FAO's statistic data and sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture: Comments on Pauly and Zeller (2017)

In a recent commentary, Pauly and Zeller disagreed with the Food and Agriculture Organization's interpretation of its global capture fishery production records, arguing that trends were distorted by unreliable statistics in some countries. They criticized FAO for not having used their “catch reconstructions” in the 2016 State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA) report and questioned the interpretation and significance of FAO's aquaculture production statistics. In this paper, we refute their claims and demonstrate that their critique is based on fundamental misunderstandings caused by mixing up statistical metrics and using simple normative explanations to interpret highly complex datasets. We explain how FAO maintains, curates and updates the only validated source of global fisheries landings, describe our capacity building projects and activities underpinning the annual updates for the over 231 different sources of fisheries data, and clarify such updates include dialogues with member countries to improve and revise present and historical records. FAO will continue to work closely with member states, IGOs, NGOs, academia and civil society, to further improve fishery and aquaculture databases, while calling on states to make renewed efforts to improve data quality. It also welcomes research efforts that contribute to the improvement of statistical data which are critical to the sustainable management of fisheries and aquaculture.     

An evaluation of progress in implementing ecosystem-based management of fisheries in 33 countries

The performance of 33 countries was evaluated for ecosystem-based management (EBM) of fisheries in three fields (principles, criteria and implementation) using quantitative ordination including uncertainty. No country rated overall as ‘good’, only four countries were ‘adequate’, while over half received ‘fail’ grades. A few developing countries performed better than many developed nations. Two case studies test the method. In Indonesia, Raja Ampat and Papua, rated similar to the national evaluation, but better performance might follow successful implementation of a planned EBM initiative. A workshop in Australia rated regional fisheries managed by New South Wales 20% lower for EBM than federally managed fisheries.     

Comments on FAOs State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA 2016)

Comments are provided on several points in the 2016 State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture produced by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). It is shown that data assembled by FAO from submissions by countries suggest a “stable” trend mainly because the declining catches of a number of countries with reliable statistics is compensated for by unreliable statistics from countries where reporting increasing catches may be politically expedient, e.g., China, Myanmar. Also, concerns are raised as to why FAO chose to ignore the well-documented data ‘reconstruction’ process, which fills the gaps that exist in data reported by countries to FAO. It is being ignored despite its importance for governance and resource conservation being well known. This process and its findings could be used by FAO to encourage countries to improve their data reporting, including retroactive corrections. This is important in view of successive analyses of the status of fisheries resources undertaken by FAO (published in current and past SOFIAs) and also in modified form by the Sea Around Us. This suggests a degradation of marine fisheries, and, if trends continue, a crisis by mid-century. Finally, comments are presented on the proposition that aquaculture will overtake wild capture fisheries in terms of food production, notably because current aquaculture requires huge quantities of wild-caught fish as feed. Indeed, this emphasis on aquaculture-as-substitute for fisheries raises issues of food security and malnutrition in developing countries, from which much of the fish used as feed originates.     

Defining and estimating global marine fisheries bycatch

Unselective fishing catches non-target organisms as ‘bycatch’—an issue of critical ocean conservation and resource management concern. However, the situation is confused because perceptions of target and non-target catch vary widely, impeding efforts to estimate bycatch globally. To remedy this, the term needs to be redefined as a consistent definition that establishes what should be considered bycatch. A new definition is put forward as: ‘bycatch is catch that is either unused or unmanaged’. Applying this definition to global marine fisheries data conservatively indicates that bycatch represents 40.4 percent of global marine catches, exposing systemic gaps in fisheries policy and management.     

Leaning on user-groups: The role of civil society in fisheries governance

Fisheries have long been managed through public–private partnerships based on collaboration between government and user-groups. The alleged benefits of involving the latter—as representatives of civil society—are a management system that is more flexible and legitimate than one based exclusively on top–down command and control. A question that is rarely addressed is whether civil society is up to the task. Are voluntary associations fit—‘technically’ and ‘democratically’—to take on management responsibilities? Assessing the pros and cons of involving civil society in fisheries governance requires a closer look at the role of user-groups in public policy-making. This paper attempts to do that by examining certain aspects of the Norwegian system of fisheries management, focusing—in particular—on the role of its most prominent civil society player: the Norwegian Fishers’ Association. The association has long been a privileged partner, virtually monopolizing the attention and goodwill of government. How has this been justified, and does it still serve its original purpose? As the fishery has changed, so—we contend—has the association: from something akin to a public interest group into what is essentially a ‘trade union’ pursuing the economic interests of its most powerful members. How and why did this change—in goals and priorities—come about, and is it tenable that this particular partnership continues? What lessons, if any, can be drawn from the Norwegian case about the pros and cons of user involvement, interactive governance and the role of civil society in fisheries management?     

Towards sustainable fisheries: a strategy for FAO and the World Bank

The state of many fisheries and fishery resources requires a major change in development and management policies and strategies, at national and regional levels. The international Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, adopted in FAO in 1995, provides the operational framework for such change, in all fisheries, in the oceans, inland waters, EEZs, international waters, as well as in aquaculture. In their respective areas of competence and in close collaboration, FAO and the World Bank are committed to facilitate the implementation of the Code by fishing and coastal nations. This paper presents the strategy they have developed for the purpose. The paper elaborates on: (1) the main policy-related issues faced by fisheries worldwide (bio-ecological, technological, economic, socio-cultural, institutional and legal, as well as scientific); (2) the Code of Conduct, its background, structure and scope; (3) the basis of the implementation strategy by FAO and the Bank; and the main types of activities involved at global, regional and national levels. In conclusion it describes briefly the main elements of changes imbedded in the strategy and shows that the implementation by FAO and the Bank as well as by the countries has already actively started.     

Fishing in the past: Historical data on sea fisheries landings in Belgium

In Belgium, centralized reporting on landings of sea fisheries at the species level started in 1929. This paper summarizes the process and the results of integrating time-series, based on fragmented and disperse data sources for the period 1929–1999. The resulting database contains data by species (41), by port of landing in Belgium (4) and in ‘foreign ports,’ and by fishing area of origin (31). After quality control, total reported landings over the period 1929–2008 amounted to 3,320,518 tonnes, of which 90% was landed in the Belgian ports. After a maximum of 75,370 tonnes in 1947, annual landings declined steadily to only 26% of this peak by 2008. Currently, landings are below those achieved in 1929. The most important species in terms of landings (1929–1999) were cod (17% of all landings) and herring (16%). In terms of economic value, sole (31%) and cod (15%) were the most valuable. Close to 73% of all landings originated from 5 of the 31 fishing areas. Twenty percent of all landings (1929–1999) originated from the ‘coastal waters’, while these waters contributed nearly 60% of all landed pelagic species and 55% of all landed ‘molluscs and crustaceans’. Compared to the currently available ICES data, this local database offers advantages in temporal coverage (data from 1929 onwards), temporal scale (monthly values), and at the taxonomic level. It also provides more detailed information at the spatial scale of the southern and central North Sea, and it is the only source of historical information on landings originating from the coastal waters. Given the importance of the shallow and productive ‘Flemish banks’ as a local source of food in historical and recent times, this data is valuable for further research on the productivity of the coastal ecosystem and the local impact of fisheries. The database broadens the historical view on fisheries, underlines the decline in landings since reporting started, and serves as a basis for further (fisheries) research and policy-making in Belgium.     

Generating the evidence for marine fisheries policy and management

The uptake of research in marine fisheries management and policy making depends on how effectively fisheries managers, researchers and scientific advisers communicate the needs for evidence, and the results and policy implications of research. The MariFish network of the major European funders of marine fisheries has therefore undertaken a study of current practices relating to communication of research needs and results, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and consequently how two-way communications, and hence the effectiveness of generating evidence for marine fisheries policy making and management, can be improved. Conclusions and recommendations for ‘good practice’ include the importance of building good relationships and trust between researchers and fisheries managers, the need for fisheries ministries to have sufficient inhouse scientific capacity to act as ‘intelligent customers’, and the key role of interpreters of research whose skills and career paths need to be carefully developed.     

The case for an international commission for the conservation and management of sharks (ICCMS)

The current rate of shark global exploitation and mortality is arguably so high under current management regimes that unless a renewed initiative is undertaken some species of shark will become effectively extinct. Current efforts to sustainably manage shark mortality are driven primarily by domestic laws in a few countries, big international non-governmental organizations (BINGOs) promoting environmental laws in the countries or regions where they exist, a handful of regional fisheries management organizations (e.g., IATTC and ICCAT), and inter-governmental organizations such as CITES. The absence of enforcement capability is often argued as the critical component in the failure to protect sharks from overexploitation. The remedy advanced here goes far beyond the need for stepped up enforcement, and calls for the creation of an entirely new international management regime, the International Commission for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (ICCMS). Such an agency could learn from the experiences of management bodies tasked with conservation of species biologically similar to sharks, such as the International Whaling Commission (IWC), to improve its efficacy. Critics have identified many organizational flaws that reduced the IWC’s effectiveness during its earliest years. Some of those flaws are examined here and remedies are suggested that an ICCMS could use to create a more effective management regime. The life histories of elasmobranches and large whales are compared to illustrate their similarities as a biological foundation for the selection of the IWC as a model.     

Changing trust relations within the Dutch fishing industry: The case of National Study Groups

This paper focuses on changing trust relationships among fishermen following new governance arrangements. The previous ‘thick’ trust relationships that characterized the Dutch fisheries industry under a neo-corporatist arrangement had resulted in an isolation of local fishermen groups vis-à-vis outsiders. However, under new governance arrangements, in particular the so-called Study Groups, these trust relationships are changing. The establishment of Study Groups, where fishermen from different localities have to cooperate on sustainability innovations in order to receive subsidies, lead to more diversity within the industry, more collaborations across localities and new forms of ‘thin’ trust. As such, these Study Groups can be understood as successful experiments in further opening up of the fisheries community.     

The tower of Babel: Different perceptions and controversies on change and status of North Sea fish stocks in multi-stakeholder settings

Fishermen, scientists, national policy makers, and staff of environmental NGOs (ENGOs) hold different perceptions about temporal patterns in fish stocks. Perception differences are problematic in multi-stakeholder settings, because they elicit controversies and unbalanced disputes. These hinder effective participation, a prerequisite for ‘good governance’ and effective management of sustainable fisheries. This study shows that perceptions of change (‘does the stock increase or decrease?’) and of current status of a fish stock (‘is it doing well or not?’) are influenced by the capturing and processing of information, rather than by interests alone. We focused on the Dutch North Sea fishery on plaice and sole and examined (1) availability and accessibility of information on temporal patterns of these stocks and (2) perception differences between all parties. A first explanation for these differences is the use of different parameters as a measure for stock size. Fishermen focus on catch rates or catch-per-unit-effort (relative stock size), whereas scientists, policy makers, and ENGO-staff mainly use scientific assessments of spawning stock biomass (absolute stock size). Between-group perception differences are further explained by spatial aggregation levels of information, lengths of time series evaluated, and by modes of comparison to qualify the current status of fish stocks. Awareness of information differences and the development of shared information use and processing may release some of the tensions in multi-stakeholder settings debating fisheries management. However, comprehension problems amongst all parties on how spawning stock biomass is reconstructed and how it relates to catch rates in the fishery may pose an enduring barrier.     

‘Human-dolphin (Tursiops truncatus Montagu, 1821) cooperative fishery’ and its influence on cast net fishing activities in Barra de Imbé/Tramandaí, Southern Brazil

‘Human-dolphin (Tursiops truncatus Montagu, 1821) cooperative fishery’ and its influence on cast net fishing activities in Barra de Imbé/Tramandaí, Southern Brazil - aims to describe ‘fishing with dolphins’ or ‘botos’ (Tursiops truncatus Montagu, 1821), its importance in mullet fishing in conjunction with the traditional knowledge of artisanal fishermen, and the negative economic impact that tourism has had on mullet fishing in Barra de Imbé/Tramandaí (29°58′S 50°07′W). In November and December of 2009, 22 artisanal fishermen associated with the Tramandaí Fishermen’s Union were interviewed. During these interviews, questionnaires were employed utilizing both open and closed questions that dealt with behavioral ecology, biological and interactional issues related to bottlenose dolphins, and small-scale fishing in the region. All those interviewed described “boto fishing,” in which bottlenose dolphins “helped out the fishermen.” According to these interviews, this kind of fishing, marked by close interaction between humans and ‘botos,’ allows nets to be cast fewer times and with captured fish yields that are greater than, when there is no dolphin is present. The fishermen maintain that this increased productivity results from ‘botos’ showing them exactly where the schools of fish are located below the water surface. This has made it possible to observe the impact that dolphin fishing has on the monthly incomes of these fishermen, and there is concern among fishermen, that the intense tourism may one day contribute to the disappearance of the ‘boto,’ a situation, they believe would negatively affect their fishing activities.     

The best catch data that can possibly be? Rejoinder to Ye et al. “FAO's statistic data and sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture”

Here we reply to a commentary by Ye et al. (Mar. Policy 2017; Ye et al.) on our article (Pauly and Zeller, 2017 [2]) commenting on FAO's interpretation of current fisheries trends in SOFIA 2016 (The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture). We show how arguments such as FAO's catch statistics being “the best they can possibly be”, and other manifestations of FAO's difficulties in constructively engaging with comments compromises FAO's stated goal to engage with academia and civil society. This is particularly serious in an age where the value of an open scientific discourse is increasingly under threat, as is the food security of many poor countries in which fish supplied by domestic fisheries constitutes a strong component of local diets.     

Towards sustainable fisheries subsidies: Entering a new round of reform under the Common Fisheries Policy

On 22 April 2009 the European Commission published its ‘Green Paper on the Reform of the Common Fisheries Policy’. The Green Paper points out a contradiction in policy, noting on one hand that public financial support to the Community's fisheries sector is substantial, but on the other hand such support is often incompatible with other Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) objectives, particularly the need to reduce overcapacities. Providing an analytical framework to better understand the effects of subsidies as well as an overview of existing funding schemes under the CFP, this article aims at answering some of the questions posed by the European Commission within its Green Paper. Answers are based on two ideas: the exploitation of marine capture resources ultimately depends on the level of available fish stocks and that a large share of subsidies fuels the race to fish by inducing investment incentives for the fisheries sector. Policies that have ignored this tend to encourage inefficient and unsustainable fishing as well as the misallocation of public funds. Although support schemes under the CFP have changed in recent years, some problematic support schemes persist. A future reform will have to continue the course taken towards sustainable and efficient approaches to supporting the fisheries industry.     

Multi-stakeholder perspectives on the use and influence of “grey” scientific information in fisheries management

Scientific information on the shrimp and groundfish resources of the Brazil–Guianas continental shelf has been produced by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM), in collaboration with the national governments exploiting the resources, since the early 1970s. In spite of the availability of such information, largely as grey literature, there is limited evidence as to the extent it is being used in fisheries management in Trinidad and Tobago. The flow of information between multiple stakeholders − fishing industry, scientists, fisheries managers, policy makers, and fisheries advisory bodies − was studied based on responses to a survey of key individuals to document each of their roles in the creation, distribution, and use of fisheries information. Content analysis of responses was completed to determine the opportunities and barriers for using scientific information in fisheries management. Salience, credibility, and legitimacy of the information were shadowed by barriers that decreased these attributes. Knowledge about the fishery has increased and technical capabilities have been strengthened through research. At the same time, advances in digital technology have made information more accessible. Yet, the high technical content of fisheries information reduced its usefulness to some stakeholders and formal systems do not exist for distributing or measuring the use and influence of such information in decision making. Communication strategies to promote awareness of the scientific information and aligning scientific information with fisheries policy could increase its use and influence. Institutional support for partnerships and education to encourage stakeholder involvement could also facilitate increased influence of scientific information.     

Risk identification and perception in the fisheries sector: Comparisons between the Faroes,Greece, Iceland and UK

This paper presents the findings of risk identification and risk perception research conducted in relation to the fisheries systems of four distinct and diverse European countries: Faroes, Iceland, Greece and the UK. Risk research traditionally attempts to quantify the potential threat or consequences from a range of risk events or hazards. This research, however, adopted a social sciences perspective and so assumed that a risk event or hazard can mean different things to different people and that these perceptions are also context and culturally dependent. Risk perceptions were examined and risk registers developed in each country for a range of stakeholder groups. A ‘mental modelling’ approach was adopted in a series of qualitative interviews. Findings were examined in terms of a wide range of psychological, social and cultural risk theories. Differences in risk perceptions were noted between stakeholder groups and countries and contextual influences were examined such as the widely differing fisheries management systems used in each country. This research provides one of the first attempts to systematically evaluate risks and perceptions across a range of fisheries-systems. The findings support social science theories which argue that risk is a subjective, as opposed to objective, concept and that this subjectivity will therefore affect our attempts to assess and manage those hazards we think we can potentially influence or control.     

Balanced harvesting: The institutional incompatibilities

Balanced harvesting is the name of a newly proposed approach to fishing which promises the extraction of high and sustainable fisheries yields while maintaining the structure of the ecosystem from which those yields could be obtained. This is to be achieved through exposing all components of ecosystems (from zooplankton to top predators, including seals, sea birds and marine mammals) to a fishing mortality proportional to their size-specific productivity. This study briefly analyses the incompatibility between balanced harvesting (and its implications) and the stated missions of two major organizations, FAO (which stresses the need of selective fishing in its Code of Conduct for Sustainable Fisheries) and IUCN (which maintains the Red List of Threatened Species), but which have issued reports or organized conferences promoting balanced harvesting. The study also demonstrates the incompatibility of balanced harvesting with the recently reformed Common Fisheries Policy of the European Union. While balanced harvesting appears partly compatible with declared fisheries policies of a few countries, e.g. with regard to whaling, sealing, and indiscriminate biomass fishing, it is not only incompatible with the basic tenets of fisheries science, but also with the vision, gradually emerging globally, that marine organisms such as marine mammals, sea turtles, sea-birds and other fauna have an intrinsic value and right to life that should not be undermined by more of the indiscriminate fishing which currently shapes much of our interactions with the oceans.     

Constructing logbook-like statistics for coastal fisheries using coastal surveillance radar and fish market data

As catch and effort statistics including fishing time and location are essential for producing abundance indices for utilized fish stocks, fishing states are encouraged under the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries to collect and maintain such statistics. However, for coastal fisheries (including artisanal fisheries) that are mainly composed of small-sized vessels which are usually too numerous to monitor, fisheries statistics collection systems are often either lacking or of insufficient quality (e.g. incomplete or inaccurate). Vessel monitoring system (VMS) data are commonly used to construct or improve estimation of fishing effort and fishing location in large-scale fisheries. Most coastal fisheries lack VMS but their countries do have coastal surveillance radar systems (CSRS) for security and enforcement purposes. This study illustrates and recommends opportunistic use of CSRS data to provide similar scientific benefits to VMS data for coastal fisheries. CSRS in combination with market landings data can construct logbook-like catch and effort statistics. This study introduces a method and demonstrates its usefulness for scientific research and management purposes, including the potential to obtain a higher accuracy and precision, particularly for fishing location and catch amount. Limitations of the CSRS data and challenges to managers involved in its application are also discussed.     

Few data but many fish: marine small-scale fisheries catches for Mozambique and Tanzania

The fisheries data supplied to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) by national agencies have served as the primary tool for many global and regional studies. However, it is recognised that these data are incomplete and often underestimate actual catches, particularly for small-scale fisheries. This study reconstructed total marine fisheries catches from 1950 to 2005 for Mozambique and the United Republic of Tanzania, by applying an established catch reconstruction approach utilising all available quantitative and qualitative data, combined with assumption-based estimations and interpolations. Since the 1950s, Mozambique has reported primarily industrial catches and has substantially under-reported the country's small-scale fishing sector due to lack of resources and civil war. In Tanzania, Zanzibar's recorded fisheries statistics prior to 2000 are absent from Tanzania's marine fisheries catches reported to FAO, and total mainland catches are at least one-third larger than officially reported. Based on our reconstruction, since 2000, Mozambique caught between 150 000 and 172 000 t y^?1, while the United Republic of Tanzania caught at least 95 000 t y^?1. For the period 1950–2005, reconstructed total marine catches were 6.2 and 1.7 times greater than data supplied to FAO by Mozambique and Tanzania respectively. The reliance on incomplete and substantially under-reported national data puts authorities under serious risk of over-licensing fishing access and mismanaging marine ecosystems and national food security.