operations were in the order of 33 583 tonnesor more. This figure was estimated to represent inexcess of 50 percent of the total global catch ofthe species. Estimates for 1998/99 suggest that theIUU catch has decreased but is still at least 10 773tonnes and, when compared with the 17 435tonnes reported for this species in CCAMLRwaters, it still represents a significant proportion ofthe toothfish product on the market.
A number of factors have influenced the highlevels of IUU fishing in the CCAMLR toothfishfisheries. Two of the more significant points are:
•The product is highly sought after in theinternational market, thus offering the potentialfor significant monetary gain to participants inthe IUU fishery.
•The isolated location of the fisheries is such thatthe deployment of surveillance and enforcementresources is extremely expensive, making itunlikely that an offending vessel will be caughtwhile fishing illegally.
One of the impacts of the combination of thesetwo factors has been to limit the effectiveness ofmore traditional MCS tools in addressing the IUUproblem in CCAMLR toothfish fisheries. As a result,CCAMLR has introduced a series of measures in itsattempt to address the IUU problem. The most
recent mechanism adopted by the Commissionhas been the introduction of the Catch DocumentScheme for Dissostichus species. The purposes ofthe scheme are to monitor international trade intoothfish products, identify the origin of toothfishproducts entering the markets of contractingparties, determine whether such products werecaught in CCAMLR waters and, if so, whether theywere taken in a manner consistent with CCAMLRconservation measures. Since 7 May 2000,CCAMLR contracting parties have been requiredto ensure that any toothfish product landed in theirports, transshipped to their vessels or imported intotheir markets is accompanied by a valid catchdocument.
1 The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources was signed in May 1980 and
entered into force in April 1981.
Source: G. Bryden, Chairman of the Standing
Committee on Observation and Inspection, CCAMLR.
59
would promote, inter alia, the following short-and long-term measures:
• strengthening of national conservation andmanagement arrangements, includingnational fisheries administrations;
• conformity of national legislation withregional and international obligations,including the ratification of the 1995 UNFish Stocks Agreement, and the 1993Compliance Agreement; 25
• the promotion of flag state responsibility byensuring that the state authorizes allvessels flying its flag to fish, irrespective ofwhether such authorization is for operationsin zones of national jurisdictions, in theexclusive economic zones (EEZs) of othercountries or on the high seas;
• complete, accurate and timely catch andother reporting;
• encouragement of port states to take actionthat will hinder the landing, transshipmentor sale of fish as a result of IUU fishing;
• encouragement, consistent with WTO-related measures, of the closure of marketsfor IUU-harvested fish;
• certification of product origin;• support of regional fisheries management
organizations in taking steps to strengthenmeasures that will permit them to assessmore effectively the extent and impact ofIUU fishing on their work and to adopt andimplement measures to curb such fishing intheir respective areas of competence;
• empowerment of MCS systems for themonitoring of both in-zone and high seasfisheries, and the facilitation of closecollaboration among all states, irrespectiveof whether they are coastal, flag, port ormarket states.
RECENT ACTIONS
●●●●●
During 1999 and 2000, IUU fishing has beenaddressed in several important internationalfora.26 FAO was given a clear mandate at the23rd Session of its Committee on Fisheries(COFI) and the 1999 FAO Ministerial Meetingon the Implementation of the Code of Conductfor Responsible Fisheries to develop avoluntary international plan of action to
combat IUU fishing within the framework ofthe Code.27
Development of the plan of action hasfollowed a two-step approach:
• An Expert Consultation on IUU Fishing washosted by the Government of Australia incooperation with FAO. The meeting, whichwas attended by some 60 experts from awide geographical distribution and range ofprofessional backgrounds, was held inSydney, Australia, from 15 to 19 May 2000.The experts who attended prepared apreliminary draft international plan ofaction.
• An FAO Technical Consultation on IUUFishing was held at FAO headquarters from2 to 6 October 2000.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVERegional fisheries management organizationsare taking steps to combat IUU fishing. Actionhas already been taken by the:
• Commission for the Conservation ofAntarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR) (see Box 13);
• Commission for the Conservation ofSouthern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT);
• Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC);• International Commission for the
26 The 23rd Session of COFI in February 1999; the FAO Ministerial
Meeting on Fisheries in March 1999; the 7th Session of the
Commission on Sustainable Development in April 1999; the
116th Session of the FAO Council in June 1999; the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation Fisheries Working Group in July 1999;
the 54th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in
November 1999; the 8th Session of the IMO Sub-Committee on
Flag State Implementation in January 2000; the Chilean
International Conference on Monitoring, Control and
Surveillance in January 2000; the 44th Session of the IMO
Marine Environment Protection Committee in March 2000; the
72nd Session of the Maritime Safety Committee in May 2000;
and the United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative
Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea in May 2000.27 In February 2000, FAO reported to the 24th Session of COFI
on progress achieved in fulfilling the mandate provided
concerning IUU fishing, and in particular the request to
develop an international plan of action to combat IUU fishing.
Given the urgency of the IUU fishing problem and the strong
international focus on the issue, FAO anticipates that it will be
possible to provide COFI with a draft plan of action for
consideration and possible adoption in 2001.25 See footnotes 22 and 21, p. 55.
60
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT);• Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
(NAFO);• Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission
(NEAFC).
Other regional fisheries managementorganizations are in the process of assessingand addressing IUU fishing.
Members of regional fisheries managementorganizations will have to decide how toenhance flag state control and how to improvecooperation with port states. Non-parties toregional fisheries management organizationswill be urged to take steps to control theirvessels so that they do not engage in activitiesthat undermine the work of regional fisheriesmanagement organizations. As a result, it willbecome of primary importance that theseorganizations try to accommodate newentrants. The establishment of a joint FAO/IMOad hoc working group is expected to lay thegroundwork for cooperative action on IUUfishing between the two organizations, inresponse to calls that they should collaborateto find solutions to the problem.
FAO will to continue its cooperation withregional fisheries management organizationsand to facilitate cooperation among theseorganizations. A manifestation of thiscollaboration is FAO’s annual consolidatedreporting to the United Nations GeneralAssembly on the activities of regional fisheriesmanagement organizations and the biennialmeeting it holds with other interested parties toaddress matters of mutual concern.
INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT AND THE
PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH IN MARINECAPTURE FISHERIES
THE ISSUEWidespread concern about the sustainability ofpresent uses of natural renewable resources ledto the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED), heldin Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992, and to theadoption of its Agenda 21. The event reflected aglobal consensus for more ecosystem-basedsustainable development across all sectors ofhuman activity, as a means of improving thehuman welfare of present generations withoutsacrificing that of the future. It called for asubstantial shift in governance, improvedscientific support to decision-making and a
substantial increase in strategic information.Simultaneously, UNCED recognized the cost
and scarcity of such information and, therefore,the high degree of uncertainty about thefunctions and state of productive ecosystems aswell as the resulting risk for the resources andthe people dependent on them for a living.
The combination of these requirementspresents a formidable challenge for modernfisheries governance. The capacity of fisherymanagers and industry to comply with therequirements will condition the views of anincreasingly aware society on the future role offisheries in global sustainable development andfood security.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSIn order to assist fisheries policy-makers andmanagers, allow monitoring and performanceassessment and facilitate people’s participation,Chapter 40 of Agenda 21, Information fordecision-making, calls for“a harmonized development of sustainabledevelopment indicators at the national, regionaland global levels, and for incorporation of asuitable set of these indicators in common,regularly updated, and widely accessiblereports and databases, for use at theinternational level, subject to nationalsovereignty considerations” (Paragraph 40.7).In 1995, the United Nations Commission onSustainable Development (CSD) followed upand approved a work programme aimedat making such indicators available to decision-makers at the national level by the year 2000.
In addition, Principle 15 of UNCED’s RioDeclaration states that “In order to protect theenvironment, the precautionary approach shallbe widely applied by States according to theircapabilities. Where there are threats of seriousor irreversible damage, lack of full scientificcertainty shall be not used as a reason forpostponing cost-effective measures to preventenvironmental degradation.” The GeneralPrinciples and Article 6.5 of the Code followedthis up by prescribing a precautionaryapproach to all fisheries in all aquatic systems,regardless of their jurisdictional nature.
RECENT ACTIONS
During the last few years, considerable efforthas been devoted to elaborating frameworksfor the development of sustainability indicatorsand procedures for their integration with the
61
precautionary approach. The following is areview of the progress made.
●●●●●
Indicators of sustainable development. Since1995, CSD has promoted, inter alia, theexchange of information among interestedactors; identification, testing and evaluation ofrelevant indicators; training and capacitybuilding; and the development of frameworksfor sustainability indicators. Taking the lead inthe development of sectoral indicators infisheries, FAO, in collaboration with theGovernment of Australia, reviewed the issueand drew up technical guidelines for thedevelopment and use of indicators for thesustainable development of marine capturefisheries.28 It is recognized that the adoptionand reporting of sustainable developmentindicators are practicable and cost-effectivemeans of tracking progress towards sustainabledevelopment (e.g. in the implementation of theCode); detecting potential problems in goodtime; learning by comparing performancesamong different fisheries; and, as aconsequence, optimizing policies and fisheriesmanagement.
Several complementary frameworks havebeen proposed for the design, organization andreporting of sustainable developmentindicators, such as the pressure-state-response(PSR) framework. In the case of fisheries, theCode provides an alternative framework.When indicators have been established forsimilar frameworks, they can be shared at therelevant national, regional and global levels.To that effect, similar concepts, definitions andprocesses need to be agreed and implementedwhen comparable systems of indicators thatfollow minimum standard requirements arebeing developed.
In general, indicators should reflect the stateof the system and its outcomes in relation tosocietal goals and objectives, the long-termsustainability of the fishery, the ecosystem
supporting it and the generation of net benefitsto fishers and society.
Indicators of sustainability should reflect thewell-being of (or the problems related to) theresource and human components of thesystem, as well as the progress (or lack of it)towards the objective of sustainabledevelopment (Figure 22). Indicator-basedsystems are becoming a useful complement toconventional management support systems, aswell as a promising way of monitoring andmanaging fisheries subsectors, or the sector asa whole, offering an alternative to the fishery-by-fishery approach.
The selection of appropriate geographic unitsfor the reporting of indicators is critical and,while recognizing national and subnationaljurisdictions, should reflect the geographic
28 FAO. 1996. The precautionary approach to fisheries and its
implications for fishery research, technology and management:
an updated review, by S.M. Garcia. FAO Fisheries Technical
Paper No. 350/2, p. 1-75. Rome; FAO. 1999. Indicators for
sustainable development of marine capture fisheries. FAO
Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 8, Rome;
S.M Garcia and D. Staples. 2000. Sustainability reference
systems and indicators for responsible marine capture fisheries:
a review of concepts and elements for a set of guidelines.
Marine and Freshwater Research.
TABLE 4
Indicators for the main dimensions ofsustainable development
Dimension Indicator
Economic Harvest and harvest value
Fisheries contribution to GDP
Income
Value of fisheries exports
(compared with value of total
exports)
Investment in fishing fleets and
processing facilities
Social Employment/participation
Demography
Literacy/education
Fishing traditions/culture
Gender distribution in decision-
making
Ecological Catch structure
Relative abundance of target
species
Exploitation rate
Direct effects of fishing gear on
non-target species
Indirect effects of fishing: trophic
structure
Direct effects of gear on habitats
Change in area and quality of
important or critical habitats
Governance Compliance regime
Property rights
Transparency and participation
62
location of the ecological processes that defineaquatic ecosystem boundaries. Whilecommitments have been made for nationalreporting, it might sometimes be appropriate toaggregate reports at a subnational level(e.g. by fisheries or by small districts withinthe same nation) or multinational level (e.g. fortransboundary stocks).
There are many ways of representing theinterdependent components of a fishery or of afishery sector in a sustainable developmentreference system. The minimum criticalcomponents are the ecosystem, the economy,society and governance. The ecosystemcomprises the fishery resources that supportthe fishery as well as other aspects of theecosystem that control the productivity of theresource, including dependent and associatedspecies. The economy reflects the results –expressed in terms of benefits and costs – thatare derived from the use of the ecosystem. Thebenefits and costs are experienced byconsumers, producers and society at large.Short- and long-term equity is included. Thesociety component of the system consists ofnon-monetary costs and benefits, which areimportant elements of human welfare.Governance includes the institutions as well asthe rules governing the system. Indicatorsshould reflect the performance of the system ineach of these components.
Ideally, indicators for each componentshould be developed by identifying objectives
that are relative to that component, byspecifying a conceptual or numerical “model”of the available scientific understanding; anddetermining indicators of performance thatrelate to the objectives for which information isavailable or can easily be collected. Indicatorscan be very numerous and need carefulselection (Table 4). They must be scientificallyvalidated as really reflecting the changes thatthey imply; based on the “best scientificinformation available”, as required byUNCLOS; easy to develop and cost-effective;and easily understood by the target audience.
The value of indicators must be interpreted inrelation to target, limit or threshold referencevalues (or reference points) derived in variousways, even when there is a shortage of data.The target reference values define desirablestates of the system and good performance.Limits indicate undesirable states of the systemand bad performance. Thresholds identifysituations in which action, possibly pre-agreed,should be taken. Together, these referencepoints give an indication of societal valuejudgements regarding the indicators. Forexample, an indicator of biomass below thelimit level may be considered as illustrating a“bad” situation. An indicator of biomass at themaximum sustainable yield level may beconsidered as “good”.
Collaborating nations that share a resourceshould strive to establish some commonindicators for each component of a system
FIGURE 22Hierarchical subdivision of a sustainabledevelopment framework
Source: J. Chesson and H. Clayton. 1997. A framework for assessing fisheries with respect to ecologically sustainable development. Bureau of Resource Sciences,Fisheries Resources Branch, Australia
EFFECTS OF FISHING
Food
Employment
Income
Lifestyle
Other aspects
Non-target species
Primary commercial species
Effects on humans Effects on the environment
63
those responsible for governance and the generalpublic. A number of visual reporting methodswould greatly enhance communication in thisregard. The system of indicators should bereviewed regularly in order to provide thenecessary incentives to maintain and improve it.
Although the indicators should be easy tounderstand, they can still be misinterpreted ormisused (as can any statistical data).Authoritative interpretation and reporting by anexpert group, collaborating with industry andstakeholders, will guard against this, andnations and international organizations shouldconvene such groups of experts to evaluateand interpret indicators every few years.Policy-makers will then be able to act inresponse to whatever the indicators show.
●●●●●
The precautionary approach. Before integratingthe precautionary approach into the Code andpromoting its application in the UN Fish StocksAgreement,30 FAO reviewed its implications forfisheries.31 In collaboration with Sweden, theOrganization also developed technicalguidelines for the precautionary approach to
and, possibly, common evaluation criteria.This will make it easier to assess the status offishery resources within the ecosystem and toestablish costs and income for which there aregenerally agreed objectives andmethodologies. It may, however, be lesspractical for social components, for which it isdifficult to make generalizations.
Simple representations of a fishery system inrelation to the dimensions of sustainabledevelopment are proposed in the relevant FAOguidelines and by Garcia and Staples.29 The kitediagram is one such representation in whicheach dimension (e.g. spawning biomass andrevenues) is represented by one of the axes.Each axis is appropriately scaled and there areestablished societal evaluation criteria to qualifythe various levels on each scale (e.g. bad,mediocre, acceptable, good). In Figure 23, theposition of the fishery is shown by a whitepolygon. The degree of shading represents valuejudgements, from bad (black) to good (clear).Thus, the fishery illustrated in Figure 23 issatisfactory in so far as it creates a high numberof jobs and adequate revenues, although itsspawning biomass is inadequate in size and itsnursery areas are threatened. A complete systemof sustainable development indicators shouldinclude mechanisms for effectivecommunication among fisheries stakeholders,
29 Garcia and Staples, op. cit., footnote 28, p. 61.
FIGURE 23Kite diagram
Source: S.M. Garcia and D. Staples. Sustainability reference systems and indicators forresponsible marine capture fisheries: a review of concepts and elements for a setof guidelines. Marine Fisheries Research, 51(5): 385-426
Spawningbiomass
Nurseries
Ecol
ogic
al w
ell-
bein
g
Hum
an w
ell-
bein
g
Revenues
Jobs
30 See footnote 22, p. 55.31 S.M. Garcia. 1994. The precautionary principle: its
implications in capture fisheries management. Ocean and
Coastal Management, 22: 99-125.
64
capture fisheries and species introductions, insupport of implementation of the Code.32
There is considerable uncertainty about thedata, parameters and processes involved infisheries. The situation is aggravated by naturalvariability, climate change and the need toconsider fisheries within their respectiveecosystems. Fisheries management has alwayshad a number of “precautionary” elements thatmake it possible to take action in response to riskto the resources before enough scientific data areavailable to guide decision-making.Unfortunately, over the last half-century, theseelements have been either scarcely used orpoorly enforced. The precautionary approachrecognizes that: all fishing activities havesignificant impacts; the impacts of fisheries shouldnot be considered negligible unless proved to beso; the complex and changing fisheries systemwill never be perfectly understood, which meansthat scientific advice to management is alwaysaffected by uncertainty; management decisionprocesses and the sector’s compliance have theirown uncertainties, so fisheries’ impacts on thesystem are difficult to predict accurately; and theconsequences of management errors may take along time to put right.
As a consequence of these factors, and of thefact that the nature of fisheries is such thatmanagement decisions have to be made on thebasis of incomplete knowledge, the approachrequires, inter alia, that: a level of precautioncommensurate to the risk be applied at alltimes to all fisheries and that it be appliedsystematically, i.e. across all research,management and fishing operations;potentially irreversible changes be avoided(to maintain options for future generations);undesirable outcomes be anticipated, andmeasures taken to reduce their likelihood;corrective measures be applied immediatelyand become effective within an acceptabletime frame; priority be given to conserving theproductive capacity of the resource;precautionary limits be put on fishing capacitywhen resource productivity is highly uncertain;all fishing activities be subjected to priorauthorization and periodic review; the burdenof proof be appropriately (realistically) placed;standards of proof that are commensurate withthe potential risk to the resource beestablished; and a comprehensive legal and
institutional management framework be used.The precautionary approach has now been
widely adopted by a number of fishery bodies,including CCAMLR, the International PacificHalibut Commission (IPHC), the InternationalWhaling Commission (IWC), NAFO, the NorthAtlantic Salmon Conservation Organization(NASCO), ICCAT, the Multilateral High-LevelConference on the Conservation andManagement of Highly Migratory Fish Stocksin the Western and Central Pacific and theSoutheast Atlantic Fisheries Organization(SEAFO). The implementation of the approachis actively discussed in others, including theAsia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC), theWestern Central Atlantic Fishery Commission(WECAFC) and the General FisheriesCommission for the Mediterranean (GFCM),and is advancing rapidly in ICES. Theapproach has also been indirectly applied bythe International Tribunal for the Law of theSea (ITLOS) in relation to the southern bluefintuna cases. It is also advancing rapidly in anumber of countries, including the UnitedStates, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
●●●●●
Merging both concepts. The precautionaryapproach is based on a range of key indicatorsof the state of the critical components of thefishery system (e.g. spawning stock size, fishingpressure, critical habitats) that are similar tothose recommended as sustainability indicators.It also requires determination of the relatedtarget, limit and threshold reference points(taking into account the uncertainty inherent intheir estimations). As a consequence, recentdevelopments in fisheries have led to a mergingof the concepts related to indicators ofsustainable development with those related tothe precautionary approach. This represents avaluable and original advance in the field ofnatural resources management.
Thus, mixed frameworks (although notexplicitly identified as such) are now beingconsidered by ICES (which is leading themovement), NAFO and ICCAT. The approachconsists in formally reporting the indicators offishing mortality and reproductive biomass on agraph that represents the limit, threshold andtarget reference points as well as includingareas corresponding to overfishing, target andbuffer or precautionary situations. On such agraph, the agreed harvest control rules can alsobe reported, indicating what action is to betaken (in terms of fishing mortality) for observedlevels of spawning biomass (Figure 24).
32 FAO. 1996. Precautionary approach to capture fisheries and
species introductions. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible
Fisheries No. 2. 54 pp.
65
FIGURE 24Type of precautionary plot used to monitorfisheries in ICES or NAFO
Source: Modified from ICES CM 1997/Assess: 7, p. 41; and F.M. Serchuk et al., 1988.In V.R. Restrepo, ed. Proc. 5th National NMFS Stock Assessment Workshop, Florida, USA
0Spawning biomass (status indicator)
Fish
ing
mor
talit
y (p
ress
ure
indi
cato
r) Blimit
Flimit
Overfishing zone
Ove
rfis
hed
zone
Buffer zone
rule
Control
Precautionary zone
Bthreshold
Fthreshold
Ftarget
FIGURE 25Precautionary plot position of several North Atlantic stocks in 1970
Source: S.M. Garcia and I. De Leiva Moreno. 2000. Proposal for a synoptic presentation of state of stock and managementadvice in a precautionary indicators framework. Report of the CWP Intersessional Working Groupon Precautionary Terminology, 14-16 February 2000, Copenhagen, Denmark
Fpa
Bpa
Blim
Flim
Overfishing zone
Overfished zone
Target zone
Buffer zone
High-risk zone
66
33 D. Pauly, V. Christensen, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese and F. Torres
Jr. 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science, 279: 860-
863.
As illustrated in Figure 24, the precautionaryapproach, as it is currently applied, isessentially based on biological considerations.Despite this shortcoming, the approach can bevery useful for comparative purposes, as itallows many stocks to be represented on asingle graph. Figure 25 illustrates this point,showing the position of a number of NorthAtlantic stocks in 1970. The mapping of thisinformation on similar graphs over a period ofseveral years provides a useful way offollowing trends in the resources of a region.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEWhile the development of sustainabilityindicators in fisheries has only just started andthe application of the precautionary approachhas largely been confined to biological elements,a combination of the two concepts and theiractive implementation by regional fishery bodiesrepresents a major advance in the globalfisheries management landscape, withpotentially significant implications for theresources and the sector. The outcomes ofongoing efforts have been as follows:determination of limit reference points thatrepresent biological constraints and minimumrequirements for sustainability; determination ofthresholds (or buffers) to ensure that the limits arenot accidentally violated; improved methodologyfor assessing uncertainty and the risk attached toit; elaboration and evaluation of precautionaryharvest control rules and assessment of theireffectiveness; and elaboration of strategies, plansand special control rules for the rebuilding ofoverfished stocks.
In addition, these efforts have led to theincorporation of uncertainty about the state ofstocks into management scenarios; improvedcommunication between scientists andmanagers regarding explicit uncertaintyconsiderations and their impacts; more explicitstatements of objectives on the part of policy-makers as a basis for establishing targetreference points; development, adoption andimplementation of precautionary fisheriesmanagement plans; and implementation ofrecovery plans for depleted resources.
Increased effort is needed to build on theprogress already made. As the matter is of theutmost importance, it seems likely thatadditional resources will be assigned and usedfor the identification, analysis, systematicorganization and formal adoption of a limitednumber of reference points covering the
ecosystem, economic, institutional and othersocial aspects; further identification of sourcesof uncertainty and their impact in terms of riskto the fishery system, including its humancomponent; explicit linking of reference pointsto the objectives of fisheries management anddevelopment policies, as well as to theconstraints imposed by ecosystems and theneed for human well-being; appropriaterepresentation of reference points as a meansof conveying the issues, trade-offs,alternatives, etc. to managers, industry and thepublic; and systematic analysis of the ability ofmanagement strategies and processes tooperate with uncertainty.
MONITORING THE IMPACT OF FISHINGON MARINE ECOSYSTEMS
THE ISSUEIn addition to the concern expressed aboutindividual stocks, there is increasing interest inecosystems and the impact that fishing may behaving on their structure and function. There islittle information at either the regional orglobal level on the relationship between thestate of marine ecosystems and fishing.However, broad indicators of change areavailable from reported capture fisherieslandings in the major fishing areas. These canindicate changes, although it is usuallydifficult to separate changes in exploitationpatterns from changes in the underlyingecosystem.
Trophic index. One concern is that fishing maycause large (and valuable) predatory fish to bereplaced by other species lower down the foodweb.33 This may not only affect the value offisheries, but may cause significant problemsin the structure and function of marineecosystems. For example, some species maycease to be controlled by predators after thosepredators have been reduced by fishing. Thepotential effect of such ecosystem disruptioncan be seen when new species are introducedinto environments where there are none of thepredators that usually control them. Aspectacular example occurred in the BlackSea, where the ctenophore (jellyfish)Mnemiopsis leidyi, which was first found there
67
in 1982, had increased to average abundancelevels of 1 to 5 kg/m2 wet weight by 1991/92.It has subsequently decreased in numbers butremains common, and it has permanentlychanged the structure of the Black Sea marineecosystem. Although ecosystems are generallyrobust, there is a fear that this sort ofsecondary effect could also be triggered byoverfishing.
One way to detect changes is to study theratio of landings of predatory fish (piscivores)to landings of fish that feed on plankton(planktivores). As predatory fish are removedfrom the population, the proportion of planktonfeeders in catches may grow, suggestingincreased relative abundance and, perhaps,some underlying change in the ecology.
There are no clear overall trends in thepiscivore-planktivore ratio for most regions.Landing statistics vary significantly because ofchanging vessel activities and fishing patterns,and other environmental factors may well playa role. For example, although theMediterranean and Black Seas are heavilyexploited, there has been significant nutrientpollution, which may have influenced therelative abundance levels of piscivores andzooplankton feeders.34 An area where there is
particular cause for concern is the NortheastAtlantic (Figure 26), which has been heavilyexploited over a long period and has some ofthe most reliable statistics available. Theseindicate a long-term trend towards a greaterratio of plankton-feeding fish in landings whichmay represent a structural shift in theunderlying ecosystem, caused by chronicheavy fishing.
Landings composition index. In statisticsregarding landings as a whole, the speciesyielding the most abundant catches tend todominate. This is not necessarily a clearreflection of the underlying impact of changeson the ecosystem, as some rarer species mayhave critical ecological roles. Furthermore, itis difficult to interpret the meaning of an arrayof landings data by species, and more useful touse indices that summarize landingscomposition.
Landings composition can be summarized bytwo indices, the landings volume averagedover categories and a measure of the variationin landings among categories – the variance.The variance is the average of the squareddifference between the overall averagelanding and the actual landings in each case.These calculations are carried out on thelogarithm of landings, because the landingscomposition follows the log-normal frequencydistribution.
The log-normal frequency has been found todescribe a wide variety of distributions, suchas income distribution in some countries,
34 For a discussion of this and other aspects of trophic changes,
see J.F. Caddy and L. Garibaldi. Apparent changes in the trophic
composition of world marine harvests: the perspective from the
FAO capture database. Ocean and Coastal Management, 43
(8-9): 615-655.
FIGURE 26Northeast Atlantic:piscivore-zooplanktivore index
Piscivore- zooplanktivore
ratio
Source: J.F. Caddy and L. Garibaldi. Apparent changes in the trophic compositionof world marine harvests: the perspective from the FAO capture database.Ocean and Coastal Management, 43(8-9): 615-655
1950
1952
1954
1960
1962
1972
1974
1964
1966
1956
1958
1968
1970
1976
1978
1980
1986
1988
1982
1984
1990
1992
1994
1996
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
68
distribution of sizes of rocks when they arecrushed and, most important, speciesabundance in ecological communities.35 Inlandings statistics, the log-normal distributioncaptures the fact that only a few species arevery abundant in the statistics and the largemajority of categories have far smaller annuallandings. A log-normal distribution fitted tolandings statistics can be defined by twovalues, the mean and the standard deviation,which can be used as indices of the changingexploitation pattern. The distribution has theadditional advantage that it can account forsome of the landings that were not reported,particularly in the early years.36 However,interpretation requires care as the values aregiven on the log scale. For example, anincrease in the variation would increase theperceived arithmetic average even when thelog average remains constant.
The indices are related to the way in whichexploitation of the ecosystem can develop. Thelevel of landings across all categories canchange among individual categories equally ordifferentially. An equal increase implies aproportional increase in the total harvest of allspecies and would produce an increase in themean landings. The landings variance canchange for a number of reasons. Developingfisheries for only a few of many species wouldchange the variation in landings, but would haveless effect on the mean. As a fishery develops,both the mean and the variance in landings canbe expected to increase as all the fisheries in aregion, particularly the more valuable ones, areexploited more heavily. Overfishing may thencause the landings of some stocks to decline,thereby decreasing the average landings.However, declines in landings of categories thatare below the average will increase thevariance, whereas declines in landings forcategories that are above the average willdecrease it. It can be seen that the indices do notdirectly represent simple causes.
Most regions, notably the Northern, Centraland Southeast Atlantic and the NorthernPacific, show a negative trend in averagelandings; that is, the average reported landingsare broadly in decline across categories. Mostother areas show no significant change, with
the exception of the Western Central andSoutheast Pacific and the Eastern IndianOceans, where average landings areincreasing (Figure 27). This occurs whenfishing pressure increases across all exploitedgroups, and reflects the proportional changethat can be attributed to all categories.
In terms of variation of landings amongspecies, all areas show some increase overtime (Figure 28). This represents changes inlandings quantities, which are not the sameacross categories. In particular, increasingvariation among species suggests relativelygreater landings of the most abundant speciesand increasing numbers of smaller landings.However, changes in landings may also be dueto improved reporting as well as to underlyingchanges in the ecosystem and fishingactivities.
In the case of the North and South Atlanticand the Western Central and Southern PacificOceans, the increase in variation is notsignificant. In these cases, the range ofexploitation appears to be stabilizing, perhapsbecause these regions are approaching fullecosystem exploitation. However, reportingwill play a part, at least in the case of theWestern Central Pacific which classifies themajority of its very diverse catch as “marinefish”.
Nevertheless, the broader pattern of increasingvariation probably reflects an increasingconcentration on the largest stocks, as well as anincreased variety of resources being exploited.Two major driving forces are the expansion ofmarkets for larger quantities of a wider range offishery products and the increase in prices ofpreviously neglected species. These phenomenaare mainly the result of the emergence of newmarkets for fish, including previously discardedspecies, the separation of species that werepreviously lumped together and the developmentof new stocks.
The state of ecosystem exploitation by region.As exploitation of an ecosystem develops, itcan be expected that new species will beadded to the landings and that the levels oflandings will increase across all categories,with catches of some of the more abundantand valuable species increasing relativelymore rapidly. This would be shown on theindices as a positive relationship over timebetween the average landings and thevariance in landings per category as thefisheries of the region expand to utilize moreand more categories within the ecosystem.
35 For a discussion of models, see A.E. Magurran. 1988. Ecological
diversity and its measurement. Princeton, New Jersey, USA,
Princeton University Press. 179 pp.36 This is achieved by fitting the truncated log-normal, which
allows for the absence of reports on the smallest landings.
69
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0NortheastAtlantic
EasternIndianOcean
FIGURE 27Average log-landings
Log-landings
Source: FAO
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
6.0
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6NortheastAtlantic
EasternIndianOcean
FIGURE 28Smoothed index of the variation between landings categories
Log-landingsstandard deviation
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997
2.0
Note: The index of variation between landings categories measures the spread or rangeof catches. If all categories have similar levels of landings, the index will be small. If some categories have very high landings and others very low landings, the index will be large.The index therefore measures shifts in regional focus from exploitation across a broad rangeof categories (low index) to a greater concentration on a few resources (high index)
Source: FAO
70
As more species are included in the landings,the variation in landings among categories willincreasingly tend to match the underlyingvariation in species abundance and thepotential for further diversification willdecline. This will tend to produce a negativerelationship between average landings andlandings variation, as fisheries are unable toincrease the two simultaneously. For example,directing capacity away from a fully oroverexploited very abundant species to anumber of less abundant species may makelandings among categories more similar(decreasing variation) while raising theaverage individual category landings.
For most areas there is a negative relationbetween variation and mean landings,suggesting that the potential for expandinglandings in these regions is limited. TheNortheast and Eastern Central Atlantic, wheremuch of the Northeast Atlantic’s excesscapacity is being diverted, show this pattern(Figure 29). An exception to the general rule isthe Eastern Indian Ocean, where both thevariation and the amount of the harvest appearto be increasing. The Eastern Indian and theWestern Central Pacific Oceans represent themost biologically diverse regions. Trendsbetween the mean and the variance do not
necessarily represent time trends, althoughtrends over time will have an effect (Figures 27and 28).
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSGiven the diversity of ecosystems within eachregion, is not possible to describe the state ofecosystems at the regional level with anycertainty. The statistics show that marineecosystems have come under increasingpressure, the full consequences of which areunknown. Improved monitoring throughfishery-independent indices and research onthe impacts of fisheries on fish communitieswould both go some way towards identifying,preventing and solving the problems.
Marine reserves represent an important toolto be used in conjunction with otherappropriate management measures, not just forprotecting many ecosystems and leavingproportions of them intact, but also forproviding a baseline state for monitoring. To beeffective, reserves have to cover a relativelylarge proportion of the ecosystem at theregional level. At present, marine reserves arefrequently proposed to protect particular stocksor periods of their life cycle, rather than tooffer general protection for the ecosystem.A more general approach coordinated at the
2.6
3.2
3.4
3.0
2.8
2.4
2.2
3.6
FIGURE 29Example areas showing the trends betweenthe average and variation of landings categories
Log-landingsstandard deviation
6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
2.0
NortheastAtlantic
EasternIndianOcean
EasternCentralAtlantic
Log-landingsaverage
Note: The average landings indicate the general level of exploitation of the ecosystem. The variation index indicates how changes are distributed across categories. In the case of the
Eastern Indian Ocean, higher levels of exploitation have tended to increase the variation among landings categories, suggesting that landings have increased from a broad base – largely through a greater focus on a few important resources. Conversely, for the Atlantic fisheries, higher exploitation tends to produce a more even spread among categories,
with less focus on the most important resources. This is probably due to the most abundant resources being already fully exploited
Source: FAO
71
regional level would probably be required ifwider benefits are to be acquired, particularlyfor pelagic ecosystems.
In protecting the ecosystem, the mostimportant course of action is to protect thevarious parts that make it up – the individualstocks. When the abundance of individualspecies is maintained, the ecosystem derivesprotection. However, because individualstock assessments do not take account ofinteractions among species,recommendations on exploitation levelsmay have to become more cautious asincreasing numbers of species becomefully exploited.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEWith the possible exception of the EasternIndian Ocean and the Western Central Pacific,the indicators show fully exploited ecosystemswith little room for manoeuvre in all areas.However, if one area were to be singled outfor particular concern, based on the availableindices it would be the Northeast Atlantic(Figures 27, 28 and 29). Several indicessuggest that this ecosystem has been shiftedaway from its unexploited state, giving causefor concern that continued heavy fishing maylead to more widespread problems.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMSAND FISHERIES
THE ISSUE
“We have no problem with geneticallymodified organisms (GMOs) as long as theyare proved to be safe to human beings andhave no negative impact on theenvironment. That is a very clear position.”
Jacques Diouf, FAO Director-General
7 March 2000
Genetic modification of aquatic species hasthe potential to increase, greatly, both thequantity and the quality of products fromaquaculture. Traditional animal breeding,chromosome-set manipulation andhybridization have already made significantcontributions to aquaculture production, andtheir contributions are expected to increase asaquatic species become more domesticatedand as breeding and genetic technologycontinue to improve.
Although such techniques all involve geneticmodification, GMOs are defined by
international agreements and much nationallegislation in a very narrow sense as beingessentially transgenic organisms,i.e. organisms that have had foreign genesinserted into their cells (Box 14).
Several useful genes that can be transferredinto different aquatic species have beenidentified (Table 5). Among the genes identifiedare those that produce:
• growth hormones for increased growth andefficiency (among other important traits);
• anti-freeze protein for increased coldtolerance and growth;
• lysosyme for increased disease resistance;• prolactin hormones that influence hatching,
osmoregulation, behaviour and generalmetabolism.
Some genes can create a “loss of function”.For example, they can block the release ofgonadotropin, thereby delaying or reducingreproduction. Other genes that are useful inbasic research and genetic marking have beenidentified and transferred into the fish that areused in laboratory studies, such as the medakaand platyfish.
Experimental and pilot projects on transgenicorganisms have demonstrated that growth ratescan be improved dramatically; and othercommercially important traits, such as diseaseresistance and increased environmentaltolerance, can also be improved. Although notransgenic aquatic species are yet available tothe consumer, transgenic fish may well be onthe market within the next few years. There isconcern in aquaculture, as in other food-producing sectors, that transgenic technologyposes new risks and must therefore be carefullymonitored and regulated to ensure that theenvironment and human health are notendangered. A contrasting opinion is that GMOsare not substantially different from othergenetically improved or domesticated species,that they will not survive well in the wild shouldthey escape and, therefore, that they need noadditional testing or oversight.
Issues regarding environmental and humanhealth safety must be addressed if thistechnology is to fulfil its potential. Other areasthat need to be considered include intellectualproperty protection, trade and ethics. Keyquestions are: To what degree are GMOsdifferent from organisms that have not beengenetically modified? What, if any, additionalregulations, safeguards, testing or monitoringneed to be put in place?
72
BOX 14Nomenclature
The development of a common nomenclature iscrucial in establishing legislation and policy forthe responsible use of GMOs. However, this isproving to be a formidable task. The tendency ininternational legal bodies and industry is to restrictuse of the term GMO to transgenic species,whereas some voluntary instruments adopt awider definition that includes other geneticmodifications such as hybridization, chromosomemanipulations, sex reversal and selectivebreeding. The following are some of the definitionsof GMOs that are currently in use.
ICES.1 “An organism in which the genetic materialhas been altered anthropogenically by means ofgene or cell technologies. Such technologiesinclude isolation, characterization andmodification of genes and their introduction intoliving cells or viruses of DNA, as well astechniques for the production involving cells withnew combinations of genetic material by thefusion of two or more cells.”
USDA. The United States Department ofAgriculture states that its Performance Standards(which are voluntary) on conducting research onGMOs apply to the following organisms:
1. “Deliberate Gene Changes – includingchanges in genes, transposable elements, non-coding DNA (including regulatory sequences),synthetic DNA sequences and mitochondrialDNA;
2. Deliberate Chromosome Manipulations –including manipulation of chromosomenumbers and chromosome fragments; and
3. Deliberate Interspecific Hybridization (exceptfor non-applicable species discussed below) –referring to human-induced hybridizationbetween taxonomically distinct species.”
To clarify further, USDA states that non-applicable organisms are intraspecific, selectivelybred species and widespread and well-knowninterspecific hybrids that do not cause adverseecological effects.
Convention on Biological Diversity. In thelanguage of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity, GMOs have become living modifiedorganisms (LMOs). “Living modified organism”means any living organism that possesses a novelcombination of genetic material obtained through
the use of modern biotechnology. “Livingorganism” means any biological entity capable oftransferring or replicating genetic material,including sterile organisms, viruses and viroids.“Modern biotechnology” means the application of:i) in vitro nucleic acid techniques, includingrecombinant DNA and direct injection of nucleicacid into cells or organelles; ii) fusion of cellsbeyond the taxonomic family that overcomenatural physiological reproductive orrecombination barriers and that are not techniquesused in traditional breeding and selection.
EC.2 “An organism in which the genetic materialhas been altered in a way that does not occurnaturally by mating and/or natural recombination. ...Genetically modified micro-organisms areorganisms in which genetic material has beenpurposely altered through genetic engineering in away that does not occur naturally.”
1 ICES. 1995. ICES Code of Practice on the
Introductions and Transfers of Marine Organisms –
1994. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 204.2 EEC. 1990. Official Journal of the European
Communities, 117, 8 May 1990.
73
TABLE 5
Some aquatic GMOs (transgenic species) being tested for use in aquaculture
Species Foreign gene Desired effect and comments Country
Atlantic salmon AFP Cold tolerance United States, CanadaAFP salmon GH Increased growth and feed efficiency United States, Canada
Coho salmon Chinook salmon After 1 year, 10- to 30-fold CanadaGH + AFP growth increase
Chinook salmon AFP salmon GH Increased growth and feed efficiency New Zealand
Rainbow trout AFP salmon GH Increased growth and feed efficiency United States, Canada
Cutthroat trout Chinook salmon Increased growth CanadaGH + AFP
Tilapia AFP salmon GH Increased growth and feed efficiency; Canada, United Kingdomstable inheritance
Tilapia Tilapia GH Increased growth and stable inheritance Cuba
Tilapia Modified tilapia Production of human insulin for diabetics Canadainsulin-producing gene
Salmon Rainbow trout Disease resistance, still in development United States, Canadalysosome gene andflounder pleurocidingene
Striped bass Insect genes Disease resistance, still in early stages United Statesof research
Mud loach Mud loach GH + Increased growth and feed efficiency; China, Korea, Rep.mud loach and mouse 2- to 30-fold increase in growth;promoter genes inheritable transgene
Channel catfish GH 33% growth improvement in United Statesculture conditions
Common carp Salmon and 150% growth improvement in culture China, United Stateshuman GH conditions; improved disease
resistance; tolerance of low oxygen level
Indian Major Human GH Increased growth Indiacarps
Goldfish GH AFP Increased growth ChinaAbalone Coho salmon GH + Increased growth United States
various promoters
Oysters Coho salmon GH + Increased growth United Statesvarious promoters
Fish to other life formsRabbit Salmon calcitonin- Calcitonin production to control calcium United Kingdom
producing gene loss from bones
Strawberry and AFP Increased cold tolerance United Kingdom, Canadapotatoes
Note: The development of transgenic organisms requires the insertion of the gene of interest and a promoter, which is the switch that controlsexpression of the gene.AFP = anti-freeze protein gene (Arctic flatfish).GH = growth hormone gene.
74
Environmental issues. Environmental issuescentre on the import and release into theenvironment of GMOs. GMOs may either beintroduced into the environment on purpose, asin stock enhancement programmes, oraccidentally through escape from aquaculture.Even in contained aquaculture facilities there isa high probability that organisms will escape. InNorway, escaped farmed salmon make upabout 30 percent of the salmon in rivers andoutnumber the resident salmon in many inlandstreams.37 There is currently concern thatGMOs will either have an adverse impact onlocal biodiversity through increased predatoryor competitive ability, or that they will breedwith related species and disrupt the localgenetic diversity. The proponents of GMOsmaintain that these organisms will be verydomesticated, will have very low fitness in thewild and, therefore, will not competesuccessfully with wild fish.
However, the low fitness of GMOs in thewild is a genetic concern if they breed withlocal stocks. Local stocks have adapted to thelocal environment, whereas GMOs haveadapted to the farm environment, so breedingbetween GMOs and resident organisms wouldmix the different sets of genes, thus changingthe local diversity. Work that concernedmainly salmonids (non-transgenic salmons)suggested that the mixing of farmed and wildgenes usually has an adverse effect on wildstocks, but real examples of damage are fewand it is difficult to attribute adverse impactson wild stocks to genetic causes alone whenhabitat degradation, overfishing, etc. are alsoinfluencing them.
The issue is whether GMOs can interbreedwith local stocks, how fit their offspring will bein the wild and, hence, what their real impacton local genetic diversity will be. Evidenceindicates that many aquaculture speciesescape and are capable of establishingreproducing populations even when they aregenetically improved and have moved intonew areas, as in the case of farmed Atlanticsalmon escaping and reproducing in BritishColombia.
Human health issues. Although most fisheryresource managers agree that environmental
issues are of primary importance, the humanhealth concerns associated with GMOsprobably receive the most attention worldwide,probably as a result of news about crops. Cropshave been genetically modified to containpesticides, herbicides and general antibiotics,and there are fears that these toxins could affectpeople.
There have also been instances in cropswhere the foreign gene has caused allergicreactions; for example, a gene from a Brazilnut was placed in soybean and people whowere allergic to Brazil nuts reacted to thesoybean. In the fisheries sector, the mostcommon gene construct involves a growthhormone gene (Table 5) and not the herbicidesor pesticides used in plants. Many of theGMOs being tested for use in aquaculture onlyproduce more of their own growth hormone.
Thus, from the human health perspective therisks with the present use of the technology areclearly circumscribed and minor. One area ofpotential concern is the future development ofdisease resistance. A theoretical possibility isthat, if a GMO is more disease-resistant, itmay become a host for new pathogens, someof which may be transmissible or pathogenicto humans.
Trade. The WTO agreements containcomponents that apply to GMOs (e.g. theremoval of trade barriers, the requirements forintellectual property protection and labellingrequirements).
Although no aquatic GMOs are traded,genetically modified soybean is an ingredientof shrimp and other animal feeds that aretraded globally. The EC and Japan havelabelling requirements for this feed, and thefeed industry is studying the worldwidereaction to the labelling and may look forsoybean replacements for feeds.
Intellectual property protection. The research,development and production of reliable GMOsand the environmental and human healthmonitoring infrastructure that should beinstalled have financial implications forbiotechnology companies promoting the use ofGMOs. One mechanism to help recover thesecosts is through intellectual property rights, forexample patents that protect the inventors anddevelopers of a product. Article 27(3)(b) of theAgreement on Trade-Related Aspects ofIntellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) allows forthe patenting of life forms. The United StatesPatent Office has granted patents on
37 D. Gausen and V. Moen. 1991. Large-scale escapes of Atlantic
salmon (Salmo salar) into Norwegian rivers threaten natural
populations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science,
48: 426-428.
75
transgenic salmon and abalone. However,worldwide patenting laws are extremelycomplex and sometimes even contradictory;WTO and some countries allow the patentingof living organisms, but the EC does not. Manygroups have moral objections to the patentingof life (see the paragraph on Ethics) andinnovations that are contrary to public moralitycannot be patented.
Labelling. Europe and the United States are inconflict over the labelling of geneticallymodified crops. Some countries maintain thatlabelling is impractical and would, in anycase, be ambiguous while others think that it isnecessary for informed consumer choice andto prevent a public relations disaster. A majorissue in labelling is that of “substantiallyequivalent” which means that, if the GMO orproduct is equivalent to the non-GMOcounterpart, no extra labelling is needed. Howto assess equivalence, how much informationshould go on to a label and how theauthenticity of labels can be established willbe difficult matters to resolve.
Ethics. The field of ethics is extremely broadand ethics issues are often discussed underdifferent terminology. For example, someaspects of “responsible fisheries” could also bereferred to as “ethical fisheries”. Ethicalquestions with regard to aquatic GMOs usuallyfocus on whether humans have the right tomodify natural creations. The Prince of Wales(UK) stated that “[genetic modification] takesmankind into realms that belong to God, and toGod alone”. Yet humans have been modifyingplants, animals and the habitats they live in formillennia. The development of agriculture hasbeen proposed as one of the most significantaspects of civilization in that it provided thetime and resources that allowed humans tofeed more people and left them free to developfine arts and science. Other ethical dimensionsinclude autonomy and the right to information.Again, from the crop sector it appears that amain cause of concern are multinationalagribusinesses, which are seen as takingcontrol away from farmers and withholdinginformation from consumers. These issues areless important in fisheries at present, mainlybecause no fisheries GMOs are available toconsumers.
Public perceptions. Although no geneticallymodified fish, shellfish or seaweed areavailable to consumers, the issue permeates
the popular media and is a topic of discussionin nearly every general meeting onaquaculture development. This is because thepublic perceives that there is a problem, andpolicy-makers and NGOs strive to address theissues their publics find important. Becausethis is such an emotive issue, much of thenews and research reports are presented byspecial interest groups in ways that suit theirparticular agendas; industry claims that thetechnology has been carefully tested and issafe, while opponents forecast environmentaland health disasters.
The use of GMOs needs to be evaluatedobjectively and rationally. Recently, scientificpapers that deal with GMOs have beencapturing headlines in major newspapersthroughout the world. Unfortunately thejournalists and interest groups concernedhave not managed to report the sciencecompletely or accurately. This has been thecase in respect of genetically modifiedsalmon. Although there are theoretical causesfor concern, there are no real data to supportthe recent claim that genetically modifiedsalmon are extremely dangerous to theenvironment. On the other hand, although fishthat have not been genetically modified andthat have escaped from culture facilities orbeen introduced into environments outsidetheir native range have already causedenvironmental damage and are a clear andpresent danger, they have not received nearlyso much press coverage.
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSInternational legislation, guidelines and codesof conduct for the sustainable use andconservation of aquatic genetic diversity havebeen, and continue to be, established. Theserepresent a valuable first step in theresponsible use of GMOs. Performancestandards for conducting safe research onGMOs have been established by the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture.38 It has beenrecognized that GMOs share many of thesame traits as alien species and aliengenotypes.
Management and risk management shouldtherefore follow the methodology, establishedby such groups as ICES39 and the European
38 Available at: www.nbiap.vt.edu/perfstands/psmain.html.39 ICES. 1995. ICES Code of Practice on the Introductions and
Transfers of Marine Organisms – 1994. ICES Cooperative
Research Report No. 204.
76
Inland Fishery Advisory Committee, for thetransfer of marine organisms from one aquaticenvironment to another.
Concerning human health, the EC and theFAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission(CAC) play leading roles in the enhancementof food safety. Codex standards, guidelines andother recommendations on food safetyconsiderations, descriptions of essential foodhygiene and quality characteristics, labelling,methods of analysis and sampling and systemsfor inspection and certification are not bindingon Member Nations, but are a point ofreference.
There are also technical solutions to theproblem of environmental impact. Theproduction of sterile GMOs would reduce theirimpact on native genetic diversity by makingbreeding impossible should they escape intothe wild. Commercial developers of GMOshave stated that, once approved for grow-out,only sterile fish will be used in production.Sterility has been achieved easily bychromosome-set manipulation in manyspecies, although the technique is not alwayssuccessful. Genetic engineering itself mayprovide sterility by inserting loss of functiongenes.
The adoption of closed systems and thelocation of farms in areas that are notenvironmentally sensitive would be other waysof lessening the impact of GMOs. Commercialpromoters of GMOs believe that, throughincreased production efficiency, farms thathave closed systems and are located awayfrom certain areas (e.g. the coast) would beprofitable.
Solutions to the problem of using GMOs willonly come from addressing all sides of thiscomplex issue. Technically, there must begood scientific backup with adequate testingand monitoring to reduce the uncertainties ofenvironmental impact. The non-technicalissues will be equally important and includebeing aware of the perceptions of consumersand civil society, acknowledging that thesegroups know and understand very little abouthow their food is produced, and taking steps toeducate the general public. A group ofaquaculture geneticists established a keycomponent in the Network of AquacultureCentres in Asia-Pacific (NACA)/FAO BangkokStrategy for Aquaculture Development in theThird Millennium, which gave high priority to“encouraging public awareness and providinginformation to consumers on the application ofgenetics”.
RECENT ACTIONS
●●●●●
It seems likely that aquatic GMOs will soon beavailable for sale to consumers. A privatecompany, operating in the United States andCanada, is leading the drive to commercializegenetically modified salmon and has requestedapproval for distribution from the United StatesFood and Drug Administration (USFDA) andthe Canadian Department of Fisheries andOceans. The commercial distribution ofgenetically modified salmon has provokedexpressions of concern about the potential lackof adequate regulatory mechanisms, but thesehave been countered by claims that groupssuch as USFDA do have adequate testing andregulatory procedures in place.
●●●●●
Regarding food safety, at its 23rd Session(July 1999), CAC established an Ad HocIntergovernmental Codex Task Force on FoodsDerived from Biotechnology. Its objective is todevelop standards, guidelines orrecommendations for foods derived frombiotechnology or traits introduced into food bybiotechnology, on the basis of scientificevidence, risk analysis and other factors thatare relevant to the health of consumers and thepromotion of fair trade practices.
●●●●●
The most significant international actionregarding GMOs is the establishment of theCartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a legallybinding agreement under the Convention onBiological Diversity to protect the environmentagainst risks posed by the transboundarytransport of LMOs, which are similar toGMOs. Under this agreement, governmentscan decide whether or not to acceptgenetically modified commodities, andcommodities that may contain GMOs must beclearly labelled. When genetically modifiedorganisms such as live fish are released intothe environment, advanced informedagreement procedures must be followed,requiring that exporters provide detailedinformation to each importing country inadvance of the first shipment and thatimporters authorize shipments.Pharmaceuticals produced by geneticengineering are not covered by the protocols,however. The relationship between protocolsthat can restrict trade and existing WTO
77
agreements that aim for liberalized trade needto be refined.
●●●●●
Recently, a framework for addressing ethicalissues was proposed by the FAO Committee onEthics in Food and Agriculture. It includesbasic elements on:
• beneficence – including hunger alleviation,increased standards of living andenvironmental protection;
• safety – including the precautionaryapproach, human and animal rights andhuman and environmental health;
• autonomy – including participation, theright to knowledge and access to resources;
• justice – including equity, food security,intergenerational equity and sustainability.
The ethical dimension of GMOs in food andagricultural development is being addressedby the relevant subcommittee through thepreparation of documents and other media.40
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEGlobally, more than a dozen transgenic fishare being developed for aquaculture – andmore are in the early stages of development orbeing used in basic research into gene action,physiology and development. Development ofaquatic GMOs is carried out primarily indeveloped countries (Table 5, p. 73). However,developing countries have also producedtransgenic fish such as carp, mud loach andtilapia. In spite of this activity, there are noconfirmed reports of transgenic fish beingreleased into commercial culture conditions orinto the environment. No transgenic fish areavailable to the consumer.
The use of gene-transfer technology inmolluscs and crustaceans lags behind its use infishes. Molluscs such as oysters have beengenetically improved through the use ofchromosome manipulation and conventionalselective breeding. Genetic improvement ofcrustaceans is still hampered by difficulties inclosing the life cycle of many importantspecies, such as the tiger prawn.
ECOLABELLING IN FISHERIESMANAGEMENT
THE ISSUEThe idea that ecolabelling would lead toimproved management of marine capturefisheries is of recent origin. It was first publiclypromoted by Unilever PLC/NV and the WorldWide Fund for Nature (WWF) at their MarineStewardship Council (MSC) initiative in early1996.
The usefulness of ecolabelling in creating amarket-based incentive for environment-friendly production was recognized about twodecades ago when the first ecolabelledproducts were put on sale in Germany in thelate 1970s. Since then, and especially duringthe 1990s, ecolabelling schemes have beendeveloped in most industrialized countries fora wide range of products and sectors. In recentyears, they have been gaining importance in anumber of developing countries, includingBrazil, India, Indonesia and Thailand. Theconcept was globally endorsed in 1992 atUNCED, where governments agreed to“encourage expansion of environmentallabelling and other environmentally relatedproduct information programmes designed toassist consumers to make informed choices”.41
Despite the international community’sgeneral acceptance of product ecolabelling,the approach has caused controversy inseveral international fora, including the WTOSub-Committee on Trade and Environment andFAO’s COFI. General concerns aboutecolabelling are its potential to act as a barrierto trade and its coherence, or lack of it, withinternational trade rules. More specificconcerns arise when applying ecolabelling toproducts from marine capture fisheriesbecause these have special characteristics.
Definitions. OECD has defined environmentallabelling as the “voluntary granting of labelsby a private or public body in order to informconsumers and thereby promote consumerproducts which are determined to beenvironmentally more friendly than otherfunctionally and competitively similarproducts”.42 A distinction is usually madebetween labels assigned on the basis ofproduct life cycle criteria and so-called
40 FAO. GMOs, the consumer, food safety and the environment.
Rome (in preparation).
41 UNCED. Agenda 21, Paragraph 4.21.42
OECD. 1991. Environmental labelling in OECD countries, by
J. Salzman. OECD Report No. 1. Paris.
78
“single issue labels”, and the latter are oftenexcluded from ecolabelling programmes. Thisis in accordance with the general principlesadopted by the International Organization forStandardization (ISO)43 which prescribe, interalia, that “the development of environmentallabels and declarations shall take intoconsideration all relevant aspects of the lifecycle of the product”.44 The product life cycleapproach is followed by many ecolabellingprogrammes, including the EC Flower, theNordic Green Swan and United States GreenSeal ecolabel award schemes.
While no explicit definition has beenadopted by either WTO or FAO, an implicitlywide definition of ecolabelling has been usedin past debates at sessions of WTO’sCommittee on Trade and the Environment(WTO/CTE) and COFI. This broader definitionencompasses product labelling that conveysany type of environmental information.However, as the central concerns of primaryresource-based industries include sustainableuse of the exploited natural resources and theconservation of habitats and relatedecosystems, future ecolabelling in fisheries islikely to focus on these aspects and notencompass all of the other environmentalimpacts (e.g. energy use) that are assessed formost of the industrial products for which a lifecycle approach is used.
HOW ECOLABELLING WORKSEcolabelling is a market-based economicinstrument that seeks to direct consumers’purchasing behaviour so that they takeaccount of product attributes other than price.Such attributes can relate to economic andsocial objectives (fair trade;45 support to small-scale fishers; discouragement of child labour)in addition to environmental and ecologicalones. Consumers’ preferences are expected toresult in price and/or market share differentialsbetween products with ecolabels and thosethat either do not qualify for them or whose
producers have not sought to obtain them.Potential price and/or market sharedifferentials provide the economic incentivefor firms to seek certification of theirproduct(s).
The label helps consumers to distinguish aproduct according to desirable attributeswithout requiring them to have the detailedtechnical knowledge and overview ofproduction processes and methods thatunderlie the certification criteria andcertification itself. The label is a cost-effective way of supplying consumers withrelevant product information that mayinfluence their purchasing and consumptiondecisions.46
Consumers’ product choices and theirwillingness to pay a higher price for anecolabelled product will depend on theirgeneral capacity to address, and willingness torespond to, environmental concerns throughpurchasing behaviour, and on their level ofawareness and understanding of the specificobjectives pursued through the labellingscheme.47 While there is considerableevidence that consumers’ responsiveness toenvironmental product attributes varies amongcountries as well as within them (among
45 The German company Fair Trade e.V. launched a fair-traded
fish initiative at the Bremen 2000 Seafood Fair. It aims at
improving the living and working conditions of artisanal fisheries
workers in developing countries and is based on partnership
between associations of marine fisheries workers and Fair Trade.
Criteria for participation include practising fisheries activities
that adhere to ILO’s core labour standards, are small-scale labour-
intensive and environmentally friendly and have no negative
impacts on local fish supplies and traditional marketing and
processing practices. For details, see S. Mathew. 2000.
Sustainable development and social well-being: which approach
for fish trade? In Bridges, April 2000, p. 11-12. International
Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Geneva.46 The theoretical aspects of product labelling are based on the
economics of information. For a discussion of this, see C. R.
Wessells. Ecolabelling of products from marine capture fisheries:
technical and institutional aspects and trade implications. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper (in preparation).47 The findings of a recent sample survey among United States
consumers suggest that current awareness and understanding of
the sustainability issues in fisheries are still limited and that
preferences for ecolabelled seafood are likely to differ by species,
geographic region, consumer group and, perhaps, certifying
agency. See C.R. Wessells, R.J. Johnston and H. Donath. 1999.
Assessing consumer preferences for ecolabelled seafood: the
influence of species, certifier and household attributes. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81(5): 1084-1089.
43 ISO, established as an NGO in 1947, is a federation of national
standards bodies from about 100 countries. Its mission is to
promote the development of worldwide standardization and
related activities with a view to facilitating the international
exchange of goods and services and to developing cooperation
in the spheres of intellectual, scientific, technological and
economic activity. Additional information is available at:
www.iso.ch.44 ISO. 1998. Environmental labels and declarations:
general principles. Principle 5. ISO 14020. Geneva.
79
different strata of the population), there is stilla scarcity of reliable data on the gains inmarket shares and prices of ecolabelledproducts compared with non-labelled products.Northern European and North Americanconsumers with good incomes and a high levelof education have a moderate, and sometimes,strong, tendency to choose an ecolabelledproduct over a non-labelled one, even whenthe former costs slightly – but not much –more. There is evidence that ecolabelscovering product attributes that relate not onlyto lower environmental impacts, but also toassumed higher product quality in terms ofnutritional and/or health benefits, can realizesignificant price premiums and show stronggrowth in market shares, although suchproducts are still operating from a small base.This applies to organic food products, forexample.
Consumer confidence and trust are essentialfor a successful ecolabelling programme. If thepurchase of ecolabelled products is to besustained, consumers need to be confident thatthe scheme’s objectives are being reached. Ifconsumers feel misled or become confused bya large variety of competing ecolabellingschemes within the same product group, theyare likely to return to cheaper non-labelledproducts. Certification criteria that are clearand precise and a certification procedure thatis independent and verifiable ensure that thelabel conveys accurate and sufficientinformation. Third-party certification throughprivate or public certifying agents whosequalification and independence have beenestablished would ensure the reliability andaccountability of the programme andconsumers’ confidence in it. The internationalharmonization of criteria and standards canprevent the consumer confusion that couldarise with multiple, competing ecolabellingschemes based on different, and perhapsdeceptive, criteria and standards.48
All ecolabelling schemes require a stringentchain of custody, so that the product can betraced throughout the full production,distribution and marketing chain down to the
retail level. This presents particular difficultiesin marine fisheries, where fleets are oftenaway from port for considerable periods, mayfish several different species in one trip andmay transship and/or transform products fordifferent markets at sea. Although thesedifficulties can be overcome, the costsassociated with performing fisheries taskswithin a system that includes proper inspectionand control procedures can be a problem.
The feasibility of achieving fisheriesmanagement objectives through ecolabellingschemes depends on certain requirementsbeing met. The economic incentive created bythe labelling scheme needs to be sufficientlyhigh to encourage the fishery managementauthority and participants in the fishery to seekcertification and cover the related fisheriesmanagement and labelling costs. However, thefact that many of the fisheries that arecurrently biologically and/or economicallyoverexploited could produce high economicreturns if they were managed on soundeconomic and biological principles, suggeststhat economic incentives may not be the mostimportant constraint to realizing effectivefisheries management. Instead, political andsocial considerations are likely to be importantreasons why many marine fisheries willremain poorly managed. Nevertheless, thepublic relations, awareness creation andeducational activities that may accompany anecolabelling programme could eventually alsomake a difference in the political arena, andcontribute to the kind of political will that isneeded if society and politicians are toshoulder the short-term costs of fisheriesmanagement for the longer-term good.
There is no guarantee that the widespreadadoption of ecolabelling programmes formarine fisheries would result in the bettermanagement of global fisheries in toto. Atpresent, only a small fraction of global fishconsumers (most of them living in Europe andNorth America) are likely to be responsive toecolabels. Most of the future growth in globalfish demand, however, will be in Asia, LatinAmerica and Africa. The private sector islikely to react by directing to ecosensitivemarkets only those products that can becertified at a low cost, while other productswill be directed to markets that are notecosensitive. It cannot be guaranteedtherefore, that when a particular fishery fulfilsthe certification criteria, excess fishingcapacity will not be redirected to otheruncertified fisheries. This could increase the
48 The problems arising from multiple labelling schemes and
how to resolve them in the case of banana production and trade
have recently been the subject of useful discussions in FAO. For
details, see FAO. 2000. Report of the Ad Hoc Expert Meeting
on Socially and Environmentally Responsible Banana Production
and Trade. Rome, 22-24 March 2000. Available at: www.fao.org/
es/esc/ESCR/BANANAS/ExMConcl.pdf.
80
pressure on some fish stocks in favour ofthose for which certification is profitablyapplied. Such negative spillover effects arenot unique to ecolabelling schemes and canarise from any fisheries managementapproach that does not encompass specificmeasures to avoid the undesirable transfer ofexcess fishing capacity.
Although some of the best managed marinefisheries are currently found in developingcountries, in general these countries facegreater difficulties in achieving effectivefisheries management and, therefore, inparticipating in ecolabelling programmes thanindustrialized countries do. The reasons for thisare manifold and include the preponderance ofsmall-scale and artisanal fisheries, wheremanagement is more complex because of thelarge number of participants and their lack ofalternative remunerative employmentopportunities; the multispecies characteristicsof tropical fisheries; a lack of the financialresources needed to retire significant amountsof excess fishing capacity; and the limitedtechnical and managerial capacities ofgovernment agencies, many of which facereductions in their budgetary allocations.Consequently, technical and financial supportwould be needed to facilitate the participationof developing countries, as well as of severalcountries in transition, in ecolabellingprogrammes.
Ecolabelling and international fish trade. Fishand fishery products are among the most widelytraded natural resource-based goods. About 37percent of global fisheries production entersinternational trade. For many developingcountries, foreign exchange revenues from fishexports make a major contribution to thebalance of payments and are thus of strategicmacroeconomic importance. In the three majorglobal fish importers (Japan, the EC and theUnited States), the processing, wholesaling andretailing of imported fish are of considerableeconomic significance, and they satisfy theconsumer demand that is not met by domesticproduction.
The large and increasing trade of globalfisheries production and the fact that much ofthe trade flow is from developing toindustrialized countries indicate the potentialof ecolabelling as both an incentive toimproved fisheries management and a barrierto trade. Currently, much of the ecologicallyaware consumer demand is concentrated inthe main fish-importing countries, with the
exception of China which has become a majorfish importer only in recent years.
There is no unanimous view on howinternational trade rules, including the WTOAgreements, can be interpreted by and appliedto ecolabelling schemes. One area ofdivergent opinions is the extent to which WTOrules encompass production processes andmethods that are not product-related. Anotherarea of concern, which is not exclusively orspecifically addressed by ecolabelling, is theestablishment procedures and characteristicsof international standards.49
RECENT ACTIONS
●●●●●
In October 1998, FAO convened a TechnicalConsultation on the Feasibility of DevelopingNon-discriminatory Technical Guidelines forEcolabelling of Products from Marine CaptureFisheries. Although this consultation did notreach an agreement on how practical andfeasible it would be for FAO to draft technicalguidelines for the ecolabelling of marinefisheries products, it did identify a number ofprinciples that should be observed byecolabelling schemes. They should:
• be consistent with the Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries;
• be voluntary and market-driven;• be transparent;• be non-discriminatory, by not creating
obstacles to trade and allowing for faircompetition;
• establish clear accountability for thepromoters of schemes and for the certifyingbodies, in conformity with internationalstandards;
• include a reliable auditing and verificationprocess;
• recognize the sovereign rights of states andcomply with all relevant laws andregulations;
• ensure equivalence of standards amongcountries;
• be based on the best scientific evidence;
49 For details on ecolabelling and international trade rules see,
for example, C. Deere. 1999. Ecolabelling and sustainable
fisheries. Washington, DC-Rome, IUCN/FAO; and A.E. Appleton.
1997. Environmental labelling programmes: trade law impli-
cations. The Hague, Netherlands, Kluwer Law International.
81
• be practical, viable and verifiable;• ensure that labels communicate truthful
information;• provide for clarity.
There are no a priori criteria that can beconsidered essential or that can be appliedautomatically to products derived fromfisheries. Within any labelling scheme, thecriteria will reflect a compromise between thedemands of the consumers and the capabilitiesand willingness of the producers andintermediates to meet those demands. Hence,in principle, labelling schemes in fisheriescould aim to encompass all or any subset ofthe environmental, biological, social, politicalor economic issues that characterize afisheries venture.
The set of criteria applied in any ecolabellingscheme should be developed jointly byrepresentatives of the different interestedparties, including the producers, processors,retailers and consumers. In fisheries, criteriarelated to the sustainable use of the exploitednatural resources are of central concern, butsocial and economic criteria might also beconsidered. Criteria should be developed in aparticipatory and transparent process, and thoseselected should be “practical, viable andverifiable”.50 Practicality and verifiability arevery important requirements in assessingfisheries, where high levels of uncertainty,arising from poor understanding of importantecosystem principles in aquatic systems anddifficulties of measuring what is happening inthe sea, commonly prevent the totally objectiveinterpretation of the status of stocks andecosystems. This may prove to be a substantialobstacle to the widespread application ofecolabelling schemes in marine capturefisheries.51
●●●●●
The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is anindependent, international non-profit body,
created by WWF and the large fish retailerUnilever to promote sustainable andresponsible fisheries and fishing practicesworldwide. In collaboration with a selectedgroup of parties that have interests andexperience in fisheries issues, MSC hasestablished a broad set of Principles andCriteria for Sustainable Fisheries.52 Fisheriesmeeting these standards will be eligible forcertification by independent certifying bodiesaccredited by MSC. On a voluntary basis,fishing companies and organizations areexpected to contact certifiers in order to havea certification procedure carried out.Currently, two fisheries – the Thames HerringFishery (total annual production of about 150tonnes) and the Western Australia Rock LobsterFishery (with an annual production of about10 000 tonnes this is Australia’s most valuablesingle fishery, contributing approximately 20percent to the total value of national fisheries)– have been certified and awarded the FishForever MSC ecolabel. The United StatesAlaska salmon fishery is likely to be certifiedsoon, and initial assessments are under way forsome crustacean fisheries in Southeast Asiaand Central America and a tuna fishery in thePacific.
●●●●●
The Marine Aquarium Council (MAC) is aninternational non-profit organization thatbrings together representatives of the aquariumindustry, hobbyists, conservationorganizations, government agencies andpublic aquariums. MAC aims to conserve coralreefs by creating standards and educating andcertifying those engaged in the collection andcare of ornamental marine life, from the reefto the aquarium. It is working to establishstandards for best practices in the supply ofmarine aquarium organisms; an independentsystem to certify compliance with these
50 FAO. 1998. Report of the technical consultation on the
feasibility of developing non-discriminatory technical guidelines
for ecolabelling of products from marine capture fisheries, 21-
23 October 1998. Rome. FAO Fisheries Report No. 594. 29 pp.51 Certification criteria for ecolabelled marine fishery products
are discussed more fully in K. Cochrane and R. Willmann.
Ecolabelling in fisheries management. In Proceedings of the
2000 Conference on Current Fisheries Issues, 16-17 March 2000,
Rome. FAO and the Centre of Ocean Law and Policy, University
of Virginia, United States (in preparation).
52 According to MSC “A sustainable fishery is defined, for the
purposes of MSC certification, as one that is conducted in such
a way that: it can be continued indefinitely at a reasonable
level; it maintains and seeks to maximize ecological health
and abundance; it maintains the diversity, structure and function
of the ecosystems on which it depends as well as the quality of
its habitat, minimizing the adverse effects that it causes; it is
managed and operated in a responsible manner, in conformity
with local, national and international laws and regulations; it
maintains present and future economic and social options and
benefits; and it is conducted in a socially and economically fair
and responsible manner”. See www.msc.org.
82
standards; and increased consumer demandand confidence for certified organisms,practices and industry participants.53
●●●●●
The Responsible Fisheries Society (RFS) ofthe United States and the Global AquacultureAlliance (GAA), which also has itsheadquarters in the United States, haveannounced a joint ecolabelling scheme torecognize industry’s commitment andparticipation in responsible fisheries andaquaculture. The new ecolabel will be offeredto industry members who endorse thePrinciples for Responsible Fisheries of RFS orthe Principles for Responsible Aquaculture ofGAA and incorporate these principles intotheir business. The RFS and GAA programmesare open to all segments of the industry (e.g.producer, importer, distributor, retailer orrestaurant operator) and require thepreparation of reports or plans that documentimplementation of the RFS/GAA principles.The RFS programme targets all types of UnitedStates domestic seafood products while GAAfocuses principally on farm-raised shrimp andoperates on a worldwide basis. GAA evaluatesshrimp farms on the basis of a system of self-assessment questionnaires. RFS is consideringdeveloping a third-party certification system.54
●●●●●
Following an initiative by the NordicCouncil of Ministers (NCM) in August 1996, aNordic project group was established toreview criteria for sustainable production offish and fish products. The work of this groupled to a number of related initiatives by NCMand, in 1999, its Senior Officials for FisheryAffairs created a Nordic Technical WorkingGroup on Ecolabelling Criteria. Theparticipants in this group are drawn fromDenmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden andinclude observers from the EuropeanCommission.
The Technical Working Group concludedthat, in the marine capture fisheries of theNortheast Atlantic, state authorities ought toestablish ecolabelling criteria, which can thenbe used by private bodies and NGOs toecolabel fish products. Ecolabelling is seen asvoluntary and consumer-driven. The Technical
53 For more information, see www.aquariumcouncil.org/.54 For more information, see www.nfi.org/ and www.
gaalliance.org/GAA-RFSecolabel.html.
BOX 15Labelling for origin and species
Working Group emphasized that the processshould be transparent, be based on scientificfindings and use verifiable criteria. Theessential elements are a fisheries managementplan, the availability of regular scientificadvice, the establishment of pre-agreedmanagement actions to adopt whenprecautionary reference points areapproached, efficient monitoring and controlsystems, the absence of destructive fishingpractices, a minimum of discards, andconsideration of ecosystem issues. Theprocedure should assure the consumer thatecolabelled products derive from stocks thatare harvested in a sustainable way and that the
83
The labelling of fisheries products by country oforigin and species is not a counterproposal toecolabelling or an alternative to it. Rather, it is anindependent way of providing minimal informationwhere none currently exists. The importance ofidentifying the origin of fishery products washighlighted in the Code. Article 11.1.11. states that“States should ensure that international anddomestic trade in fish and fishery products accordswith sound conservation and managementpractices through improving the identification ofthe origin of fish and fishery products treated”.From January 2002, labelling for origin andspecies will become mandatory in the EC for fishand fishery products offered for retail sale to finalconsumers.1
Identification of the origin of fisheries productscan provide a way of weeding out those productsthat are deemed to be caught illegally or caught ina fashion that undermines national or internationalmanagement efforts. For example, in recognitionof the problem of trade in unreported, illegallyharvested Patagonian toothfish, the Parties to the1980 Convention on the Conservation of AntarcticMarine Living Resources have drafted a catchcertification scheme for toothfish. The idea is thatinternational trade in illegally caught Patagoniantoothfish would be restricted by requiring thatimports be accompanied by a valid certificate oforigin.2
Similarly, ICCAT introduced a Bluefin TunaStatistical Document Programme for frozen bluefin(1992) and fresh bluefin (1993). The aim of theprogramme was to increase the accuracy ofbluefin statistics and track unreported fish caughtby non-members and fleets flying flags ofconvenience. The programme obliged all
contracting parties to require that all importedbluefin tuna be accompanied by an ICCAT BluefinStatistical document that details the name of theexporter and importer, the area of harvest, etc.3
1 According to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No.
104/2000, labelling is required to indicate: (a) the
commercial designation of the species, (b) the
production method (caught at sea or in inland waters or
farmed), and (c) the catch area.2 CCAMLR Newsletter, December 1998. Hobart,
Tasmania, Australia.3 WTO. 1998. Communication from the Secretariat of
the International Commission for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas. Committee on Trade and Environment,
WT/CTE/W/87. Geneva.
Source: Based on C. Deere. 1999. Ecolabelling and
sustainable fisheries. Washington, DC-Rome, IUCN/
FAO.
fish processing methods used do not haveserious ecosystem effects.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEEcolabelling is a new concept in capturefisheries and there is no empirical evidence asyet about its future ability to make a significantcontribution to improving the management ofthe world’s aquatic resources. As has beenobserved in the forestry sector, it is likely thatecolabelling will first be applied to thosefisheries that are already fairly well managed orthat could achieve good management at a
comparatively low cost. Such fisheries arecurrently primarily found in industrializedcountries, but not in great numbers, and thereare important exceptions in developingcountries. For example, Namibia’s fisheries andnational economy could eventually benefitgreatly if higher sale prices were realized fromecolabelled fish and fishery products. Once thesuccess of pilot ecolabelling schemes has beenestablished, these could provoke significantinterest among governments and industry andcould create the kind of political will that isneeded to attain effective fisheriesmanagement, often in the face of economicallyand socially difficult adjustment.
84
The financial and technical resourcesneeded for these adjustments may be beyondthe means of several developing countries, andthe international community may be called onto provide assistance and fulfil thecommitments made in various internationalinstruments, including the Code, the WTOAgreements and Agenda 21. However, suchassistance would be needed irrespective ofwhether or not ecolabelling were consideredas part of improved fisheries management.
There is increasing acceptance on the part ofthose who are familiar with ecolabelling thatsuch labels should not be used to discriminateagainst those who cannot, in the short term,afford to develop and implement the
management practices needed for sustainablefisheries management. It is also realized, notleast among the promoters of ecolabelling, thatit would be to the detriment of all schemes if alarge number of competing ecolabellingschemes were to develop. This wouldundermine one of the principle objectives ofecolabelling, namely to give consumers moreinformation that is relevant for their productchoice. Success hinges on respecting thisprinciple. It therefore seems plausible thatgovernments, industry and consumers shouldpromote international collaboration in order toagree on basic principles for the introductionand use of ecolabels in fisheries andaquaculture. ◆
PART 3Highlights of special FAO studies
87
UNDERSTANDING THE CULTURESOF FISHING COMMUNITIES:
A KEY TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENTAND FOOD SECURITY
BACKGROUNDIn 1995, a conference on the SustainableContribution of Fisheries to Food Security wasconvened by the Government of Japan, incollaboration with FAO, in Kyoto, Japan. Oneof the conclusions of the conference was thatan understanding of the culture of fishingcommunities is fundamental for equitablegovernance and management of capturefisheries and aquaculture and forsustaining food security in fisheries-dependent regions.
As part of the follow-up to the conference,FAO commissioned a study on the culture offishing communities. It was decided that thestudy should be based on a review of theliterature, supplemented by a set of speciallycommissioned case studies. The study hasbeen completed and will be published as anFAO Fisheries Technical Paper.1 It providesguidance to fisheries officials with the aim ofincreasing their understanding of the culturesof small-scale fisher communities and,ultimately, helping them to improve livingstandards within such communities. It is basedon the generally accepted notion that ensuringdecent living conditions for fishing people isjust as important an aim as sustaining healthyfish stocks or obtaining the maximumeconomic yield from fisheries resources,and that achieving this aim will requirea greater understanding of and respectfor fishers’ cultures and socialarrangements.
A few highlights of the case studies are givenin the following section, which is followed bya summary of conclusions. Most of these aredrawn from a review of the literature and someare illustrated by the case studies.
HIGHLIGHTS FROM CASE STUDIESThe six case studies of contemporary fishingcommunities from distinct cultural regionsthroughout the world illustrate how fisheriesmanagement practices and policies maystrengthen or weaken small-scale fishingcultures.
Community-based, species-oriented fisheriesmanagementThe case study by T. Akimichi, on species-oriented resource management on reef fishconservation in the small-scale fisheries of theYaeyama Islands, describes the complex andhighly participatory steps that must be taken inorder to promote cooperative community-based fisheries comanagement.
Around the Yaeyama Islands in southwesternJapan, recent degradation of coral-reef marineecosystems and heightened fishing effort byboth commercial and recreational fishers haveprompted concerns about introducing new andmore comprehensive methods of fisheriesmanagement. Responding to these concerns,the prefectoral government launched a projectto promote the community-based managementof a single species of emperor fish (Lethrinusmahsena), which has long been one of themost important food fishes in the region. Thecommercial fishers who target this species donot comprise a homogeneous or unified group,but instead take different approaches to fishingand use different methods. However, they areall members of the region’s fisheriescooperative association (FCA), whichcoordinates fishing effort within the territoriesascribed to it and has prerogatives regardingcertain management measures, although itdoes not have jurisdiction over recreationalfishers. Recreational fishing interests in theregion are also somewhat diverse, consistingmainly of party-boat operators, fishing guidesand the owners of fishing tackle shops.
Prefectoral and local governmentscoordinate among the FCAs within theirjurisdiction and exercise some othermanagement prerogatives. They also play anespecially important role as mediators indisputes among the various FCAs under theirjurisdiction, as well as in disputes betweenthese and the FCAs in bordering jurisdictionsor with non-FCA sectors, such as recreational
Highlights of special FAO studies
1 FAO. Understanding the cultures of fishing communities: a
key to fisheries management and food security, by J.R.
McGoodwin with T. Akimichi, M. Ben-Yami, M.M.R. Freeman,
J. Kurien, R.W. Stoffle and D. Thomson. FAO Fisheries Technical
Paper No. 401 (in press). Rome.
88
fishing. Japan’s national Fisheries Agency inTokyo oversees the administration of theprefects and local governments.
During 1996 and 1997, the prefectoralgovernment prompted a series of meetings atYaeyama’s FCA, at which managementproposals were presented to the variouscommercial fishers of emperor fish. FCAmembers, prefect and other governmentofficials as well as individuals from therecreational sector took part in these meetings.It proved difficult to obtain a consensus amongFCA members about the proposed managementmeasures, mainly because of their diverseapproaches to fishing, as well as somemembers’ scepticism about the need for a newmanagement programme and doubts that allmembers would abide by it. On the otherhand, FCA members were virtually unified intheir concern about the impact of recreationalfishers on emperor fish stocks.
Eventually, after reworking the proposedmanagement programme, a tentativeconsensus was reached among FCA membersregarding their willingness to abide by it,while members of the recreational sectorvoluntarily agreed to promote its acceptancewithin their sector.
The FCA members’ knowledge of the ecologyhelped the government authorities to developthe programme, while dialogue among all theparties with interests in emperor fish stockshelped to ensure that it was comprehensive andeffective. The current programme is notcomplete and is expected to evolve as greaterexperience is gained among the various interestgroups, which have started to collaborate withone another more fully than before.
Using traditional credit systems for small-scale fisheries development in NigeriaM. Ben-Yami’s case study, on the integration oftraditional institutions and people’sparticipation in an artisanal fisheriesdevelopment project in southeastern Nigeria,illustrates how limited access to credit canconstrain the productivity of small-scalefishers. It reports on a successful creditdevelopment scheme aimed at helping small-scale fishing communities in southeasternNigeria. The success of this project dependedon a high degree of community participation inall of its phases, from initial planning to finalproject implementation.
Ben-Yami observes that the overall fishingeffort in the small-scale sector was not limitedby fish stocks, which had long remained stable
and underutilized, but rather by difficulties ingaining access to reasonably priced credit,which was needed for sustaining fishingoperations. The local communities already hadtraditional credit institutions, but these werenot able to provide the higher levels ofreasonably priced credit that would facilitatesignificant increases in fishing production. Byconnecting traditional community-based creditinstitutions with a modern lending bank, thedevelopment effort was able to capitalize onan important, pre-existing component of localcommunity culture.
Overall, the project enhanced the well-beingof many of the people living in small-scalefishing communities, although its success waseroded by individuals (usually from outside thecommunities) who tried to exploit the projectfor their own benefit, and by inflationary trendsin the national economy. A few years later,other development projects were launched inthe same region. However, project organizersdid not consult the local people first, whichresulted in considerable expenditures beingmade on technological innovations that turnedout to be inappropriate and did little toimprove the well-being of the people living inthe fishing communities.
Cultural identity and small-scale whaling inNorth AmericaM.M.R. Freeman’s case study on small-scalewhaling in North America focuses on theaboriginal Inuit people of northern Alaska andCanada, and illustrates how the Inuits’traditional whaling practices have helped themto maintain their cultural identity while alsopromoting effective conservation of whalestocks. Thus, although whaling plays asignificant role in the contemporary Inuitsubsistence economy, its symbolic importancewithin their cultural identity is perhaps evenmore important.
In particular, the community-widedistribution of foods derived from whale is animportant means of maintaining socialcohesion and a cultural identity in which it isthe distribution process itself, rather than theactual quantities distributed, that is mostvalued. Thus, over the past two decades, whilethe Inuit population has doubled, the averagenumber of whales taken annually hasremained nearly constant, and there is littleinterest in increasing the commercialization ofthese resources.
Freeman argues that conventional fisheriesmanagement approaches, which treat whales
89
as merely another wild stock to be conservedand allocated as a human food resource,would threaten the sustainability of the Inuits’unique cultural identity, as well as the whalestocks themselves. The key to sustaining boththe Inuit culture and the whales lies inunderstanding the multidimensionalsignificance that whale hunting and thedistribution of whale products hold in the Inuitculture.
Socio-cultural considerations in small-scalefisheries development in IndiaJ. Kurien’s case study on the socio-culturalaspects of fisheries and their implications forfood and livelihood security reports on aproject in Kerala State, India, and illustratesthe inappropriateness of developments insmall-scale fishing communities that ignoretraditional cultural adaptations. He describesthe small-scale fishing communities in Kerala,where the population’s level of well-beingdeclined as a result of development initiativesthat ignored their long-established traditionalapproaches to managing their fisheries.
Before the developments, access to fisheriesand the allocation of fisheries resources wereregulated by communal traditions andinstitutions that emphasized the sharing ofseafood and the incomes derived from it, aswell as promoting community-basedparticipation in fisheries management.Traditional practices had also providedeffective means of conflict resolution andensured that an abundant supply of seafoodwas sustained throughout the region. However,since about four decades ago, developmentpolicies that favour the expansion of a modernshrimp-exporting industry have refocusedfisheries policies on the needs of that sector,although it provides comparatively littleemployment for the people living in small-scale fishing communities.
Important marine ecosystems started tobecome degraded, while regional seafoodsupplies decreased and the employment ofwomen in the region’s seafood marketsdeclined. Within the small-scale communitiesthemselves, other development efforts werecompelling small-scale fishers to turn awayfrom traditional approaches to fishing andpromoting a new ethos of competitiveindividualism that was oriented towardsmarkets rather than the communitiesthemselves. This subverted the culturaltraditions that had long guided social andeconomic life in the region, prompting new
social and political divisions both within andamong the communities.
Kurien maintains that future fisheries policiesshould make the promotion of well-beingwithin small-scale fishing communities theirfirst priority. He also recommends that thetraditional communal ethos and community-based fisheries management be revitalized,that traditional approaches to fishing be givengreater consideration, and that women’s returnto regional seafood markets be promoted as away of reviving those markets.
External effects on traditional resourcemanagement in a Dominican Republicfishing communityR.W. Stoffle’s case study, entitled When fish iswater: food security and fish in a coastalcommunity in the Dominican Republic,illustrates the range of interconnections that asmall-scale fishing community has with peopleand cultural systems outside its own area. Hedescribes a small, rural-coastal village in theDominican Republic, which seems to beisolated but which, in fact, has a web ofinterconnections at the local, national andeven global level. This case study outlines theramified implications of a fishing community’slinkages with the outside world and illustrateshow these can influence the well-being of thevarious people involved.
The village’s full-time fishers – who arereferred to locally as fishing specialists –produce fish to supply their families with foodand to sell in regional and nationalmarketplaces, where it generates income.Much of the lower-quality fish that they catchis sold in the nation’s coastal cities, where itprovides an important source of animal proteinfor the urban poor. However, in order tounderstand the local, national and global rolesthat the village’s fishers play, theirinterconnections with village farming peoplemust also be taken into account. When localfarmers experience declines in theirsubsistence food production and incomes,brought on by localized drought or by nationalor international economic policy changes thatdepress the prices of cash crops, many turn tofishing as a temporary measure to augmenttheir household food and income deficits. Suchincreases in the overall fishing effort lead tocorresponding reductions in local fish stocks.
During these periods of decline in farming,the village fishers sell relatively more of theirlower-quality catch to their agriculturalneighbours instead of to urban markets. This,
90
in turn, diminishes the fish supplies of theurban poor, many of whom cannot affordalternative sources of animal protein. At thesame time, the village fishers haveincreasingly had to resist the encroachmentof better-capitalized fishers from outside thecommunity, as well as the expansion ofnational and international tourism which ishaving a negative impact on fish stocks andother important fisheries resources.
Furthermore, because the village’s potablewater is often in short supply – a commonproblem for fishing communities, especially indeveloping countries – local fishers aresometimes compelled to sell their families’subsistence fish supply in order to buy potablewater for drinking and for cookinginexpensive, high-calorie staple foods.
The effect of fisheries policies onsmall-scale fishers in ScotlandD. Thomson’s case study on the social andcultural importance of coastal fishingcommunities and their contribution to foodsecurity illustrates how small-scale fishingcommunities in the Hebrides and on the westcoast of Scotland are being culturally andeconomically impoverished by fisheriespolicies that favour larger-scale, moreindustrialized approaches to fishing.
Thomson notes that western Scotland is oneof the most remote, rural and economicallyperipheral regions of the EC where, despitelong-term declines, capture fisheries and theirancillary activities still provide about 20percent of total employment. Until the early1980s, the natural marine resources of thisregion had been abundant, supporting a robustand localized small-scale fishing sector, aswell as a large number of fishing enterprisesthat came from outside the region. Since theearly 1980s, however, the region’s fisherieshave steadily and continuously declined as aresult of years of overharvesting and theencroachment of marine pollution.
The impact of this decline has beendevastating for small-scale fishingcommunities, not only in the production sector,but also in the fish processing and distributionsectors, which formerly employed manywomen. Recently, large-scale fishingenterprises from other parts of Scotland havebeen competing for and buying fishinglicences (only a limited number of which areissued) from economically marginal, smaller-scale localized fishers, who can no longersustain fishing activities. This has led to
increased prices of licences and has furtherdecreased the small-scale fishingcommunities’ participation in the very fisheriesthey had long depended on.
In addition to this, the region’s small-scalefishing communities are now likely to beimpoverished further when the EC’s CommonFisheries Policy (CFP) is fully implemented,permitting access for all member countries’fleets. This will almost certainly lead to anescalation in the trade of licences and quotas,putting them well beyond the reach of most ofwestern Scotland’s small-scale operators andtransferring more and more of the economicbenefits of the region’s fisheries to foreigninterests. Thus, while regional development isone of the objectives of the CFP, Thomsonargues that its current structure favours larger-scale approaches to fishing so much that itmay lead to the demise of small-scale fishingcommunities and cultures.
He recommends that the EC make the well-being of the region’s small-scale fishingcommunities the first priority in its fisheriespolicies. The widespread benefits of doing sowould be increased food security andemployment in the coastal communities ofwestern Scotland; more efficient harvesting ofthe region’s fish stocks, with a correspondinglyless deleterious impact on its marineecosystems than is the case when larger-scalefishing is adopted; and a general reversal ofthe long-term loss of population and economicdecline that has been affecting this region.
HIGHLIGHTS OF MAIN FINDINGSThe principal conclusions of the FAO FisheriesTechnical Paper underline the importance offocusing on small-scale fishing communities inthe future development of fisheriesmanagement practices and policies, as well asthe need for a more thorough understanding ofthe cultures and social arrangements withinfishing communities. The paper emphasizesthe importance of community participation inthe establishment of fisheries managementpractices and policies and recommends thatcommunities buy guaranteed rights of accessto and exploitation of fisheries resources.
These conclusions and recommendations arebased on the accumulated knowledge andexpertise of a large number of individuals. Theexperiences of those who have tried toachieve sustainable and equitable fisheries insmall-scale fishing communities, and haveencountered a set of cultural characteristicsthat are common to many other small-scale
91
fishing communities, are of particularrelevance and importance to fisheries officials.In most cases, the cultural characteristics of asmall-scale fishing community are developedby its members in order to sustain fishinglivelihoods and meet other human needs. Inmany instances, fisheries management can bemore successful when it capitalizes on certaincharacteristics, or at least helps to minimizethose that are problematic. The following aresome of the most important and common of thecultural characteristics of fishing communities:
• Such communities undertake small-scalecapital commitments and levels ofproduction and have limited politicalpower. This makes them vulnerable toexternal threats, especially the large-scalefishing sector.
• Such communities are dispersed alongcoastlines and, because they dependmainly on marine ecosystems that areclose to home, they are particularlyvulnerable to resource depletions.
• Community members, especially those whoare primary producers, derive much of theirpersonal identity from the fishingoccupation and are often particularlytenacious in their adherence to it.
• The nature of the ecosystems and theparticular species that are exploited areimportant determinants of many culturalcharacteristics, including the social andeconomic organization and the fishing gearand technologies that are utilized.
• The various fishing occupations thatcommunity members pursue will beinterwoven through the whole fabric of acommunity’s culture.
• Small-scale fishers develop intimate,detailed and function-oriented knowledgeabout the marine ecosystems and speciesthat they exploit.
• There is a systematic division of labouraccording to both gender and age, withcorresponding role expectations regardingmen, women, children, adults and theelderly.
• In most (although not all) communities, theprimary producers are men, while womenare expected to play a dual role: asmainstays of their household and children,and as mainstays of fish processing,marketing and distribution systems.
• Fishing crews and other fisheries-relatedworkers are often recruited on the basis ofimportant social ties in the community,
rather than on the basis of skill, experienceor labour costs.
• Primary producers are often dissociatedfrom everyday community life, whichmay cause serious problems for them,their families and other communitymembers.
• Small-scale fishing cultures develop ways ofadapting to the risks and uncertainties thatare associated with fishing activities. Theseinclude taking a conservative approach tofishing, maintaining occupational pluralism,establishing share-payment compensationsystems, and developing beliefs, ritualizedbehaviours and taboos that providepsychological support.
• Access to credit and insurance isproblematic in most small-scale fishingcommunities and constrains fishing effortand production.
• Nearly all small-scale fishing communitiesdevelop systems of community-basedmanagement, which can be distinguishedfrom management that is instituted bygovernment authority.
• Most community-based managementpractices entail the assertion of rights tofishing spaces and aim at excluding non-community members from fishing in them.
• Contemporary small-scale fishingcommunities are increasingly stressed byexternal problems, including expandingglobalization, marine pollution and, insome regions, the growth of a coastaltourism industry.
THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF MARINECAPTURE FISHERIES
BACKGROUNDIn the first half of the 1990s, FAO’s FisheriesDepartment studied the viability of the world’sfishing fleets. For these studies, countriesprovided FAO with information about the sizeof their fishing fleets and recorded landings.Drawing on its accumulated knowledge of thevarious fleets’ operations, FAO developedbroad estimates of the costs and incomes offishing operations for different size categoriesof fishing vessels. The results showed that, forthe world’s fishing fleets as a whole, costsexceeded incomes by substantial amounts.
This result seemed to be contradicted by thefact that most individual fisheries appeared tobe economically successful. The FisheriesDepartment then decided to monitor the
92
incomes and costs of the world’s majorfisheries. This task was begun in 1995, in closecooperation with fisheries research institutionsand national fisheries in selected countries inAsia, Africa, Latin America and Europe.2 A firstcomparative analysis of the findings of thenational-level studies completed in 1997 werepublished as an FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper.3 The highlights of the findings aresummarized in this section. The data presentedare based on the studies, which were carriedout between 1995 and 1997, with theexception of a traditional Indian fishing craft(kattumaram), for which information collectedin 1999 is used.
FINDINGSOverview and comparison by continentIn spite of heavily and sometimesoverexploited fisheries resources, marinecapture fisheries are still an economically andfinancially viable undertaking. In most cases,they generate sufficient revenue to cover thecost of depreciation and the opportunitycost of capital, thus generating funds forreinvestment. Marine capture fisheries are animportant source of income and generateemployment and foreign exchange earnings,particularly in developing countries. Whencomparing the findings of the studies bycontinent, the following picture emerges.
Africa. The following practices in Ghana andSenegal were studied: small-scale hook andline fisheries, driftnetting, bottom setgillnetting, beach seining, purse seining,small-scale multipurpose fishing operations,medium- and large-scale fish and shrimptrawling, and pole and line fishing. Onlysmall-scale gillnetters in Senegal generated anegative cash flow. All the others generated apositive net surplus.
Latin America. All of the various types oftrawlers and purse seiners studied in Peru andArgentina generated a positive net surplus.
Asia. All of the fishing fleet units studied in theRepublic of Korea, Taiwan Province of Chinaand Malaysia generated a positive net surplus,as did five of the seven typical medium- andlarge-scale fishing units in Indonesia. Thefishing units that generated positive net returnsinclude purse seiners, bottom and mid-watertrawlers and pair trawlers, jiggers, stownetters, set netters, seiners, tuna and otherlongliners, and pole and line vessels. Negativenet results were recorded for small-scalegillnetters in Indonesia and smaller bottom pairtrawlers and stow netters in China. In India,three types of medium- and large-scale fishingunits – tuna longliners, purse seiners andtrawlers – generated a positive net surplus,while two of the three small-scale fishing unitsstudied – seiners and handliners – scarcelybroke even or had a negative cash flow.
Europe. Of the 27 types of small-, medium- andlarge-scale fishing vessels studied in France,Spain and Germany, only two types of deep-seatrawlers operating in France had negative netresults. The other 25 types – includinghandliners, gillnetters, seiners, pole and linevessels, longliners, and inshore and offshoretrawlers – all generated positive net surpluses.
These results are similar to those found by astudy of the economic performance of marinecapture fisheries in European countries, whichwas carried out on behalf of the EC.4
It is interesting to note that those fewcategories of fishing units that incurredoperational losses at the time of the study arelocated at the extreme ends of the scale offishing operations (i.e. the very small-scaleand the very large-scale) and include bothartisanal gillnetters and large industrial
2 By 1997, national sample surveys and case studies had been
completed in 13 countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and
Europe. In 1995, these countries accounted for 49 percent of the
marine capture fisheries production of their regions and 41
percent of global marine production. The parameters studied
include the techno-economic, operational and economic
characteristics of fishing fleets and individual fishing units; the
availability of such financial services as institutional credit
programmes for the fisheries sector; levels of exploitation of
fisheries resources; and national plans for fleet restructuring and
adjustment. At present, the studies are being updated and
expanded to include the role and impact of catch utilization.
Information on the impact of subsidies on profitability and the
sustainability of fishing operations will also be sought. Among
the additional countries being included are some in the South
Pacific, the Caribbean and northern Europe. The methodology
for studying and analysing data on costs and earnings of fishing
units follows the one used in: Agricultural Economics Research
Institute. 1993. Costs and earnings of fishing fleets in four EC
countries. The Hague, Netherlands, Agricultural Economics
Research Institute, Department of Fisheries.3 FAO. 1999. Economic viability of marine capture fisheries.
Findings of a global study and an interregional workshop. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper No. 377. Rome. 4 Agriculture Economics Research Institute, op. cit. footnote 2.
93
deep-sea trawlers. In the former case,overexploitation of inshore fisheries resourcesand competition from more efficient capturetechnologies, such as purse seiners and coastaltrawlers, seem to be responsible for thenegative financial performance. In the lattercase, excess capture capacity and relatedexcessive operational and investment costs forlimited fishing grounds and fisheries resourcesseem to be the important factors.
Cost structure of trawlers and small-scalefishing vesselsThe cost structure of trawl fisheries differssignificantly between developing anddeveloped countries. The differences seem tobe related mainly to variations in theremuneration of labour, which depends on theoverall level of economic development.
As could be expected, and is illustrated inFigure 30, labour is the most important costcomponent in the developed countries studied(i.e. France, Germany and Spain). The secondmost important cost component is runningcosts, closely followed by vessel costs.5
In the developing countries studied (i.e.Peru, Senegal, India, Malaysia and China),labour costs only account for between 17 and40 percent of the total operation costs fortrawlers, while running and vessel costsaccount for the major share. As countriesdevelop and their levels of remunerationincrease, these differences in the cost structurecan be expected to disappear. The Republic ofKorea, where the cost of labour has become atleast as important as it is in the Europeancountries studied, exemplifies this trend.
When looking at the cost structure of trawlfisheries in absolute terms and in relation togross earnings, it is interesting to note that thecost of production per unit of gross earnings issignificantly higher for trawler fleets in OECDcountries (i.e. Argentina, France, Germany, theRepublic of Korea and Spain) than for trawlerfleets in developing countries (i.e. China,India, Malaysia and Peru). An exception isSenegal, where a French company operatestrawlers under a joint venture arrangement.(This also explains the relatively high vesselcosts shown in Figure 30.)
As can be seen from Figure 31, the cost ofproducing US$1 of gross earnings variesbetween US$0.91 and US$0.78 in the OECDcountries studied, while the correspondingrange for developing countries lies betweenUS$0.74 and $0.68.
The cost structure of small-scale fishingvessels (Figure 32) compared with that of
5 Labour costs include wages and other labour charges such as
insurance and employers’ contributions to pensions funds.
Running costs include fuel, lubricants, the cost of selling fish,
harbour dues, the cost of ice, and food and supplies for the crew.
Vessel costs include vessel and gear repair and maintenance
expenses, and vessel insurance.
Countryand size of vessel
Source: FAO. 1999. Economic viability of marine capture fisheries. Findings of a global study and an interregional workshop.By J.-M. Lery, J. Prado and U. Tietze. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 377. Rome
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Senegal, 22 m
Peru, 29 m
Argentina, 25 m
China, 38 m
Korea, Rep., 65 GRT
India, 15 m
Malaysia, 35 GRT
France, 20 m
Germany, 90 m
Spain, 23 m
FIGURE 30Cost structure of bottom trawl fisheries
Running costs
Labour costs
Vessel costs
Percentage
94
industrial trawl fisheries (Figure 30) showssome interesting differences. In France, as adeveloped country, the labour costs of small-scale fishing vessels remain the mostimportant cost component, as is the case forindustrial trawl fisheries. Running costs,however, are the least important while vesselcosts emerge as the second most importantcost component.
In three of the four developing countriesincluded in Figure 32 (i.e. India, Senegal andGhana), labour costs emerge as the mostimportant cost component of some of thesmall-scale fishing units studied. This is relatedto a system of remuneration in which theproceeds from fish sales are shared among thecrewmembers. In cases where crewmembersare paid on a fixed wage basis, running costsremain the most important cost factor.
The production costs of the small-scalefishing vessels studied in relation to their grossearnings show some distinct differences fromthe production costs of trawlers. First of all,they are lower. As shown in Figure 33, for mostof the small-scale fishing vessels, the cost ofproducing US$1 of gross earnings rangesbetween US$0.56 (for Ghanaian gillnetters)and $0.78 (for French gillnetters).
At the extreme ends of the cost range are thetraditional sail-powered Indian trammel netter,which spends only US$0.19 to produce US$1of gross earnings, and the large Senegalesehandliner, which spends as much as US$0.91.The data suggest that, unlike industrial trawlfisheries, small-scale fishing vessels do notshow any typical differences betweendeveloping and OECD countries as far as thecosts of production in relation to gross earningsare concerned.
Productivity and financial performanceRegarding the productivity and financialperformance of trawl fisheries, noticeabledifferences can be observed between OECDand developing countries. While productivity,measured as the value of production percrewmember was found to be generally higherin developed countries, the rate of return oninvestment was found to be generally higher indeveloping countries (Figure 34).
Productivity was highest in France, followedby Argentina, Peru, Germany, Spain and theRepublic of Korea. The highest rate of returnon investment, on the other hand, was found inthe Republic of Korea (37 percent), followed byPeru (34 percent), India (24 percent), Ghana
Sene
gal,
22 m
Peru
, 29
m
Arg
enti
na, 2
5 m
Chi
na, 3
8 m
Kor
ea, R
ep.,
65 G
RT
Indi
a, 1
5 m
Mal
aysi
a, 3
5 G
RT
Fran
ce, 2
0 m
Ger
man
y, 9
0 m
Spai
n, 2
3 m
Cost (US$)
Country and size of vessel
FIGURE 31Operation costs per US dollar of gross earnings in bottom trawl fisheries
Source: FAO. 1999. Economic viability of marine capture fisheries. Findings of a global study and an interregional workshop.By J.-M. Lery, J. Prado and U. Tietze. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 377. Rome
0
1
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
Running andvessel costsper US dollarof grossearnings
Labour costsper US dollarof grossearnings
95
Countryand type of vessel
Source: FAO. 1999. Economic viability of marine capture fisheries. Findings of a global study and an interregional workshop.By J.-M. Lery, J. Prado and U. Tietze. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 377. Rome
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Malaysia, 5-10 GRThandliner
Malaysia, 5-10 GRTtrap vessel
India, 6 m sailinglog-raft trammel netter
Ghana, 6-12 m hookand line canoe
Ghana, 6-12 m bottomset gillnetter
Senegal, 8-13 mmultipurpose canoe
Senegal, 9-22 mhandliner
France, 8-10 mhandliner
France, 8-12 mgillnetter
FIGURE 32Cost structure for small-scale fishing vessels
Running costs
Labour costs
Vessel costs
Percentage
Mal
aysi
a, 5
-10
GR
Tha
ndlin
er
Mal
aysi
a, 5
-10
GR
Ttr
ap v
esse
l
Indi
a, 6
m s
ailin
glo
g-ra
ft t
ram
mel
net
ter
Gha
na, 6
-12
m h
ook
and
line
cano
e
Gha
na, 6
-12
m b
otto
mse
t gi
llnet
ter
Sene
gal,
8-13
mm
ulti
purp
ose
cano
e
Sene
gal,
9-22
mha
ndlin
er
Fran
ce, 8
-10
mha
ndlin
er
Fran
ce, 8
-12
mgi
llnet
ter
0
1
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
Cost (US$)
Country and type of vessel
FIGURE 33Operation costs per US dollar of gross earnings for small-scale fishing vessels
Source: FAO. 1999. Economic viability of marine capture fisheries. Findings of a global study and an interregional workshop.By J.-M. Lery, J. Prado and U. Tietze. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 377. Rome
Running andvessel costsper US dollarof grossearnings
Labour costsper US dollarof grossearnings
96
(22 percent) and China (15 percent). Thehigher levels of productivity found in theOECD countries studied can probably beattributed to a higher degree of mechanizationand sophistication of equipment for fishdetection, capture and on-board handling. Thehigher profitability of trawl fisheries in thedeveloping countries studied can be explainedby these countries’ lower cost of operation inrelation to gross earnings and their lower costof investment/higher depreciation because ofthe use of older fishing vessels.
As labour costs increase in the course of theoverall economic development of developingcountries and as old fishing vessels arereplaced by new ones, it can be expected thatthe difference in profitability of fishingoperations compared with those of developingcountries might gradually disappear.
In the case of small-scale fishing vessels, thedifferences between productivity, on the onehand, and financial performance, on the other,are even more pronounced. As can be seenfrom Figure 35, productivity is highest, by far,on handliners and gillnetters in France. This isowing to extremely small crew sizes and arelatively high degree of mechanization andcatch efficiency.
At 15 percent for handliners and only 1percent for gillnetters, the rates of return oninvestment, however, are far lower than thoseof most of the small-scale fishing units studiedin developing countries.
The financial performance of the small-scalefishing units studied in developing countries isbetter because of the lower costs ofinvestments and operation. An outstandingexample is the smallest and most traditional ofthe small-scale fishing vessels included inFigure 35 – the Indian sailing log-raft trammelnetter, locally called the kattumaram or teppa.This fishing craft has an annual rate of returnon investment that is as high as 388 percentbecause of the extremely low investment andoperation costs and the use of a selectivefishing method that targets high-value species.
OUTLOOK: SUSTAINABILITY ANDECONOMIC VIABILITYThe findings of the study suggest that, with theexception of some small-scale fishing units inIndonesia, India and Senegal, some of thelarge-scale industrial trawlers in France andone type of pair-trawler and a stow netter inChina, marine capture fisheries in the LatinAmerican, African, European and Asian
Peru
, 29
m
Arg
enti
na, 2
5 m
Chi
na, 3
8 m
Kor
ea, R
ep.,
65 G
RT
Indi
a, 1
5 m
Mal
aysi
a, 3
5 G
RT
Fran
ce, 2
0 m
Ger
man
y, 1
6 m
Ger
man
y, 6
5 m
Spai
n, 2
3 m
Sene
gal,
22 m
Gha
na, 3
5 m
0
120
100
80
60
40
20
Productivity(US$ thousands)
Percentage
FIGURE 34Productivity and financial performance of bottom trawl fisheries
0
14
21
28
35
7
42
Source: FAO. 1999. Economic viability of marine capture fisheries. Findings of a global study and an interregional workshop.By J.-M. Lery, J. Prado and U. Tietze. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 377. Rome
Value ofproductionpercrewmember
Rate ofreturn oninvestment
97
countries studied usually generate sufficientrevenues to cover their operating costs andalso supply funds for reinvestment.
The findings of this study seem to contradictearlier FAO studies that concluded that, whenall the world’s fishing vessels are consideredas one fleet, that fleet is losing money. Thereare two plausible explanations for thisdiscrepancy.
The first concerns active versus non-activevessels. In the earlier global studies, allvessels – whether active or not – wereincluded, while the more recent study includesonly active vessels. The second factor isrelated to subsidies or “ financial transfers” .The global studies included pro formaestimates of income and costs, developed byFAO on the basis of the average known costsof the major factors of production and thelongevity of physical assets. They therefore didnot include any country-specific financialtransfers from government to fisheries sectors.The more recent study uses a differentapproach. The costs and incomes derived forthe various fleets are based on expendituresand income over time, and do not consider
individual financial transfers. The presentstudy includes any financial transfers, whilethe global studies excluded most of them.
The degree to which either of these factorscan explain the difference between the twostudies is difficult to assess, although thosefamiliar with both studies regard the first factoras being particularly significant.
The more recent study also shows thatmarine capture fisheries provide employmentand income, as well as contributing much-needed export earnings in many developingcountries. They also play important roles inmeeting the nutritional needs of the populationand in food security, particularly in developingcountries. However, the generally positiveeconomic performance of marine capturefisheries is being achieved in an environmentwhere fisheries resources are fully exploited,and in many cases overexploited; so how longcan it last?
The fishing industry, both small- and large-scale, and the general public have a vitalinterest in safeguarding and sustaining thebeneficial economic and nutritional role offisheries. If sustainability and viability are to
0
Productivity(US$ thousands)
Percentage
FIGURE 35Productivity and financial performanceof small-scale fishing vessels
Source: FAO. 1999. Economic viability of marine capture fisheries. Findings of a global study and an interregional workshop. By J.-M. Lery, J. Prado and U. Tietze. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 377. Rome
Value ofproductionpercrewmember
Rate ofreturn oninvestment
Mal
aysi
a, 5
-10
GR
Tha
ndlin
er
Mal
aysi
a, 5
-10
GR
Ttr
ap v
esse
l
Indi
a, 6
m s
ailin
g lo
g-ra
fttr
amm
el n
ette
r
Gha
na, 6
-12
m h
ook
and
line
cano
e
Gha
na, 6
-12
m b
otto
mse
t gi
llnet
ter
Sene
gal,
8-13
mm
ulti
purp
ose
cano
e
Sene
gal,
9-22
mha
ndlin
er
Fran
ce, 8
-10
mha
ndlin
er
Fran
ce, 8
-12
mgi
llnet
ter
90
80
60
70
40
50
20
30
10
0
200
150
250
300
400
350
100
50
450
98
be ensured, there is an urgent need tostrengthen and put in place efficient measuresto limit fishing effort and rehabilitate coastalareas and aquatic resources. In order to besuccessful, these measures must be designedand implemented in close cooperation withfishers and fisheries industry associations.
The impact of fisheries managementmeasures on the economic performance of thefisheries industry and its various sectors needsto be closely monitored through studies similarto the one described in this article so thatbenefits can be maximized and negativeimpacts minimized. Another important area formonitoring in the future is the impact ofsubsidies, economic incentives and fiscalpolicies and measures on the profitability andsustainability of fishing operations.
In order to safeguard the important economicand social role of the small-scale fisheriessector as a provider of employment, incomeand food, particularly in rural areas ofdeveloping countries, special efforts areneeded to protect that sector. The findings ofthe study suggest that the sector’s economicperformance has already been negativelyeffected by the overexploitation of coastalfisheries resources and competition with morecatch-efficient commercial fishing vessels,such as purse seiners and trawlers.
Government and private sector support tothe fishing industry, both small- and large-scale, in the form of technical advice andguidance, training and investment and creditsupport, is essential for successful adaptationto the changes accompanying the introductionof responsible and sustainable fishing practicesand related management measures andregulations.
TRENDS IN WORLD FISHERIES AND THEIRRESOURCES: 1974-19996
INTRODUCTIONFollowing the publication of its first globalreview of marine fish stocks,7 FAO’s Fisheries
Department has been monitoring the state ofthese stocks. The results have been publishedintermittently in The state of world fisheryresources, marine fisheries, a document thatdescribes and comments on trends in the stateand use of these resources. This articlepresents a summary of the knowledgeavailable, building on status reportsaccumulated between 1974 and 1999, the lastyear for which information is available. Theanalysis considers:
• the production level for the most recentyear (1998), relative to historical levels;
• the state of stocks, globally;• the state of stocks, by region;• trends in the state of stocks since 1974,
globally and by region.
RELATIVE PRODUCTION LEVELSThe available data for 1998 from the 16 FAOstatistical regions (see Box 16), considering theAntarctic Ocean as one region, indicate thatfour ocean regions – the Eastern Indian Oceanand the Northwest, Southwest and WesternCentral Pacific Oceans – were at theirmaximum historical level of production in1998.8 All the other ocean regions are at lowerlevels (Figure 36). While this might result, atleast in part, from natural oscillations inproductivity (e.g. resulting from the El Niñophenomenon of 1997 in the Southeast PacificOcean), the lowest values observed mayindicate that a high proportion of the resourcesare overfished (e.g. in the Antarctic and theSoutheast and Northwest Atlantic Oceans).
GLOBAL LEVELS OF EXPLOITATIONThe data available to FAO at the end of 1999identified 590 “ stock” items. For 441 (or 75percent) of these, there is some information onthe state of the stocks and, although not all ofthis is recent, it is the best that is available. Thestock items are classified as underexploited (U),moderately exploited (M), fully exploited (F),overexploited (O), depleted (D) or recovering(R), depending on how far they are – in terms ofbiomass and fishing pressure – from the levelscorresponding to full exploitation. Fullexploitation is taken as being loosely equivalentto maximum sustainable yield (MSY) ormaximum long-term average yield (MLTAY).The following are some of the features of stocksin each of the different classifications:
6 The basic data used in this section are updates of the data
published in FAO. 1997. Review of the state of world fishery
resources: marine fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 920.
Rome. 173 pp. (An updated version is in preparation.)7 FAO. 1970. The state of world resources, by J.A. Gulland. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper No. 97. Rome. 425 pp. and J.A. Gulland.
1971. The fish resources of the ocean. UK, Fishing News Books
(International). 255 pp. 8 Fishstat Plus (2.3), FAO 1996-2000.
99
BOX 16FAO statistical areas
In order to help organize its data, FAO hasbroken down the world’s fishing areas intostatistical regions, identified by a two-digitnumber (21 to 88). The abbreviations are usedin Figures 36, 38 and 39.
AEC Atlantic, Eastern Central (34)ACW Atlantic, Western Central (31)ANE Atlantic, Northeast (27)ANT Antarctic, total (48, 58, 88)ANW Atlantic, Northwest (21)ASE Atlantic, Southeast (47)ASW Atlantic, Southwest (41)IE Indian Ocean, Eastern (57)IW Indian Ocean, Western (51)MBS Mediterranean and Black Sea (37)PEC Pacific, Eastern Central (77)PCW Pacific, Western Central (71)PNE Pacific, Northeast (67)PNW Pacific, Northwest (61)PSE Pacific, Southeast (87)PSW Pacific, Southwest (81)
Stocks tagged as U and M are believed tohave the potential to produce more underincreased fishing pressure, but this does notimply any recommendation to do so.
Stocks tagged as F are considered as beingexploited at levels close to their MSY orMLTAY. They could be slightly under or
above this level because of uncertainties inthe data and stock assessments. These stocksare in need of (and in some cases alreadyhave) effective measures to control fishingcapacity.
Stocks tagged as O or D are clearlyexploited beyond their MSY level and are in
FIGURE 36Ratio between recent (1998) and maximal production
FAO Fishing Area
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
ASE
ANW
PSE
ASW
PNE
MBS
PEC
ACW
ANT
IE
PNW
PSW
PCW
IW
ANE
AEC
0.14
0.39
0.43
0.44
0.71
0.73
0.81
0.83
0.86
0.87
0.92
0.94
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Note: The key to acronyms used for FAO Fishing Areas is given in Box 16, above
Source: FAO
100
need of effective strategies for capacityreduction and stock rebuilding.
Stocks tagged as R are usually very lowcompared with historical levels. Directedfishing pressure may have been reduced (bymanagement or lack of profitability) but,depending on the specific situation, thesestocks may still be under excessive fishingpressure. In some cases, their indirectexploitation as by-catch in another fisherymight be enough to keep them in a depressedstate, despite reduced direct fishing pressure.
Figure 37 shows that, in 1999, 4 percent ofthe stocks appeared to be underexploited, 21percent were moderately exploited, 47 percentfully exploited, 18 percent overexploited, 9percent depleted and 1 percent recovering. AsMSY (modified by environmental andeconomic factors) is an important referencepoint for management that is enshrined in theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of theSea, these data imply that 28 percent(O + D + R) of the world stocks for which dataare available are below the level ofabundance represented by MSY (or have afishing capacity that is above this level) andrequire fisheries management action aimed atrebuilding them to at least the MSY level.Some of these stocks may already be undersuch a management scheme. As a further 47percent of the stocks are exploited at about theMSY level, and they too require capacitycontrol in order to avoid the overcapacitysyndrome, it appears that 75 percent
(F + O + D + R) of the world stocks for whichdata are available require strict capacity andeffort control if they are to be stabilized orrebuilt to the MSY biomass level, and possiblybeyond.
Figure 37 indicates that 25 percent of thestocks (U + M) for which data are availableare above the level of abundance thatcorresponds to the MSY level (or have a fishingcapacity that is below this level). When the 47percent of MSY-level stocks are taken intoaccount, it emerges that 72 percent of stocksare at or above the level of abundancecorresponding to MSY (i.e. they have a fishingcapacity below this level) and should thereforebe considered as being compliant with thebasic requirements of the Convention on theLaw of the Sea.
These two ways of looking at the dataindicate that the “ glass is half full and halfempty” and are both equally correctdepending on the viewpoint taken. From the“ state of stocks” angle, it is comforting to seethat 72 percent of the world’s resources canstill produce MSYs if required. From themanagement point of view, however, it shouldbe noted that 75 percent of resources requirestringent management of fishing capacity.Some stocks are already under some form ofcapacity management (mainly in a fewdeveloped countries), but most require urgentaction to stabilize or improve their situation.For 28 percent of them, there is no doubt thatforceful action is required for rebuilding.
FIGURE 37The state of stocks in 1999
0 10 20 30 40 50
U
M
F
O
D
R
Note: R = recovering; D = depleted; O = overexploited; F = fully exploited;M = moderately exploited; U = underexploited
Source: FAO
1
9
47
18
21
4
Percentage
101
THE STATE OF STOCKS BY REGIONThe data available on state of stocks can beexamined by region and compared, keeping inmind that the quality of the data, theproportion of stocks for which information isavailable and the relative size of the stocksdiffer from case to case. Once again, acomparison can be made in terms of a stock’srelation to the MSY.
The percentage of stocks exploited at orbeyond MSY levels (F + O + D + R), andtherefore reflecting a need for capacitycontrol, ranges from 41 percent (in the EasternCentral Pacific) to 95 percent (in the WesternCentral Atlantic) (Figure 38). In most regions,at least 70 percent of the stocks are alreadyfully or overfished. The percentage of stocksexploited at or below MSY levels (U + M + F)ranges from 43 percent (in the SoutheastPacific) to 100 percent (in the SouthwestPacific and Western Indian Ocean) (Figure 39).As a measure of management anddevelopment performance, the proportion ofstocks that are exploited beyond the MSY level(O + D + R) ranges from 0 percent (in theSouthwest Pacific and Western Indian Ocean)to 57 percent (in the Southeast Pacific).
GLOBAL TRENDSThe following analysis considers trends in theproportions of stocks in each of the various statesof exploitation. The years mentioned in the textand figures refer to the year of publication of theFAO Fisheries Circular Review of the state ofworld fishery resources: marine fisheries.
Figure 40 shows that the percentage ofstocks maintained at MSY level (F) has slightlydecreased since 1974, while underexploitedstocks (U + M), offering the potential forexpansion, have decreased steadily. As wouldbe expected from these trends, Figure 40 alsoshows that the proportion of stocks exploitedbeyond MSY levels (O + D + R) has increasedduring the same period, from about 10 percentin the early 1970s to nearly 30 percent in thelate 1990s. The number of stocks for whichinformation is available has also increasedduring the same period, from 120 to 454.
The trend for stocks exploited beyond MSYlevels can be decomposed according to majorregions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans(Figures 41 and 42).
In the following analysis, distinctions aremade between northern (mainly developed)areas of the oceans and central and southernareas (mainly tropical and developing). Datahave been plotted together with their trend, as
represented by a third-order polynomial.The results for the North Atlantic (FAO FishingAreas 21 and 27) and the North Pacific (FAOFishing Areas 61 and 67) (Figure 41) show anincreasing proportion of stocks being exploitedbeyond MSY levels until the late 1980s orearly 1990s. In the North Atlantic the situationseems to have improved and stabilized in the1990s, while in the North Pacific the situationseems to have remained unstable.
Figure 42 shows a growing percentage ofstocks exploited beyond MSY levels in both thetropical oceans studied. This increase might bereaching an asymptote in the tropical Atlantic(FAO Fishing Areas 31, 34, 41 and 47) but thisdoes not seem to be the case in the tropicalPacific (FAO Fishing Areas 71, 77, 81 and 87).It can also be noted that the situation is moresevere in the tropical Atlantic. In fact, a cross-comparison of Figures 41 and 42 shows thatthe magnitude of the problem is similar for thetropical and northern regions of the Atlantic,while, in the Pacific, the southern areas areless affected. For the southernmost areas ofthese oceans (the Antarctic) the situationappears to be more serious but improving.
DISCUSSIONThe overview of the state of world stocksobtained from the series of FAO biennialreviews clearly indicates a number of trends.Globally, between 1974 and 1999, thereappears to have been an increase in theproportion of stocks classified as “ exploitedbeyond the MSY limit” , i.e. overfished,depleted or slowly recovering. When theinformation is stratified by large oceanicregions, the North Atlantic and North Pacificshow a continuous worsening of the situationuntil the 1980s or early 1990s, with a possiblestabilization afterwards – particularly in theNorth Atlantic. In the tropical and southernregions of these oceans the situation seemsstill to be deteriorating, with the possibleexception of the tropical Atlantic, wherestabilization might have started. Theseconclusions are in line with the findings of anearlier FAO study by Grainger and Garcia.9
These conclusions should be considered withcaution because they are based on a sample ofthe world stocks and are severely constrained
9 FAO. 1996. Chronicles of marine fishery landings (1950-1994).
Trend analysis and fisheries potential, by R. Grainger and S.M.
Garcia. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 359. Rome.
51 pp.
102
Percentage
FIGURE 38Percentage, by FAO Fishing Area, of stocks exploited at or beyond MSYlevels (F+O+D+R) and below MSY levels (U+M)
FAO Fishing Area
U+M
F+O+D+R
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PNW
PCW
ANT
PSW
MBS
ASW
ANW
IE
TUNA
IW
PNE
PSE
AEC
ASE
ANE
PEC
ACW
Note: R = recovering; D = depleted; O = overexploited; F = fully exploited; M = moderately exploited; U = underexploited. The key to acronyms used for FAO Fishing Areas is given in Box 16, p. 99
Source: FAO
Percentage
FIGURE 39Percentage, by FAO Fishing Area, of stocks exploited at or below MSYlevels (U+M+F) and beyond MSY levels (O+D+R)
FAO Fishing Area
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Note: R = recovering; D = depleted; O = overexploited; F = fully exploited; M = moderately exploited; U = underexploited.The key to acronyms used for FAO Fishing Areas is given in Box 16, p. 99
Source: FAO
O+D+R
U+M+F
ASE
ANT
MBS
AEC
TUNA
PNW
PNE
ASW
ANE
IW
PCW
ANW
IE
PEC
ACW
PSE
PSW
103
by the limited information that was availableto FAO. The extent to which this informationreflects reality is difficult to ascertain. Thereare many more stocks in the world than thosereferred to by FAO. In addition, some of theelements of world resources that FAO calls“ stocks” are really conglomerates of stocks
(and often of species) and it is not clear that astatement made about a conglomerate is validfor the individual stocks in that conglomerate.
However, in general, it is safe to assume thatthe global trends observed reflect trends in themonitored stocks, because the observationsgenerally coincide with reports from studies
FIGURE 41Trends in the percentage of stocks exploitedbeyond MSY levels (O+D+R) in the NorthernAtlantic and Pacific Oceans
Percentage
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050
10
20
30
50
40
Note: R = recovering; D = depleted; O = overexploited
Source: FAO
NorthAtlantic
NorthPacific
FIGURE 40Global trends in the state of world stockssince 1974
Percentage
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050
10
20
30
60
50
40
F
U+M
O+D+R
Note: R = recovering; D = depleted; O = overexploited; F = fully exploited; M = moderately exploited; U = underexploited
Source: FAO
104
conducted at a “ lower” level, usually based onmore insight and detailed data. For example, ananalysis of Cuban fisheries was carried out forFAO by Baisre.10 Using the same approach thatGrainger and Garcia took for the whole world,Baisre’s analysis led to surprisingly similarconclusions, based on less coarse aggregationsand even longer time series, and with morepossibility of double-checking the conclusionswith conventional stock assessment results.
There is, of course, the possibility that stocksare “ noticed” and appear in the FAOinformation base as “ new” stocks only whenthey start to face problems. When thishappens, scientists accumulate enough data tostart dealing with the problems, therebygenerating reports that FAO has access to. This
could explain the increase in the percentage ofstocks exploited beyond MSY levels since1974, although this seems an unlikelyhypothesis for the following reasons:
• The number of stocks that have beenidentified by FAO but for which there is notenough information has also increasedsignificantly over time, from 7 in 1974 to 149in 1999, clearly showing that new entries inthe system are not limited to “ sick” fisheries.
• Since the 1980s, scientists have becomemore and more reluctant to classify stocksas definitely “ overfished” because theyrecognize the uncertainties involved inidentifying the MSY level and that declinescan be the result of decadal naturalfluctuations. The apparent plateauing of theproportion of stocks suffering fromexcessive exploitation in the northernregions of the world’s oceans may, in part,be due to this new trend. ◆
10 FAO. 2000. Chronicles of Cuban marine fisheries (1935-
1995): Trend analysis and fisheries potential, by J.A. Baisre.
FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 394. 26 pp.
FIGURE 42Trends in the percentage of stocks exploited beyondMSY levels (O+D+R) in the tropical (Central andSouthern) Atlantic and Pacific Oceans
Percentage
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050
10
20
30
60
50
40
Note: R = recovering; D = depleted; O = overexploited
Source: FAO
TropicalAtlantic
TropicalPacific
Antarctic
PART 4Outlook
107
RECENT TRENDS AND POSSIBLECONSEQUENCES FOR WORLD FISHERIES
AND AQUACULTURE
OVERVIEWAt the end of the 1990s, humankind’s need forfood and income was still the dominantdeterminant of the nature and magnitude offish consumption and production. The desire toreserve access to fish for pleasure – includingnon-consumptive uses – was growing, and inmany instances was respected, although suchuses were still limited to a small number ofcountries and, from a global perspective, hadonly a minor impact on those who fished orcultured fish to earn a living. In recentdecades, however, the conditions determiningthe traditional use of fish have been slowlychanging. One factor that has made an impactis the increasing size of the market, in terms ofboth the number of people and thegeographical area covered. On the one hand,most consumers have had access to anexpanding variety of food and fish productsand a growing number of sellers. On the other,most primary producers have been able tochoose from among a larger number of buyers.Thus, there has been an expanding range ofpossibilities both to satisfy food needs and togenerate income. The resulting increase in thenumber of trading possibilities has had, andwill continue to have, repercussions on thefisheries and aquaculture sector.
Fisheries governance has been affected bythe deliberations of the United NationsConference on the Environment andDevelopment (UNCED), held in 1992 in Rio deJaneiro, Brazil. Since that conference, theecosystems dimensions of management issueshave received increasing attention fromgovernments, the UN system and the fishingindustry. All are now more ready to recognizethat fish are an integrated part of an aquaticecosystem, a system in which modifications inone area have the potential to affect otherareas. Thus, it is increasingly regarded asnecessary, first to monitor the state of theaquatic ecosystem, and then to manage humaninterventions within that ecosystem. Onlywithin such a framework will it be possible forcapture fisheries to continue to be a source offood and income for future generations. In the
coming years, humankind is likely to improvedramatically its understanding of theintricacies of aquatic ecosystems, and this willlead not only to more knowledge but also, andperhaps paradoxically, to growinguncertainties. As a result, there will begrowing pressure for a strict application of theprecautionary approach to all interventions,including those by fishers, in aquaticecosystems. Both the aquaculture industry andthe capture fisheries sector will realize thatthey must be seen by all concerned to respectthis principle.
In many developing countries, fish grew ineconomic importance during the second half ofthe twentieth century and, by the end of the1990s, the fisheries sector had become animportant source of food, employment andforeign exchange – a situation that is likely tocontinue. A stable source of foreign currency isvital for countries, as increased participationin international trade is an essential conditionfor their economic growth, particularly forsmaller countries with only limited or nomineral resources.
For many developing countries, fisheries arealso a major vehicle for creating value added,thereby promoting economic growth. In someof the poorest, where fish is an indispensablepart of food security for large sections of thecommunity, including fishers, the ever-expanding possibilities of export markets haveled to reduced quantities of fish beingavailable in local markets. It is likely that thedecision to sell fish in foreign rather than localmarkets, where it plays an important role inensuring food security, will becomeproblematic in some countries during the nextdecade. It also seems plausible that anincreasing number of developing countries willdevelop national food security strategies andthat fish will occupy a place in thesestrategies.
FISH AS FOODDuring the past decades, per capita fishconsumption has expanded globally along witheconomic growth and well-being. However,growth will not go on forever. There is a limitto how much food – including fish – eachindividual will consume, and long-termceilings for consumption will be established.
Outlook
108
It is clear that the limit will be reached first bywealthy economies, and fastest in those wherefish has been a staple food since ancient times– in Japan for example.
In well-off developed economies –essentially OECD countries – the image of fishis changing. It is moving away from being thebasic food it once was and is becoming aculinary speciality. There are two mainreasons for this: the vast majority of thepopulation in these countries has the means topurchase adequate food and retailers arerealizing that, to attract consumers, they haveto sell a product that is more than just a basicfoodstuff. Marketing campaigns launched forsome fish products tend to affirm that theconsumption of fish is an appropriate means ofsatisfying the consumer’s need for variety andfor nutritious, tasty, healthy and fashionablefoods. The retailing of fish in these countries isno longer a question of satisfying a hungryconsumer at a competitive price.
The term “ fish” here stands for a largecategory of groups of varied consumerproducts made available by retailers. Thesegroups of products vary distinctly from countryto country and only a small proportion of themare traded internationally. In volume terms,fish trade is still dominated by intermediateproducts, mostly in frozen form with a fewstandard categories of cured and cannedproducts. However, a portion of what areessentially national food specialities is findingits way on to the international market, andthere are now a large number of suchproducts. Fish has the potential to satisfy mostdesires for a variety of tasty, healthy andexotic products. International trade is likelyto continue to grow rapidly and itscomposition to be altered in favour of morehigh-value finished products and fewerraw materials.
In OECD countries, economic growth hascaused a growing proportion of fish to beconsumed outside the home and in the form ofready-to-eat products. A recent study of fishconsumption in Japan1 showed that, in theperiod 1965 to 1998, the income elasticity ofdemand for fresh fish by Japanese householdswas -0.26. That is, for each 1 percent increasein average income, Japanese householdsdemanded 0.26 percent less volume of freshfish. However, consumption remained stable
because the quantities consumed in restaurantsor as ready-to-eat products increased.
There are signs that consumers in some othercountries may also be approaching thisvoluntary limit to the quantity of fresh fishconsumed. During the 1990s, changes in percapita consumption – expressed in live weightequivalent – did not seem to be explained byeconomic growth (see Box 17), at least insome of the wealthier countries where fishconsumption was already above the worldaverage in the late 1980s. There seems to beno way of telling with any precision at whatlevel fish consumption in a particular countryis likely to stabilize, but it would appearreasonable to assume that, for most countries,the figure would fall somewhere in the rangeof 20 to 40 kg/capita/year. Thus, countrieswhere there is an extremely high consumptionwould see that consumption decrease, whilethose with a low consumption would see itrise. Argentina, where meat consumption istraditionally high, provides an example of suchan increase. The consumption of fish inArgentina is reported2 to have doubled in the1990s, from about 4 to 9 kg per capita/year.
In the developing countries, fish is still verymuch an essential food. It contributes animportant part of the animal protein in manypeople’s diets. In the mid-1990s, fish providedmore than 50 percent of the animal protein forthe populations of 34 countries. Several Asianand some African countries fell into thiscategory. Nevertheless, fish is generally not animportant source of calories.
In LIFDCs, the apparent consumption of fishhas also increased during the last decades(Figure 43). As noted in the Overview, thisrapid increase largely reflects the rapidincrease in the apparent consumption of China.
Figure 44 shows the apparent consumption offish in Africa. For Africa as a whole,availability has declined, and in somecountries (e.g. Ghana, Liberia, Malawi) theaverage diet contained less fish protein in the1990s than it did during the 1970s.
In most developing countries, fish willcontinue to be an important source of protein,but there will still be the potential for exportsof fish and strong macroeconomic argumentsfor permitting and even encouraging such
1 FAO. Prediction of demand for fish in Japan (in preparation).
By M. Tada. Rome.
2 M.I. Bertolotti, E. Errazti, A. Pagani and J. Buono. Sector
pesquero Argentino. 17 pp. Istituto Nacional de Desarrollo
Pesquero/Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Argentina.
(mimeo.)
109
exports. Thus, countries will find that theyneed to promote schemes that make substitutefoods, preferably other fish, available in localmarkets to replace what is being exported.
In Africa there are large stocks of smallpelagic species off both the northwest andsouthwest coasts. These species can beharvested at a low cost and constitute anadequate replacement in local African diets forthe exported high-value products. It seems
plausible that countries along the Gulf ofGuinea will want to develop joint strategieswith countries in northwest and southwestAfrica to exploit these stocks as a source ofcheap and nutritious fish for local consumers.Existing regional fisheries managementorganizations would provide an institutionalmechanism for coordinating national policiesin this respect.
In some regions in Asia, cultured fish has the
BOX 17The relationship between fish consumption,
wealth and economic growth
1988-97 fish consumption < 20 kg/capita
Country Correlation coefficient
Australia (18.4) 0.284
Austria (8.0) 0.784
Belgium (17.7) 0.789
China (9.7) 0.998
Germany (11.2) 0.243
Ireland (16.6) -0.009
United Kingdom (18.2) 0.862
1988-97 fish consumption > 20 kg/capita
Country Correlation coefficient
Canada (22.6) -0.574
Chile (22.3) -0.076
France (27.9) -0.257
Italy (20.7) +0.729
Japan (72.1) -0.626
Norway (43.9) +0.982
Sweden (26.4) -0.421
United States (21.3) +0.005
The world per capita fish consumption has beengrowing since the 1960s. Consumption has variedamong continents and countries within eachcontinent and, on average, has always beenhigher in richer than in poorer countries. Manystudies forecast that per capita fish intake willcontinue to increase worldwide over the nextthree decades, and that most of this increase willresult from economic prosperity. The existingpositive income elasticity of fish demand, whichgenerally ranges between 1 and 2, supports thisfinding, although the manner in whichconsumption responds to increases in wealthseems not only to depend on the level of wealthattained, but also on the quantities of fish that arecurrently eaten by the average consumer.
In order to investigate these relationships, 15relatively wealthy countries that had experiencedmore or less steady economic growth between1988 and 1997 were identified. These weredivided into two arbitrary groups: low fishconsumption countries, where annual per capitafish consumption was generally 20 kg or less forthis period; and high fish consumption countries,where per capita annual fish consumption wasmore than 20 kg. Per capita fish consumption andper capita real GDP (used as proxy for income)were plotted against time. Correlation coefficientswere also calculated.
The resulting correlation coefficients betweenper capita fish consumption and economic growthare given in the Table. The 1988-97 averagevolume of consumption per capita is given inparentheses, after the country name.
The results are not conclusive. On the one handit appears that, for most of the high consumers,there is no clear relationship between changes inincome and volume of consumption, although aclear exception is Norway, where fish still seemsto be a much-preferred food. On the other hand,Germany seems to have reached stagnation at avery low level of consumption. In Japan, thepicture is different. The negative correlation –although weak – between growth and volume ofconsumption could be taken to mean thatincreased incomes have given the Japanese thepossibility of switching from their staple to otherfoods. The correlation between economic growthand fish consumption in China is very high, mostlikely reflecting the responsiveness of freshwateraquaculture to the stimulus of the market.
Source: N. Hishamunda, FAO Fisheries Department.
110
FIGURE 43Total food fish supply and per capita food fish supplyin LIFDCs, 1961-1997
Total food fish supply(million tonnes)
Source: FAO
Per capitafood fishsupply
Totalfood fishsupply
Per capita supplyin live weight (kg)
30
40
50
60
20
10
0
1961
1963
1965
1971
1973
1983
1985
1975
1977
1967
1969
1979
1981
1987
1989
1991
1997
1993
1995
0
10
5
25
20
15
30
FIGURE 44Total food fish supply and per capita food fish supplyin Africa, 1961-1997
Total food fish supply(million tonnes)
Source: FAO
Per capitafood fishsupply
Totalfood fishsupply
Per capita supplyin live weight (kg)
30
40
50
60
20
10
0
1961
1963
1965
1971
1973
1983
1985
1975
1977
1967
1969
1979
1981
1987
1989
1991
1997
1993
1995
0
10
5
25
20
15
30
111
potential to replace exported high-valueproducts in local markets. This is because fishfarmers, with some exceptions such as thosewho culture shrimps and molluscs, already selltheir produce in local markets. As a group, fishfarmers have the ability to respond toincreases in demand.
In South America, except for in the countriesfacing the Caribbean, fish consumption isgenerally low. The fish-dependent populationsare coastal communities for whom fishsupplies will not be a major problem.
As a result of the above trends inconsumption, international trade will grow –possibly more rapidly in value than in volumeterms. Trade will expand in two ways. First, indeveloping countries, fish processing fordeveloped markets will become a veryattractive employment-generating opportunityfor governments that need to find alternativeemployment opportunities, particularly fordisplaced artisanal fishers and their families.In this context, the ready-to-eat segment of theindustry is particularly attractive, as it islabour-intensive. However, most of thecountries that depend on fish imports to satisfydemand also have fish processing industriesand it is clear that these national industrieswill do their best to survive, even if it meansopposing the abolition of existing tradebarriers.
The second reason for an expansion in tradeis that developing countries will becomeincreasingly important markets for fish duringthe coming decades. As this happens, they willexport more to neighbouring developingcountries and other developing markets. Forexample, in South America, Brazil is likely tocontinue to be a major fish importer and itsimports will come predominantly from otherSouth American producers.
FISH AS A SOURCE OF INCOMEMost individuals become fishers or fish farmersbecause they expect the activity to provide ameans of livelihood for themselves and theirfamilies. During the early part of the twentiethcentury, as a rule, no one interfered with thischoice and those who were not directlyconcerned paid little attention to the activitiesof fishers and aquaculturists. However, by theearly 1990s the situation had changed and theactivities of fishers and fish farmers wereattracting the attention of civil society,particularly in developed economies. Theconcerns voiced by national and internationalNGOs centred on what they saw as the
inability of governments and producers toprevent damage to the living aquaticresources being harvested and to theecosystem at large.
As these concerns went beyond nationalborders they provided an impetus forgovernment and industry representatives todiscuss the issues in international fora. Thisled to the development of severalinternational agreements, plans of actionand guidelines (most of them voluntary) torestrict harmful practices in capture fisheriesand aquaculture.
From a global perspective, the impact ofthese agreements has been marginal in termsof the volume of fish produced andemployment generated. Simultaneously,technological developments have improvedproductivity in existing fisheries and openedthe way for new ones. The resulting increasesin production have more than offset anyreduction brought about by internationalagreements that limit or restrict fishingpractices. In capture fisheries the principalbarriers to increased production continue to bethe productivity of wild aquatic resources andthe economic and technological possibility ofharvesting them sustainably.
In recent decades, technologicaldevelopments in capture fisheries have led torapid increases in the volumes caught perfisher and per year, particularly in industrialfisheries. As fish resources are finite (andprices are under pressure – particularly in thehigh-value segment of the industry – as aresult of the continuing expansion ofaquaculture production), fish stocks have notbeen large or productive enough to permit allfishers to continue their activities.
As a result, the number of active full-timefishers is declining in most OECD countries.These trends will continue. As fishers arebarred from entry to fisheries (as part of asuccessful policy to contain and reduce fishingeffort), as technology improves andproductivity (measured in volume of fishlanded per fisher) increases, some of thepeople who work in the industry will have toleave it.
International discussions have drawnattention to the environmental harm caused byfisheries – and to some extent aquaculture –which many societies might consider arelatively minor problem; the major problem,in fact, is the continued loss of economic rentin capture fisheries (Box 18). In fisheriesworldwide, very large amounts are lost yearly
112
as a result of poor management.3 It seems likelythat this issue will attract increasing attentionand civil society will demand that governmentsand industry capture these rents for the benefit ofsociety as a whole. Governments are likely tohave to confront this issue in the next decade.Optimal use of marine resources will become anagreed objective and access to fishing as aprofession will be limited and reduced, butprogress will be slow. There are substantial costsassociated with the needed buy-out of industrialfishing vessels and, in small-scale fisheries, long-term funding will be needed to find alternativeemployment for fishers.
The practice of allocating tradable quotas ismost likely to become more widespread,particularly in industrial monospeciesfisheries. Most holders of such quotas willwant their values to be high, and there areseveral strategies for assuring this, one ofwhich is to ensure that there is a large numberof buyers. In some countries, therefore,demands may emerge for the permission ofinternational trading of quotas. If suchpermission becomes widespread in developedcountry fisheries, it seems plausible thatentrepreneurs from developing countries withadvanced fisheries will become buyers. Theywould be able to compete because of theirlower labour costs and the availability offishers who are still willing to face the riskslinked to one of the world’s most dangerousprofessions (see Fishers’ safety, Part 2, p. 41).This could be the start of a reversal of thesituation that emerged towards the end of thelast half century, when developed countriespurchased the right to fish in the EEZs ofdeveloping countries. Such developmentswould not alter the fact that the managementof all “ national” fisheries would remain withthe states that have the exclusive rights to theextended economic zones, and the buyers ofquotas would have to respect the nationallegislation applying to the waters in which thequotas were valid.
In advanced economies, this“ internationalization” of national marinefisheries will be fuelled by the difficulty ofrecruiting sea-going personnel. The age
pyramid of full-time fishers is changing. InJapan, fishers aged 60 years or moreaccounted for 35 percent of all full-time fishersin the mid-1990s, up from 14 percent in 1980.4
During the last part of the twentieth century,the fishing pressure on inshore resources indeveloping countries underwent a steadyincrease. The immediate reasons for this weregrowing populations, modernization of fishingmethods, and access to an increasing numberof buyers. The greater fishing effort wasbringing more inshore fish stocks into a state ofoverexploitation and the situation wasbecoming serious for many communities.A few countries were beginning to deal withthe problem. They did so by providingexclusive fishing rights for selected fish stocksto small-scale fishers’ organizations (seeProperty rights and fisheries management, Part2, p. 52) and by strengthening the enforcementof no-fishing zones for industrial vessels ininshore waters. It was becoming clear that,unless some power was given to local fishers’organizations, limiting participation inartisanal, small-scale tropical fishing wouldbecome a very difficult issue. As long aseconomies are depressed, the landless and theunemployed will see fishing as an opportunityfor survival.
A strong reason for promoting improvedmanagement of small-scale fisheries andaquaculture is that these sectors provideemployment in coastal (marine and inland) andrural areas that are often consideredeconomically and socially marginal. Thus,fisheries activities are frequently one of thefew employment alternatives, and sometimesthe only one, available to local populations.Fisheries and aquaculture are seen as meansto reinforce the food security of localpopulations; increase the geographical andeconomic integration of the countriesconcerned; mitigate the drift to urban areas;and create demand for goods and services thatstimulate investment, decentralization ofeconomic activities, regional economic growthand social welfare.
Over the last few years, the contribution ofcapture fisheries to food fish supplies hasdecreased, while that of aquaculture hasincreased. For the world as a whole, excludingmainland China, the supplies from aquaculture3 There are many reports of such losses. A bio-economic model-
ling of some demersal fisheries in the Gulf of Thailand, carried
out in the middle of 2000, concluded that the losses for two
of the fisheries involved could be about US$200 million a
year. However, the reduction in effort needed to capture this
foregone rent would be large and expensive to implement.
4 Government of Japan. 1980 and 1997. Fishery statistics of
Japan. Tokyo, Statistics and Information Department, Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
113
grew from 1.6 kg/capita/year in 1991 to 2.12 kgin 1998. The same situation prevailed inmainland China where, over the same period,the per capita supply of aquaculture productsreportedly rose from 6 kg to an astounding17 kg.
There do not seem to be any insurmountableobstacles to the continued growth ofaquaculture. The activity is increasinglyrecognized in law and, therefore, is able tocompete on an equal footing for land, water,feed, labour, etc. Externalities linked toaquaculture have been identified, and a basicconsensus seems to have been reached thatexternalities need to be dealt with by requiringproducers to bear the major part of the coststhat otherwise fall on third parties.
At the end of the 1990s, most of the countriesthat had small aquaculture sectors expectedthese to grow rapidly. While many attemptswill fail, others will succeed, and a growingnumber of countries are likely to see avigorously growing aquaculture sector. Thiswill ensure growth but, relative to worldproduction, the increases will appear small
and most are expected to be achieved by localentrepreneurs. Aquaculture is also likely tospread through experienced entrepreneursbringing expertise, and sometimes species,from one country to another in their search forleast-cost production sites for internationallytraded products. This will ensure the expansionof production in Latin America and,increasingly, in Africa.
Asian production will continue to grow, butthe rate of growth is likely to slow down inChina when it becomes a member of WTO,and thus more open to food imports. Chinamay become a market for cultured fishproduced elsewhere in Asia.
MEDIUM-TERM OUTLOOK: FISHCONSUMPTION IN 2010
In The State of World Fisheries andAquaculture 1998, it was estimated that worlddemand for food fish in 2010 would bebetween 105 million and 110 million tonnesand available supplies about 105 million
BOX 18Rent and rent extraction
In economic theory, “ rent” is the payment for useof a resource, whether it be land, labour,equipment, ideas or money. Originally derived forthe use of land, in which the indestructibility of theresource was central, the term “ economic rent”has come to denote a payment for the use of anyresource whose supply is indestructible, non-augmentable and invariant to price, at least in theshort term.
For resources to which private property rightsare not applied, a question arises over whether thecommunity at large should charge the users aportion of the economic rent. This can be donethrough taxation, royalties or other forms ofpayment for rents that have been realized bythose who exploit the resource in question. Thepurpose would be to promote an equitabledistribution of a “ surplus” income that someconsider, in principle, to belong to all members ofthe community.
In relation to fisheries, a rent is generallythought of as the difference between the totalrevenues obtained from the fishery and the totalcosts (estimated at their opportunity costs) of
employing the various factors of production thatmake up the enterprises participating in thefishery. The total costs include charges forreplacement of assets. The rent is often consideredas a “ surplus” profit over and above what isconsidered normal.
However, it would be extremely complex todesign a system for the extraction of economic rentfrom fisheries, not least because, for most fisheries,effort must be significantly reduced before a rent iscreated. In addition, the question as to what isequitable is usually settled through negotiationsamong the parties concerned, some of whom arelikely to argue that, as the right to fish has beenrent-free for time immemorial – at least for coastalcommunities – it should remain so.
Source: A. Lem, FAO Fisheries Department.
114
tonnes, with an additional 30 million tonnesbeing converted into animal feed. No greatupward pressure on average prices for fish wasforeseen. It was expected that increasedsupplies from capture fisheries wouldmaterialize only towards the end of the firstdecade of this century as a result of improvedmanagement. These estimates were based on,inter alia, UN population data from 1996.
In 1998, the UN revised its populationprojections downwards5 and its mediumprojection is now for a world population of6 795 million in 2010. This is 96 million fewerthan the estimate for 2010 published by theUN in 1996.
In 1999, the World Bank predicted that theworld economy as a whole would grow fasterin the period 1999-2008 than it had done in theproceeding ten-year period. As a result, theworld per capita growth in GDP for the periodwas projected to reach 1.9 percent; up fromthe 1.1 percent in the World Bank’s earlierprojections.6
Recent FAO projections for meat7 show thatworldwide per capita consumption is expectedto grow at about 0.7 percent per year until2015. This is lower than the growth rateprojected for per capita GDP. Consumption inindustrialized countries is expected to increaseslightly, while it will grow in all developingcountry areas, fastest in East Asia and at a lowlevel in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.
What are the implications of this for theprojections made in The State of WorldFisheries and Aquaculture 1998? Overall, notvery many – possibly a slight downwardrevision of overall estimates of global demand.On the one hand, the reduction to theestimated population forecast for 2010 isminor, at about 1.4 percent. On the other hand,this smaller than previously forecastpopulation is expected to be somewhat richerthan was projected some years ago. In OECDcountries, increased wealth is not expected tolead to any significant increases in the volumeof production, but expenditures on fish arelikely to grow and an increasing share will bedirected towards imported finished products.
In developing countries in Asia, in general,the supply difficulties experienced by capture
fisheries will probably be counterbalanced byincreased aquaculture production; even by theend of the 1990s, the great bulk of aquacultureproduction (in terms of volume) was alreadysupplying local consumers, not OECD markets.Thus, consumption in these countries is likelyto expand continuously during the nextdecade.
In the remaining developing countries, andparticularly in Africa, local supplies of fishmay continue to decline. The reasons for thisare related to the time needed to instituteeffective effort controls in overexploitedmultispecies fisheries that are exploited bya large number of individuals from a largenumber of landing centres. In addition,aquaculture developments are likely to focuson high-value products and, therefore,concentrate mainly on export markets.
It is by no means certain that a generalincrease in wealth in LIFDCs outside Asia willactually lead to higher fish production andconsumption in these countries. Productionmay stagnate in many countries and, as localfish processors are likely to continue to haveaccess to lucrative overseas markets, localsupplies may diminish. In fact, real pricelevels for fish may increase in developingcountries, which will tend to cancel the effectthat increased prosperity could have ondemand. It seems unlikely that export barrierswill be established in the name of foodsecurity.
However, this pessimistic scenario isunlikely to apply to those LIFDCs where thefisheries sector accounts for a significantproportion of the national economy (e.g.Namibia, Mauritania, Maldives). Theimportance of the fisheries sector shouldgenerate the need, the will and the means forits management.
There would therefore seem to be no reasonto make major modifications to the 1998prediction of consumption. However, as Asia isthe centre of world fish consumption(accounting for some two-thirds of the total atthe end of the 1990s), what happens there willdetermine global developments. As projectedeconomic growth in Asia will stimulate bothdemand and production in that part of theworld, it is possibly more realistic to expectconsumption in 2010 to be at least 110 milliontonnes. This would imply that, for the world asa whole, per capita consumption would beslightly higher, at 16.1 kg, than it was at theend of the 1990s. A breakthrough inaquaculture (e.g. an extremely rapid spread of
5 United Nations Population Division. 1998. World population
prospects: the 1998 revision. New York, UN.6 FAO. 2000. Agriculture: towards 2015/30, p. 27. Technical
Interim Report. Rome.7 Ibid., p. 75.
115
tilapia culture in Latin America and Africa)would be the only major reason for alteringsuch a prediction. Another reason would be afaster than foreseen spread of goodgovernance practices in small-scale fisheries –but this seems to be a remote possibility for thefirst decade of the new century.
LONG-TERM OUTLOOK: SOMEPLAUSIBLE STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN
PRODUCTION AND DEMAND
By the year 2030, aquaculture will dominatefish supplies and less than half of the fishconsumed is likely to originate in capturefisheries. The role of capture fisheries in theeconomies of the present OECD countries will
have been reduced further as developingcountries increase their share of both catchesand subsequent processing. Their lower costsof labour will make these economiescompetitive both in the labour-intensiveprocessing industry and as a source ofseafaring fishers. In wealthy countries, anincreasing share of the fish consumed will beimported and, as these countries will want toobtain fish as cheaply as possible, it is likelythat most trade barriers will be removed inadvanced economies.
Aquaculture will have expandedgeographically, in terms of species culturedand technologies used. It is very unlikely thatAsia will continue to dominate production tothe extent that it did during the 1990s.Mariculture will account for a larger share of
BOX 19Fish consumption and long-term income elasticities
Elasticities are measurements that economists useto analyse the price sensitivity of demand andsupply. The demand for any given good isinfluenced, not only by the prices of the goods andsubstitutes but, above all, by buyers’ incomes.Income elasticity measures the responsiveness ofthe quantity of the goods demanded to changes inthe buyer’s income.
Short-term income elasticities are calculated forfinite time periods and product prices are heldconstant. They normally refer to one particularproduct but can also be calculated for a group ofproducts. Income elasticities can also becalculated for longer periods of time, and forgroups of products.
Most goods are normal goods with positiveincome elasticities, i.e. demand increases asincome rises; negative income elasticities can befound for inferior goods. Thus, less expensive fishsuch as mackerel, suary and horse mackerel areconsidered inferior goods.
Long-term elasticities are lower in absolutevalue than short-term elasticities, perhaps becausecheaper substitutes become available over time astechnology changes and consumers’ tastes andpreferences for other products develop. Whenlooking at international studies, it is clear that mosthistorical income elasticities for fish products arerather low, showing a weak to moderate responseof demand as income rises, although the relation is
positive. However, there are large differencesamong countries.
Calculating historical income elasticities is arelatively simple matter; predicting incomeelasticities is far more complicated, and thecomplexity increases with the length of periodconsidered. In attempting to predict the incomeelasticity to apply to a 30-year prediction for fish,it would be necessary to consider, inter alia, thefollowing factors: food habits of the particulargroup of consumers concerned; the fact that priceswill change (contrary to the normal assumption forelasticities); the fact that products are modified(and sometimes become different products);changes in patterns of consumption as disposableincome increases throughout the period ofconsideration; the level of fish consumptionalready attained at the start of the period; and thefact that consumers will substitute less expensiveproducts with more expensive ones.
Source: A. Lem, FAO Fisheries Department.
116
total production, particularly if offshore culturetechnology becomes viable.
Economic growth over the next 30 years willresult in a larger number of individuals withestablished, steady patterns of fishconsumption. A wide variety of products willbe consumed – but the total quantity ofproducts consumed per person and per yearwill not fluctuate greatly. By the end of the1990s, it would seem that about 10 percent ofthe world’s population had already reachedthis level of stability; that is, their consumptionhad stagnated in terms of the volumes of fishconsumed. By 2030, the numbers of consumersin this category will have increased somewhat,mainly in Europe but also in some East Asiannations. However, as the growth of populationin wealthy regions will be slower than in poorregions, the proportion of the world’spopulation with stagnating volumes ofconsumption will not have increasedsubstantially and is unlikely to be more than20 percent in 2030.
Thus, over the coming decades, in mostOECD countries the total volume of fishconsumed will not change much, and themodifications that do take place are likely tobe determined more by fluctuations inpopulation size than by growing disposablereal incomes. This does not mean that thevalue of per capita consumption will notincrease – it most probably will as consumersincrease the share of expensive fish productsby buying more ready-to-eat products andsubstituting expensive for cheap fish products.
Consumption predictions for the 80 percentof the world’s population who are still likely to
increase the quantity of fish they consume arecomplicated. Although extrapolating the effectof population growth on the basis of UNprojections and recorded apparent per capitaconsumption is straightforward, it is moredifficult to make a reasonable prediction ofhow demand is influenced by rising incomesand the relative changes in real prices ofsubstitutes.
For short-term predictions – over a year ortwo – recourse is usually made to calculatingand applying elasticities of demand relative togrowth in income and assuming prices to bestable. For a category that includes as wide arange of different products (and thereforesubstitution possibilities) as fish does, and forperiods that are as long as 30 years,determination of the appropriate elasticity touse (Box 19) is a complicated issue. FAO isstudying the development of long-termpredictions in a two-pronged approach. In thefirst of these, during which the Organizationworked in association with two CGIARcentres,8 a computer-based modellingapproach was developed. The secondapproach consists of a series of in-depthinvestigations of probable future fishconsumption in major consuming countries.The results of both are scheduled to bepublished in the course of 2001. ◆
8 The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), in
Washington, DC, and the International Centre for Living Aquatic
Resources Management (ICLARM), in Penang, Malaysia.
PART 5Fisheries activities of country groupings
119
ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established on 8 August1967, in Bangkok, with the signing of the Bangkok Declaration. At present, itsmembers are Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Lao People’sDemocratic Republic, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand andViet Nam.
The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the Association are:i) to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in theregion, through joint endeavours and in the spirit of equality and partnership, inorder to strengthen the foundations for a prosperous and peaceful community ofSoutheast Asian nations; and ii) to promote regional peace and stability, throughmaintaining respect for justice and the rule of law within the relationship amongcountries in the region and through adherence to the principles of the UnitedNations Charter.
FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESIn consideration of the conceptual framework of the Hanoi Plan of Action toimplement the ASEAN Vision 2020, the Senior Officers of the ASEAN Ministers ofAgriculture and Forestry (SOM-AMAF) held a Special Meeting from 27 to 29 April
TABLE 6
ASEAN: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
1986 1990 1994 1998
Aquaculture production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 755 940 1 187 1 545
Percentage of world total 13.0 11.5 9.8 8.2
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 212 469 736 802
Percentage of world total 6.2 9.5 8.5 6.6
Fisheries production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 1 003 999 1 045 984
Percentage of world total 16.8 15.5 15.6 12.3
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 7 403 8 451 10 040 10 748
Percentage of world total 9.4 10.7 11.8 13.7
Fisheries and aquaculture production
Combined total (’000 tonnes) 9 372 10 859 13 008 14 079
Percentage of world total 10.0 11.0 11.6 12.0
Food balance
Total food supply (’000 tonnes) 7 640 8 597 10 334 …
Per capita supply (kg) 18.7 19.5 21.9 …
Fish as share of animal protein (%) 47.7 45.7 43.7 …
Trade in fishery commodities
Total imports (US$ millions) 720 1 437 1 996 1 626
Percentage of world total 3.0 3.6 3.9 3.0
Total exports (US$ millions) 1 996 4 484 7 758 7 600
Percentage of world total 8.7 12.6 16.4 14.8
Note: … = data not available.
120
1998 in Phuket, Thailand. At that meeting, it was decided that the Strategic Plan onASEAN Cooperation in Food, Agriculture (including Fisheries) and Forestry (1999-2004) should cover overall cooperation in the three major sectors, with particularemphasis on strengthening food security arrangements in the region, enhancing theinternational competitiveness of food, agricultural and forest products andstrengthening ASEAN’s position in international fora.
Existing guidelines (priority areas and programmes), instruments and mechanismsfor cooperation should also be taken into consideration and reviewed as part of thepreparations for the Strategic Plan. The Plan’s implementation will be coordinated bythe ASEAN Secretariat. In the field of fisheries and aquaculture, the implementationwill be carried out by the Sectoral Working Group on Fisheries. Cooperation infisheries continues to focus on aquaculture development, the development andimprovement of fisheries post-harvest technologies and the harmonization of qualityassurance for fishery products.
The manual on good shrimp farm management practices was officially launched atthe 20th Meeting of AMAF in Hanoi on 18 September 1998, and distributed to allmember countries for use. A manual of guidelines for producing “ high health” shrimpbroodstock has been drafted. Member countries are implementing the HACCPtraining programme, which was developed as part of the completed ASEAN-CanadaProject on Fisheries Post-harvest Technology: Phase 2. A survey of traditional fishproducts in the ASEAN region is being carried out and a framework for thecompilation of fisheries sanitary measures to facilitate intra-ASEAN trade in fish andfishery products has been prepared. In its early stages, the harmonization effort willbe confined to fish diseases and quarantine.
The Programme and Work Plan for ASEAN Sea Turtle Conservation and Protection,as stipulated in the Memorandum of Understanding on ASEAN Sea TurtleConservation and Protection, was endorsed by the 20th Meeting of AMAF in Hanoi.A workshop was held in July 1999 in Malaysia, at which strategies were reviewedand a time frame set for the implementation of the action plan. Thailand hasidentified approximately 40 ha of land on the bank of the Mekong River in ChiangMai Province for the building of a research centre for ASEAN-Mekong BasinFisheries Development Cooperation, while Singapore has trained participants fromMyanmar in fisheries post-harvest technology. A Fisheries Consultative GroupMeeting has been established as a mechanism for collaboration between ASEAN’sFisheries Working Group and the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre(SEAFDEC) on sustainable fisheries development in the Southeast Asia region. TheSpecial Meeting of SOM-AMAF, held in April 2000 in Brunei, decided on theimplementation of seven ASEAN-SEAFDEC collaborative programmes (all of whichhave already been started). The programmes cover: the upgrading of the traditionalfish processing industry; promotion of mangrove-friendly aquaculture; conservationand management of the sea turtle; regionalization of the Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries; development of a fish disease diagnostical inspectionmechanism; improvement of fisheries statistics; fish trade and environment. TheSpecial Meeting also decided to organize an ASEAN-SEAFDEC Conference onSustainable Fisheries for Food Security in the New Millennium (Fish for the People),to be held in October 2001 in collaboration with FAO.
COOPERATION WITH FAOThere is no formal cooperation between ASEAN and FAO in the area of fisheries.However, member countries of ASEAN and its Fisheries Working Group docooperate closely with FAO through the FAO Regional Office in Bangkok.
121
CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY AND COMMON MARKET
The Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) was established by theTreaty of Chaguaramas on 4 July 1973 for the principal purpose of enhancing,through cooperation, the economic, social and cultural development of thepopulations of member countries. CARICOM’s members are Antigua and Barbuda,Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica,Montserrat, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines,Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago.
FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESIn fisheries, CARICOM aims to “ promote the development of the fisheries subsectorin member states with a view to optimal exploitation of their resources on asustainable basis” . It intends to do this by strengthening the legal and institutionalframework, in part through the formulation and implementation of a commonCARICOM Fisheries Policy and a CARICOM Regional Fisheries Mechanism.
The CARICOM Fisheries Unit, located in Belize, was established in 1991 toexecute the CARICOM Fisheries Resource Assessment and Management Program(CFRAMP). This programme’s goal is to promote sustainable development andconservation of the region’s fish stocks in order to permit sustainable use of these
TABLE 7
CARICOM: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
1986 1990 1994 1998
Aquaculture production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 2 3 3 4
Percentage of world total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 0 0 1 2
Percentage of world total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fisheries production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 1 2 2 2
Percentage of world total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 79 89 109 117
Percentage of world total 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Fisheries and aquaculture production
Combined total (’000 tonnes) 82 94 115 124
Percentage of world total 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Food balance
Total food supply (’000 tonnes) 154 143 155 …
Per capita supply (kg) 12.7 11.1 11.4 …
Fish as share of animal protein (%) 19.7 18.5 19.1 …
Trade in fishery commodities
Total imports (US$ millions) 59 64 62 69
Percentage of world total 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1
Total exports (US$ millions) 66 108 110 178
Percentage of world total 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3
Note: … = data not available.
122
resources by the peoples of 12 CARICOM Member States. It was created in 1991 andis funded jointly by the Canadian Government, through the Canadian InternationalDevelopment Agency (CIDA), and participating CARICOM countries. CFRAMP isbeing executed in two phases. Phase 1 was concluded in 1998, while Phase 2 is duefor completion in December 2000. It is hoped that there will then be a transition to amore permanent regional fisheries mechanism.
The role of the CARICOM Fisheries Unit, as a leading regional executing agencyfor fisheries resource conservation and management, has been expanded to include:
• the ACP-EU Fisheries and Biodiversity Management Project: Caribbean Node,which was initiated in late 1997 with the participation of several ACP countries,including the Dominican Republic and CARICOM countries;
• the EU-funded fisheries component of the Lomé IV Integrated Caribbean RegionalAgricultural and Fisheries Development Program (CARIFORUM FisheriesProject), which is intended to benefit several ACP countries in the Caribbeanregion, including CARICOM countries. This project started in August 1999;
• the Project on Multi-stakeholder Approaches to Coastal Zone Management in theCaribbean, supported by the International Development Research Centre.
COOPERATION WITH FAOCARICOM and FAO have cooperated closely over the past decades on variousaspects of fisheries, including policy and legal matters. FAO has provided technicalassistance to CFRAMP in specific areas since its inception in 1991 and, over the pasttwo years, FAO and CFRAMP have collaborated in implementing joint technicalactivities through the Western Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission (WECAFC).Such activities have included training in stock assessment and the assessment ofmajor fish stocks (e.g. spiny lobster, penaeid shrimp) in the WECAFC region.
123
COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES
The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was established in December 1991.It is a voluntary association consisting of the following States: Armenia, Azerbaijan,Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, the RussianFederation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. The main purpose ofthe Commonwealth is to develop and strengthen cooperation and to serve the causeof peace and security.
FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESTo date, no common fisheries policy among countries of the CIS has beenelaborated. Coordination is achieved through bilateral and multilateralagreements among the member countries, which can be divided into twogroups:
i) states that have inland water fisheries and aquaculture activities only (Armenia,Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, Tajikistan,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan); and
ii) states that have a well-developed distant-water fisheries sector (the RussianFederation, Ukraine and – to a certain extent – Georgia).
TABLE 8
CIS: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
1986 1990 1994 1998
Aquaculture production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) … 405 146 106
Percentage of world total … 5.0 1.2 0.6
Marine production (’000 tonnes) … 0 3 1
Percentage of world total … 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fisheries production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) … 565 319 316
Percentage of world total … 8.8 4.8 3.9
Marine production (’000 tonnes) … 8 233 3 747 4 644
Percentage of world total … 10.4 4.4 5.9
Fisheries and aquaculture production
Combined total (’000 tonnes) … 9 204 4 215 5 066
Percentage of world total … 9.3 3.8 4.3
Food balance
Total food supply in (’000 tonnes) … … 2 072 …
Per capita supply (kg) … … 7.3 …
Fish as share of animal protein (%) … … 6.6 …
Trade in fishery commodities
Total imports (US$ millions) … … 287 375
Percentage of world total … … 0.6 0.7
Total exports (US$ millions) … … 1 797 1 268
Percentage of world total … … 3.8 2.5
Note: … = data non available.
124
Most CIS countries have concentrated on the restructuring of their fleets and onthe processing and marketing sectors.
COOPERATION WITH FAOTo date there is no agreed policy within the CIS countries concerning theircooperation with FAO. Each state acts independently in fishery matters.
125
ECONOMIC COMMUNITY OF WEST AFRICAN STATES
The Treaty of Lagos, which established the Economic Community of West AfricanStates (ECOWAS), was signed by representatives of 15 West African States in Lagoson 28 May 1975. At present, the following countries adhere to the treaty: Benin,Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, the Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone andTogo.
The ECOWAS Treaty specifies the Community’s objective, to be achieved instages, as being the creation of economic and monetary union. Cooperation in thedevelopment of agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fisheries is one of itsprimary aims. The first stage in this cooperation entails the harmonization of internaland external policies; the second stage envisages the adoption of a commonagricultural policy.
FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESBased on the recommendations of the Industry, Agriculture and Natural ResourcesCommission at its meeting in Cotonou, Benin, in April 1980, ECOWAS organized aconference of experts in Dakar, Senegal, to develop national policies to ensure
TABLE 9
ECOWAS: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
1986 1990 1994 1998
Aquaculture production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 6 8 15 22
Percentage of world total 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 0 0 1 …
Percentage of world total 0.0 0.0 0.0 …
Fisheries production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 334 341 344 420
Percentage of world total 5.6 5.3 5.1 5.2
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 959 1 128 1 065 1 297
Percentage of world total 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.7
Fisheries and aquaculture production
Combined total (’000 tonnes) 1 299 1 477 1 425 1 739
Percentage of world total 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5
Food balance
Total food supply (’000 tonnes) 1 517 2 191 1 652 …
Per capita supply (kg) 9.9 12.8 8.7 …
Fish as share of animal protein (%) 30.5 34.4 28.8 …
Trade in fishery commodities
Total imports (US$ millions) 243 383 377 494
Percentage of world total 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.9
Total exports (US$ millions) 537 518 629 828
Percentage of world total 2.3 1.5 1.3 1.6
Note: … = data not available.
126
better management and surveillance of waters under the jurisdiction of its MemberStates and also to ensure the conservation of fisheries resources in the region.Several recommendations were made concerning research, surveillance, theharmonization of fishing agreements and legislation, trade in fish and fisheryproducts, data collection, etc. Since then, Members have made progress inimplementing such recommendations.
COOPERATION WITH FAOECOWAS’s formal relationship with FAO is based on an exchange of letters betweenthe Director-General of FAO and the Executive Secretary of ECOWAS. ACooperation Agreement was established with FAO in December 1984, since whichtime FAO has been cooperating with the Community in various fields. However, asan organization, ECOWAS is not a member of any of FAO’s statutory bodies.
In the mid-1990s, at the request of ECOWAS, FAO carried out a study entitledEconomic development of fisheries, which made special reference to aspects offisheries by foreign vessels off West Africa. In its conclusions, the study emphasizedthe necessity and the opportunities for regional cooperation in support of fisheriesmanagement and regional food security. Furthermore, FAO regional fishery projectshave been cooperating with ECOWAS Member States, especially in promotingfisheries management in the artisanal subsector.
127
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
The Treaty of Rome established the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957. In1993, the Treaty of Maastricht established the European Union (EU) as a broaderframework which retained the EEC, now the European Community (EC), as a legalentity. The aims of the EC include the abolition of restrictive trading practices andthe free movement of capital and labour within the union. A single market with freemovement of goods and capital was established in January 1993. The followingcountries are members of the EC: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France,Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain,Sweden and the United Kingdom.
FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESThe Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is the EC’s instrument for the conservation andmanagement of fisheries and aquaculture. It was created with the aims of managinga common resource and meeting the obligation set out in the original CommunityTreaties. Wild fish are a natural and mobile resource that is considered commonproperty. The treaties creating the Community stated that there should be a commonpolicy in this area; that is, common rules adopted at the Community level and
TABLE 10
EC: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
1986 1990 1994 1998
Aquaculture production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 171 221 241 249
Percentage of world total 3.0 2.7 2.0 1.3
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 699 717 796 1 085
Percentage of world total 20.6 14.5 9.2 8.9
Fisheries production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 113 107 104 120
Percentage of world total 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.5
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 6 774 6 067 6 737 6 419
Percentage of world total 8.6 7.7 8.0 8.2
Fisheries and aquaculture production
Combined total (’000 tonnes) 7 757 7 114 7 878 7 873
Percentage of world total 8.3 7.2 7.0 6.7
Food balance
Total food supply (’000 tonnes) 7 466 8 236 8 547 …
Per capita supply (kg) 20.2 21.9 22.4 …
Fish as share of animal protein (%) 9.0 9.8 10.3 …
Trade in fishery commodities
Total imports (US$ millions) 8 182 15 705 16 946 21 158
Percentage of world total 33.7 39.8 33.2 38.5
Total exports (US$ millions) 4 646 8 071 9 135 11 667
Percentage of world total 20.3 22.7 19.3 22.8
Note: … = data not available.
128
implemented in all Member States. DG Fisheries is the Directorate-Generalresponsible for the CFP, which is scheduled to be reviewed in 2002.
The CFP came into existence in 1983, although the first elements of this policy hadalready been introduced in 1970. Since then, it has been developed and adjustedcontinuously in accordance with international developments and changes within theEC itself. The CFP takes into account the biological, economic, social andenvironmental dimensions of fishing. Its implementation entails the following mainissues and related measures.
Conservation and responsible fishing. The EC policy for the conservation of fisheryresources focuses on:
• limiting fishing effort through a strict licensing system;• restricting catch volumes by setting total allowable catches (TACs) and
establishing technical measures to minimize the occurrence of discards;• promoting more selective fisheries by establishing technical measures related to
mesh sizes, selectivity devices, closed areas and seasons, minimum fish andshellfish landing sizes and limits of by-catch;
• reducing fishing capacity to a level compatible with fishery resources availability.Progress made in this crucial component of the CFP is monitored through the Multi-Annual Guidance Programme (MAGP IV – 1997-2001), which also establishes fleetreduction targets for each member country. DG Fisheries has already started toprepare proposals for MAGP V, to cover the 2002-2006 period;
• adapting management to fishing areas shared between the Community and thirdparties through active membership in the Northwest Atlantic FisheriesOrganization (NAFO), the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic MarineLiving Resources (CCAMLR), the Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission(NEAFC), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), the North Atlantic SalmonConservation Organization (NASCO), the Fishery Committee for the EasternCentral Atlantic (CECAF), the International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission(IBSFC), the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) andthe International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).
Fishing beyond Community waters. The EC has exclusive competence ininternational relations in the domain of fisheries. It is empowered to undertakeinternational commitments towards third countries or international organizations inmatters relating to fisheries. The European Commission, on behalf of the Community,negotiates fisheries agreements with third countries and participates in variousregional fisheries organizations. The EC has concluded 26 fishing agreements withthird countries and is currently a member of nine regional and international fisheriesorganizations. The EC is also a member of FAO.
Restructuring the fishing sector. Restructuring of the EC fisheries sector reliesheavily on the implementation of the structural policy, the purpose of which is toadapt and manage the development of structures (the equipment required to producegoods and the organization of production processes) in the fishing and aquacultureindustry. EC assistance to the fisheries sector is provided under the FinancialInstrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). The FIFG aims to:
• contribute to the achievement of a lasting balance between fisheries resourcesand their exploitation;
• strengthen competitiveness and the development of economically viablebusinesses in the fishing industry;
• improve market supply and increase the value that can be added to fish andaquaculture products through processing;
• help revitalize areas that are dependent on fisheries and aquaculture.
129
The Council of the European Union agreed the detailed rules and arrangementsregarding assistance under the FIFG on 17 December 1999. These rules replaced theRegulation, which came to an end on 31 December 1999, and cover the period 2000to 2006. The EC was determined to ensure that public funds would not be used toincrease fishing capacity because a number of commercial stocks are stilloverexploited. Measures regarding financial support linked to productive investmentin the processing industry and aquaculture, such as building, enlarging ormodernizing processing plants or fish farms, as well as those relating to fishing portfacilities have been renewed. Others, such as supporting the creation of temporaryjoint ventures, have been cancelled, as they had not achieved their objective ofcontributing to the reduction of EC fleet capacity. Greater emphasis has been put onenvironmental aspects, and priority will be given to collective projects undertakenby the industry itself. The new rules contain substantial modifications to someprevious rules which were shown to be insufficiently explicit or difficult toimplement, including rules on fleet renewal and joint enterprises. In the case of thelatter, a number of conditions have been attached to the eligibility andimplementation of projects to ensure that they do not lead to overfishing in thirdcountries and that the obligations attached to the granting of aid are fulfilled.
In addition, there are provisions relating to support for producers’ organizations,which were previously implemented under the Common Organization of the Marketsfor Fisheries and Aquaculture Regulation. The measures aim to reinforce thecompetitiveness of the industry through reinforcement of the role of producers’organizations. The inclusion of these measures as well as those in favour of small-scale fisheries in the FIFG allows for a rationalization of its contents and increasedcoherence with other structural measures.
In conclusion, the new rules widen the range of socio-economic measures by, forexample, granting aid to young fishers who are acquiring a fishing vessel for the firsttime and to individual fishers who are leaving the industry; redefining the currentsupport mechanisms for fishers and vessel owners who are subject to a temporarycessation of activities; and updating the current premiums and scales.
Common organization of the market. The EC set up a system for the commonorganization of the market for fisheries and aquaculture products almost 30 yearsago. Since July 1996, the common market organization in fisheries and aquacultureproducts has been being adapted to recent changes in the market, includingincreased globalization of markets, greater dependence on imports, continuedscarcity of resources, change in consumption patterns and concentration andvertical integration within the distribution chain. The common organization of the ECmarket has four components:
• common marketing standards for quality, grades, packaging and labelling of bothEC and imported fishery products;
• producers’ organizations, which are voluntary associations of fishers that areestablished to help stabilize markets (their role is to protect fishers from suddenchanges in market demand);
• a price support system that sets minimum prices below which fish productscannot be sold. Financial support is available to producers’ organizations if theyhave to take fish and shellfish off the market, store them for later use or processthem;
• rules for trade with non-EC countries.
The regulation for the common organization of the market for fishery productswas adopted on 12 December 1999 and is expected to be fully implemented by1 January 2001.
Enforcement of the law within the fishing sector. The 1992 review of the CFPstressed the need to make the policy more effective. A new control regulation,
130
created in 1993, reinforced the role of surveillance and extended the CFP’s domainof action from that of direct conservation measures to one that also includedimplementation of structural policy, marketing, transport and sale of fish andshellfish. The new regulation also encouraged harmonization of the proceedings andpenalties against wrongdoers across the EC. Information technology was to be usedto complement traditional monitoring methods. Fishing surveillance has also beensubstantially strengthened by the setting up of a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). Asfrom 1 January 2000, wherever they operate, all EC fishing vessels that exceed 24 min length (or 20 m between perpendiculars) must be equipped with a satellitetracking device, as must the vessels of third countries operating in EC waters. Theauthorities will be able to use satellite tracking to optimize the use of their aircraftand patrol vessels and to compare satellite evidence with the information containedin vessels’ log-books.
Fishing and the wider environment. In 1997, a ministerial meeting on the integrationof fisheries and environmental issues, held in Bergen, Norway, and attended byministers from all North Sea States and by EC representatives, agreed on a so-called“ ecosystem approach” to marine environments which included elements of theprecautionary approach. Given the commitment demonstrated by various states andinternational organizations, including the EC, to integrating an environmentaldimension into their policies, greater effort is now being made to promote therelevant research and data collection within the framework of the EC FAIRProgramme. Related to this topic, the Community’s DG Environment is implementinga project called Integrating biodiversity and European fisheries policy: rebuilding ahealthy and productive ecosystem.
The international dimension of fisheries has acquired greater importance for theEC in recent years. Bilateral and multilateral negotiations with third countries haveincreased, as have negotiations within regional fisheries organizations andinternational bodies. International trade of fish and fishery products has also becomemore important for the Community, especially in relation to import trade as well asto environmental issues and health and safety standards of fish and fishery products.
COOPERATION WITH FAOThe EC is a full member of FAO. The EC is also a member of most FAO regionalfishery bodies and participates actively in the work of several of these.
The financial contribution of the EC makes it possible for FAO to implement itsinternational agreements and plans of action for improved global management offishing capacity, shark fisheries and incidental catch of seabirds in longline fisheries.
131
LATIN AMERICAN ECONOMIC SYSTEM
The Latin American Economic System (LAES) is a regional intergovernmentalorganization that groups 28 Latin American and Caribbean countries: Argentina, theBahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, theDominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti,Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname,Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela. LAES was established on 17 October1975 by the Panama Convention.
The objectives of LAES are to promote a system for consultation and coordination,aiming to achieve consensus in the form of joint positions and common strategies oneconomic issues for the Latin American and Caribbean region. The commonstrategies may be for individual countries or groups of countries. LAES also serves topromote cooperation and integration among the countries of the region.
FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESThe Action Committees of LAES are flexible cooperation mechanisms and are set upwhen more than two Member States voice their interest in promoting jointprogrammes and projects in specific areas. These committees are dissolved once theirobjectives are fulfilled, otherwise they may become Permanent Bodies of the System.
TABLE 11
LAES: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
1986 1990 1994 1998
Aquaculture production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 45 74 101 203
Percentage of world total 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.1
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 57 132 261 518
Percentage of world total 1.7 2.7 3.0 4.3
Fisheries production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 458 429 474 466
Percentage of world total 7.7 6.7 7.1 5.8
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 15 382 15 601 23 485 11 841
Percentage of world total 19.6 19.7 27.7 15.1
Fisheries and aquaculture production
Combined total (’000 tonnes) 15 941 16 236 24 322 13 028
Percentage of world total 17.0 16.5 21.7 11.1
Food balance
Total food supply (’000 tonnes) 3 615 4 054 4 182 …
Per capita supply (kg) 9.0 9.3 9.0 …
Fish as share of animal protein (%) 8.0 8.3 7.5 …
Trade in fishery commodities
Total imports (US$ millions) 353 477 805 1 113
Percentage of world total 1.5 1.2 1.6 2.0
Total exports (US$ millions) 2 737 3 220 5 461 6 596
Percentage of world total 11.9 9.1 11.5 12.9
Note: … = data not available.
132
COOPERATION WITH FAOThere is a long record of cooperation in technical activities between FAO and LAES.Initially the forum for this cooperation was the Action Committee of Sea and Fresh-water Products. When this action committee was dissolved, the Latin AmericanOrganization for Fisheries Development (OLDEPESCA) was established, and thisindependent body has become the centre of cooperation. FAO usually attends theannual OLDEPESCA conferences of Fisheries Ministers.
133
LEAGUE OF ARAB STATES
The League of Arab States, more generally known as the Arab League, wasestablished on 22 March 22 1945. It comprises Algeria, Bahrain, the Comoros,Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the Sudan,the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
The broad objectives of the Arab League are to develop cooperation and strengthencomplementarity among the Member States in economic, cultural, scientific, socialand military fields. To do so, the League has set up several specialized agencies.Those of interest to FAO are: the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa(Khartoum, the Sudan); the Arab Centre for the Study of Arid Zones and Dry Lands(Damascus, the Syrian Arab Republic); the Arab Fund for Economic and SocialDevelopment (Kuwait); the Arab League Educational, Cultural and ScientificOrganization (Tunis, Tunisia); the Arab Organization for Agricultural Development(Khartoum, the Sudan); the Arab Academy for Science, and Maritime Transport(Alexandria, Egypt); and the Inter-Arab Investment Guarantee Corporation (Kuwait).
TABLE 12League of Arab States: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balanceand trade
1986 1990 1994 1998
Aquaculture production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 53 69 65 139
Percentage of world total 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.7
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 0 2 6 20
Percentage of world total 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2
Fisheries production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 188 234 271 320
Percentage of world total 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.0
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 1 244 1 315 1 596 1 574
Percentage of world total 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0
Fisheries and aquaculture production
Combined total (’000 tonnes) 1 486 1 620 1 939 2 052
Percentage of world total 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8
Food balance
Total food supply (’000 tonnes) 1 089 1 234 1 470 …
Per capita supply (kg) 5.4 5.5 6.0 …
Fish as share of animal protein (%) 8.1 8.6 9.7 …
Trade in fishery commodities
Total imports (US$ millions) 244 213 323 457
Percentage of world total 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.8
Total exports (US$ millions) 612 878 985 1 124
Percentage of world total 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.2
Note: … = data not available.
134
FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESThe League of Arab States has no subsidiary body or institution that dealsexclusively with fisheries matters.
COOPERATION WITH FAOFAO has participated in several meetings organized by subsidiary bodies of the ArabLeague. The Organization has attended and partly sponsored meetings of the ArabFederation of Fish Producers (AFFP), which is a subsidiary of the Council for ArabEconomic Union. In 1998, FAO was represented at the Conference on theDevelopment of Marine Fisheries in the Arab World, organized by the Council.
135
NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Canada, Mexico and the United States of America are members of the North AmericanFree Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which came into effect on 1 January 1994. NAFTA’smain aims are to contribute to the expansion of world trade; create, expand and securemarkets for the goods produced in their territories; reduce distortions to trade; createnew employment opportunities and improve working conditions and living standards intheir respective territories; and address related environmental and conservation issues.
NAFTA is a trading block of global reach. It is innovative, as it establishes linkagesbetween economies with different levels of economic development. Currentdiscussions envisage the linking of existing subregional integration schemes, ofwhich NAFTA is one, into a Free Trade Area of the Americas.
FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESNAFTA does not have any particular activities concerned with fisheries.
COOPERATION WITH FAOTo date, there is no cooperation between NAFTA and FAO on fisheries matters.NAFTA member countries deal individually with FAO in this field.
TABLE 13
NAFTA: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
1986 1990 1994 1998
Aquaculture production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 248 254 287 342
Percentage of world total 4.3 3.1 2.4 1.8
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 148 120 189 235
Percentage of world total 4.4 2.4 2.2 1.9
Fisheries production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 218 197 190 197
Percentage of world total 3.7 3.1 2.8 2,5
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 7 405 8 356 7 565 6 688
Percentage of world total 9.4 10.6 8.9 8.5
Fisheries and aquaculture production
Combined total (’000 tonnes) 8 020 8 927 8 231 7 462
Percentage of world total 8.5 9.1 7.3 6.4
Food balance
Total food supply (’000 tonnes) 5 995 7 056 7 768 …
Per capita supply (kg) 17.3 19.3 20.3 …
Fish as share of animal protein (%) 6.4 7.5 7.5 …
Trade in fishery commodities
Total imports (US$ millions) 5 188 6 257 8 115 9 872
Percentage of world total 21.4 15.8 15.9 18.0
Total exports (US$ millions) 3 690 5 649 5 893 5 382
Percentage of world total 16.1 15.9 12.4 10.5
Note: … = data not available.
136
SOUTH ASIAN ASSOCIATIONFOR REGIONAL COOPERATION
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in1985 by the Heads of State and Government of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives,Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. SAARC’s main goal is to accelerate economic andsocial development in Member States through joint action in certain agreed areas ofcooperation. To achieve this objective SAARC seeks to:
• promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and improve their quality of life;• accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the
region, and provide all individuals the opportunity to live in dignity and realizetheir full potential;
• promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia;• promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in economic, social, cultural,
technical and scientific fields;• strengthen cooperation with other developing countries;• strengthen cooperation among Member States in other international fora on
matters of common interest, and cooperate with international and regionalorganizations with similar aims and purposes.
TABLE 14
SAARC: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
1986 1990 1994 1998
Aquaculture production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 823 1 182 1 755 2 502
Percentage of world total 14.2 14.5 14.5 13.4
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 29 50 123 156
Percentage of world total 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.3
Fisheries production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 1 088 1 128 1 221 1 395
Percentage of world total 18.3 17.5 18.2 17.4
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 2 462 3 022 3 630 3 653
Percentage of world total 3.1 3.8 4.3 4.7
Fisheries and aquaculture production
Combined total (’000 tonnes) 4 401 5 382 6 729 7 705
Percentage of world total 4.7 5.5 6.0 6.6
Food balance
Total food supply (’000 tonnes) 3 772 4 566 5 555 …
Per capita supply (kg) 3.7 4.1 4.6 …
Fish as share of animal protein (%) 12.1 12.6 13.4 …
Trade in fishery commodities
Total imports (US$ millions) 31 46 39 92
Percentage of world total 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
Total exports (US$ millions) 616 790 1 641 1 695
Percentage of world total 2.7 2.2 3.5 3.3
Note: … = data not available.
137
FISHERIES: PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVESThe Integrated Programme of Action is the key component of SAARC’s activities. Itnow includes 11 areas of cooperation, each covered by a Technical Committee:Agriculture; Communications; Education; Culture and Sports; Environment andMeteorology; Health and Population Activities; Prevention of Drug Trafficking andDrug Abuse; Rural Development, Science and Technology; Tourism; Transport; andWomen in Development. Regular meetings of counterpart scientists are a veryimportant feature of the Technical Committee on Agriculture, and a list of fisheriescounterpart scientists has also been prepared and made available.
COOPERATION WITH FAOSAARC does not cooperate formally with FAO in fisheries or aquaculture.
138
SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
The Declaration and Treaty establishing the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity (SADC) was signed at the Summit of Heads of Government in Windhoek,Namibia, in August 1992. Its member countries are Angola, Botswana, theDemocratic Republic of the Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique,Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Swaziland, the United Republic of Tanzania,Zambia and Zimbabwe. The objectives of SADC are to:
• achieve development and economic growth, alleviate poverty, enhancethe standard and quality of life of the peoples of southern Africa and supportthe socially disadvantaged through regional integration;
• evolve common political values, systems and institutions;• promote and defend peace and security;• promote self-sustaining development on the basis of collective self-reliance and
the interdependence of Member States;• achieve complementarity among national and regional strategies and
programmes;• promote and maximize productive employment and utilization of the resources
of the region;• achieve sustainable utilization of natural resources and effective protection
of the environment;• strengthen and consolidate long-standing historical, social and cultural
affinities and links among the peoples of the region.
FISHERIES: PURPOSES AND ACTIVITIESSADC’s work related to specific sectors is handled by Sector Coordinating Units(SCUs). These are allocated to individual Member States, who provide coordination,leadership and guidance on the formulation, implementation and management ofsector-specific policies, programmes and projects. A Sectoral Committee ofMinisters, chaired by the coordinating country’s minister for the sector, supervisesthe sectoral activities. There are currently 21 such SCUs. Responsibility for marinefisheries and resources was allocated to Namibia following a decision by theCouncil of Ministers in 1991. The Sector Coordinator is Namibia’s PermanentSecretary of the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, with the Minister ofFisheries and Marine Resources chairing the Sectoral Committee of Ministers. Sectorcontact points are allocated by each of the eight Member States, and these form thegrassroots level of cooperation between the SCU and the region. Matters concerningmarine and fisheries resources are also coordinated by SADC’s overall SectorCoordinator for Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources, as one of the eightsubsectors it oversees.
The task of guiding and leading SADC’s fisheries sector is based on the policyobjectives and strategy document that direct the Programme of Action for the sector.One of the most important elements of the Programme of Action is finalization of theProtocol on Fisheries that is currently being drawn up and is expected to be a keypolicy instrument in the fulfilment of SADC objectives in the field of marine andinland fisheries sustainable development. The SCU of marine and fisheries resourcesis coordinating the implementation of seven projects that focus on the priority areasfor the sector: the Regional Fisheries Information System; SADC monitoring, controland surveillance (MCS) of fishing activities; support to the SADC Marine FisheriesSCU; assessment of the marine fisheries resources of the SADC region; the BenguelaCurrent Large Marine Ecosystem; and harmonization of marine fisheries policy andmarine fisheries training. In addition, the SCU is formulating three project proposals,as directed by the Annual Marine Fisheries Ministers Meeting (May 1999, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania). These are: cooperation with research on the east coast large
139
marine ecosystem; a policy study for mariculture development; and languagetraining.
The SADC fisheries programme has raised a total of US$9 million to support SCU-driven marine fisheries initiatives during 2000. Funding of US$35 million, for thenext five years, has been committed from a wide range of donors.
COOPERATION WITH FAOSADC and FAO cooperate closely in relation to fisheries matters. FAO is providingtechnical and financial assistance to two of the projects currently beingimplemented by the SCU for marine and fisheries resources.
TABLE 15
SADC: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
1986 1990 1994 1998
Aquaculture production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 2 5 7 8
Percentage of world total 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 0 2 4 4
Percentage of world total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fisheries production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 594 694 560 619
Percentage of world total 10.0 10.8 8.3 7.7
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 1 013 1 032 1 038 1 158
Percentage of world total 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.5
Fisheries and aquaculture production
Combined total (’000 tonnes) 1 609 1 733 1 609 1 789
Percentage of world total 1.7 1.8 1.4 1.5
Food balance
Total food supply (’000 tonnes) 1 364 1 511 1 085 …
Per capita supply (kg) 10.0 9.9 6.3 …
Fish as share of animal protein (%) 21.8 21.8 17.2 …
Trade in fishery commodities
Total imports (US$ millions) 223 264 249 256
Percentage of world total 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.5
Total exports (US$ millions) 165 203 665 843
Percentage of world total 0.7 0.6 1.4 1.6
Note: … = data not available.
140
SOUTH PACIFIC FORUM
The South Pacific Forum (SPF), consisting of Heads of Government, was establishedin 1971. It provides an opportunity to discuss a wide variety of South Pacific andinternational concerns and issues common to members, including the promotion of afree trade area in the South Pacific region. In 1998, the members of the SPF and itsaffiliated agencies were: Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia,Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua NewGuinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. The SPF has aSecretariat (Forum Secretariat) which promotes regional cooperation amongmembers on important economic issues.
FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESThe South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) was established as a specializedagency by the SPF in 1979. The FFA Convention reflects the common concerns ofmember countries regarding conservation, optimum utilization and coastal states’sovereign rights over the region’s living marine resources. The functions of FFAinclude accumulating detailed and up-to-date information on aspects of livingmarine resources in the region; evaluating and analysing data to provide clear,timely, concise, complete and accurate advice to member countries; developing andmaintaining a communication network for the dissemination of information tomember countries, and implementing policies and programmes that have beenapproved by the Forum Fisheries Committee. The following are the main functionsand objectives of FFA, which are reviewed periodically.
Economics and marketing. Assistance is given to member countries in theformulation of policies and identification of projects for the sustained use of theirtuna resources (the main areas covered are tuna management, industry, marketing,fisheries access, training and linkages).
Legal services. Support is provided to strengthen member countries in theunderstanding of their legal responsibilities and rights and ability to fulfilresponsibilities and take advantage of rights. This support includes the provision ofadvice in the fields of international law, national legislation, illegal fishing, accessnegotiations and of training for responsible lawyers and officers within membercountries. FFA is simultaneously assisting members in achieving full andindependent legislative control of their fisheries resources and ensuring thenecessary regional compatibility and cohesion.
Monitoring, control and surveillance. MCS activities aim at reinforcing the capacityof fishing operators in member countries to comply with national regulations andregional licence conditions. This function includes such actions as: assistance tomember countries in developing and coordinating national MCS plans; coordinationof regional observer programmes and assistance to the development of nationalobserver programmes; coordination of regional surveillance operations; collectionand dissemination of data in support of national MCS operations; assistance to FFAmembers in determining their maritime boundaries; and provision of training, adviceand regional exchanges on enforcement and technological developments. FFA’sachievements in this field include:
• participation in the coordination and planning of aerial surveillance flightscovering members’ EEZs;
• the successful development and implementation of a regional observerprogramme for the South Pacific;
• the research, design and implementation of a satellite-based VMS;
141
• the establishment of a Maritime Surveillance Communications Network, whichwill integrate other information systems, including the VMS.
FFA also undertakes corporate and treaty services, including the establishment andmaintenance of administrative systems that meet the requirements of treaties andagreements for which FFA is responsible. In the field of information technology andcommunication, FFA has developed an innovative and sophisticated computersystem that provides support in the reception, processing and transfer of informationto facilitate the monitoring and control of foreign fishing fleets as well as to increasethe speed, efficiency and cost-effectiveness with which FFA conducts its work.
FFA has brought important economic and social benefits to its members. Smallisland developing states have benefited, in particular through regional cooperationand the adoption of regional minimum standards. Regionally agreed measures tolimit fishing effort (e.g. in the purse seine tuna fishery) have also been of tangiblebenefit to FFA member countries.
COOPERATION WITH FAOFFA has formal relations with FAO, which cooperates with the agency on a range oftechnical issues, including such matters as joint training exercises and exchanges oftechnical information. FAO participates in the annual FFC meeting as an observer.
FAO also participates as an observer in the Multilateral High-Level Conference onthe Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Central
TABLE 16
SPF: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade
1986 1990 1994 1998
Aquaculture production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 1 2 3 3
Percentage of world total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 25 40 68 119
Percentage of world total 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0
Fisheries production
Inland production (’000 tonnes) 20 22 19 22
Percentage of world total 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Marine production (’000 tonnes) 505 505 793 1 074
Percentage of world total 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.4
Fisheries and aquaculture production
Combined total (’000 tonnes) 551 734 882 1 219
Percentage of world total 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0
Food balance
Total food supply (’000 tonnes) 500 541 550 …
Per capita supply (kg) 20.6 21.0 20.1 …
Fish as share of animal protein (%) 8.7 8.7 8.5 ...
Trade in fishery commodities
Total imports (US$ millions) 320 444 534 575
Percentage of world total 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0
Total exports (US$ millions) 749 1 036 1 538 1 543
Percentage of world total 3.3 2.9 3.2 3.0
Note: … = data not available.
142
and Western Pacific (MHLC), in close cooperation with FFA and its members, as wellas with the Distant Water Fishing Nations.
The FAO Subregional Office for the Pacific is expected to participate in theMarine Sector Working Group of the South Pacific Organizations’ CoordinatingCommittee, which is being convened by the Forum Secretariat and its members. TheWorking Group was established to facilitate the coordination of regional activities inthe development of a regional strategy for the marine sector, and its membershipcomprises relevant Pacific regional organizations. ◆
• ANGOLAEmpresa Nacional do Disco e dePublicações, ENDIPU-U.E.E.Rua Cirilo da Conceição Silva, No 7C.P. No 1314-C, Luanda
• ARGENTINALibrería AgropecuariaPasteur 743, 1028 Buenos AiresWorld Publications S.A.Av. Córdoba 1877, 1120 Buenos AiresTel./Fax: +54 11 48158156Correo eléctronico:[email protected]
• AUSTRALIAHunter PublicationsPO Box 404, Abbotsford, Vic. 3067Tel.: 61 3 9417 5361Fax: 61 3 9419 7154E-mail: [email protected]
• AUSTRIAGerold Buch & Co.Weihburggasse 26, 1010 Vienna
• BANGLADESHAssociation of DevelopmentAgencies in BangladeshHouse No. 1/3, Block FLalmatia, Dhaka 1207
• BELGIQUEM.J. De Lannoy202, avenue du Roi, B-1060 BruxellesCCP: 000-0808993-13Mél.: [email protected]
• BOLIVIALos Amigos del LibroAv. Heroínas 311, Casilla 450Cochabamba;Mercado 1315, La Paz
• BOTSWANABotsalo Books (Pty) LtdPO Box 1532, Gaborone
• BRAZILFundação Getúlio VargasPraia do Botafogo 190, C.P. 9052Rio de JaneiroNúcleo Editora da UniversidadeFederal FluminenseRua Miguel de Frias 9Icaraí-Niterói 24220-000 Rio de JaneiroFundação da UniversidadeFederal do Paraná - FUNPARRua Alfredo Bufrem 140, 30o andar80020-240 Curitiba
• CAMEROUNCADDESCentre Africain de Diffusion etDéveloppement SocialB.P. 7317, Douala BassaTél.:+237 43 37 83Télécopie: +237 42 77 03
• CANADARenouf Publishing5369 chemin Canotek Road, Unit 1Ottawa, Ontario K1J 9J3Tel.: +1 613 745 2665Fax:+1 613 745 7660E-mail: [email protected]: www.renoufbooks.com
• CHILELibrería - Oficina Regional, FAOc/o FAO, Oficina Regional para AméricaLatina y el Caribe (RLC)Avda. Dag Hammarskjold, 3241Vitacura, SantiagoTel.: +56 2 33 72 314Correo electrónico:[email protected] Textolibros Ltda.Avda. L. Bernardo O’Higgins 1050Santiago
WHERE TO PURCHASE FAO PUBLICATIONS LOCALLYPOINTS DE VENTE DES PUBLICATIONS DE LA FAO
PUNTOS DE VENTA DE PUBLICACIONES DE LA FAO
O
• CHINAChina National PublicationsImport & Export Corporation16 Gongti East Road, Beijing 100020Tel.: +86 10 6506 3070Fax: +86 10 6506 3101E-mail: [email protected]
• COLOMBIAINFOENLACE LTDACalle 72 No 13-23 Piso 3Edificio Nueva GranadaSantafé de BogotáTel.: +57 1 2558783-2557969Fax: +57 1 2480808-2176435Correo electrónico:[email protected]
• CONGOOffice national des librairiespopulairesB.P. 577, Brazzaville
• COSTA RICALibrería Lehmann S.A.Av. Central, Apartado 100111000 San JoséCINDECoalición Costarricense de Iniciativasde DesarrolloApartado 7170, 1000 San JoséCorreo electrónico:[email protected]
• CÔTE D’IVOIRECEDA04 B.P. 541, Abidjan 04Tél.: +225 22 20 55Télécopie: +225 21 72 62
• CUBAEdiciones CubanasEmpresa de Comercio Exteriorde PublicacionesObispo 461, Apartado 605, La Habana
• CZECH REPUBLICArtia Pegas Press LtdImport of PeriodicalsPalác Metro, PO Box 825Národní 25, 111 21 Praha 1
• DENMARKMunksgaard, DirectOstergate 26 A - Postbox 173DK - 1005 Copenhagen K.Tel.: +45 77 33 33 33Fax:+45 77 33 33 77E-mail: [email protected]: www.munksgaardirect.dk
• ECUADORLibri Mundi, Librería InternacionalJuan León Mera 851Apartado Postal 3029, QuitoCorreo electrónico:[email protected] Agraria del EcuadorCentro de Información AgrariaAv. 23 de julio, Apartado 09-01-1248GuayaquilLibrería EspañolaMurgeón 364 y Ulloa, Quito
• EGYPTMERICThe Middle East Readers’ InformationCentre2 Baghat Aly Street, Appt. 24El Masry Tower DCairo/ZamalekTel.: +202 3413824/34038818Fax:+202 3419355E-mail: [email protected]
• ESPAÑALibrería AgrícolaFernando VI 2, 28004 MadridLibrería de la Generalitatde CatalunyaRambla dels Estudis 118 (Palau Moja)08002 BarcelonaTel.: +34 93 302 6462Fax:+34 93 302 1299
Mundi Prensa Libros S.A.Castelló 37, 28001 MadridTel.: +34 91 436 37 00Fax:+34 91 575 39 98Sitio Web: www.mundiprensa.comCorreo electrónico:[email protected] Prensa - BarcelonaConsejo de Ciento 39108009 BarcelonaTel.: +34 93 488 34 92Fax:+34 93 487 76 59
• FINLANDAkateeminen Kirjakauppa SubscriptionServicesPO Box 23, FIN-00371 HelsinkiTel.: +358 9 121 4416Fax:+358 9 121 4450
• FRANCEEditions A. Pedone13, rue Soufflot, 75005 ParisLavoisier Tec & Doc14, rue de Provigny94236 Cachan CedexMél.: [email protected] Web: www.lavoisier.frLibrairie du commerce international10, avenue d’Iéna75783 Paris Cedex 16Mél.: [email protected] Web: www.cfce.frWORLD DATA10, rue Nicolas Flamand75004 ParisTél.:+33 1 4278 0578Télécopie: +33 1 4278 1472
• GERMANYAlexander Horn InternationaleBuchhandlungFriedrichstrasse 34D-65185 WiesbadenTel.: +49 611 9923540/9923541Fax: +49 611 9923543E-mail: [email protected]. Toeche-Mittler GmbHVersandbuchhandlungHindenburgstrasse 33D-64295 DarmstadtTel.: +49 6151 336 65Fax:+49 6151 314 043E-mail: [email protected]: www.booksell.com/triopsUno VerlagPoppelsdorfer Allee 55D-53115 Bonn 1Tel.: +49 228 94 90 20Fax:+49 228 21 74 92E-mail: [email protected]: www.uno-verlag.de
• GHANASEDCO Publishing LtdSedco House, Tabon StreetOff Ring Road Central, North RidgePO Box 2051, AccraReadwide Bookshop LtdPO Box 0600 Osu, AccraTel.: +233 21 22 1387Fax:+233 21 66 3347E-mail: [email protected]
• GREECEPapasotiriou S.A.35 Stournara Str., 10682 AthensTel.: +30 1 3302 980Fax:+30 1 3648254
• GUYANAGuyana National TradingCorporation Ltd45-47 Water Street, PO Box 308Georgetown
• HONDURASEscuela Agrícola PanamericanaLibrería RTACEl Zamorano, Apartado 93, TegucigalpaOficina de la Escuela AgrícolaPanamericana en TegucigalpaBlvd. Morazán, Apts. GlapsonApartado 93, Tegucigalpa
• HUNGARYLibrotrade Kft.PO Box 126, H-1656 BudapestTel.: +36 1 256 1672Fax:+36 1 256 8727
• INDIAAllied Publisher Ltd751 Mount RoadChennai 600 002Tel.: +91 44 8523938/8523984Fax: +91 44 8520649E-mail:[email protected] Affiliated East-WestPress PVT, LtdG-I/16, Ansari Road, Darya GanyNew Delhi 110 002Tel.: +91 11 3264 180Fax:+91 11 3260 358E-mail: [email protected] Book and Stationery Co.Scindia HouseNew Delhi 110001Tel.: +91 11 3315310Fax: +91 11 3713275E-mail: [email protected] Expert Book AgencyG-56, 2nd Floor, Laxmi NagarVikas Marg, Delhi 110092Tel: +91 11 2215045/2150534Fax: +91 11 2418599E-mail: [email protected] Office:2/72, Nirankari Colony, New Delhi - 110009Tel.: +91 11 725 1283Fax:+91 11 328 13 15Sales Office:24/4800, Ansari RoadDarya Ganj, New Delhi - 110002Tel.: +91 11 326 8786E-mail: [email protected]
• IRANThe FAO Bureau, Internationaland Regional SpecializedOrganizations AffairsMinistry of Agriculture of the IslamicRepublic of IranKeshavarz Bld, M.O.A., 17th floorTeheran
• ITALYFAO BookshopViale delle Terme di Caracalla00100 RomaTel.: +39 06 5705 2313Fax:+39 06 5705 3360E-mail: [email protected] Commissionaria SansoniS.p.A. - LicosaVia Duca di Calabria 1/150125 FirenzeTel.: +39 55 64 8 31Fax:+39 55 64 12 57E-mail: [email protected] Scientifica Dott. Lucio de Biasio“Aeiou”Via Coronelli 6, 20146 Milano
• JAPANFar Eastern Booksellers(Kyokuto Shoten Ltd)12 Kanda-Jimbocho 2 chomeChiyoda-ku - PO Box 72Tokyo 101-91Tel.: +81 3 3265 7531Fax:+81 3 3265 4656Maruzen Company LtdPO Box 5050Tokyo International 100-31Tel.: +81 3 3275 8585Fax:+81 3 3275 0656E-mail: [email protected]
Sales and Marketing Group, Information Division, FAOViale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, ItalyTel.: +39 06 57051 – Fax: +39 06 5705 3360E-mail: [email protected]
O
9/00
• UNITED STATESPublications:BERNAN Associates (ex UNIPUB)4611/F Assembly DriveLanham, MD 20706-4391Toll-free: +1800 274 4447Fax:+1 800 865 3450E-mail: [email protected]: www.bernan.comUnited Nations PublicationsTwo UN Plaza, Room DC2-853New York, NY 10017Tel.: +1 212 963 8302/800 253 9646Fax:+1 212 963 3489E-mail: [email protected]: www.unog.chUN Bookshop (direct sales)The United Nations BookshopGeneral Assembly Building Room 32New York, NY 10017Tel.: +1 212 963 7680Fax:+1 212 963 4910E-mail: [email protected]: www.un.orgPeriodicals:Ebsco Subscription ServicesPO Box 1943Birmingham, AL 35201-1943Tel.: +1 205 991 6600Fax:+1 205 991 1449The Faxon Company Inc.15 Southwest ParkWestwood, MA 02090Tel.: +1 617 329 3350Telex: 95 1980Cable: FW Faxon Wood
• URUGUAYLibrería Agropecuaria S.R.L.Buenos Aires 335, Casilla 1755Montevideo C.P. 11000
• VENEZUELATecni-Ciencia LibrosCCCT Nivel C-2CaracasTel.: +58 2 959 4747Fax: +58 2 959 5636Correo electrónico:[email protected], LibreríaAvenida Libertador-EsteEd. Fudeco, Apartado 254Barquisimeto C.P. 3002, Ed. LaraTel.: +58 51 538 022Fax:+58 51 544 394Librería FAGROUniversidad Central de Venezuela (UCV)Maracay
• ZIMBABWEGrassroots BooksThe Book CaféFife Avenue, Harare;61a Fort Street, BulawayoTel.: +263 4 79 31 82Fax:+263 4 72 62 43
• SUISSEUN BookshopPalais des NationsCH-1211 Genève 1Site Web: www.un.orgVan Diermen Editions TechniquesADECO41 Lacuez, CH-1807 Blonzy
• SURINAMEVaco n.v. in SurinameDomineestraat 26, PO Box 1841Paramaribo
• SWEDENWennergren Williams ABPO Box 1305, S-171 25 SolnaTel.: +46 8 705 9750Fax:+46 8 27 00 71E-mail: [email protected]örenc/o Longus Books ImportPO Box 610, S-151 27 SödertäljeTel.: +46 8 55 09 49 70Fax: +46 8 55 01 76 10; E-mail:[email protected]
• THAILANDSuksapan PanitMansion 9, Rajdamnern Avenue,Bangkok
• TOGOLibrairie du Bon PasteurB.P. 1164, Lomé
• TURKEYDUNYA INFOTEL100. Yil Mahallesi34440 Bagcilar, IstanbulTel.: +90 212 629 0808Fax:+90 212 629 4689E-mail: [email protected]: www.dunya.com
• UGANDAFountain Publishers LtdPO Box 488, KampalaTel.: +256 41 259 163Fax:+256 41 251 160
• UNITED ARAB EMIRATESAl Rawdha BookshopPO Box 5027, SharjahTel.: +971 6 734687Fax: +971 6 384473E-mail: [email protected]
• UNITED KINGDOMThe Stationery Office51 Nine Elms LaneLondon SW8 5DRTel.: +44 20 7873 9090 (orders)
+44 20 7873 0011 (inquiries)Fax:+44 20 7873 8463and through The Stationery OfficeBookshopsE-mail: [email protected]: www.the-stationery-office.co.ukElectronic products only:Microinfo LtdPO Box 3, Omega RoadAlton, Hampshire GU34 2PGTel.: +44 1420 86 848Fax:+44 1420 89 889E-mail: [email protected]: www.microinfo.co.ukIntermediate Technology Bookshop103-105 Southampton RowLondon WC1B 4HHTel.: +44 20 7436 9761Fax:+44 20 7436 2013E-mail: [email protected]: www.oneworld.org/itdg/publications.html
• NICARAGUALibrería HISPAMERCostado Este Univ. CentroamericanaApartado Postal A-221, Managua
• NIGERIAUniversity Bookshop (Nigeria) LtdUniversity of Ibadan, Ibadan
• PAKISTANMirza Book Agency65 Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-AzamPO Box 729, Lahore 3
• PARAGUAYLibrería IntercontinentalEditora e Impresora S.R.L.Caballero 270 c/Mcal EstigarribiaAsunción
• PHILIPPINESInternational Booksource Center, Inc.1127-A Antipolo St, Barangay ValenzuelaMakati CityTel.: +63 2 8966501/8966505/8966507Fax: +63 2 8966497E-mail: [email protected]
• POLANDArs PolonaKrakowskie Przedmiescie 700-950 Warsaw
• PORTUGALLivraria Portugal, Dias e AndradeLtda.Rua do Carmo, 70-74Apartado 2681, 1200 Lisboa Codex
• REPÚBLICA DOMINICANACUESTA - Centro del libroAv. 27 de Febrero, esq. A. LincolnCentro Comercial NacionalApartado 1241, Santo DomingoCEDAF - Centro para el DesarrolloAgropecuario y Forestal, Inc.Calle José Amado Soler, 50 - Urban.ParaísoApartado Postal, 567-2, Santo DomingoTel.: +001 809 544-0616/544-0634/565-5603Fax: +001 809 544-4727/567-6989Correo electrónico: [email protected]
• SINGAPORESelect Books Pte Ltd03-15 Tanglin Shopping Centre19 Tanglin Road, Singapore 1024Tel.: +65 732 1515Fax:+65 736 0855
• SLOVAK REPUBLICInstitute of Scientific and TechnicalInformation for AgricultureSamova 9, 950 10 NitraTel.: +421 87 522 185Fax:+421 87 525 275E-mail: [email protected]
• SOMALIASamaterPO Box 936, Mogadishu
• SOUTH AFRICADavid Philip Publishers (Pty) LtdPO Box 23408, Claremont 7735Tel.: Cape Town +27 21 64 4136Fax: Cape Town +27 21 64 3358E-mail: [email protected]: www.twisted.co.za
• SRI LANKAM.D. Gunasena & Co. Ltd217 Olcott Mawatha, PO Box 246Colombo 11
• KENYAText Book Centre LtdKijabe StreetPO Box 47540, NairobiTel.: +254 2 330 342Fax:+254 2 22 57 79Inter Africa Book DistributionKencom House, Moi AvenuePO Box 73580, NairobiTel.: +254 2 211 184Fax:+254 2 22 3 5 70Legacy BooksMezzanine 1, Loita House, Loita StreetNairobi, PO Box 68077Tel.: +254 2 303853Fax:+254 2 330854
• LUXEMBOURGM.J. De Lannoy202, avenue du RoiB-1060, Bruxelles (Belgique)Mél.: [email protected]
• MADAGASCARCentre d’Information et deDocumentation Scientifique etTechniqueMinistère de la recherche appliquéeau développementB.P. 6224, Tsimbazaza, Antananarivo
• MALAYSIASouthboundSuite 20F Northam House55 Jalan Sultan Ahmad Shah10050 PenangTel.: +60 4 2282169Fax: +60 4 2281758E-mail: [email protected]: www.southbound.com.my
• MALILibrairie TraoreRue Soundiata Keita X 115B.P. 3243, Bamako
• MAROCLa Librairie Internationale70, rue T’ssouleB.P. 302 (RP), RabatTél./Télécopie: +212 7 75 01 83
• MÉXICOLibrería, Universidad Autónoma deChapingo56230 ChapingoLibros y Editoriales S.A.Av. Progreso No 202-1o Piso AApartado Postal 18922Col. Escandón, 11800 México D.F.Mundi Prensa Mexico, S.A.Río Pánuco, 141 Col. CuauhtémocC.P. 06500, México, DFTel.: +52 5 533 56 58Fax:+52 5 514 67 99Correo electrónico:[email protected]
• NETHERLANDSRoodveldt Import b.v.Brouwersgracht 2881013 HG AmsterdamTel.: +31 20 622 80 35Fax:+31 20 625 54 93E-mail: [email protected] & Zeitlinger b.v.PO Box 830, 2160 LisseHeereweg 347 B, 2161 CA LisseE-mail: [email protected]: www.swets.nl
• NEW ZEALANDLegislation ServicesPO Box 12418Thorndon, WellingtonE-mail: [email protected] OfficialPO Box 3627, WellingtonTel.: +64 4 499 1551Fax: +64 4 499 1972E-mail: [email protected]: www.oasisbooks.co.nzl
WHERE TO PURCHASE FAO PUBLICATIONS LOCALLYPOINTS DE VENTE DES PUBLICATIONS DE LA FAO
PUNTOS DE VENTA DE PUBLICACIONES DE LA FAO