VLIZ · J ? 6 ˇ > ˙ % ( ˇ > ( ˇ > (> ˜ 6 8 > _ ˆ 8 > ˆ ˚ 8 > ˆ ;/3˜< ˆ ˇ ˘ˇ + ( *...

2002

THE STATE OFWORLD FISHERIES AND

AQUACULTURE

The designations employed and the presentation of material in thisinformation product do not imply the expression of any opinionwhatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization ofthe United Nations concerning the legal status of any country,territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitationof its frontiers or boundaries.

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in thisinformation product for educational or other non-commercial purposes areauthorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holdersprovided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in thisinformation product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibitedwithout written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for suchpermission should be addressed to the Chief, Publishing Management Service,Information Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italyor by e-mail to [email protected]

© FAO 2002

ISBN 92-5-104842-8

Editing, design, graphics and desktop publishing:

Editorial Group

FAO Information Division

ISSN 1020-5489

2002

THE STATE OFWORLD FISHERIES AND

AQUACULTURE

FAO Fisheries Department

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSRome, 2002

�� !""#$�� %�&'��&�(��% �� )��*�� &�� $��+��!""#��/��3��6��7 �;/3�7 <�)�� (�� =�� /3�� &�� $�� +�� >��& ��$��>��!""!��/��>��>� ��;/>>�<�� ?��G�� 7 �� H�� 6�� >��H(��G��(�� J�'�� !""!?�

�� G��?�K�� & �� 7�� ?�3� � �� ?�>�� =�� & ��&��L�� ?�� ?�

�� 3�>��/�� G��;>��<�� &��G�� ?��

� �� #��>��!""!�� (�� (�� ?��!�� H �� G�� &�� ?��Q�� ?��W�� ?�

�� >�� ?

�� HX��

��

� ��

�� &�� =��X�� =��

��%3�#� ��

��!��"��!��#��$�%��!��!� &�� &(�� '�� (&3� �� ()3� �� *(�G�� *+�� 6�� *-�� &.�� .'

��%3�!��/��

�"$��1��3��""��"��4��1�� ''3�� ''�� ''%�� '+�� '5��$��6$��$�6��4��44��7��4��1�� '-3�� '-�� +*X�� +&��4��!��!�� +'3�� +'�� ++%�� +)�� +58�7��3��$$�7��$$9��$��4��1�� +-3�� +-�� ):%�� )*��& )&��6��!��;��$��"��!�� ).3�� ).�� )'%�� )+X�� 5*

��%3�Q��/��/�� 8��

��!�$��19��$��7��6�$��3 5)�J��&�� 5)�� H�� 5)

�

� ��

(�� 55�� -:�� -:��4��"��$�!�4��

�4��6��!��"��7�!�!��4�� -(J��&�� -(X�� -*>�� -&��9��"��4��4��"��4�� -'�� -'(� �� H �� -'%�� -)�;��$��!�7�$�"��$��4�"6$��"�$�� --�� --)�� (::�� (:*3�� (:'(�� (:+

��%3�W �� <�

��!�� (((��!��$��19��"��=��4�4��"��!��!��"�� ((((��G�� ((*(�� ((./�� (()3��H��& ((-��!��!��"$�3��"��"�� ((-�(�� (*:�G�� (**��H��&� (*&(�� (*.

��%3�Y�� >�/� �8��/�

��4�� (*)��66��3��!��?��@�� (*-��B��$��4��!�"��!�� (&(��3��4��4�� (&&��"��3 (&'��3�� (&-��1��4��6�� (.(��!��1�� (.&��4��1��$��"�� (..��4��7�$�"��3 (.+��8��4�� (.5

��

��

J K��

J�Z�#�� M��$��4��3�� +

J�Z�!�� -

J�Z�Q��!��1��4�� (&

J�Z�W��@��1��4��1�4$��1��!��6��

�4��$�3!��?��4��7�� *(

J�Z�Y��#�4��!�4��

��$$��1��4��4��3��1��!��1�� *.

J�Z�[�;��6��!�7��3�4��96��!�

4��1��3��""��$�$�7�$��!� &(

J�Z�\��!��;��$��"��!�� &+

J�Z�]�$$�1�$#��"��!��!��1$��!�4��1 ':

J�Z�^/$�6�$��4��9"��$$9��$��4��

��!��$��!��"$�3��!��$��!��"��4�� )&

J�Z�#"��9��1��63��1��#��P��!M�7�� ).

J�Z�##��1��$3�6��!�4��1��$��

��!��V��*::*X )5

J�Z�#!��$��19��4��"��=�� (*:

��

��J��

3�J_*�#��$!�4��"��!��!��$�%�� .

3�J_*�!��"��!��!��$�%��4��B��$!��Y�$!��1�� .

3�J_*�Q��$��!��"��4��3�"��!��63��$�� (&

3�J_*�W��$!�4��!�4��4��63�� (+

3�J_*�Y�6��4�4��V��$!��1�4��4��X��$��!�� ()

3�J_*�[��1��!��6��4��$�3!��?��

��4��7��V4��4��1�7��$�X **

3�J_*�\�$�11��1��!��4��""��1��1��V63�4��1�7��$�X **

3�J_*�]��$��!�"��"��4��!�4��""$3�63��

��!��1��"��1��(--- &:

3�J_*�^��"��6��4��!��9$�@��"�� +)

3�J_*�#"8��6$��"��!��"��

��!��$��1��!�$��44��4��6��;��$�� )+

3�J_*�##[��"��"��!�?��$�7��;��$�� )-

3�J_*�#!��?��$�7��;��$�� 5:

3�J_*�#Q��$��$�7��;��$��!�� 5(

3�J_*�#W��$3��""��7�!�!�1��!��?��!� 5(

3�J_*�#Y�!!��$��!�!�?��!� 5(

3�J_*�#[��"��#��Y"��!�"��!��!��(--)\*:&: ((*

�=

3�J_*�#\��3��4�"��=��4��*:&:�6��!�

��!��!�$�V��!��#�$�7��B��1��X ((.

3�J_*�#]��!�"��1��1��"��

4��"��!��!��"��#�(--.\(--5��*:&: ((5

3�J_*�#^��4��!��;��$��"��!��#�

4��!�6�$��!��!� (*)

3�J_*�!"�� ?��4��!��;��$��"��!��#�

4��!�6�$��!��!� (*-

3�J_*�!#��4��!��;��$��"��!��#�

4��!�6�$��!��!� (&(

3�J_*�!!�� 4��!��;��$��"��!��#�

4��!�6�$��!��!� (&&

3�J_*�!Q��4��!��;��$��"��!��#�

4��!�6�$��!��!� (&'

3�J_*�!W��4��!��;��$��"��!��#�

4��!�6�$��!��!� (&-

3�J_*�!Y��1��4��6��4��!��;��$��"��!��#�

4��!�6�$��!��!� (.(

3�J_*�![��4��!��;��$��"��!��#�

4��!�6�$��!��!� (.&

3�J_*�!\��4��!��;��$��"��!��#�

4��!�6�$��!��!� (..

3�J_*�!]��4��!��;��$��"��!��#�

4��!�6�$��!��!� (.+

3�J_*�!^�8��4��!��;��$��"��!��#�

4��!�6�$��!��!� (.5

=

��/��

��X�%*�#��$!��"��4��!��;��$��"��!�� '

��X�%*�!��$!�4��$�%��!��""$3#��Y�$!��1�� '

��X�%*�Q��$!��"��4��"��!�� 5

��X�%*�W?��!��$��!��"��4��"�"��!��*::: 5

��X�%*�Y��"��4��"��!��63�"��"�$��4��1��*::: (:

��X�%*�[��"��4��"��!��"��"��*::: (:

��X�%*�\��"��4��"��!�� ((

��X�%*�]��$��!��"��4��"��!��"��"��!��*::: (.

��X�%*�^��M��4��$�%��!��""$3 (.

��X�%*�#"��$!��4��"��V�"�"�$�1��!�!��"�B��X�

��1�"��"�$$3��1�� ('

��X�%*�##��$!��!��"�� ('

��X�%*�#!��$!�4��!�4��4�� ('

��X�%*�#Q�6��4�!��@�!�4��1�7��$��63�� (5

��X�%*�#W�6��4�"�B��!�7��$��63��(--5 (5

��X�%*�#Y�6��4�!��@�!�4��1�7��$��=��$�4$��63�� (-

��X�%*�#[�6��4�4��1�7��$��7��(::�/��!�!��

�$�3!��?��4��7��!��6�� *(

��X�%*�#\�6��4�4��1�7��$��=��"��1��

��!��4�4$�1��@��B� *(

=�

��X�%*�#]�;��$��"��!��!��$��!�B�� *)

��X�%*�#^��!��4�1$�6�$��;��$��"��!��63��=��"��1��"� *)

��X�%*�!"/$�6�$��;��$��"��!��"��"��4��"��1��"��

63��7��*::: *5

��X�%*�!#�;��$��"��!��=��"��!��*::: *5

��X�%*�!!�;��$��"��!��=��"��1��"��*::: *-

��X�%*�!Q��!��;��$��"��!��;��3��!�7�$� *-

��X�%*�!W��$�%��4�B��$!�4��"��!��V6��@!�B��63�7�$�X &:

��X�%*�!Y��4��!��"��"��""$3 &*

��X�%*�![��6��4�4��$�"��""$3 &*

��X�%*�!\��$�"��""$3�63��!��=��4��!�1��"�

V(--)\(---��7��1�X &.

��X�%*�!]�"��!��Y"��4�4��3�"��!��4��!�44��1��#�

��!��1��!�4��"$� &'

��X�%*�!^��$!�4��3��Y"��63��=��!��3�1��"� &-

��X�%*�Q"��Y"��4��$��!��1��$��$��!��

63�!�7�$�"��1�� &-

��X�%*�Q#��!��4$�B��63��V"��1��4��$��"��]�]4]�7�$��

�7��1��4��(--5\*:::X .(

��X�%*�Q!��"�"��VB��$��$�X��!��!�[�"�� .&

��X�%*�QQ�@�"=��@��"��!��#��$��!��!��4�� .&

��X�%*�QW/��!4��"��V�^4X��!�� ..

=��

��X�%*�QY��"��$�"�!�"��VB��$��$�X��[�"�� ..

��X�%*�Q[��$��!��36��$�"��V�]�]4]X�

��/��3��!��$��!� .'

��X�%*�Q\�$��"��1�� ++

��X�%*�Q]�3�$��"��4$��!�[�"��!��

��6��(+::\*::: 55

��X�%*�Q^8��!��3��4�!��!�!�7�$��4�1$�6�$��"��$3�V!�X#�

��1��7��$��1��4�!�3�V9� �X��!�%��$��"��$��!�Y�V��X�(5':\*::: 5-

��X�%*�W"�3��4��!��$�V�X��!�%��$�V��X�

4��4��"��$��!�Y�V�X��!��$��4��!��$��!�%��$��$��"��VJX�(55:\*:.: -:

��X�%*�W# 6��7�!�V(-':\(--5X��!�4��V*:::\*:.:X�

��1��4��$��!��=��$��"��$��!��8��4�� -(

��X�%*�W!��4��6��!�� -&

��X�%*�WQ��$��4��$$9��$��4��1�7��$��"� -+

��X�%*�WW��$��4��$$9��$��4��1�7��$��1�$ -+

��X�%*�WY��$��4��$$9��$��4��1�7��$��66�� -)

��X�%*�W[��$��4��$$9��$��4��1�7��$�� -5

��X�%*�W\��$!�4��"��!��!�4��!��"��(-)+\*:&: ((&

��X�%*�W]�7�$��4��"�9*5��$�4��"��!��7�� (('

��X�%*�W^[�"��!��!�4��4��*:&: ((+

3�>��/�� G��!""!�� ?�/�'& ��`��?X��%?�X��?�X�� 7 �� _?��$�j?�( ��&$�>?X��$�j?�j��$��?�+��$�J?�>��$�j?�3��$��X?�q�� ?

3��#��/�� G�� %?�X�� ?�*�� ;�� <�� _?�X��;�� <$�j?�( ��&�;�� <$��?�(�� ;�� <$�%?�)�6��;�� <$��?��;�� <$�%?�>�� ;�G��<$��?)?�J��;�� <$�>?�q��X?�_��;�� <$�>?q��;��6��<$��K?�j� ��;��<?

(�� !��>�� G�� {?�(��;�� <$��?�*�� %?�X��;�� <$��?�>��;��<$�X?�)��;�� <�;�� H �� <$��K?�_��%?�>�� ?��;��(��*�� G��>��|(*��>}�{<�;�� G�� <?

(�� Q��K�� j?( ��&�;�� H��<$�� >��;�� <$��?�3��6�;��H�� <$��+?�K� ��;�G��(�� <?

��W��&�� (?��~��%?�)�6��?/�'& ��`�?

��Y�� ?�X��?>�� H��

��=� �� = ��?�� %��>�� ?�>?)�� ?

3�*��X�� 3�>��/�� G��!""!?

=��

��<� ��/�?��

+�� ?��(��

��3��K��{��)��>�� %�� ?

�� (��(��;�+<�

��8��(��X��>�� ;*(<

��&�

��8��

�� >�� +��

��(��=�� (��

�� ?(��(��(��)��&��

��?��(�� (�� _��% ��

��8��

��J�(�� (�� >��J��3��

�^4��

�]�]4]��

��?8(�%�(�)�� % �� )��

��8(�� ;*(<

��(��

��(��>��

� ��(�� ;��<

��?(��%�� )�� ;(�%�(�)<

��8(��/��&�� >�� ;��H��<

��

�� /�� +��

��

��*��*��

��*��(��

�� *��(��/ ��>��

��*��*��(��; �� *(<

��_�=�� 6��

��*��

��>�� ;�

��/�� X��;*(<

��(��>� ��X�� >�� 3��>��

/� ��>

=��

=�

4]�]6]��

/� J��(��6��>� �� )��&��

/��

��8K�6�� (��(��; � ��<

��8��H��

��H��(��>� ��

��H��3��3��(��

�J��J��>�� (��

��(�� (�� 3��

��(��*=��>��

��(��

��?��(��_��G��% �� )��

�?��)��

�? ��)��6��

� ��(��

� ��3��(��

�8 �9��*��

��;�� <

[��j��/K��*=��(��

��_��*��>� ��

��H��H��

?��

?��=��

?��=�� ;(�(<

��+��&��G��(�� H��

��+��3��

�/ ��H��6��

��+��% ��(��;��>�� <

�� *��(�H��

��*��6��

��8��_��6��

8��8��%��>��

��J��

��? �� 6��

��>�� %��(��

��>��(��

��>�� (��

�� >�� 6��

��8>� �� _��

�8�>��

�8�>�� ;/3�<

��

��+�� (��*��

�� +�� (��_��>��

��8��+�� *��

��>��

�?�q ��)��>� ��

��/ ��(�� (��

�� /��K��6��

��/��>��>� ��

�� /��3��6��

=��

xvi

Note: The data on food fish supply (total and per capita) presented for the world in the Overview section

of Part 1 (Tables 1 and 2) differ from those presented in the Fish utilization section of Part 1 (Table 8) owing

to different time frames. The source of the more detailed figures reported in the latter is the FAO Fisheries

Circular No. 821, Rev. 6. [Laurenti, G. (comp.) 1961-1999. Fish and fishery products: world apparent con-

sumption statistics based on food balance sheets], which was compiled using statistics held in the FAO fi-

shery statistical database in August 2001. The world total data presented in the Overview (Tables 1 and 2)

are based on more recent production figures of March 2002, which also incorporated historical revisions.

The food fish supply data in Tables 1 and 2 are indicative and may be subject to further revision when the

food balance sheets are updated.

��

��

�� !��"#��"��#� ��"$��%�&��"��"#��#�

�'��'�� !� �� " �� #� $�� %%%��&�� # $�� '�� (�"�� !� �� ))%� �*�� !� �� "��

+�� !� ��"��,�� '�� # $'�� )-&��. ��'�� %%%�� /�� "� ��

/��%%%�� "��0�� !� ��))%�� &&��&-�� "�� ))#1�))-�� "� ��"�� 2��3 4��5�� 6� �� "��/� ��+��7��!��5�� /��

�))-�� 3��5��

��'�� /��3��"��5�� )&%��.�� %%% �!� ��)&%��" ��%�� %%%� �� $%�� !� ��,�� 8�� &�� ))%�� '�� ,�� "� ��)��

9�� '�� '�� 20�� !� ��"�� 0� � ��"��"��"�� .�� ))%�� )-%��& �� /� �� 0 ��

2�� ))��"�� .�� %%% �+�� $��"�� %��

/�� "��9:;�� ,�� #��"�� 3��0�� 9:;�%� �� ))%��9:;�-�� %%%�� "��#��

�� "� �� )&%�� *�0��<�� 5�� )��

(

��

)

�6*=2��*��+��

�,,- �,,. �,,/ �,,, 0111 011�2� ��

��#� ��"/3=63>!�� & # & � - % - � - - - -6�� ) �& � �- � �% � �� # �� #�� 0(3( 0431 0-34 0/3- (130 (�30

?6</32!�� -$ � -$ # &) . -# & -$ % -� �6�� % - �� % �. . �# � �� 5�� ,-3, ,.34 ,�3( ,/31 �1130 ,.3-

�� ). � ). ) -& . ). � )# - )� .�� $ & �- $ .% � .. # .� $ .& �� 0130 �0034 ��.3/ �0-3- �(13) �0/3/

��%�&��"(�� -- % )% - )� & )# # )$ & )) #3��8�� .� � .� & �� .� � .. & �) #5�� & � - � ) $ % $ � $ �5�� '�� . �� $ �� & �� - �$ % �$ �

�6��7��*��32��5��8��5��3

�6*=2��*��+��6��7� ��

�,,- �,,. �,,/ �,,, 0111 011�2� ��

��#� ��"/3=63>!�� & � & � - $ � $ $ $ $6�� # ) � � � � � ) $ . $ �� 13- �13/ ��31 �03� �03, �(3�

?6</32!�� &. $ &� � $# . $) - &� . $& )6�� # � # � # � # & # & � %��5�� ..3. .-3. -/3/ .)34 .-31 .03,

�� &) . &- � &% � &$ % && ) &# �� ) % ) . ) & �% $ �� % �� //3( /.34 .,3/ /-3- //3, /-31

��%�&��"(�� $% # $� � $� . $� ) $. % $� �3��8�� & ) �$ % �- � �# & �� ) �% )5�� # � # $ # & # & # - # )5�� '�� . . �. # �. � �. � �. � �. .

�6��7��*��32��5��8��5��3

4

�� "�� "�� +" �� '�� " �� @��8�� '�� 8�� 8�� 5��.�� -&�� 2�3 4� �6�� "�� 0��8 �� "�� 0��'�� 8�� "�� 8��' �� 0�� '�� 0��

?�� " �� "�� @�� <�?+�� (�"�� A� � �� "��' �/�� "�� '�� /�� "��0 �� "�� /�� A�� A� � �� "��

" �� "��" ��'��" �� /�� " �� " �� "��"� �� " ��

��#� ��"�� %%%

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

0

1.2

2.5

3.7

5.0

0

20

40

60

80

Food

Non-food uses

Population

Per capita supply

Fish utilization (million tonnes)and food supply (kg/capita) Population (billions)

FIGURE 2World fish utilization and supply, excluding China

-

�6+� �� D�

� �� E�

� �� "��E�

. �� E�

# �� G��

�0�� 6�� ?� ��

�� E�

� ��

� �� 8��!��

7��' ��5�� :�� E�

$ ��

��

�� '�� E�

& ��' ��

�� E�

- �� E�

) ��

��'��7�� 0��

��'��

6�� 6+��

�� "�� '��

��

�� " ��6+

�� 6+� ��" �� 0��

�� " �7��

�� 6+�� 6+��

�� +�� "��

��0��

�� 6+��

��

�� ?��

�� !� ��"��' ��" ��6+��

��

3��

��6+��

7�� 6+

��

��

�� @�� A�� @ ��

��

�� 8��'��" ��

��

��

�� "��'��

�� 6+��

*+H��K��8��

.

!�� @��:�� ?��'�� /��

I�=+*2�/:(J� �

/��))%��6+��

�� @ ��'��)�%�

�� "��"��

�� ' ��

�� "�� A��

�� 0��

�� "��

��

�� " �� 6+��" ��

�� 7��!��:��

� ��!��I� ��:��J� �

�6+,�� "��'��

��

�� 0 ��

�� "��' ��6+��8

�6+�<�?+��

� ��A�� @ ��

"��

�� 7��<�?+��0 ��

3��"��5��

��!� ��K��<�� L��

7��0 ��

��8�� 0��

� ��0�� /��6+��

��"��'��

� �� " ��8��

��" ��

�� 6+,��

�� )�%��

��

"��' �� "��

� ��

� ��

��

�� 6��

��

�0��8��

� �� @��

��0��

�� '��

��

>�� 6+,��

��

>�� 6+��"�

��

� � ��

"� ��M� �� M��

�� '��

�� :��'��"��' ��

�� '��

��

��

��

��"�� :��

� �� '��

� ��

�� 6��

��

1��0��

�� 8�� 5��.�� -&�

1��

��

��

��6+�� >�� "��' ��" ��

�� "��

�� " ��

��

�� 6+ �7 ��

�� 8��' ��

�� " ��

��

9�� A��

��

��"��

:��D�< �� 6+�� >��

/

��)# -�� 9:;-�� ))- 5�� %%��A�� '�� )�� !� ��,��"� ��%��"�� ))-�� )))�� %%%

��" �� @��8��"�� . ��*�0�� /��%%%�� "��0�� !� ��"��&-� �� "��'��-.�� )-)�� &%�� ))- �:�� 5�� "� �� 2��3 4��

!� ��5��"�� %%%��"��K��9� ��:��!� ��/�� <�� /� �� #� �/�� "��0�� !� �� E� �� $ $� �� %%%��"� ��"��- .��"��

7�� )))��%%%�� :��5�� =�� "��&&�� )))�� %%%��" ��'��##��"��))&��))- �� 0� � �� ))-�� /� ��+��7��!��5�� 2��!��6�� &� �� :��"��3��"��3��5�� "�� 3��"��3��6�� "��'�� "��)))��%%% �?�� "�� 3��"��6�� "8�� "� � �� 3��6��

!��

Philippines

Iceland

Norway

Thailand

India

Russian Fed.

Indonesia

Chile

United States

Japan

Peru

China

10 1286420 14 16 18

17.0

10.7

5.0

4.7

4.3

4.1

4.0

3.6

2.9

2.7

2.0

1.9

Million tonnes

FIGURE 4Marine and inland capture fisheries: top producer countries in 2000

0

20

40

60

80

100

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Million tonnes

FIGURE 3World capture fisheries production

China

World excluding China

�� *�0�.� �/��%%%�� 2�3 4�� $� �!��!�� "�� 0�� 2��!��5�� :��6�� "�� "�� !� ��A��'��'��A�� :��5��

�� %%%�� ))� �/�� '�� )))�� %%%�� " ��

�� '�� 3��"��5�� ))$ �/�� '��'�� "��6��'��'�� A�� "� � ��

,

*+H��

!� ��'��

�� "��

� ��

� �� 0��"��

��"�� "�� !� ��"��,��

��

�� .� .�� )))�

�� )� �>� ��

�� "� ��"��

��

��# #�'�� )&�� '�� ))) �3��" ��

�� %��

��

�� : ��))#�

!� ��

3��"��5�� " �� 0��%��

��

6�� +�� "�� .��

!� ��

��

: ��))-�� @��"��

!� ��

�� .� �(�"��

�� "�� -��

��"�� "��

"��'��!� �� A��

" ��6+� ��6�� %%� �2��

��

�� @��8��

�� "� ��'��

�� 6��

�� 6+,�

�� " ��

��!� ��3�� :�� *��,��

��

� �� "��'

��"� �� " ��

�� !� ��

"��' �� " ��6+��

��

/��%%%�� " ��))-��'��$�� ))) �!��A�� %%%�"�� " ��))-

�� !�� ))-�� )))�� "��. $�� %%% �!�� . �� )&%�� "��"�� '��

:�� $��" ��"�� "�� %%%�"��"��9:;�%��;��%�� /�� %%%� �� "��"��"�� 9:;.�� "� ��9:;�� ' �A��'��6�� 9:;��

�� "�� %%%�"��% -�� ))-

�� ?��6� ��6�� $#�� "� �� "� �� 2��3��6�� :��6�� +�� $#��"�� "�� !� ��,��-�� ))-�� %%%�� -� ��'�� "��.�� "�� /�� "�� 0�� '��

?�� 0�� "�� 6�� '�� @�� /��"��

�1

Atlantic, Northwest

Atlantic, Southwest

Pacific, Northeast

Atlantic, Eastern Central

Indian Ocean, Western

Indian Ocean, Eastern

Pacific, Western Central

Atlantic, Northeast

Pacific, Southeast

Pacific, Northwest

100 5 15 20 25

23.1

15.8

10.9

9.9

4.7

2.5

2.3

2.1

Million tonnes

Note: Fishing areas listed are those with a production volume of more than 2 million tonnes in 2000.

FIGURE 5Capture fisheries production by principal marine fishing areas in 2000

3.5

3.9

Million tonnes

Note: Species listed are those with a production volume of more than 1 million tonnes in 2000.

FIGURE 6Capture fisheries production: top species in 2000

Blue whiting

Capelin

Chub mackerel

Largehead hairtail

Chilean jack mackerel

Japanese anchovy

Skipjack tuna

Atlantic herring

Alaska pollock

Anchoveta 11.3

3.0

2.4

1.9

1.7

1.5

121086420

1.5

1.5

1.5

1.4

��

FIGURE 7 Capture fisheries production in marine areas

Note: The scales used vary from area to area.

0

3

6

9

12

15

1970 1980 1990 2000

Million tonnes

1970 1980 1990 2000

Million tonnes

1970 1980 1990 2000

Million tonnes

1970 1980 1990 2000

Million tonnes

1970 1980 1990 2000

Million tonnes

1970 1980 1990 2000

Million tonnes

1970 1980 1990 2000

Million tonnes

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

1970 1980 1990 2000

Million tonnes

China

Northwest Atlantic Northeast Atlantic

Western Central Atlantic Eastern Central Atlantic

Southwest Atlantic Southeast Atlantic

Western Indian Ocean Eastern Indian Ocean

�!��

�0

FIGURE 7 (continued)Capture fisheries production in marine areas

Note: The scales used vary from area to area.

0

1

2

3

4

5

1970 1980 1990 2000

Northeast PacificMillion tonnes

0

2

4

6

8

10

1970 1980 1990 2000

Western Central PacificMillion tonnes

0

1

2

3

4

5

1970 1980 1990 2000

Eastern Central PacificMillion tonnes

0

5

10

15

20

25

1970 1980 1990 2000

Southeast PacificMillion tonnes

0

1

2

3

4

5

1970 1980 1990 2000

Mediterranean and Black SeaMillion tonnes

1970 1980 1990 2000

Southwest PacificMillion tonnes

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

1970 1980 1990 2000

Southern OceansMillion tonnes

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1970 1980 1990 2000

Northwest PacificMillion tonnes

Other countries

China

�(

�� "�� A�� "�� '�� 6+�� "��' ��" ��

��"#��\��/�� " �� /��%%%�� .�� "�� 8� ��1��1��8� �� " ��-��

�� "��'��#�� 6� ��-��

"��"��6�� &��2��:��6�� 3��!��6�� +�� % �� 8 ��

/��%%%�� "��'��

/��)&$��0��

A� � �� 0�� @��22]��

�� :��

��"�� )-�� 9� ��3��

!�� =�"��:�� : �� 8�)&%��

�� 22]��%%

��

� �� '�� 22]��1��

��%%��

/��

� ��6+�� '��

�� "��'��" �� 22]��'��

�� 6��6+��$

�� "��

��

�� .�� )&$

��- �� %%%�� %� �6��

�� " ��

22]�� "��

��

��'��

�� "�� /��

�0�� "� ��% ��

�� )&$1�%%%

�� " ��

��

� ��

��" ��"�<�?+��

�� @�� 0 �� @�� /��

� �� #��

*+H�.��7��

�6*=2�.��*��8�*��]8��5��

��5�� 7��0111 ��*��

��

!� �� . �� #

+�� ). $& #

2�� % #� # $

/�� % �. � $

�� /3/1

�)

Kenya

Cambodia

Egypt

Tanzania, United Rep. of

Russian Fed.

Indonesia

Uganda

Bangladesh

India

China

0 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500

FIGURE 8Inland capture fisheries production: top ten producer countries in 2000

Thousand tonnes

2 233

797

670

356

329

292

280

253

246

210

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0

10

20

30

40

Food

Non-food uses

Population

Per capita supply

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Fish utilization (million tonnes)and food supply (kg/capita) Population (billions)

FIGURE 9China's fish utilization and supply

�4

Other epipelagic species

1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 20000

1

2

3

Imports

Exports

Million tonnes (product weight)

FIGURE 11World trade in oceanic species

�� $�� .�� "��" ��" �� .�� ))% �� "�� 0��6�� "�� "��'�� "�� .�� 3��!��6�� "�� "��

7 �� .�� " �� ))%��"� ��"��'�� &��E�� ?��"��

�� 6� �� !� ��"�� E�� )))�� K�� "��" �� 7� �� $#�� 8�� 8�� .-��

2�� 8

�-

�6*=2�#��5��]8��

�,.1 �,/1 �,,1 �,,� �,,0 �,,( �,,) �,,4 �,,- �,,. �,,/ �,,, 0111

� ��

��

6�� .$% ��. ��)�& ��%)� ��&�& ��%.� ��%&% ��.- ��.�) ��.�& ��#�. ��#)� ��-�

3��!��6�� #%- �#& &$& &�� &�& &&& &&& &&% &&$ &-� &-$ &-- &��

:��6�� #)� �#. &$) &.- &$. -&# -�% -�# -%� -%� &)- &-� &-#

6� � )�.%� �.�$)% �.�$�$ �#�&%& ��#�. �$�.#� �&�.�& �-�� -�)$# �)��.$ �)�#�- �)��$% �)��%)

2�� $-� $#� $�# )�- )�# )%� --� -$# -&% -.& -.� -�- -��

+�� #� $� &# && &) -% &# &$ && &- -� -� -$

�� 0�0/4 �.�1(- 0.�/(. 0,�0,. 0,�-,� (��114 (��,0/ ((�(�) ((�/). ((�,,4 ()�)�� ()��-( ()�4(-

��5��

6�� b j j j j j � $ �# $� �� $ �& &�

3��!��6�� j j �. &. �%� �%$ �%$ �&$ �-� �-� �)� �)% �)%

:��6�� j j �$ �� % .% #. ## #� #� #� #�

6� � j j .�$)- .�--� #��)� #�)�& ��.-) $�%%. $�%�� $��$) $�&�- $�).% &��.�

2�� j j �� . �. �$ �- �. �� $ �&

+�� j j �� # � � � �

�� ` ` (�../ (�,/( )�)0( 4��/0 4�-4. -�04) -�(-- -�//1 .�1.4 .�0), .�).1

2#��,,(q�,,4��5*��]��7�8��*��]8��8��5��5]��3��73�{��7�7�]�3

�� 2�� K�� 3��"�� /��))%��&��%%��"�� 0�� &��%��%%� ��%%% �/�K�� "��'��'�� ))�� "��$%�%%%�� %%% �+��-��"�� "� �� A�� &�� "��8��"��'�� 8��"��&%��"� ��"�� "�� )#��

6�� "��'�� ,�� %%%� ��K��.�� "��-.��

��"��$%�� "�� .�� -�� )-%��#�� !�� "��'��-��.)-�%%%��"��'�� )&%�� &��$��%%��"��'�� %%% �

/�� "�� /�� 8��

��"|��%��6+�� ))-��"�� .�� '��

�.

�6*=2��"�5]��}��7��5��~��

��8� ��6 �,.1 �,/1 �,,1 0111

��%# ?�� 0�0/)�-./ �.�1(-�(1. 0.�/(4�))� ()�4(4�-4(� ��0� )) -� �11 �0)

!� �� ?�� .%%�%%% ��)�%�.## )�%)��)�$ ��..��-� ��0� �� .� �%% �.�

/�� ?�� -#��$�& ��.�� .�$�&��-$ ��-��&�� 0� �. $� �%% �#�

K�� ? �� #.&�)%% .&$�)%% .%.�#%% ��$��%� �� %% -%��%% $&��%% ##�%)%

� ��0� �#- ��. �%% &%

5��b ?�� #)�-�# #)��%. #.�&�% ��%$�� 0� ��# ��. �%% ��

3��"�� ? �� #.�%�- .#�&-) .%�%�& �.�%�$� �� j j $)% ��$

� ��0� ��$ ��$ �%% &&

/�� ? �� #�-)� ��)#$ $�� .%%� �� j j #%% -%%

� ��0� &% -$ �%% --

��6!��,,1�{��1132#��6��5��3

�� -�� '��$��"� ��"��"�� A�� "�� 6� ��-# $��'��"��'��-.��8��"�� #��"��,��'�� "��2��- )��3��!��6�� # ��6�� :��6�� % $��+�� % �� !�� 3��!��6�� " �� 6�� $��:��6�� $��+�� .��

: ��0�� "��"� �� )-%��'�� /��))%�� E�� " ��

/� �� ))-�� (�"��2��!�� 2!�� %%�%-�� ))��)$�%%%� ��%%% �+��&&��%%��"� �� '��"�� '��"��-��%%�� /�� 5��-%��A�� :�� /��%%%��#��2!�� "��"��#�� "��.�%��#�� " �� /�>��%%%��3��"��-�#.%��'�� #��-�� !�� ))%� � ��'��"� �� /�� )).�� %%��"� ��"��'�E��#%��'��%�� /��K�� "��.$��-#�� )))��"��.&��#�$� ��))��#�$�%$&� ��))% ��A�� )%��"��

�/

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1998

FIGURE 13Numbers of decked fishing vessels by continent

Thousands

Asia

Europe

North and Central America

Africa

South America

Oceania

Africa

North andCentral America

South America

Asia

Europe

Oceania

0 200 400 600 800 1 000 1 200

Decked

Undecked

Thousands

FIGURE 14Numbers of powered vessels by continent in 1998

�,

0

1

2

3

4

5

Egypt

Morocco

Algeria

South Africa

Other countries

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Thousands

Africa

FIGURE 15Numbers of decked fishing vessels in major national fleets by continent

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Peru

Venezuela

Argentina

Other countries

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

ThousandsSouth America

0

10

20

30

40

United States

Other countries

Mexico

Costa Rica

Canada

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Thousands

North and Central America

�!��

01

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

AustraliaOther countries

New Zealand

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Thousands

Oceania

FIGURE 15 (continued)Numbers of decked fishing vessels in major national fleets by continent

0

20

40

60

80

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Thousands

Greece

Italy

Spain

Portugal

Other countries

Europe

0

100

200

300

400

500

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Thousands

Japan

Other countries

Indonesia

Korea, Republic of

China

Asia

� �� "��"�� *��"��))%��%%%��'��#��%%%��

�� \��" �� &) �� ))-�� -# &�� )))��-$ %�� %%%�� 0 ��))$��))& �/��!� �� 0��

0�

*+H�#��7��7��7��]��%�8��\��5��5��

=��?�� /�� :��

��

� �� %%��

��<��

��E��"

��"��

��

��%%��<�� '��

��

��

��

� �� 3�� %%

�<��

��8�� $�

/��

�� 0 ��

�� *�

��

��

�"�� "� ��

�� " ��A��

��'��"��0 ��"� ��

�� '��"��

��

��

�� A��

�� " ��'��"��"��

� ��& ��"��

��

.%%��

��

�� A��

�� "��"�

��$ ��0��

��

�� " ��

�� =��

/�� ?�� +�� @�� /?+�

��&�

:��D�6 �:� ��6+�� >��

19851985 19871987 19891989 19911991 19931993 19951995 19971997 19991999 2001200120

22

24

26

28

Thousands

FIGURE 16Numbers of fishing vessels over 100 GRT recorded in LloydsMaritime Information Services database

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 20020

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

Source: Lloyds Maritime Information Services.

Thousands

Honduras

Belize

Panama

St Vincent

Unknown

Vanuatu

FIGURE 17Numbers of fishing vessels in the major open registersand of flag unknown

*�0��"�� %%%�"��&� .� �� 1�� '��&� �� ))� ?�� " �� 0�� "��))&1�))-�2��3 4� �� 2��3 4��"��:��5�� 0��2��!��5�� &� �

�� '��"� �� "�� +�� 0�� 0��

00

�6*=2�&��77��7��**��7��7��}]8��7� ��~

��77��7 �� 7�� 0111 011� 0111 011�

6�� # )

*�� @� .# �) &$ #%

!�� & �

!�� ) .

!��/�� % .- � �

2�� % � �

(�� -) ) �% ��

/�� $ �%

K�� ) ��

L��<��

3�� ) �

3�� - ��

3��"�� $ �. � )

5�� ) �� - �#

<�� & �) �$

:�� # % .)

:�� ) �� & .

9'��

9� ��L �� & $ �.

9� ��:�� # � �

��

+�� &� ��& �� .)

9�'��"� �$ �� &% %

�� 4-0 (), 4-0 (),

�6*=2�$ ��7��]��%�8��\��5��5�� }��7� ��~

��8 "��]��7 ��**��7��7�� 0111 011� 0111 011�

6�� # )

*�� @� # - - ��

!�� # -

>��' ) . � �

�� ) )

�� & �-

/�� # �& � �

/�� - # � �

K�� # �.& �.

L��<�� $ ��

3��"�� # �- � �

3�� % - � �

<�� #% ��

:�� #% #- �%# #-

9� ��L �� % �# �# �%

9� ��:�� )- �� . �-

+�� $� )� �$$ �&$

9�'��"� � � ## ��

*��' � � #. $)

�� (14 0,( .0, 4((

"��7� ��)0) ��0)1

� �� 0�� '�� 0�� '��

6�� A�� '�� "� �� 0�� 0�� :��'�� 0�� 6��#&�� '�� 0�� 0 �� "�� '��0�� 0�� 6��-��'�� 0�� 5��0�� '�� '�� '��" �� " �� '�� %��'�� " �� 8�� <�� 8�� G�� ',��0��

��3��"��:��6�� 0 �� +�� '��'�� 3��"��6�� ?�� :��6�� !��'��:��6�� :��6�� 6��

�� '��:��6�� :��6�� "�� '��0 ��

/��2��!��6�� 3��"��5�� " �� 0 �� %�� ?�� /��3��6�� 7��!��6�� 3��5�� ?� ��*��'�:��2��!��5�� :��"��5�� "�� 0 �� "�� /��:��"��6�� 8� �� ))& �� '��6�� '� �

/��:��5�� 8� �� ))#�� ))&1�))-�2��3 4�� 5�� '�� 5��82��3 4�� '��5�� '�� '��82��3 4�� '��!� ��A��'��'��:��6��

�� 7��/� ��+��"��"�� 0 �� ))) ��"�� "� ��0�� 1��"�� 1��2��/� ��+��7��!��5�� " ��7��/� ��+��"�� 0�� 0�� '��0��

0(

0)

>�� "��

��"�� "��

��

��"�� "��

�� "��

��"�� >��

�� ?��

�� " ��

��

>��"� ��

��"�� +��8��

��"��" � ��

��"� �� 8��

� �� '��"��

��

*��

�� " ��

��

�0� �� 6��0�� 0� ��

��:�� < ��<� ��'��

��

�"�� >��

�� 2��3��6�� "��

�� "�� '��"��

��

�� /�� /� ��

3��:��6��

��

� �� >�� " ��

�� "��

��"��%��"�� "

"� ��8� �� @��

�� 20��

� ��2�� !��

��!��*��

�� 6��"�� 1��

�� @��1��

��

� ��

!��8� �� ,�� "�

�� "��D��

�"��

�� E��

�� D��

��

��E�� @��

�� E�� E��

�� "��"��

�� >��

�� >�"��

�� "��

��

� �� ,��

��

��

�� "��

��

/��

��

�0�� " ��

��

��" �� M� �� M��

��"�� " ��

"��

��M��M� ��0��

�� 8'�� "��

��)��.�'�G�� %�'��

� ��,�� 6��%�'��8'��

�� "�� .&��)&�'�G�� /��"��

��#%%�'�� ,��

��'�� "��

��&�)��'�G��

>��'�� ,��

�� '�� "��

��

�"�� "��

��

��"�� '��

�� " ��

� �� *��

��

��"��

��

2�� "�� #.�'�G��G��

��6��

��

5�� " ��

� ��.�)�'�G��G�� 6��

*+H��#�5�$��!��7��8�5��7��7��

04

��'�G��G�� =�� 6�� !��

��$�%�'�G��G�� 6� � ��

�� "��

�� "��

��

�� "��

�� :��' ��0��

�� "��

�� 0��

��

�� E��

��

+�� 0��

�� M��M��

� �� "��

��

��

�� 8

�� >��

� �� '� �:��

��

�� +��"�� 6��

��K��3�"�]��

�� 8��

�� "��

��"�� /��%%%�� "��

��/��@�� < ��<� ��"�

�� :��

��"��'��

��

� �� ?��

��"��"� ��

��

2��

'��"��

��

��

��A��

�� (�"��

'��"�� A��

��

��"�� 5��

7��'�� :��6��

��

��

>��

�� 8��

�� 2��

��" ��

��

��A��"�� 8��

��

:��D�� ?��6+�/��7��<��6��

:�� *��6+�� 5��3� �#�)

��0�� '� �(�"�� '��"��0�� '��"�� "� ��

20��' �A��'�� '��0�� +�� A�� +�� '��3��:�� 6�� /� ��5��

6�� "��*�0�.�� 0�� "�� /� ��+��:��6�� :��5�� ?��'��"8��" ��8� � �� "�� '��'��"� �� '�� '�� '��"�� !��0�� 5�� '�� "� ��0�� /99��

��/��:��7�� 6��%%%�� "�� *�0��:+�/6��%%%�� <�� :��6� ��

�� '�� '�� 20�� "��

6�� /�� 6�� :��7�� 6��%%�

�� %��6�� 6+�� ,�� "� �� . )�� "� �� )&%��& .�� %%% 6�� " �� 7��" �� ) �� )&%��" �� #�� -�� "�� "�� !� ��"�� "��)&%��%%%��" ��& %�� "�� ?�� !� �� #��" �� #�� "�� (�"�� !� ��,�� "�� ))%�� *�0�� -��"�� !� ��"��

/��%%%�� "��#� &��

0-

��6+ ��%%� �/�� :��6� �D

�� > �!�� <65�5�� 8

�� %%�G�� *��'�'��6+�<�� +�� 6� ��

5��

��"� ��9:;�$ �� !� ��"��&��#) -�� ?��"�� %%%�"�� "��A�� " ��"�"�� )� �7�� "��% �� 9:;� $�� "� ��& )�� 9:;# %� �� !� ��

/�� "��'�� %� �� "�� %%% �� " �� "�� /�� ) &�� "�� %%% �� M�� M��

� '��

/��%%%�� ' ��"�� "�� )&%1�%%%��"��"�� "�� 6��' ��"�� # $�� "� �� %%%�� &�� "��"�� ( ��8�� ' ��

0.

0

4

8

12

16

0

4

8

12

16

1970 1980 1990 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000

FIGURE 18Aquaculture production in marine and inland waters

Million tonnes Million tonnes

Note: Data exclude aquatic plants.

Inland waters Marine waters

China

China

World excluding China World excluding China

FIGURE 19Trend of world aquaculture production by major species groups

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 20000

10

5

15

20

25Million tonnes

Molluscs

Aquatic plants

Crustaceans

Other aquatic animals

Finfish

"�� "�� %� 5�� A�� A�� "��

/�� "8 ��8�� =/�>!��" �� %�� )&% (�"�� "�� =/�>!��0�� !� ��"��8=/�>!�� .� *�� " �� " ��. &�� )&%��"�� #��)))��%%% �7 ��0�� %%%��'�� G�� 8�� /��&. &�� "��

/�� "�� "� �� 1��0�� "�� !� �� %%%��" �� !� ��,�� "��%�� &�� '� � �� !� �� +�� !� �� % $�'�� )&%�� .�'�� %%% �

0/

Finfish

Crustaceans

Molluscs

Other aquatic animals

Aquatic plants

FIGURE 20 World aquaculture production: proportions of species groups by enviroment in 2000

FreshwaterFreshwater

MarineMarine

BrackishBrackish

6.1% 0.7%

42.7%

50.5%

8.7%

0.1%

1.0%

46.2%

44.0%

1.7% 0.6%

97.7%

Viet Nam

Bangladesh

Korea, Rep.

Thailand

Indonesia

Philippines

Japan

India

China

20 00020 00010 00010 00000 30 00030 000 40 00040 000

Note: Data include aquatic plants. Countries listed are those with a production volumeof more than 500 000 tonnes.

FIGURE 21Aquaculture production: major producer countries in 2000

2 0952 166

1 2924 450

1 044730

9942 268

7072 431

698 698

657 1 159

526 1 096

32 44428 117

Quantity (thousand tonnes)

Value (US$ million)

SustainabilityDuring the past three decades, aquaculture hasexpanded, diversified, intensified and madetechnological advances. The potential of thisdevelopment to enhance local food security,alleviate poverty and improve rural livelihoodshas been well recognized. The BangkokDeclaration and Strategy (Network ofAquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific [NACA] andFAO, 2000) emphasizes the need for theaquaculture sector to continue developmenttowards its full potential, making a netcontribution to global food availability, domesticfood security, economic growth, trade andimproved living standards.

FISH UTILIZATIONOf the estimated 89 million tonnes offish produced in 2000 in the world,excluding China, nearly 71 percent(63 million tonnes) was used for directhuman consumption. The remainder(about 29 percent) was utilized forvarious non-food products, mostly forreduction to meal and oil.Corresponding figures for China,which were based on reported capturefishery, aquaculture and fishmealproduction and FAO estimates of othernon-food uses (see Box 2), were nearly42 millions tonnes total productionand nearly 34 million tonnes (81percent) for direct humanconsumption. The remainder was usedfor the manufacture of fishmeal andother non-food uses, including directfeed to aquaculture.

As a highly perishable commodity, fish has asignificant requirement for processing. In 2000,more than 60 percent of total world fisheriesproduction underwent some form of processing.The most important of the fish products destinedfor direct human consumption was fresh fish (ashare of 53.7 percent), followed by frozen fish(25.7 percent), canned fish (11.0 percent) andcured fish (9.6 percent).

During the 1990s, there was a significantincrease in the proportion of fisheries productionused as fresh/chilled fish rather than as other

products (Figure 24). The demand for fresh fishincreased, but was partially offset by a slightdecline in other uses. Fresh fish increased involume (live weight equivalent) from anestimated 28 million tonnes in 1990 to 52 milliontonnes in 2000. Processed fish (frozen, cured andcanned) increased in volume (live weightequivalent) from 43 million tonnes in 1990 toabout 45 million tonnes in 2000. Freezingrepresents the main method of processing fish forhuman consumption, and had a 55 percent sharein 2000. In developed countries, the proportionof fish that is frozen has been constantly

29

Otheraquatic animals

Marine fishes

Crustaceans

Diadromous fishes

Aquatic plants

Molluscs

Freshwater fishes

00 5 0005 000 10 00010 000 15 00015 000 20 00020 000 25 00025 000

19 80120 794

10 7329 497

10 1305 608

2 2576 699

1 6489 372

1 0104 072

137426

FIGURE 22Aquaculture production: major species groups in 2000

Quantity (thousand tonnes)

Value (US$ million)

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 20000

10

20

30

40

Note: Data include aquatic plants.

FIGURE 23Trends in aquaculture production quantity and value

Million tonnes/US$ billions

Non-LIFDCs

China

LIFDCs, excluding China

Value

Non-LIFDCs

China

LIFDCs, excluding China

Quantity

(1(1

�� @�� " ��#%�� /�� "��@�� 6�� 8�� %%%��.. &�� '�� "� ��8�� ?�� "��"�� 6�� 2��3 4��

�� 8��"��)�� ))-

��5*�� "��0�� !� ��" �� #�� )$��"� �� 0�� -�� : ��)-%��"�� "�� !� �� "�� # $�'�� )-&��. ��'�� %%%�� !� �� $ #�� )$�� &�� )� �6��"��"�� 8�)-%��. -��)$��)-��" ��% -��)-��%%%�

�� '��"�� . &�� )$��$ �� ))$��"�� -�� )))

/�� @�� -��"�� . �� )$�� #�� )))��

FIGURE 24Utilization of world fisheries production (breakdown by volume)

19611961 19641964 19671967 19701970 19731973 19761976 19791979 19821982 19851985 19881988 19911991 19941994 19971997 200020000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140Non-food purposes

Marketing as fresh produce

Freezing

Curing

Canning

Million tonnes (live weight)

�6*=2�-��*��*��**8�]8��5��7��*��7��,,,�

�� *��**8 ��**8

�� '�� "� ��

�� ,434 �-31

��6��7� �� -)3( �(3-

6�� $ � - %

3��!��6�� - � �$ -

:��6�� ) - �

!� �� .� � ��

6� ��0�� !� �� .� � �. &

2�� . ) �) �

+�� % & ��

/�� @�� # �- .

2�� . & �� &

=/�>!��0�� !� �� % - - .

>�� 0�� =/�>!� �. & �# -

(�

�� ) )��- .�'� ��"��"�� )-%�� @�� /�� '�� )-)�� "��$ ��- �� )))��& &��"��'�� 8�)-%� �

/��)$%�� =/�>!��"��8� ��

��"�� )))��=/�>!�� "�� /��!� �� 0�� =/�>!�� %��- .'�� 1��"�� .�� /��=/�>!�� "�� "� �� '�� %�� '� �+��

��q�5��5��

/��9��=�"��?�'��< ��

5�� !� ��L��5�� !��

��

��

�� "��

�� 5��

�� '��"��

��

<��'�� "��

��

��

��

��

�� 6��$%��&%� ��

� �� !� ��!��

�� ?��

�� +��

�� '��

� ��

��

��

�� /��L��

��'��

�� "��

�� %�'��

�� 2��

��'�� >��

��%�'��

�� %�'�

�� /��!� ��

�� 8

��

�� >� �� H ��

��

�� E��"��8� ��8��

�� 8��

��

��

��

� � ��

�� 6�

�� 0��

�� 5��

��

�� /�� '��

�� " �� "��"��

��

�� '��A��

��

*+H�$��]�� 8��5��]��5��7��8��5��**��

��6+ ��%%� ��

�� ? �(��"��> �*�� <�� 6+ ��%%� �<��6+� � � ��

�� 8�� ? �(��"�� <��

:��D�? �(��"��6+�� >��

FIGURE 25Fish as food: per capita supply

Average per capita fish supply(in live weight equivalent)

0-2 kg/year2-5 kg/year5-10 kg/year10-20 kg/year20-30 kg/year30-60 kg/year> 60 kg/year

(0

((

��"�� 0� � �� " ��"��

6��"�� 8�� "��'�� $� ��0��"��" ��)� �� )))��$ �� "�� 6�� " �� - %�'��E��"�8�� "�� 6� ��1�.� �� !� ��. &�'�� !� �� '��

!��"�8�� "��E�� 8�� @��%��'�� )&%1�%%% �<�� 8�� +�� "��0��!� ��,�� "��% ��'�� )&%�� -�'�� %%%�1�� # �� /��!� ��"�� '��)�'�� "��

�� A��"��"�� >�� 2��3��6�� 0�� ?� ��6� �� 0�� >�� 8��" �� 8��

�� +��$ %�'�� )))��A�� &��"�� :�� 1��#�'�� #�'�� '��% #�'��

��"�� &�� ?�� ##�� &�� )�� -�� %��"�� - $�� &�� ( �� ,�� "�� D�� @�� )�'�� . ��'� ��"��0�� "�� "��)$��)))D�� % #�� #�'�� "�� E�� % $�� '��

� �� -%�� "�� "�� '�� "��"�� 0��K��/�� E�� %��.%�� "�� '��"�� %�� 2�� /�� : ��=�� *��<�� !��!��

7��" ��

()

World AfricaAfrica Northand Central

America

Northand Central

America

SouthAmerica

SouthAmerica

AsiaAsia EuropeEurope OceaniaOceania

20

40

60

80

100

120

75.147.5

627.6

13.67.2 4.4 2.4

60.57

47.712.8 6.4 3.4 2.4 0.6

98.242.4

55.831.2

16.94.13.6

74.736.837.9

23.310.4

2.41.8

70.550.1

20.49.1 4.1

4.8 2.4

97.243.5

53.726.1 18.3

5.6 3.7

93.137.0

56.133.3

15.65.5 1.7

FIGURE 27Total protein supply by continent and major food group (1997–1999 average)

Total proteinsVegetable proteinsAnimal proteinsAnimal proteinsMeat and offals

i hFishEggs

g/capita per day

� � �� .%�� '�� &� �>�� 6��$��"��,�� %�� '�� 0��

��#�/�� 0�� /��"�� 0�� 0�� %%%��"�8�� :��/��/�� /�� "�8"�� :��6�� 6�� !� ��+�� -� 5�� *�0�&�

/��%%%��"�� 0��9:;�� "��-�� ))- �� "��

�� )�E��" ��))-�� A�� 0�� " ��9:;# #�� !� ��0�� 0��9:;. &�� %%%�1��A��"��.$��))-�1�� "��0�� /�� 0�� !� �� "�� 0�� 8� � �� 3��"��"� ��'��"��0�� "��"�� "��1�� 3��"��

� �� "��9:;$%� �� %%% �>�� -%�� K��"�� $��E� �� #�� 6�� "� �� ))-��K�� %%%��))& ��2!

(4

Oceania

0

1.0

1.5

2.0

1976 1980 19881984 1992 1996 2000

US$ billions

FIGURE 28Imports and exports of fishery products for different regions, indicating the net deficit or surplus

Africa

0

1

2

3

1976 1980 19881984 1992 1996 2000

US$ billions

Canada and United States

0

4

8

12

1976 1980 19881984 1992 1996 2000

US$ billions

Europe

0

10

20

30

1976 1980 19881984 1992 1996 2000

US$ billions

Asia excluding China

0

10

20

30

1976 1980 19881984 1992 1996 2000

US$ billions

Latin America and the Caribbean

0

2

4

6

8

1976 1980 19881984 1992 1996 2000

US$ billions

China

1

2

3

0

4

1976 1980 19881984 1992 1996 2000

US$ billions

Export value (f.o.b.)

Import value (c.i.f.)

Surplus

Surplus

Surplus

Surplus

DeficitDeficit

Deficit

Deficit

(-

��

��"�� +�� " ��

��"��

��

/��

��

��A��

�� :��

�� $�� "

�� %%%� �: ��

��)-%��

�� @ �� A��

�� 6� ��=�� 6��

��

�� !�� 0��

��'�� ,�

��

� � ��"��

�� 6��K�� "��'��

9� ��:��'��:��%%�

��A��'��K��9� ��:��2!�

��0��

2��/�� /� ��?�0 ��*��

3�� >�� "�� 0��

�� 6� ��'��!� ��

<�� L�� ?�� " ��0��

�� "��

��

�� " ��"��

�� 0�� /�� " ��

��"��

��

�� " ��" ��

�� #%�.%%�� %%%� ��

�0��@��" ��

��#%�%%%��9:;� �� %%% �

��

� �� '��

��" ��.�� %%%��

$�� A��

�� "��$-��

�� %%%��"� ��

�� !� ��/� ��

/��

� ��@�� %%��

�"�� 6��

��0��"� ��

--��%�� %%��

��"�� "��"��

�� '�� "

�� " �� '��1�3��"��!� ��

��9� ��L �� 3��"�� 0��6��

��!� �� 0��

��0��6�� '��

��3��"�� 2!��"� ��&%��

3��"�� 0��E�!� ��,�� '��K��

9� ��:�� .%��

!� ��0��

3��"�� 6� ��"��'��

� � �� 2��'��

��3��"��

9:;��%��

��"�� !� ��

��"�� 9� ��:��=�� 6�� 2��

6� ��'��0�� K�� /��3��"��!� ��

�� "� ��

��9� ��:��'��

��

" ��"��

��

�� 6��

�� "��9:;� $%

*+H�&��*��

��0��

��

��"�� /�� 8

�� "��" ��

��0��'�"�� 8

�� " ��,��8

� �� '��

��"�� 8

�� "��" �� 6�� 8

�� "�29�� "� �� K��%%�

�� "�� 8

� ��

:��D�6 �=��6+�� 9� � @�� ?��'�� :��

(.

��;. #%G'�� I� � J��

�� 8��

��'��

/��

" ��0�� %%%�� #%�$%%��

�� %%%��

!��

��3��"��!� ��

�� 8� @��8� ��

K��'��K�� -#�%%%��

��%%��

6�� "��"��

� ��

��$��-%%�� %%%� �/��

�� " �� "��!��

6�� !��< ��2��!��

��9� ��:��"��6� �� "��

5�� !� ��/�� 9� ��

:��K�� "��K��

��9� ��L �� 0�� "��

5�� !� �� K��" �� 8��

� �� '�� @��

9� ��:��'��#%�%%%�� %%�� "��

5�� !� ��0��&%��

� �� /�� 0��

�� 3��

��"�� '��!� ��0��%%

��9� ��:�� %%� �] ��"��"��

��@�� 2!��'��

/��9� ��:�� "��

��"� ��$�.%%�� %%��

�� 9� ��:�� " ��

��"�� =��8

�� 0��

�� 0��9� ��:��"��

2��"� �� '��

/��2�� "�

�� 5�� %�%%%

�� %%��"� ��"��0�� /��

��:�� 0��"��"� ��0��

��&%�� /��"��

��0��'��'��

��'��'��0��"

�0�� "��'��9� ��L ��

��"��:�� @�� 6��

�� /��:��

�� ?��!��

6��G��"��

� ��"��'�� "�8

�� "��))%��%%��1��9:;�$G'��

9:;#��;�G'� �� '��

�� $%��&%��

��" ��%��6��

�� '��

�� 2��" ��6��

��'��'�� '��

��

�� "�� "��'��

�0�� 0 ��

��

�� 6�

" ��G��

��

��'��0�� 3��"��

6�� "��

9� ��:��% ��'�� "� �� %%%��

�� -%�%%%�� %%%

20��

�� '��"�� 3��

�� '�� 9� ��:��&�&%%

��2��'��

�� ,��D��

��"� ��8��8��

��

��"�� " ��

��%�� %%%�� "�--��

��"�� ?�� @��

�� " �� !� ��

�� 0��"��

<�� L��K�� <�� L��

�0�� 5��"��

9�� "��"��K��.��%%�� %%%�

: �� 2��"��

�0��5� � �� 9� ��<�� @��

��/�� 9� ��:��>��'��K��

2!� ��"�� %%%��$��%%%��

!� �� 0��0��

��

\��

/��

" ��D��%��

�� ?�A�� '��K��9� ��:��

(/

��"� ��A��0��!� ��

��

��

��@�� "��

�-�%%%�� )-��&-��%%�� %%%��

��9:;�$.�� !�� "��

..�%%%��&��%%%��

��9:;.%�� ?�� "��"�"��

��'��&��%%%�� ))��

�.&�%%%�� )).��%%%�� ))#

(�"�� "��"��

��D��%%�%%%��9:;.�%��

��%%% �+�� " ��

��%�%%%�� )-��#&�%%%�� %%%�

�� 9:;�%%��

%� ��7��5�

6� ��

��" ��

��'��

��" �� ?�A��

��'��0��

!� ��0�� 0�� ?�� : ��

�� "��5�� !� ��"�� 3��

6�� 2��" ��!� ��6� ��

�� 6��,�� '��

��

��

��

�� " �� ,�

��

6�� 0��

9:;�%%�� "��

� �� (�"��"��

�� 9:;��

�� 9:;.�� 9� ��:��

�� A��

��

��

��

"�� 0��

��

6� ��%��"��

�� 3�"��!@��<��

��?�� "�� " ��

�� 9� ��:��

��#��K��#��2��

��)��-��9� ��

L ��-�� /�� "��

�� )%��

�%�� "��

��"�� " � �(�"��

�� " ��

�� '��

�� '�� 8��

��

��

�� /�� "��

�� 6��"��

?� ��

�� !� ��,��

2��8��

�� /� ��!� ��

� � �� '

>�� " ��

��

��

:��D�6 �=��6+�� >��

�� 20�� :�� "� �� "�� A�� %%% ��9� ��:��"�� "��,��0�� "�� /��"��" �� %%%�� " ��0��

�� 0�� 0�� 9:;. &�� )-%��9:;�- %� �� %%%�1�� 8�� /��%%%�� %��" ��)))�� 9:;�$�� "��0�� .%� ��

� �� "�� 6�� '�� " ��.&��0�� %%%�� "� �� =/�>!�� %�� 0�� /��%%%�� "�� %��0�� 6��

(,

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 20000

5

10

15

20

25

For human consumptionMillion tonnes (product weight)

Fresh, chilled or frozen fish

Fresh or chilled crustaceans and molluscs

Canned fish

Dried, salted or smoked fish

Canned, crustaceans and molluscs

1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

1

0

2

3

4

5

6

Other purposesMillion tonnes (product weight)

Fishmeals

Fish oil

FIGURE 29World fishery exports by major commodity groups

FishFish CoffeeCoffee BananasBananas RubberRubber TeaTea RiceRice MeatMeat-5

0

5

10

15

20

1980

1990

2000

US$ billions

FIGURE 30Net exports of selected agricultural commodities by developing countries

)1

��"�� 6��&$�� DK��2!��9� ��:�� 6�� %�� ,��0�� ))-1�%%% �

+" �� )%�� = �� " ��"�� E��"�� :�� "�� '��'��6��'��'��

� �� @�� "� �� @��"�� E��"��8�� '��"� �� @��E��@�� >�� ,��0�� "��'�� /�� "�� 0��"�� 0�� /�� "��,�� =�� 6�� >�� , �� @�� '�� "�� @�� 8�0�� 2�� '��(��L��:�� 6� � �� <�� "��5�� !� ��<�� L��?�� : �� 8�� '��

/�� .�� 0�� 6��

�� .&�� ))-1�%%%��)-�� "�� #%��6�� /�� '��"�� "� ��

>� �� " ��A�� D�� "�� (�@��6�� !� � ��!��5� ��(6!!5�8��E�� '��E�� 0�� E�� E�� 2!��9� ��:��(6!!5�� '�� 7� ��9� ��:�� 9� ��:��2!�� 0�� < �'�� '�� '�� 1�� " ��1� �� "�� /�� "�� ?�� +��K��%%��2!��"�� "� �� " ��D�� =�� E�"�� " ��E�� "��" �� E�� " �� 6��

��5*�� K��"��

)�

�!��

)0

)(

�� '�� 9� ��:��'��"�� %%%�� %%� �� :�� "�"��'�� >�� 2��"�� " �� E��"��"�� "�� +��)K��%%��2!�� !� �� /��6� �� 2!�� '��" �� '�� '�� 2!�� '�� %%�� "��0��"�� .��

�� 2��!��6�� )))��"�� %%%�� %%� �� " ��%�%%%�� " �� 0�� ))$��))&

��"�� )))��' �A��'�� "��' �� /�� 8�%%%�� "�� @�� " �� @ ��'�� @�� "� �� >� ��%%�� @�� :' �A��'

�� "� �� "��9:;.�%�� 8�%%%��9:;&%%��;&�%�� ?��%%�� ..�

�� 0��9� ��:��'��"��0��"��0�� %%� ��5� � �� /�� 0�� =� ��"�� "��

))

��&%��/�� 2��!�� 8��6�� 2! |�� "�� %%� �6��'��'��"�� '��'��"�� 5� �� 0�� .#�� '��

�*��:� �� "��"� ��%%�E�� /��0��:��"��6�� +�� 2��!��6�� "�� %%�� 0��K�� /�� ?�� 0�� K�� "�� '��#%�� %%��" ��%%%�� .��

��5��'�� 1��$%��1� ��0�� /��%%�� "�� #�� %%% �� " ��A��'��'�� !� ��"��"�� 5�� "�� " �/��%%�� *:2��"�� '�� 2��2!�� ,� �� /��

)4

2!��8�� "�� "�� 5��!� �� " ��7��+�� @�� 7�+�:�� 5�� :5:�!�� +��%%��2!�� .$��0�� !� ��6� ��

�� '��"�� %%��" �� %%��"�� "�� %%%��"�� '�� %%� !�� "�� 0�� 6�� '��

�"��"��"�%��%� ��"#|�'��"�" � ��7��7��5��7�5�� "�� 0 �� 8��'�� @ �� "�� (�"�� '�� 0�"�� "�� " ��

2�� "�� 1�� @�� "��1��

�� " �� @ �� ,�� 8�� @��/�� 5��

/�� " ��,� �� "� �� "�� "�� " ��'�� " �� " �� "�� "� �� !�� '�� A�� 0��

)-

�� /��

��"�� "�� 8�� 6��

��5��7�5�� " �� " �� @��'��

>�� '��"�� *�� "�� 6�� 0�� 0�� "�� " �� ' �� '��" �� " ��

/�� " �(�"�� 1��1��

��

�� '� �:�� @�� "�� @�� (�"�� "�� @�� '��

�� " ��"�� '�� "��

�� ,�� " �� >�� 8�� 8�� '�� +�� " �8" �� "��'��8�� "� �� '�� "��"��' ��

/�� 8�� 0 �� 1��"� �� '�� "�� '��

).

�� @�� '�� 9��"�� "��" �� " ��A��

6�� " �� 6��

�5�7��7��:�� "�� " �� /�� ' �� @�� "�� "�� "� ��

2�� '��'�� 8��' �� 9��"�� "��8�� " �� '��"��' �� 6�� " ��

��0��<�� #-�

/�� "�� 0�� '�� :��"�� "�� @�� 5��0��0�� 8�� A� �� 1�� *�� 0 �� G�� 0 ��

��' �� 20�� "�� "�� 6�� "��

��" �� 6�� '�� '��

��" �� "�� 0��

��:��0�� 8

�� .�

� �� D��6+ ��%%� �!�� 8

�� 6+�� 5��

3� �#�� <��

)/

�� '�� ' �� " ��8�� 6�� 0�� /�� 5��

*�� " �� @�� 8�� 8�� '�� '�� '��" ��!�� 5�� $�� 6�� " �� /�� @�� @�� 0��

��7��7� �� '��

: ��)#��.%�� <�?+�� !��&��6��9� ��3�� 5��6�� 93!2>��))�9� ��3�� :��'��6��))��6+�!��!��<�� <�?+�� 8��

�� '��<�?+��

� �� :�� "�� 7�� (�"��

/�� 6+�!�� !+�/�� A�� <�?+� > �� @�� 0�� "��'�� '� �6��6+�� %%��<�?+�� <�?+�� "� �� @ �� @��

/�� /�� <�?+��"��'��"� �� <�� "��"�� <�?+�� '��

>�� <�?+�� /�� /99�� *�� 8�� <�?+��"�� /99�� "� �� 5�� /998�� " ��<�?+� �:�� "�� "� ��

),

�� /99��

6�� <�?+�� " �� "�� "��'��<�?+�� /99�� '�� /�� !�� !�� 6�� /!!6�� @�� ,�� " �� /��%%��"��/!!6�� " �� "��

<�?+�� +��0��<�?+��" �� 6��))��93�� :��'�6��))��6+�!��!��<�� (�"��<�?+��'�� "� ��8�� "�� 8�� " �� @��

/��"��'��<�?+�� :�� > �� '�� "��'��<�?+��

�5*�5��,,4��"��7��5��6��/�� 5�� 9� ��3�� !�� =�"��:��%�>��)-�� !�� ?��

:�� :��'��( ��? �� :��'��))��93�� :��'��6��"��#�6��))� �/�� >��%%�� " ��:��8��9� ��3��

��))��93�� :��'�6�� )-��9� ��3�� !�� =�"��:��)-�!�� '�� '� ��)).��6+�6��5��!�� " ��/�� !�� ?��?�� ( ��:��)).��6+!�� 6��))��6+�!��!��<��

/�� ))��93�� :��'�6��A�� <�?+� 9�� :�� <�?+�� '�� '�

2�� 1� � � �� " ��1�� : ��))��"��"��G�� 0�� "�� ?�� /99�� 9� ��3�� 6+��<�?+��*�0�-� �:��,�� " �� "� �� "��'�� <�?+��

41

�� ))��93�� :��'��6��

<�?+�� E�� "� �� :��<�?+�"��0�� '�� "�� " �� " �� /�� >�� "��<�?+�� " �� ,�� "�� "�� "��

��))��93�� :��'��6��

��"��"��"�<�?+�D�� " �� '��" �� '�

�� :��6�� +�� @�� :26�+��7��!��5�� !�� "��'�� D

�� ))��93�� :��'��6�� :��6�� 7��!��5�� E��

�� <�?+��"�� 0 ��

��7��+��!�� !�� ?�� <�� :��2��6�� +��"� ��"�� :26�+�� %�6�� %%� �/�� 8��

*+H�-��7�$��*��7��7

/99��

�� /�� @��

/99��

��

��<�?+�� " ��

��

7 �� ?��%%��"��8

��:�� !+�/��

/�� 5��6�� 5��>��2� � ��

/��9��9�� /5+68/99�

:��.�K��%%��6+�!��

(��8��8�"�� :�� /5+68/99

��/5+68/99� �� " ��

��"��'��))��6+�!��!��

<�� /��

<�?+��/99�� /5+68/99� ��

��

�� '��8��

/99�� : �� /5+68/99��

�� 1��

�� /5+6�1��

�� .�K��%%#�

�� /5+68/99��6+��

�� <�� 3� �)�

/�� /�� 5��6�� 5��

>��2� � ��/��9��9��

� �� %%��<��

� �� /5+68/99��

<�?+��

�� /5+68/99��6+�� 8

�� :��

�� /��

� ��

:��D�> �>��6+�� >��

4�

� �� 3�� :26�+��'�� 8�� 7�� "�� 2! �

�� 6+,�:�� 6��#& �/�� 22]��D�6��3�� :��6�� 9� ��L �� :� ��(�� !��6�� /��

:26�+�" ��'��22]��A�� :�� A�� "��'� ��"��'� �:26�+�" �� '�� '��A�� ))��93�� :��'�6�� '�� ,��'��'� �� '��A��/!!6�

L��:26�+�!�� E�� . �� '��E�� E�� 8��' ��E�� " �� @�� E�� E�� 8�� E��

��3��

�� /��" �� ,�� " �� @�� '��

�55�� \��7�5��7�8�\�7��8�� !�� !�� ?��( ��? �� :��'�� 7��!��5�� +�� :��%%%��0�� +��8�� "�� )�� /�� "��5�� !� �� 6��5�� 2�� :��%%% �

�� "��> ��7�� 3�� >7�3�� 8��' �� /��" �� .%�� %��3�� >7�3�� %��3�� /��" �� :��%%.�� %��3�� " �� 0��

�� 8�� '�� 7��!��5�� +�� " �� )-��!�� ))��93�� :��'��6�� '�� 0��

.�!�� 6�� $��

��

�� " ��

40

��1�� ' �A��'��"� �� :��

�� 0�� 5�� +�� /��"�� '� �/�� "�� " ��<�?+��" ��

�� '�� @�� 0 �� @�� 0�� 5�� !�� ,��+�� 5��

��

�� E�� 8��' �� " �� @�� E�� E�� E�� E�� E�� E�� 8��

/�� ,�� 7��!��5�� +��!�� "� ��"��'� �6�� %%� �/�� @�� "��'��"�� "�� " �� " �� " �� '�� /�� " �� "��'��:��%%. ��

PART 2Selected issues facing fishers and aquaculturists

IMPLEMENTING THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH TO CAPTURE

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

THE ISSUEIn recent years there has been a growingawareness that the traditional approach tomanaging fisheries, which considers the targetspecies as independent, self-sustainingpopulations, is insufficient. It is being recognizedthat sustainable use of the world’s living aquaticresources can only be achieved if both theimpacts of the ecosystem on the living resourcesand the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystemare explicitly identified and, as far as possible,understood. It is also being formallyacknowledged that fishers are an integral part ofthe ecosystem and that both ecosystem andhuman well-being must be achieved.

Awareness of the essential interactions betweenpopulations and their biological, physical andchemical environment is not new. As early as1376, a group of fishers from the Thames estuaryin the United Kingdom expressed their concern toKing Edward III of England about the ecosystemimpacts of the wondrychoun, a form of beamtrawl, which they believed would cause "greatdamage of the common’s realm and thedestruction of the fisheries". However, suchtraditional knowledge was frequently overlookedas fisheries grew rapidly in size and efficiencyduring the nineteenth and twentieth centuries andas science-based, quantitative methods weredeveloped as a means of estimating how to adjustfishing power to resource productivity. Using themost readily available data from fisheries, simplesingle-species models became the preferredassessment tool. These models focused allattention on the target resources and on theimpact that fishing removals had on theirdynamics.

The single-species approach is not the onlycause of the widespread inadequacy ofconventional fisheries management regimes.However, the dangers and limitations of treating

fish populations as entirely self-regulating is wellillustrated by examples that include the highlyvariable small pelagic resources of upwellingsystems, the suspected species replacements inareas such as the Georges Bank, and the impactsof riverine and coastal developments on, forexample, salmon, sturgeon and shrimp stocks inmany areas.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSFisheries managers and scientists have been slowto respond to the growing evidence that theecosystem should be considered as a whole.Progress has been impaired by the lack of good-quality, relevant data; the poor understanding ofpopulation, ecosystem and fishery dynamics andinteractions; and the absence of a crediblealternative operational management paradigm.The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea ofDecember 1982 does not explicitly provide foran ecosystem approach to fisheries, even thoughits main focus in relation to fisheries is with the"living resources" of the sea and the environment.Nevertheless, it does include some provisionsthat recognize the interdependence of targetspecies with other marine organisms and theirdependence on their environment.

By the time that the FAO Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries (the Code) was adopted byFAO members in November 1995, the principlesof an ecosystem approach to fisheries had startedto emerge, including in non-fisheries instruments(such as the Convention on Biological Diversity).The Code reflects this, and includes manyimportant ecosystem considerations that are ofrelevance to fisheries. In the Introduction to theCode, it is stated that: "The Code sets outprinciples and international standards ofbehaviour for responsible practices with a view toensuring the effective conservation, managementand development of living aquatic resources, withdue respect for the ecosystem and biodiversity."Throughout the Code there are references todifferent ecosystem considerations, and Article 6requires states to conserve aquatic ecosystems

55

Selected issues facing fishers and aquaculturists

56

(Paragraph 6.1). Paragraph 6.6 advocates that:"Selective and environmentally safe fishing gearand practices should be further developed andapplied ... in order to maintain biodiversity and toconserve the population structure and aquaticecosystems" while Paragraph 7.2.2 specifies thatmanagement measures should provide for, amongmany other factors, conservation of biodiversity,consideration of environmental impacts andminimization of deleterious impacts, such aspollution, discards, catch of non-target speciesand impacts on associated and dependentspecies. Effective adherence to these and otherprovisions of the Code would go a long waytowards very effective implementation of anecosystem approach to fisheries (EAF).

The holistic foundations of the Code werefurther boosted by the Kyoto Declaration madeby the 95 country delegations that met in Kyoto,Japan, from 4 to 9 December 1995 for theInternational Conference on the SustainableContribution of Fisheries to Food Security. Thesecountries declared that they would "base policies,strategies and resource management andutilization for sustainable development of thefisheries sector on the following: i) maintenanceof ecological systems; ii) use of the best scientificevidence available; iii) improvement in economicand social well-being; and iv) inter- andintragenerational equity", thereby explicitlylinking maintenance of ecological systems withfisheries and fisheries management.

The ecosystem approach to management of theoceans and their resources was consolidated inAgenda 21. Review and coordination of theimplementation of these aspects among UnitedNations agencies was facilitated by the nowdissolved Sub-Committee on Ocean and CoastalAreas (SOCA) of the Inter-agency Committee onSustainable Development (IACSD), operatingunder the umbrella of the UN AdministrativeCommittee on Coordination (ACC).

At its Ninth Session in July 2000, SOCAconsidered the need to improve coordination andsynergies between regional organizations forfisheries and those for the marine and coastalenvironment. It concluded that both types ofbodies could regard the challenge posed by thedevelopment of ecosystem approaches to

fisheries management and integrated coastalmanagement as a potential platform for practicalcooperation.

As a first step in this direction, it was agreedthat a paper centred on ecosystem-basedmanagement in fisheries would be developedjointly by FAO and the United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP) and wouldserve as the basis for potential cooperationamong competent regional organizations. Thepaper summarizes the work that regionalorganizations have undertaken in relation toecosystem-based management, outlines possiblemechanisms for cooperation, and identifies issuesfor further consideration. It was subsequentlydiscussed at meetings, both of regional seasconventions and of FAO and non-FAO regionalfishery bodies (RFBs).

RECENT ACTIONSThe latest step in the slow process towardsformal, global acceptance of the need to managefisheries as integral components of dynamicecosystems came with the Conference onResponsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem,which was organized by FAO and theGovernment of Iceland, with support from theGovernment of Norway, in Reykjavik in October2001. At the end of this conference, the ReykjavikDeclaration was adopted, including the pledgethat the signatory nations would "in an effort toreinforce responsible and sustainable fisheries inthe marine ecosystem, ... work on incorporatingecosystem considerations into that managementto that aim."

The intent is therefore now firmly in place, but there is still considerable uncertainty as to exactly what is entailed by EAF, and how toimplement it. To this end, the ReykjavikConference requested FAO to develop draftguidelines to be presented at the Twenty-fifthSession of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI ) in 2003. This work is in progress, and theguidelines have not yet been finalized.Nevertheless, some EAF principles are widelyaccepted and will almost certainly featureprominently in the guidelines. These principlesare already reflected in the Code and aresummarized in the following:

57

• The first step in implementing EAF is toidentify and describe the different exploitedecosystems and their boundaries as discreteentities for the purposes of management. Suchclassification will be guided by the availableknowledge of existing fisheries and targetstocks, as well as by other information. Adegree of pragmatism will be required for this,as all ecosystems have open boundariesacross which exchanges occur. However, thedefinitions should aim to identify units thatare largely independent of surrounding areas,and can therefore be effectively managed asindividual entities. This problem, albeit on afar smaller scale, will be familiar to fisheriesmanagers who have already experienced asimilar lack of clarity when trying to identifyreproductively isolated stocks formanagement purposes. The definitions ofecosystems should include lists of species ofimportance, identifying particularlyvulnerable or endangered ones, anddescriptions of the habitats that are critical forthe productivity of the ecosystem.

• Once the ecosystem units have beenidentified, management objectives must bedeveloped for the fisheries of the ecosystem asa whole in order to facilitate obtaining theoptimal benefits in a sustainable manner. Inaccordance with the UN Law of the Sea andthe Code, this should involve – as far aspossible – the maintenance or rebuilding ofthe ecosystem, its habitats and its biodiversityto a status that is capable of supporting allspecies at levels of maximum production.Clearly, within the goal of optimizing benefitsfrom the system as a whole, there will also bethe familiar objectives of conventionalfisheries management, which covereconomic, social and biological desires at arange of species and fisheries scales.However, in EAF, it is also necessary torecognize the ecosystem interactions andconstraints, and to take steps to reconcile thewider objectives so that they are allsimultaneously achievable, rather than inconflict. In striving for this reconciliation, theequitable allocation of resources remains acentral challenge.

• The objectives of EAF must, of course, gobeyond those of the individual fishery or evenfisheries sector. Broader objectives must alsobe considered, including: protection andrestoration of critical habitats and nursery andspawning areas; maintenance of the quality,diversity and availability of resources;restoration or rehabilitation of populationsand stocks, as far as is reasonably possible;and conservation of biodiversity andpopulation structure. Economic and socialobjectives should also be considered at thiswider ecosystem scale by, for example, takingaccount of rural livelihoods and other socio-economic activities that have an impact or aredependent on the ecosystem.

• As already stated, the potential conflicts andinconsistencies in these objectives need to bereconciled in order to arrive at a set ofsimultaneously attainable objectivesencompassing biological, ecological,economic, social and institutional concerns.This is likely to be the most contentious partof EAF implementation and will require fullconsultation with all the legitimate interestedparties in order to ensure their support andcollaboration.

• Once the objectives have been identified andagreed, suitable reference points orsustainability indicators will need to beestablished through which to inform managersand interested parties on how successful theyare being in achieving objectives or remainingwithin constraints. The reference points mustreflect the range of objectives agreed and bebased on the best scientific evidenceavailable. The Scientific Committee forOceanic Research of the IntergovernmentalOceanographic Commission (IOC), with inputfrom FAO, is currently considering suitablereference points for EAF through its WorkingGroup on Quantitative Ecosystem Indicatorsfor Fisheries Management (see:www.ecosystemindicators.org/).

• Clearly, an effective monitoring system will berequired to ensure that the state of theecosystem can be followed through time andcan be compared with the reference points,allowing for corrective action when necessary.

58

• In fisheries management, managementmeasures are the tools that are used toachieve objectives. Many of the measures thatare available for EAF will be the same as thoseused in conventional single-speciesmanagement: input controls, output controls,technical measures covering gear and vesselcontrols, and area and time restrictions. Thefundamental needs to avoid excess fishingcapacity and to ensure economic conditionsthat promote responsible fisheries are asimportant for EAF as they are for single-species approaches. However, fisheriescontrol measures will have to be developedand extended to apply to the broader scope ofEAF, and controls on non-fishery users need tobecome a part of an ecosystem approach tofisheries management. Consideringecosystems instead of single populations willhighlight the high levels of uncertaintyconcerning the status and dynamics ofecosystems and their elements, and intelligentapplication of the precautionary approach iscentral to EAF.

• The problems associated with open accesssystems and systems in which access rightsexceed the production capacity of theresources are now a well-known cause ofmanagement failure in fisheries. This problemis going to be at least as serious inimplementing EAF, and the allocation ofvarious forms of explicit, legally enforceablefishing and other use rights is integral to EAF.In allocating these rights, it is necessary toconsider all aspects of the ecosystem and theimpacts of all its users, whether they use theecosystem directly or indirectly. Thus, notonly will fishing rights need to be considered,but also development rights, pollution rights,tourism rights and others.

• Implementing EAF entails explicit recognitionof the full range of users that have an impacton the ecosystem, and it is necessary toestablish effective consultation and decision-making processes for regular consultationwith all legitimate stakeholders. EAF’sinvolvement of a broader range of interestgroups is likely to require greater time andcosts for consultation and decision-making,

but is essential for ensuring compliance andcooperation.

FUTURE PERSPECTIVEThrough their support of the Code of Conduct(reinforced by the Kyoto and ReykjavikDeclarations) and of the various FAOInternational Plans of Action, most fishing nationsof the world have committed themselves tostriving to achieve EAF in order to "contribute tolong-term food security and to humandevelopment and to assure the effectiveconservation and sustainable use of theecosystem and its resources" (ReykjavikDeclaration). This could be facilitated byimproved relationships between regional fisheriesand regional environmental organizations. Theinstruments establishing both types of institutiondo not generally provide an explicit mandate forecosystem-based fisheries management, but thereare some exceptions. The International Councilfor the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), theCommission for the Conservation of AntarcticLiving Resources (CCAMLR), the InternationalBaltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC) and otherfisheries institutions have undertaken work that isrelevant, responsive, sound and credible withrespect to marine ecosystems and their relation tohumanity. In addition, the work of environmentalcommissions provides good backgroundinformation that may be taken into account in theecosystem-based management of fisheries.Extending the number of regional fisheriesorganizations with a mandate for adopting anecosystem approach and forging closer linksbetween environmental and fisheriesorganizations will facilitate the effectiveimplementation of EAF in fisheries around the globe.

Implementation of EAF is likely to be a slowand difficult process, requiring considerablesocial and economic adjustments within a globalenvironment that is already facing major socialand economic problems. Most countries arealready struggling to make good progress inimplementation of the Code, and will encounterthe same difficulties, and some additional ones,as they strive to achieve an effective ecosystemapproach in their fisheries management.

Insufficient financial resources, capacity andexpertise, as well as competition with otherpressing economic, environmental and socialneeds, are all hindering progress inimplementation of the Code. These problemswere anticipated for developing countries underArticle 5 of the Code, which highlights thespecial needs of developing countries, but theyhave not yet been fully addressed.

An ecosystem approach will require themonitoring and assessment of all aspects of theecosystem, a wider range of managementmeasures, possibly more control andsurveillance, and more time dedicated tointeracting with a wider range of stakeholders.National management agencies are typicallyalready fully and frequently overstretched, andEAF will require yet more financial andinstitutional resources and personnel, unless allparties can find means of distributing their skillsand labour more effectively and efficiently. Eitherway, the transition will not be easy and may alsoprove costly. While an ecosystem approach tofisheries management should deliver increasedbenefits in the longer term, as ecosystems recovertheir productivity and structure, there will betransaction costs. Countries will need to makeallowance for these costs, and any global-levelimplementation will require significant assistanceto developing countries so that they can meet thetransaction costs and raise their capacity to therequired minimum level. In all cases, there willalso be a need to look for alternative sources ofincome to help cover the costs of fisheriesmanagement; those who benefit most fromfisheries are one obvious potential source of suchadditional funds.

At present there are widespread public andpolitical concerns about the impacts of fisherieson ecosystems. There can be no doubt that theseconcerns are justified, even if they are sometimesexaggerated. In many countries, fisheries havelimited political and economic weight, and in thisera of globalization there is a risk that fisheriesactivities will be seen as expendable and will becurtailed in cases of doubt, unless there is anadequate response from the fisheries sector to thelegitimate environmental concerns. This risk addsto the urgency of developing management

approaches that provide acceptable results andare adapted to the various characteristics ofcountries and resources. In the recent politicalinitiatives, from the Code to the ReykjavikDeclaration, the global fisheries communityappears to be responding to the environmentalconcerns and to have realized that progress inachieving EAF is essential for the ongoingproductivity of aquatic ecosystems and the well-being of society. The incentives for success,therefore, should be high.

RELIABLE STATISTICS AS AN ESSENTIALBASIS FOR EFFECTIVE FISHERIES

MANAGEMENT

THE ISSUEFisheries management and statisticsAs in all forms of management, the managementof capture fisheries involves synthesizinginformation, analysis and decision-making.1

Without reliable information, no supportabledecisions can be reached, no diagnoses on thestate of fisheries can be performed, and noprognoses on the effects of management controlcan be made. Fisheries management is subject tonatural environmental variability and also tolong-term changes that may be human-induced,particularly pollution and climate change.

There is thus far more uncertainty and risk infisheries management than there is in themanagement of almost any other food sector orindustry. Part of the approach to reducing risk liesin improving understanding through betterinformation, more careful analysis andexperimentation, and improved decision-makingfor long-term results.

The importance of fishery statistics and theeffects of unreliabilityMost methods and approaches to fisheriesmanagement require an assessment of fish stocksin terms of their biomass, size or age composition

59

1 D. Evans and R. Grainger. 2002. Gathering data for resource

monitoring and fisheries management. In P.J.B. Hart and J.D.

Reynolds, eds. Handbook of fish biology and fisheries. Oxford,

UK, Blackwell.

and survival, as well as their responses to naturaland fishing mortality. Population models, andtheir dynamics under environmental and human-induced perturbations, are the principal tools.These require data on how much fish has beencaught, the size, age or gender of that fish, andthe growth and survival rates that it exhibits, aswell as additional information on many otherfactors. In order to make stock assessmentsrelevant to site-specific fisheries management,such additional information might include dataon the place and time of capture, thereproductive status and the behaviour of the fish.It is essential to know what is actually beingfished from the wild population, as this affects thestock’s ability to survive and, most important, toreproduce and repopulate. This is why catch andeffort statistics, along with other data regardingthe fish caught, are the key and essential basis foreffective fisheries management.

Statistics are often also used for directadministrative management control to ensure thatfishers are constrained within the set limits.Fisheries management measures often specifyhow much fish may be taken, by whom, by whatmeans, when and where. Thus, total allowablecatch and licence or quota allocation, fishinggear and operational controls, as well as seasonaland area closures, all require monitoring, muchof which can only be achieved by the regular andsystematic collection of reliable statistics on thecatch and the amount of fishing effort.

Fisheries management should protect the foodsecurity and livelihoods of dependentcommunities and try to ensure that benefits fromthe surplus production of wild stocks are broughtinto economies in ways that are appropriate tothe political, social and developmentenvironments in which they occur. Governmentsand industries need reliable statistics in order tounderstand the economic relationships within thefisheries sector and its linkages to other sectors,e.g. finance, energy supply or vessel construction.They must plan for training and investment ifpotential yields are greater than current yields, orfor retraining and stable industry reduction if theexisting capacity is greater than appropriate.Communities need catch and effort statistics ifthey are to achieve and ensure a fair and

appropriate distribution of benefits. Policy-makersneed such statistics so that fishing communitiescan be properly represented when sectoralpolicies are being developed. For example, arecent study2 of inland fisheries in SoutheastAsian countries indicates that catches are severaltimes greater than the official statistics and thatcommunities’ dependence on fish as a source ofprotein, as well as their dependence on thefishing livelihoods of subsistence and small-scalefishers, is far greater than officially recognized,resulting in inadequate recognition of fisheries insocial, economic, nutritional and environmentalpolicy-making.

In summary, unreliable statistics confoundfisheries management on three fronts. They:

• bring greater uncertainty into the stockassessment process, reducing confidence inthe accuracy of fisheries management adviceand often resulting in conflict amongovercautious fisheries managers, overeagerfishers and overanxious environmentaladvocates;

• reduce the public’s confidence in the abilityof fisheries managers to monitor and managethese national or international naturalresources on its behalf, leading to the beliefthat, in the absence of control, fishers areoverexploiting stocks or fishing ininappropriate ways;

• limit economic and social understanding ofthe position and viability of fisheries sectors,causing uncertainty about human resources,social structure, capital and infrastructurerequirements, both in development and forrestructuring.

The reliability of fishery statisticsEver since the modern fisheries era began, theissue of information reliability has pervadedfisheries management, particularly concerninginformation about the quantity and location of

60

2 FAO. 2002. Inland capture fishery statistics of Southeast Asia:current status and information needs, by D. Coates. RAP Publi-

cation No. 2002/11. Bangkok, FAO Regional Office for Asia and

the Pacific. 121 pp.

catches. As early as the sixteenth century,Portuguese fishers jealously guarded theirdiscovery of the great cod fishing grounds of theGrand Banks in the Northwest Atlantic. Ascapture fisheries approach maximum yields,scientists require more, and more accurate, dataon which to base their analyses. Most fisheryassessments concerning stocks, fleets andparticipants will always depend on reliable catchand effort statistics, as will economic andfisheries management advice. Given theincreasing demand for food fish and theacceleration of social change, traditionalknowledge, which is often rooted in stablecommunities where it enjoys high levels ofcredence, is insufficient. Societies, technologyand needs change alongside fisheries, andfisheries management must continually adapt tomeet new challenges and circumstances. Reliablestatistics are the most essential information that isneeded.

The range of types of data required to supportfisheries management and policy-making ispotentially enormous. However, financial orhuman resource constraints will forcemanagement authorities to limit collection to themost important data types. In 1998, FAOpublished Guidelines for the routine collection ofcapture fishery data,3 which sets datarequirements within a framework ofpolicy/objectives/indicators/strategy. It also offersadvice on methods of data collection, datamanagement and the planning andimplementation of data collection systems. It isnot prescriptive in that it does not offer a list ofdata types that are always required. Rather, itdescribes a decision-making framework throughwhich the most appropriate data are collected forthe tasks concerned; much of the fisheriesinformation that is collected around the worldmay be reliable but is of little value. In terms of

fisheries management, reliability includesrelevance.

There are several other sources of unreliability.Deliberate misreporting or non-reporting by legaland illegal fishers and other participants(processors, traders) is cited by most managers asa key problem, particularly in developedcountries and international fisheries. However, insome fisheries, particularly small-scale anddeveloping country fisheries, either there is nolaw in place that requires fishery data, or there islittle infrastructure for the collection of such data.Even when data are collected, they may be basedon inadequate sampling or inappropriatesampling design, the origins of which may belack of finance or trained personnel.

Bias can also be introduced by the statisticalauthorities, either inadvertently through theapplication of inappropriate methodologies, orthrough systematic distortions that are introduceddeliberately, for example, to demonstrate that aparticular outcome is in line with internationalobligations (set total allowable catches) ornational policy.

Another problem can be lack of timeliness. Forstatistics to be useful indicators in fisheriesmanagement they need to be prepared regularlyand within time frames that provide fisheriesmanagers with short-term guidance. Delays in thepreparation of statistics can seriously reduce theirutility to fisheries managers. Statistics that are fiveyears old but have only just become availablemay be reliable, but they may have littlerelevance for today.

The appropriate confidentiality of fishery data isalso a factor in understanding the reliability, andhence usefulness, of fishery statistics. A recentreport by the United States National ResearchCouncil (NRC)4 concluded that: "Confidentialityof fisheries data is restrictive to the point ofhindering both research and management." Thereport generally accepted that some fishery datahave proprietary value and that "some level ofconfidentiality is necessary to allow fishermen to

61

3 FAO. 1998. Guidelines for the routine collection of capture fi-shery data. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 382. Rome. 98

pp. Prepared at an Expert Consultation, held in Bangkok from

18 to 30 May 1998, organized and funded by the FAO/Danish

International Development Agency (DANIDA) project “Training

in Fish Stock Assessment and Fishery Research Planning”

GCP/INT/575/DEN.

4 NRC. 2000. Improving the collection, management and use ofmarine fisheries data. Washington, DC, National Academy of

Sciences. 160 pp.

maintain their businesses and to promotereporting of high quality information …information that might not be as accurate if itwere not confidential". The Code of Conduct forResponsible Fisheries makes several references toapplicable confidentiality without defining whatit means,5 partly because its meaning depends onindividual fishery circumstances and partlybecause the legal position regarding businessinformation varies from country to country.Nevertheless, the NRC report recommends thatexisting United States state and federal policieson data confidentiality should be re-evaluated,including creating a mechanism to establishunique proprietary periods for data confidentialityby fishery and "the effects of the loss ofconfidentiality on precision and bias (hencereliability) … in setting the proprietary period foreach type of data".

This means that lowering confidentiality levelsmay well result in less reliable information,particularly in fisheries, where knowledge (eventransient) of the "best" fishing grounds is themajor competitive advantage that fishers have.Confidentiality is therefore not a singledimension. It depends on timing and the needsand authorizations of data users. It also dependson the trust that fishers can expect from datausers, including confidence in data security andan understanding of the uses to which data willbe put.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSImproving the reliability of fishery statisticsConsiderable research and analytical effort areregularly put into assessing the precision andaccuracy of fishery data and estimating the extentof the fish catch and fishing effort that is entirelyunreported. Statistical techniques of ever-greatercomplexity attempt to reduce the uncertainty ofthese missing data. The Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development(OECD) report of the Workshop on theSignificance of Reliable Statistics to Conduct

Effective Management6 notes that: "Even usingthese techniques it has to be acknowledged thatthe confidence limits attached to the estimatesare wide and contribute significantly to a lack ofconfidence in the resulting advice."

Notwithstanding this general criticism, it islikely that non-reported data will always have tobe estimated in several ways in order to improvethe reliability of fishery statistics. Indeed, well-designed sampling surveys7 can offer goodinsights into a particular data population(including data that have not been sampled).Good statistical design, including validationmechanisms, is thus a primary means ofimproving reliability. Validation mechanismsinclude the periodic conducting of frame surveys,the use of observers and inspectors (as parallelsamplers to the complete enumeration approachgenerally used in logbooks), landings andprocessing throughput data, and vesselmonitoring systems.

It is also often claimed that rights-basedfisheries or community co-managed fisheries, inwhich the control of participants is partly theresponsibility of fishers themselves, may alsogenerate more reliable data, as it is in fishers’ ownbest interests to maintain good records andparticipate in the assessment and managementdecision-making processes. Certainly, incentivesto provide accurate data can be crucial to thereliability of the statistics to which theycontribute.

Whereas it is often essential to ensure theconfidentiality of data in order to ensure theirreliability, the methodologies and processes usedto collect and collate them should be fullytransparent in order to ensure objectivity.Uncertainty associated with statistics shouldalways be expressed, whether as confidencelimits, quality indicators or even annotatedcomments.

62

5 FAO. 1995. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Arti-

cle 7 Fisheries Management (7.4.4 and 7.4.7) and Article 12 Fi-

sheries Research (12.3).

6 Eurostat. 1995. A review of the quality and reliability of fishery

statistics. In OECD. Report of the Workshop on the Significan-ce of Reliable Statistics to Conduct Effective Management. pp. 185–187. Paris.7 FAO. 2002. Sample-based fishery surveys: a technical hand-book, by C. Stamatopoulos. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No.

425. Rome. 132 pp.

In addition, improving reliable statisticsrequires cooperation in the development andadoption of standards. Standardization ofnomenclature and coding, adoption of agreedstatistical methodologies and implementation oftransparent information exchange methodsrequire high levels of transboundary agreementso that the nature and origin of fishery statistics isunderstood across regions, oceans and the world.

In summary, improving the reliability of fisherystatistics involves many factors, including:

• legal and other instruments that obligatefishers to supply reliable data and thatestablish sanctions, penalties and, wherepossible, incentives to support thesemeasures;

• realistic and useful approaches to dataconfidentiality, appropriate access to data and, where possible, incentives to data providers to supply reliable information;

• good statistical design that is cost-effective,sustainable and adaptable to changingcircumstances and that includes validationsystems;

• high-quality and timely informationadministration and processing that is objectiveand transparent and that indicates datauncertainty and quality;

• technological innovations, including vesselmonitoring systems (onboard and satellitecommunications), electronic logbooks andpoint-of-weighing data capture;

• surveillance systems, including inspectors andobservers, to monitor catch and effort,discards and dumping, transhipment andillegal fishing.

Such solutions to the problem of unreliablestatistics – which hamper or, in some cases,confound fisheries management – require twoconditions in order to be implemented: politicalwill and sufficient capacity.

These possible solutions and requirements wereidentified by FAO members in 2002 at aTechnical Consultation on Improving Informationon the Status and Trends of Fisheries, which hadthe specific task of developing a proposal for

improving fishery information in a wide variety ofways and at all levels. The Technical Consultationproposed a draft Strategy for ImprovingInformation on Status and Trends of CaptureFisheries, which will be submitted to COFI in2003.

As well as objectives and guiding principles,the draft strategy contains direct identification ofthe actions required and the roles of states, RFBsand FAO to improve factual understanding offisheries and the exchange of information. Itrecognizes, inter alia, the need for: capacitybuilding in developing countries; data collectionsystems in small-scale fisheries and multispeciesfisheries; development of criteria and methods forensuring information quality and security; anddevelopment of arrangements for the provisionand exchange of information. The draft strategy isintended to provide a framework that motivatesdevelopment partner agencies to fund capacitybuilding in order to improve information andstatistics on fisheries.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEInternational responses to the need forreliable fishery statisticsIt is generally recognized that the overall qualityof fisheries production statistics has deteriorated,in relative terms, during the rapid expansion infisheries production of the past 50 years. This hasbeen particularly the case since 1982, when theUnited Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea(UNCLOS) brought about major changes to theregime of the oceans, and developing countriesstarted to experience additional social andeconomic difficulties. These difficulties arosedespite the calls in UNCLOS for "best scientificevidence"; the previous experience of "crashed"fisheries in developed countries, whichdeveloping countries could have learned from astheir fisheries rapidly grew; and the well-foundedand continuing demand for reliable statistics asthe principal basis for fish stock assessment andfisheries management.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly a shortageof money and capacity. However, it is also relatedto the generally low profile of a natural resourcethat is hidden from the eyes of politicians by itsvery medium, and to assumptions that fisheries

63

can be regarded as common property, open-access systems and that market forces may besufficient to regulate them. In fisheriesmanagement none of these assumptions is true;fisheries have a high profile in terms of globalprotein supply, particularly in developingcountries, and small-scale fisheries in inland andmarine waters are probably more important thanis currently portrayed; open access hasinexorably led to overexploitation in almost allthe fisheries where it is practised; and globaltrade has the potential to skew fisheries awayfrom domestic consumption and self-provisioning, sometimes resulting in theoverexploitation of food fish for export.Fortunately, changes in attitude and political willare entering the mainstream of fisheriesmanagement, particularly since 1992 when theclear linkages between environmentalsustainability and development were globallyaccepted at the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development (UNCED).

For many years prior to 1992, fishery scientistsand managers had been calling for betterreliability in fishery statistics. They also acceptedand explained the need for caution in the way inwhich they applied their statistical confidencelimits to analyses and advice, long before theprecautionary approach became the accepteddoctrine of environmental concern. In a directsense, better and more reliable statistics enable astatistical narrowing of confidence limits, hencelowering the degree of caution that needs to beapplied.

The need for reliable fishery statistics is stillbeing voiced in all fisheries fora, from COFI toregional and national meetings. The pace ofinstitutional responses, at least at theinternational and regional levels, is growing. The oldest of the international institutions is theinter-agency Coordinating Working Party onFishery Statistics (CWP), which was originallyestablished in 1959 for Atlantic fisheries but hasmore recently changed its statutes toaccommodate regional bodies from around theworld. CWP has been instrumental inestablishing many standards for fishery statistics,and is currently reviewing its role and approach,particularly in the light of concerns about the

quality of fishery statistics and the need forcapacity building and minimum harmonizedquality standards.

The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheriescalls for reliable fishery statistics in Article 7Fisheries Management, as follows:

7.4.4 States should ensure that timely, complete and

reliable statistics8 on catch and fishing effort are

collected and maintained in accordance with

applicable international standards and practices and

in sufficient detail to allow sound statistical

analysis. Such data should be updated regularly and

verified through an appropriate system. States

should compile and disseminate such data in a

manner consistent with any applicable

confidentiality requirements.

In applying the Code to specific objectives,international organizations, in particular the UN,FAO and RFBs, have undertaken a number ofinitiatives that directly and indirectly call for,initiate or provide for improvements in theprovision and dissemination of reliable statistics.The UN Fish Stocks Agreement,9 which came intoforce in 2001, contains detailed statistical needsin Annex I Standard requirements for thecollection and sharing of data, which must beadhered to by all signatories. The FAOCompliance Agreement,10 which is yet to comeinto force, also makes reference in Article 7,Exchange of information, to data needs on fishingvessels and their operational authorizations onthe high seas, thus providing for fleet datathrough the administrative identification ofauthorized fishing effort.

In addition, four international plans of action11

on specific issues have been developed since

64

8 Reliable statistics provide the basis for "best scientific eviden-

ce", which is prominently referred to throughout the Code, from

General Principles (Article 6), Fisheries Management (Article 7),

Post-harvest Practices and Trade (Article 11) and Fisheries Re-

search (Article 12).9 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.10 Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Con-

servation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the

High Seas.

1998, each of which contains determinations onthe collection, processing and dissemination ofimproved data that are directly related to theissue. New approaches to ecosystem-basedfisheries management, with high-levelrequirements for data from a wide range ofsources, are also gradually being brought into themainstream of fisheries management (seeImplementing the ecosystem approach to capturefisheries management, p.55).

RFBs are playing an increasingly important rolein fisheries management around the world. Theearlier organizations focused largely on scienceand the development of scientific advice but themore recent organizations – including those stillbeing negotiated12 – are assuming a role infisheries administration and management. MostRFBs have scientific committees, the tasks ofwhich include issues related to fishery statisticsthrough specific standing committees or workinggroups.

Outside the framework of specialized fisheriesagencies, the world recognizes that goodgovernance and development, including ofnatural resources, require improved information.In response to a UN Economic and SocialCouncil resolution on rationalizing andimproving statistics and indicators, thePartnership in Statistics for Development in theTwenty-first Century (PARIS 21) was establishedin 1999, based at OECD in Paris. Throughadvocacy, information exchange andpartnerships, PARIS 21 seeks to contribute tomore effective poverty reduction and improvedtransparency, accountability and effectiveness ofgovernance in developing countries andcountries in transition. Improving the reliability ofcapture fishery statistics (as advocated in the FAO

draft Strategy on Status and Trends in Fisheries) inorder to enable better fisheries management,sustainable fisheries and more effective fisheriesgovernance would undoubtedly contribute tofood security and its role in poverty reduction.

There are some tentative signs that the declineof national authorities’ and development partneragencies’ interest in statistical development,evidenced by the decline of regional and nationalfield projects dealing with fishery statisticaldevelopment, is beginning to abate. There areindications that recognition of the importance ofstatistical development within the mainstream ofnational and regional development planning isreawakening.

CATCH CERTIFICATION AND CATCH DOCUMENTATION

THE ISSUEIncreasing pressure on high seas resources hascaused an intensified search for methods tocontrol the fishing effort, particularly methods toobtain information on unreported catches and tohelp control the fishing effort on heavily fishedspecies. This has led to the introduction of catchcertification and catch documentation schemes.

The Atlantic bluefin tuna is one such heavilyfished species. This fishery is carried out mainlyon the high sea. While the regional fisheriesmanagement organization (RFMO) concerned hasthe authority to regulate the fishing of Atlanticbluefin tunas by its own members, it had noeffective means of dealing with vessels flying theflags of non-members, as in high sea fisheries theflag state has the right to control the fishingactivities of only its own vessels. This is seen as aproblem by countries that are members of theRFBs that manage such fisheries as that for theAtlantic bluefin tuna.

The majority of the vessels of non-members areregistered in countries with open registers. Manyof these countries are small and have little or nosubstantial interest in fisheries. As a result, theydo not exert control over the vessels that areregistered on their open registers. In addition,frequently they do not report landings, or theyreport only very low landings, generally becausethe vessels concerned do not land their catches in

65

11 The International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Cat-

ch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries; the International Plan of

Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks; the In-

ternational Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Ca-

pacity; and the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter

and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing.12 Southeast Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO); Conven-

tion on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory

Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean; South-

west Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission.

their home countries or ports and are notrequired to report catches to the flag state. Thisexacerbates the problem and leads to uncertaintyabout the quantity being caught in any oneperiod, thereby complicating management for theRFB concerned. In addition, as these vessels areunder no ñ or little ñ control, when fishing thehigh seas they can flout the fisheries managementrules approved by an RFMO, often derivingeconomic advantage from doing so. For thisreason the vessels registered in open registers areoften referred to as "flags of convenience vessels".

This is the context in which it was decided totry to bring pressure on flags of conveniencevessels by limiting their possibilities to markettheir catches.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSThe International Commission for theConservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) was thefirst RFMO to implement a catch documentationscheme regarding the bluefin tuna caught withinits area of jurisdiction. Any bluefin tuna that isimported into any of the ICCAT member countrieshas to be accompanied by a document thatidentifies the country of origin. This measure wasaimed at recording the catches of vessels that areflagged under countries other than ICCATmembers so that the total catches of bluefin tuna

can be recorded for management purposes. Thedocument has the rather misleading name of"statistical document". Within a few years, theresults of this catch documentation scheme hadidentified several countries whose flags ofconvenience vessels were catching up to 30percent of the total bluefin tuna catch. Theintroduction of the scheme was facilitated by thefact that Japan and Europe are virtually the soleimporters of bluefin tuna.

The ICCAT members agreed among themselvesthat multilateral trade sanctions should beconsidered against the open register countrieswhose vessels were making bluefin tuna catchesthat did not comply with the ICCAT managementmeasures. The threat of a possible ban on theirexport of bluefin tuna was enough to encouragethese open register countries to join ICCAT and/orto take measures to ensure that they wereexercising proper control over the vessels flyingtheir respective flags. Any vessel owners who didnot wish to comply with these measures could re-register their vessels in other open registers. Thiscaused significant changes in the registers ofPanama, Honduras and Belize, which had manylongline vessels of Asian origin.

In November 2001, the European Community(EC) banned the import of some tuna and tuna-like species from specific exporting countries,

reflecting the ICCAT managementmeasures, as shown in Table 9.ICCATís success was a useful lesson toother RFMOs that were grappling withthe same problem of illegal,unreported and unregulated (IUU)fishing and non-contracting parties.The problems of CCAMLR were verydifferent from those of ICCAT in thatCCAMLR was concerned about theoverfishing of toothfish in the southernlatitudes. In the early 1990s, the catchof toothfish by longline in the verydeep waters of southern latitudes hadexpanded rapidly as a result of its highprofitability, and had attracted theattention of many entrepreneurs. TheCCAMLR area is very difficult tomonitor because of its immense size,the relative lack of coverage by

66

1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 20020

150

300

450

600

Panama

Honduras

Belize

Note: The decreases shown here were most likely caused by the ICCAT measures.

FIGURE 37Fluctuations in the main open registers

Number of vessels

monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS)activity, and the limited presence of exclusiveeconomic zones (EEZs) around the circumpolarregion. The French and Australian navies werearresting vessels that had been caught fishingwithout authorization in the 200-nautical mileEEZs around their respective territories (theKerguelen and Crozet Islands for France, and theHeard and McDonald Islands for Australia), butsignificant catches were being made in high seasareas over which no country had jurisdiction;according to some estimates these unreportedcatches were larger than those reported in theofficial statistics. In response, CCAMLRintroduced a catch documentation scheme. Thescheme requires that all the toothfish landed inthe ports of its participating parties beaccompanied by a catch document, which isauthorized by the vessel’s flag state andsubsequently verified at the port of landing by anauthorized flag or port state official. Additionalgovernment authorization is required before thetoothfish can enter international trade, and thecatch document must accompany the toothfishthrough all stages of the export cycle. Sincecoming into effect, the scheme has resulted in 18reports of vessels attempting to land unauthorizedcatches of toothfish.

Parties to the 1998 Agreement on theInternational Dolphin Conservation Program(AIDCP) adopted a scheme in June 2001 underwhich they could issue certificates indicating thatcanned tuna is "dolphin-safe" (i.e. was harvestedwithout dolphin mortality or serious injury). Thedolphin-safe tuna certificate scheme is differentfrom the others in that it is not directed at trade or

management measures but at market objectives.Observers are present on all large purse seinevessels. At the time of catch, dolphin-safe tuna isstored separately from tuna that is not dolphin-safe. The tuna tracking number attached to eachfish follows it through the system, and copies ofthe dolphin-safe certificate and the original tunatracking form are kept by the Secretariat of theInter-American Tropical Tuna Commission(IATTC). Because it is concerned withenvironmental issues rather than with fisheriesmanagement or trade, this information is notconsidered to be a trade document (as the tunaand toothfish catch documents are), even thoughthe methodologies of control are similar.

The success of the trade document in providingbetter catch data and in curbing IUU fishingactivities has led ICCAT and other RFMOs toimplement similar measures for other species.ICCAT has extended the catch documentationscheme to include swordfish and bigeye tuna.The Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC)covers bigeye tuna and swordfish with itsscheme. This scheme requires certification byofficials representing the flag state, and care willhave to be taken to ensure that the verificationprocess is carried out in a satisfactory manner.The Commission for the Conservation of SouthernBluefin Tuna (CCSBT) is planning to introduce acatch documentation scheme for Southernbluefin tuna.

RECENT ACTIONSThe proliferation of catch documentationschemes has led the International Coalition ofFisheries Associations (ICFA) to request that allsuch documentation schemes should bestandardized. The Chair of the Meeting ofRegional Fisheries Bodies,13 with FAO assistance,held a meeting in La Jolla, the United States, atwhich to consider the matter. This meetingproduced recommendations on the contents of astandard catch certificate and catch documentand on the procedures for processing such adocument. FAO is currently designing the

67

TABLE 9EC import bans of tuna and tuna-like species

Exporting country Bluefin tuna Swordfish Bigeye tuna

Belize Ban Ban Ban

Cambodia Ban

Equatorial Guinea Ban Ban

Honduras Ban Ban

St Vincent Ban

13 Dr R. Allen, Director, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commis-

sion (IATTC), 8604 La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.

standard documents with input from customsofficials who have had experience in handlingsuch documentation. The results will bepresented at the Third Meeting of RegionalFisheries Bodies, which is scheduled to takeplace in March 2003 at FAO, straight after theCOFI meeting.

The significance of the terms "catch" and"landings" of fish is often unclear to users andreaders. This leads to confusion. CWP hasadopted a standard terminology in order toeliminate such confusion and has recommendedthat FAO and RFMOs using catch documentationschemes should adopt this standard terminology.There have also been problems withimplementation, such as choice of the mostappropriate conversion factors for estimating liveweight equivalent from product weight. Anotherproblem arises from double counting whendifferent parts of the same fish are exported todifferent countries, each part being accompaniedby its own separate set of documents.

The growing practice of fattening bluefin tunain net cages at tuna farms is making it difficult forthe managers of bluefin fisheries to enforce quotaallocations. Such farming activity is spreading,particularly in the Mediterranean Basin, wherebluefins are caught at sea by purse seines or intraps and subsequently transferred into floatingnet cages to be fed for a period ranging from afew months to two years.

Recording the volumes of fish caught at sea is adifficult operation, as the fish are generallytransferred directly from the purse seines to thenet cages without being taken out of the water. Atpresent, such catches are statistically recordedonly after the fish have been landed or harvested.The information available, therefore, does notinform managers about which vessels (and whichfishing nation) caught the fish, where it wascaught and at what size it was caught. Thismeans that the system of allocating bluefin catchquotas to fishing nations becomes increasinglydifficult to monitor and enforce.

The Convention establishing the Commissionfor the Conservation and Management of HighlyMigratory Species in the Central and WesternPacific Ocean has not yet entered into force. TheCommission does not yet exist as a functioning

body, and is not expected to do so for severalyears. However, the Standing Committee on Tunaand Billfish (an ad hoc meeting of scientists whoprovide analysis of the fisheries in the region) isconsidering the introduction of catch certificationand trade documentation because there isconsiderable potential for unreported catches inthe Central and Western Pacific area. This isexpected to be very difficult to enforce owing tothe wide range of fishing fleets involved and thediversity of the ports at which the vessels couldland.

IATTC is currently considering a resolution toestablish a catch documentation scheme forbigeye tuna taken by longline vessels.

FUTURE PERSPECTIVE Catch documentation schemes had spectacularsuccess in their early implementation, when theywere concerned with one species of large fishfrom one region that was a target for IUU fishingvessels. Extending the system to smaller fish, insome cases from several vessels or regions, isgoing to be more problematic and may lead toconfusion among species, especially whencustoms officials have no previous experience ofsimilar initiatives. The problem of customs codesis difficult; however it is thought that the use ofcatch documentation schemes will, in general,assist in providing better statistics on catches andinternational trade in fish, as well as identifyingIUU fishing vessels and bringing action againstthem.

While, in principle, the catch certificate andtrade document schemes described could behelpful for any fishery managed by an RFMO, it isrecommended that priority for the developmentof new schemes should be given to fisheries thatare, or may be, subject to significant levels ofIUU fishing. Priority attention should also begiven to fisheries harvesting species that arecovered by catch certificate or trade documentschemes in other fisheries, so as to support theexisting schemes of other RFMOs. Considerationshould also be given to assisting developingcountries in meeting the requirements of catchcertification or trade documentation schemes, asmany of these countries rely on fisheries productsfor substantial amounts of foreign exchange.

68

POVERTY ALLEVIATION IN SMALL-SCALEFISHING COMMUNITIES

THE ISSUEWhile economic growth has helped to reduce theproportion of the world’s population that is poor,the number of people who remain poor isunacceptably high. The positive impacts ofgrowth on poverty have been less than expected,in part because of inequitable distribution of thebenefits, population increases and the effects ofthe HIV/AIDS epidemic. As a result, manygovernments and donor agencies have refocusedtheir attention on poverty. The World Bank’sWorld Development Reports for 1990 and 2000,the UN World Food Summit for SocialDevelopment in 1995, and the UN MillenniumDeclaration adopted in 200014 all consideredpoverty alleviation as a principal priority.

In the past, while many developmentinterventions were implicitly aimed at reducingpoverty, most did not explicitly focus onimproving the living conditions of poor peoplebut aimed at accelerating economic growththrough technology and infrastructuredevelopment and through market-led economicpolicies. The lack of an explicit focus on povertymay, in part, explain why the impacts on povertyof many interventions have been neutral, andsome may actually have been detrimental.Certainly, the continued levels of poverty insmall-scale fishing communities,15 and in theworld as a whole, require that all thoseconcerned take a fresh look at the problem.

It is increasingly acknowledged that poverty isa very complex, multidimensional concept thathas many determinants and is concerned with farmore than low earnings, i.e. income poverty.16 Anexplicit emphasis on poverty is necessary for abetter definition and understanding of what it is,so as to be able both to measure progress towards

poverty alleviation targets and to gain improvedawareness of whom poverty affects and what arethe most effective strategies for tackling it.

Poverty in small-scale fishing communities, asin other sectors, is difficult to measure. Whilethere are many studies of poverty in farmingcommunities and among the urban poor, fewempirical studies17 have focused on fisheries.Those that have often concentrate exclusively onincome and on the fishers themselves, rather thanon a broader concept of poverty in fishinghouseholds and communities.

There is now an acceptance that poor fishersand their dependents are not a homogeneous,unchanging group of people. The levels ofabsolute and relative poverty, within and amongsmall-scale fishing communities, varyconsiderably by area, country and region.

Although there are poverty traps in fishingcommunities, over time community members cansometimes become less, rather than more, poor.Fishing communities are often relatively cash-richcompared with farming communities, mainlybecause fishers sell a larger proportion of theirproduction, more frequently and consistentlythan do most farmers. They remain vulnerable tosudden variations in earnings, however, makingfishing communities often more vulnerable thanare communities that rely exclusively on farming.In fact, the issue of vulnerability may be asimportant as poverty is. It should be recognized,however, that some factors may be importantdeterminants of poverty but not of vulnerability,and vice versa.

Small-scale fishing communities are vulnerableto many events, the outcome of which may bepoverty. Examples include: climatic/natural

69

14 The Millennium Declaration contains the commitment to hal-

ve, by the year 2015, the proportion of the world’s population

whose income is less than US$1 a day.15 There are many small-scale fisheries in developed countries,

but this article examines only small-scale, artisanal and sub-

sistence fishing communities in developing countries that are

engaged in marine and inland capture fisheries.

16 Surveys completed 20 years apart by N. Jodha in two villages

in Gujarat, India, found that households with real per capita inc-

omes that had declined by more than 5 percent were, on aver-

age, better off according to 37 of their own 38 criteria of well-

being (R. Chambers. 1989. Editorial introduction: vulnerability,

coping and policy. IDS Bulletin, 20[2]).17 FAO. 2002. Literature review of studies on poverty in fishingcommunities and of lessons learned in using the sustainable livelihoods approaches in poverty alleviation strategies andprojects, by G. Macfadyen and E. Corcoran. FAO Fisheries

Circular No. 979. Rome.

events such as yearly and seasonal fluctuations instock abundance, poor catches, bad weather andsuch natural disasters as cyclones and hurricanes;economic factors such as market pricefluctuations and variable access to markets; andthe dangers of working at sea. People in small-scale fishing communities may also be vulnerableto poor health and other wider determinants ofpoverty. There is an important need to improvethe understanding of what makes fishersvulnerable to events and factors that result inpoverty, what makes it difficult to improvelivelihoods, and what potential solutions exist.Unfortunately, studies suggest that vulnerabilityappears to be increasing among the poor insmall-scale fishing communities.

In developing countries, many millions ofpeople live in small-scale fishing communities.While it is now acknowledged that not all small-scale fishers can be assumed to be poor, a largeproportion of them are, and remain so, despitethe efforts of donor agencies, national and localgovernments, non-governmental organizations(NGOs) and the communities themselves.Reasons for continuing poverty include factorsfrom within and outside the fisheries sector:vulnerability, as already discussed; insecureaccess to resources; tendency to resourcedepletion; the remoteness of many fishingcommunities; the agro-ecological characteristicsof nearby land; low socio-economic, cultural andpolitical status; a lack of political and financialsupport (often as a result of an emphasis on semi-industrial and industrial fishing); and competitionand conflict with industrial vessels and othereconomic sectors in coastal areas.

Despite the difficulties of measuring poverty insmall-scale fishing communities and of definingwho is a fisher (as fishers farm, and farmers fish)and what is a fishing community, some crudeestimates of the numbers of income-poor fisherscan be proposed as shown in Box 9, whichsuggests that 5.8 million, or 20 percent of theworld’s 29 million fishers, may be small-scalefishers earning less than US$1 a day.18 The

income-poor in related upstream anddownstream activities, such as boatbuilding,marketing and processing, may be as many as17.3 million people. These figures suggest anoverall estimate of 23 million income-poorpeople, plus their household dependents, relyingon small-scale fisheries.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSPoverty eradication strategies must be wellfocused, but need to acknowledge that economicfactors are not the only determinants of poverty,which also include social, cultural and politicalvariables. Understanding these determinants iscrucial to the design and implementation ofeffective solutions.

It can often be difficult to help poor people tocome out of poverty because of their poor health,illiteracy, lack of time and aversion to risk. Poorpeople’s lack of influence and power is anespecially important problem, and necessitatestrying to identify win-win solutions that are in theinterests, not only of the poor, but also of the rich,the élite and the powerful.

The World Bank suggests that "withouteconomic growth there can be no long-termpoverty reduction", citing the experience of thelast decade. Between 1990 and 1999 thoseregions of the world with the fastest economicgrowth made the most gains in terms of reducingthe numbers of people living on less than US$1 aday. In regions that experienced economiccontraction, the numbers of income-poorincreased. However, without concerted efforts toredistribute the wealth from economic growth,the gap between rich and poor is likely to widen.

Solutions outside the fisheries sector can be asimportant, if not more so, than strategiesemployed within the sector, so action andcoordination across sectors may be required.

Strong economic performance in a country,especially of labour-intensive sectors, is importantfor small-scale fishing communities because itcan create alternative employment opportunities –which are vital given the current levels ofresource exploitation and the large numbers ofpeople involved in fishing. Diversity and mobilityare key livelihood strategies for the poor.

70

18 Note that no information is provided on what can be bought

in different regions of the world for US$1.

Increases in general economic performance anddiversification not only offer the potential forsome fishers to leave fishing, thus benefitingthose who remain, but also create a wider rangeof opportunities and possible strategies forcontributing to the household livelihoods of thosewho remain. This appears to have occurred inMalaysia, for example, which is one of the fewdeveloping countries in which the number offishers showed a decreasing trend in the 1990s.Increases in general economic performance alsoprovide opportunities to improve health services,education, public service delivery (such as theprovision of roads and, thus, access to markets),governance, political stability and safety nets, allof which are likely to help with povertyalleviation in small-scale fishing communities.Even where there is little economic growth, thereis still scope for progress towards povertyalleviation if policy-makers address these issues.A notable and often cited example is the IndianState of Kerala, which has achieved very highlevels of social attainment (education, health,longevity) and a low incidence of poverty, eventhough economic growth has been limited andper capita income remains low.

Solutions within the fisheries sector: As there islittle scope for the further expansion of capturefisheries, given the current levels of exploitation,it is crucial to manage fish resources so as toavoid further resource depletion. Effective andflexible management can improve incomes bylimiting entry to the coastal fisheries, avoidingwasteful investments and overcapitalization, andsupporting sustainable exploitation practices. Itcan also improve incomes for the poor byeffectively protecting small-scale fishers from theactivities of large-scale industrial vessels, therebyenlarging the resource base that the poor canexploit.

There are many different types of fisheriesmanagement regime, including unregulatedcommon property (i.e. de facto open access),regulated common property (in which regulationranges from weak to strong) and regimes thatseek to use private property rights as amanagement tool. A particular managementregime and its related regulations can have a

significant influence on poverty, as can thegovernance framework and institutionalarrangements that determine the distribution ofwealth. Management regimes must therefore beappropriate for each specific context and mustbe enforced effectively so as to contribute topoverty alleviation in small-scale fishingcommunities.

Community management and, perhaps evenmore so, co-management (the sharing of powerand responsibility between government and theresource user, e.g. small-scale fishers) offerpromising solutions to poverty alleviation,although collective action and co-managementcan require many years of capacity buildingbefore they are effective. Box 10 provides anexample of successful co-management in Côte d’Ivoire.

The importance of alternative employmentopportunities has already been stressed.Aquaculture is often suggested as an obviousalternative to capture fisheries but, although itdoes have potential, there may be constraints thatprevent poor capture fishers from moving intoaquaculture. Such constraints may include highcapital costs, a lack of suitable sites and a lack ofaccess to land and water for the poor. Marine-based (eco-)tourism provides another possiblealternative that is generating interest in manycountries.

Development assistance has often been foundto be particularly effective when it supportswomen in post-harvest and value-addedactivities, because they often show greater desireand ability to save and contribute to theenhancement of household assets than men do.Given that managerial ability and skill are keydeterminants of the success of individual fishingoperations, interventions that upgrademanagement and skills and address dynamicentrepreneurship may be especially likely to havean impact on poverty in fishing communities.

The following solutions to poverty alleviationwithin the fisheries sector are also worthmentioning:

• Reducing/removing subsidies on productioninputs may lead to the use of smaller boatsand engines, reduced expenditure on fuel and

71

increased expenditure on labour. In the longterm, this should increase profits, create moreemployment and income for poor fishers andreduce debt. The removal of subsidies tolarge-scale fishing operations and relatedinfrastructure would also remove marketdistortions that often disadvantage small-scalefishers. However, short-term socialconsiderations are often more important thanlong-term ones, so subsidies remain.

• Support must be provided for both ex-anterisk management and the ex-post copingmechanisms that are used to deal with shocksand stresses, while noting that strategies toreduce vulnerability may need to be differentfrom those aimed at reducing poverty.

• Support for effective organizations in fishingcommunities (e.g. cooperatives, politicallobbying groups and social support groups)can be of benefit to the poor in terms ofincreasing access to credit, effecting policychange in favour of the poor and reducingvulnerability. Such organizations are mostbeneficial when: governments are supportiveand enabling, rather than constraining orrestrictive; fishers identify strongly with theaims and motivations of the organizationsconcerned; and there is able leadership withinfishing communities.

RECENT ACTIONSConsiderable work is now being undertaken toimprove the understanding of whom and wherethe poor are, why they are poor and whatmechanisms are most effective for povertyreduction. This explains the increasingimportance of poverty mapping, the developmentof poverty assessment methodologies and theemphasis on well-being and capabilities (ratherthan on income alone), which focus onsustainable livelihoods. However, few suchanalyses have been carried out in fishingcommunities.

Recent activities outside the fisheries sector.Several of the poorest developing nations havedeveloped, or are in the process of developing,Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) jointlywith the World Bank and the International

Monetary Fund (IMF). Although few of thesecurrently focus specifically on fisheries, they arelikely to be of help where fisheries are identifiedas a key economic sector or, more generally,where strategies to reduce poverty are in placeand small-scale fishers are poor.

Recent debt relief to heavily-indebted poorcountries (HIPC), accompanied by efforts toimprove health, education and other socialservices, should also be of benefit to small-scalefishing communities.

Bilateral assistance is focusing increasingly onpoverty reduction and food security. Most donorshave now put in place strategies and criteria thatseek to ensure that their assistance is reaching thepoor.

Recent activities within the fisheries sectorinclude those carried out by civil society, donoragencies and national governments.

NGOs and civil society continue to work withlocal fishing communities to reduce povertythrough credit, retraining and alternativeemployment creation programmes and throughsupport for fishing-related and socialorganizations.

The plight of fishers and their vulnerability toAIDS were reviewed at a recent meetingorganized by the Asian Fisheries Society and theInternational Centre for Living Aquatic ResourcesManagement (ICLARM).19

National governments are becomingincreasingly involved in both co-managing thecontrol of industrial vessels’ activities in waterswhere small-scale fishers operate and ensuringfairer international access agreements. There isalso a growing realization that many small-scalefisheries need to be restructured. The Philippinesoffers an example of some degree of success inthe government’s implementation of agovernance model that is based on communitymanagement systems. A much broader approachto poverty alleviation in fishing communities is

72

19 M. Huang. In press. HIV/AIDS among fishermen: vulnerabi-

lity of their partners. In Proceedings of the Global Symposiumon Women in Fisheries, (Sixth Asian Fisheries Forum),

Kaohsiung, Taiwan Province of China, November 2001, Asian

Fisheries Society and ICLARM, World Fish Centre.

being tried out in 25 West African countries bythe Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme(SFLP), which is funded by the United Kingdomand implemented by FAO. SFLP also supportspolicy-oriented normative activities such as thedevelopment of guidance materials for povertyreduction policies in fisheries.

OUTLOOKThe international community now shares a visionthat makes poverty reduction a priority objective.It is becoming clear, however, that this objectiveis more difficult to achieve than was previouslythought and that it requires special strategies andtargeting.

73

BOX 9Global estimates of income-poor small-scale fishers

and related employment in marine and inland capture fisheries

Assumptions:

1. Overall figures for the numbers of fishers are based on

1990 FAO data.

2. Marine deep sea fishers and those engaged in aquaculture

are excluded, along with all those in North America and

Europe.

3. The percentage of total fishers and those engaged in

related employment who are estimated to be income-

poor is based on the World Development Report 2000/1figures for the share of the population in each region in

1998 that was living on less than US$1 a day, i.e. it is

assumed that the level of poverty in fisheries is the same

as it is in other sectors.

4. There are assumed to be three people in related jobs for

every one fisher.

5. One hundred percent of all inland fishers are assumed to

be small-scale, while 90 percent of all marine coastal,

unidentified marine and unspecified fishers are assumed

to be small-scale.

Sources: FAO 1990 data on total number of world fishers and World

Bank. 2000. World Development Report 2000/1. Washington, DC.

Poverty in small-scale fisheries communities

Africa South America Asia Oceania Former USSR Total

% of population on < US$1 a day 46.3% 15.6% 25.6% 11.3% 5.1%

Inland 279 598 2 583 514 023 0 0 796 203

Marine coastal 112 119 10 148 95 837 458 1 331 219 892

Marine other 112 875 43 867 551 133 13 515 0 721 390

Unspecified 320 733 40 716 3 660 428 0 0 4 021 876

Total 825 325 97 313 4 821 421 13 972 1 331 5 759 362

Number of related income-poor jobs 2 475 974 291 940 14 464 262 41 916 3 993 17 278 087

Total income-poor 3 301 299 389 254 19 285 683 55 889 5 324 23 037 449

World population on < US$1 a day 1 198 900 000

fishers as % of world population on < US$1 a day 1.9%

Given the importance of overall economicperformance, the expected expansion of theworld economy can be viewed positively, as canan improving balance of external debt in HIPC.However, questions remain about whether thisoverall growth will be sustained, whether it willbe reflected in developing countries, whethersmall-scale fishing communities will benefit, andwhether the gap between the rich and the poorcan be narrowed.

It is promising that the weaknesses of manyconventional centralized fisheries managementregimes are being increasingly recognized andtackled, when public resources permit. There is agrowing awareness of the need for a processapproach to fisheries management (accompaniedby capacity building and reform) that isparticipatory and flexible enough to adapt tochanging conditions. Co-management andcommunity management arrangements offersome potential in this regard.

Greater awareness that good governance (byadministrators, politicians, local élite groups,fishers and scientists) lies at the heart of many ofthe solutions to poverty in small-scale fishingcommunities is vital. However, despite this

realization, improving governance and theinstitutional capacity to effect meaningful changein the poverty status of small-scale fishingcommunities is still a formidable challenge, eventhough at least it is a challenge that is now beingembraced.

Without outside assistance, poverty status in thesmall-scale fisheries sector can improve onlyslowly. Improved governance paradigms andcapable management institutions are needed, andthey will not become effective unless publicresources are provided – at least in an initialstage. Although there is a growing realization ofthis need in concerned milieus, it is still not clearwhat action such realization will lead to.

ANTIBIOTIC RESIDUES IN AQUACULTUREPRODUCTS

THE ISSUE Background. As in other animal productionsectors, antibiotics are used in aquaculture duringboth production and processing, mainly toprevent (prophylactic use) and treat (therapeuticuse) bacterial diseases.20 Antibiotics have alsobeen recommended and used as disinfectants in

74

BOX 10Fisheries co-management in Aby Lagoon, Côte d’Ivoire

Fisheries co-management in Aby Lagoon arose out of a crisis

caused by stock depletion, misguided external support, the

inability of the fisheries administration to implement

satisfactory management measures and the desire of both

government and resource users to reduce conflicts between

the state and resources users. Co-management has

contributed to improving livelihoods and poverty alleviation

through increased production and greater value of products

and through investments in non-fisheries activities. There is a

new sense of empowerment and self-respect in the

community, and greater security from better access to

resources and supportive social networks.

Source: B. Satia, O. Njifonju and K. Angaman. 2001. Fisheries co-ma-

nagement and poverty alleviation in the context of the sustainable li-

velihood approach: a case study in the fishing communities of Aby La-

goon in Côte d’Ivoire. Paper presented at the CEMARE-organized in-

ternational workshop, DFID/FAO Sustainable Livelihoods Programme,

at Cotonou in November 2001.

fish handling, but this practice has proved to beineffective and is generally not approved by thefish inspection services. Antibiotics have notalways been used in a responsible manner inaquaculture and, in a number of reportedsituations, control of the use of antibiotics has notprovided a proper assurance of the prevention ofrisks to humans. FAO, the World HealthOrganization (WHO), the International Office ofEpizootics (OIE) and a number of nationalgovernments have already raised the issue ofirresponsible use of antibiotics in all productionsectors, with particular concern for the potentialrisks to public health. Many governments aroundthe world have introduced, changed or tightenednational regulations on the use of antibiotics, ingeneral and within the aquaculture sector.

Public health concerns. When consumed directlyby humans as medicine, antibiotics may causeadverse side-effects, but these can generally beavoided through adhering to the recommendeddose and duration of therapy. However, whenantibiotics are unintentionally ingested asresidues in food, the amount ingested cannot bequantified or monitored and may cause directhealth concerns, such as aplastic anaemia, whichis said to be associated with chloramphenicol.These direct effects pose significant risks tohuman health. In addition, the unintentionalconsumption of antibiotics is leading to thedevelopment of antibiotic resistance in bacteriathat are pathogenic to humans, and this isanother important problem that has not yetreceived adequate attention. The development ofantibiotic resistance by pathogenic bacteria isconsidered to be one of the most serious risks tohuman health at the global level.21 The problemarises when bacteria acquire resistance to one ormore of the antibiotics to which they wereformerly susceptible, and when that resistance

eventually makes the antibiotics ineffective intreating specific microbial diseases in humans.22

Recognition of the risks associated with the directand indirect effects on human health of bothactive and passive consumption of antibiotics hasled to bans on the use of certain antibiotics inanimal food production (particularly thoseantibiotics for which no safe residue levels can bedetermined) and to the establishment ofmaximum residue limits (MRLs) for those withknown risks.

Effects on the industry. During the last year, thedetection of chloramphenicol in internationallytraded shrimp products has caused muchconcern. The substance has been found incultured products, resulting in a slowdown inimports, causing economic loss among theconcerned producers and reflecting negatively onall shrimps and on aquaculture overall.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONSThere are two strategies for achieving acceptablelevels of antibiotic residues in aquatic products:limiting the use of antibiotics in aquacultureenterprises; and establishing and enforcing MRLsin aquaculture products. Both strategies must beused.

Limiting the use of antibiotics. Antibiotics arenecessary for specific and identified uses inaquaculture. Regulation of their commercialavailability is one of the ways to ensure that theyare used responsibly in aquaculture.

There are several possible strategies for limiting

75

20 See, for instance: FAO/SEAFDEC/CIDA. 2000. Use of chemi-cals in aquaculture in Asia, edited by J.R. Arthur, C.R. Lavilla-

Pitogo and R.P. Subasinghe. Proceedings of the Meeting on the

Use of Chemicals in Aquaculture in Asia, Iloilo, the Philippines,

20–22 May 1996. 235 pp.; and FAO. 1997. Towards safe andeffective use of chemicals in coastal aquaculture. Reports and

Studies, GESAMP No. 65. Rome. 40 pp.

21 Updated information on the development of microbial resi-

stance can be found at: www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/

anti_resist.html. See also: K.M. Cahill, J.A. Davies and R. John-

son. 1966. Report on an epidemic due to Shigella dysenteriae,

type 1, in the Somali interior. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 15: 52–56.22 P. Shears. 2001. Antibiotic resistance in the tropics. Transac-tions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene,

95: 127–130. F. Angulo and P.M. Griffin. 2000. Changes in

antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica serovar typhi-murium. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 6(4); and USFDA. 1997.

Extralabel animal drug use; fluoroquinolones and glycopepti-

des; order of prohibition. Federal Register, 62(99): 27 944–27

947.

the commercial availability of antibiotics. Thetwo most basic are: identifying the permittedantibiotics (and their MRLs) and prohibiting allothers, or identifying the prohibited antibioticsand permitting all others. The first strategy isclearly more in line with the precautionaryapproach.

A possible scheme for limiting the use ofantibiotics by using the first basic strategy isoutlined in Table 10.

Establishing and enforcing MRLs. In the twelfthedition of the Procedural Manual of the CodexAlimentarius Commission (CAC),23 the maximumlimit for residues of veterinary drugs (MRLVD) isdefined as "the maximum concentration ofresidue resulting from the use of a veterinary drug(expressed in mg/kg on a fresh weight basis) thatis recommended by the Codex AlimentariusCommission to be legally permitted orrecognized as acceptable in or on a food."

The MRLVD is based on the type and amount

of residue considered to be free from anytoxicological hazard for human health, asexpressed by the acceptable daily intake (ADI) orby a temporary ADI that utilizes an additionalsafety factor. The MRLVD also takes into accountother relevant public health risks, as well as foodtechnological aspects. When establishing anMRL, consideration is also given to residues ofthe same drug that occur in food of plant originand/or in the environment. Furthermore, the MRLmay be reduced so as to be consistent with goodpractice in the use of veterinary drugs, and to theextent that practical analytical methods areavailable.24

RECENT ACTIONSLimiting the use of antibiotics in aquaculture.Some countries or regions, such as the EC,Canada and Norway, approve a limited numberof antibiotics specifically for use in aquaculture.In Canada, the antibiotics approved foraquaculture use are: oxytetracycline, sulfadiazine(trimethoprim), sulfadimethoxine (ormetoprim)and florfenicol.25 Not only do the regulationsapprove the types of antibiotic that can be used,they also usually specify the species, diagnosis,dose, duration and withdrawal period to be

76

TABLE 10Possible purchase and user patterns and resulting residual effects of antibiotics in aquaculture

Type of antibiotic Purchase and use Residues in fish

Antibiotics specifically approved "Over the counter" Within the levels establishedfor aquaculture use ("label use") On prescription by regulatory authorities

Antibiotics to be used under Of approved antibiotics for Within the levels established"Extra-label use"1 aquaculture (on professional by regulatory authorities

prescription)

Antibiotics to be used in Temporary use and only following No residues in commercializedemergencies and for research specific approval by qualified products, or within the levels

professionals established by regulatory authorities

All other antibiotics Prohibited Absent

1 Extra-label use is defined as “use of a drug in an animal in a manner that is not in accordance with the purpose approved on the label”.

24 CAC Procedural Manual twelfth edition can be found at:

ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/manual/manual12ce.pdf25 Details of antibiotics approved for aquaculture use in

Canada can be found at: http://salmonhealth.ca/therapeutant-

sapproved.html

23 CAC is a joint commission formed by FAO and WHO. Since

the first steps were taken in 1961 to establish a Codex Alimen-

tarius (food code), CAC, as the body charged with developing

that code, has drawn world attention to the field of food quality

and safety. CAC is charged with developing food safety stan-

dards for worldwide application, and Codex standards have be-

come the benchmarks against which national food measures

and regulations are evaluated within the legal parameters of the

World Trade Organization’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agree-

ment (WTO/SPS).

observed when an antibiotic is used as atherapeutic agent. Compliance with theseconditions and regulations assures that theresidues in products are kept below the MRLs andthat the risk of pathogenic bacteria developingresistance is negligible or, at least, acceptable.

Chloramphenicol is still an authorizedantibiotic in human medicine. Patients who use itas a medicine are taking a risk, but it is a risk thatthey can (and should) assess and understand fully.In addition, a course of treatment withchloramphenicol should only be followed underthe direct supervision of a qualified physician.Chloramphenicol ingestion through theconsumption of fish products containing residues,however, could pose health hazards to humans,which could have serious implications. This iswhy chloramphenicol is authorized for use inhuman medicine, but not for veterinaryapplications.

Until 1994, the EC’s MRL for chloramphenicolwas 10 ppb as a provisional (Annex III) allocation.After 1994, when it became clear that data todemonstrate a safe level of chloramphenicolcould not be established, the MRL was changedto zero (Annex IV). The detection limits forchloramphenicol by the accepted testingmethodology using high-performance liquidchromatography (HPLC) was then 5 to 10 ppb.Thus, effectively, the MRL for chloramphenicolbecame 5 ppb. Over the past two years, severaltests for chloramphenicol based on enzyme linkedimmunosorbent assay (ELISA) technology havecome on to the market. The stated manufacturer’sdetection threshold for chloramphenicol usingthese ELISA-based tests is 0.05 ppb. Since the ECdoes not recognize an MRL for chloramphenicol(zero tolerance), by using more sensitive tests,analytic chemists have disqualified many of thefood items that previously had been accepted assafe for human consumption.

There are nine substances included in Annex IVof Regulation 2377/90/EEC that may not be usedin food producing species because no safe levelof residue can be determined: chloramphenicol,26

chloroform, chlorpromazine, colchicine,

Dapsone, Dimetridazole, Metronidazole,nitrofurans (including Furazolidone) andRonidazole. The presence of an Annex IVsubstance residue (including metabolites) is primafacie evidence of the use of a prohibitedsubstance in a food animal species.

In the United States, several drugs areprohibited for extra-label animal and human druguses in food producing animals. Those relevant toaquaculture interests include: chloramphenicol,Dimetridazole, Furazolidone (except forapproved topical use), Nitrofurazone (except forapproved topical use) and fluoroquinolones.

Approved antibiotics can be bought andutilized under two conditions: over the counter,or on prescription by a qualified professional. InCanada, the over-the-counter purchase ofoxytetracycline is supported by the existence of aMedicating Ingredient Brochure, whichrecommends the conditions for its use. It isimportant that information on the responsible andcorrect use of antibiotics be provided toaquaculturists. In developed countries (e.g. theUnited States, EC countries, Canada), mostapproved antibiotics can only be purchased andutilized on prescription, and under the guidanceof a qualified professional.27

For extra-label use, a qualified professionalmay write a prescription for the use of anapproved antibiotic under conditions that varyfrom those approved. In this case, the approvingofficer will provide specific instructions for theantibiotic’s use and is responsible for itsapplication. Under the Canadian regulations, thequalified professional assumes full responsibilityfor any drug residue violation. Under the UnitedStates regulations, there is provision forauthorizing licensed veterinarians to prescribeextra-label uses of antibiotics in animalproduction for drugs that have been approved for

77

26 See: www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/vet/mrls/chloramphenicol.pdf

27 Laws define which qualified professionals are authorized to

write drug prescriptions for the treatment of fish in aquaculture

and are responsible for controlling them. Such professionals may

have different professional backgrounds in different countries;

for instance, in the EC and the United States, they are veterina-

rians (with proper aquaculture training), but in some countries

they could be biologists (aquaculture) with proper training in

fish medicine and human public health.

human use only. However, the same regulationprovides that the United Stated Food and DrugAdministration (USFDA) "may prohibit an extra-label drug use in animals if, after affording anopportunity for public comment, the agency findsthat such use presents a risk to the public health".This regulation establishes, de facto, a largedifference from those countries that allow onlythe use of approved antibiotics for aquaculture.

This could create situations of lack of control.As expressed by USFDA, "the data andinformation necessary to determine, in particularsituations, whether the resistance level at time ofslaughter would be increased above normal as aresult of extra-label use is not generally availableto practising veterinarians, who must make theextra-label use decisions". In addition toantibiotic residues, therefore, the increasedresistance to the specific antibiotic should, inprinciple, also be monitored. In countries that donot have an effective veterinary servicecompetent in aquaculture or that lackmicrobiological monitoring, the extra-label use ofantibiotics implies irresponsibility and a seriousshortcoming in the management of risks tohuman health.

There are also provisions regarding the use ofantibiotics to deal with emergencies (e.g.epidemics) and research. In general, bannedantibiotics and banned veterinary drugs posesignificant demonstrable risks to human health.

Box 11 provides a list of the antibiotics andveterinary drugs that are currently banned in theUnited States. Banned antibiotics and veterinarydrugs may vary from country to country.

Establishing and enforcing MRLs. The proceduresby which CAC sets MRLVDs are complex and,owing to the inevitable internationalinvolvement, slow. Data are analysed by the JointFAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives(JECFA), which meets only once a year. When arecommendation is reached (after much JECFAconsideration), the conclusions are passed toCAC’s own expert committee, the CodexCommittee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs inFood (CCRVDF), for further evaluation.28

Establishing MRLs for fish presents severalproblems, including the identification of what areedible tissues and the complex pharmacokineticproperties and metabolism of veterinary drugs infish. The only full CAC MRLs for aquaculturespecies listed in the database are for theadministration of oxytetracycline at 100 µg/kg to"fish" and "giant prawn", but several additionalMRL proposals from JECFA are now within theCAC system. From this it is clear that it will bemany years before CAC sets a usable list of MRLs

78

28 A database of CAC MRLs so far developed is available at:

apps.fao.org/codexsystem/vetdrugs/vetd_ref/q-e.htm.

BOX 11Drugs currently banned for use in raising animals in the United States (USFDA 2002)

• Chloramphenicol

• Clenbuterol

• Diethylstilbestrol (DES)

• Dimetridazole

• Ipronidazole

• Other nitroimidazoles

• Furazolidone, Nitrofurazone, other nitrofurans

• Sulphonamide drugs in lactating dairy cattle (except

approved use of sulfadimethoxine, sulfabromomethazine,

and sulfaethoxypyridazine)

• Fluoroquinolones

• Glycopeptides

Source: www.fda.gov/cvm/index/updates/nitroup.htm

relevant to aquaculture; national or market-areaMRLs will therefore predominate in theprotection of consumers within their areas. Theproducts that are being assessed by JECFA aregiven in Table 11.

As well as the MRLs set by JECFA, severalcountries or country groups have set their own.The MRLs relevant to aquaculture in the ECEuropean Economic Area (EC EEA) and theUnited States are given in Tables 12 and 13. Theinformation on MRLs for veterinary drug residuesin Canada can be found on the Health CanadaWeb site: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/index.html.Specific MRL information is given at:www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/fispoi/manman/samnem/bull8e.shtml.

The Bureau of Veterinary Drugs, Health Canadahas approved six drug products (eight drugsubstances) for use in aquaculture (Table 14).Additional information on amended MRLs is alsoavailable at: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/media/releases/2002/2002_08bk1.htm (see Table 15).

The British Columbia Ministry of Agriculturealso has a valuable Web site with information onaquaculture and, in particular, the use ofantibiotics in aquaculture: www.agf.gov.bc.ca/fisheries/health/antibiotics.htm.

Japanese MRL information can be found at:www.ffcr.or.jp/zaidan/ffcrhome.nsf/pages/e-info-foodchem. Only two aquaculture MRLs areposted for fish and shellfish in Japan: 0.2 ppm for

oxytetracycline and 0.2 ppm for Spiramycin.Listings published elsewhere suggest that a widerange of veterinary medicines has been approvedfor use in fish in Japan.

MRLs of approved antibiotics are usuallyconservative. Processing, cooking and frozenstorage can reduce the residual levels ofantibiotics.29 However, data regarding the effectof processing, cooking and freezing aquaticanimal products on the degradation of antibioticresidues in aquatic animal products are scarce; itis therefore essential to conduct proper exposureassessments, in the form of risk assessments, notonly in order to understand the risks but also toreassure consumers.

In the EC, consumer safety is addressed viaMRLs established by Council RegulationEEC/2377/90. The EC definition of MRL isvirtually the same as that adopted by CACRVDfor foods. The Annexes to Regulation 2377/90 areas follows:

• Annex I: full MRL can be set;• Annex II: safe, no MRL needed to protect the

consumer;• Annex III: sufficient data to set a provisional

79

TABLE 11 JECFA proposed MRLs relevant to aquaculture

JECFA Year Drug Tissue Species MRL StatusMeeting (µg/kg)number

47 1996 Oxytetracycline Muscle Giant prawn 100(Penaeus monodon)

48 1997 Flumequine Muscle and skin Trout 500 Temporaryin normal proportion

52 1999 Thiamphenicol Muscle Fish 50 Re-evaluate in 2002

52 1999 Deltamethrin Muscle Salmon 30

54 2002 Flumequine Muscle and skin Trout 500in normal proportion

58 2002 Oxytetracycline Muscle Fish 200

29 Chun-Chieh Lan, Bau-Sung Hwang and Mei-Feng Tu. 2001.

Effect of microwave and roast treatment on the degradation of

sulfamethazine residue in tilapia meat. Journal of Food and DrugAnalysis, 9(2): 102–106.

80

TABLE 12 Current MRLs relevant to aquaculture in the EC EEA

Drug Annex MRL (µg/kg) Species Council Regulation

All sulphonamides I 100 All food producing

Trimethoprim I 50 Finfish

Amoxicyllin I 50 All food producing

Ampicillin I 50 All food producing

Benzylpenicillin I 50 All food producing

Cloxacillin I 300 All food producing

Dicloxacilin I 300 All food producing

Oxacillin I 300 All food producing 508/1999/EC

Penethamate I 50 All food producing

Sarafloxacin I 30 Salmonidae

Chlortetracycline I 100 All food producing

Oxytetracycline I 100 All food producing

Tetracycline I 100 All food producing

Bronopol II Salmonidae, eggs only

Somatosalm II Salmon

Azamethiphos II 1931/1999/EC

Emamectin benzoate I 100 Salmonidae 1931/1999/EC

Teflubenzuron I 500 Salmonidae 1931/1999/EC

Tricaine mesylate II Finfish 1942/1999/EC

Toschloramide Na II Finfish 2393/1999/EC

Diflubenzuron I 1000 Salmonidae 2593/1999/EC

Thiopental iv II n/a All food producing 749/2001/EC

Flumeqine I 600 Salmonidae 2728/1999/EC

Oxolinic acid III expires 1/1/03 300 Finfish 807/2001/EC

Florfenicol I 1000 Finfish 1322/2001/EC

Note: Annex I substances have major species or animal group MRLs allocated. Annex II substances are regarded as consumer-safe and do not require MRLsto be set. Only those Annex II substances that are of relevance to aquaculture are included here. Annex III substances have provisional time-limited MRLsto allow final safety data to be generated.

81

TABLE 13Current tolerances relevant to aquaculture in the United States

Drug Species Tolerance (MRL) Status

Trifluralin Shrimps or prawns 0.001mg/kg Temporary

Oxytetracycline Salmonids 0.2mg/kg Temporary

Oxolinic acid Salmon, Pacific 0.01 mg/kg At LOD1

1 LOD = limit of determination.

TABLE 14 Currently approved drugs and their MRLs in Canada

Drug Species Tissue AMRL1

Oxytetracycline SalmonidsEdible tissue 0.1 µg/g

Lobster

Sulfadi-methoxine Edible tissue 0.1 µg/gSalmonids

Ormetoprim Edible tissue 0.5 µg/gMuscle/skin 1.0 µg/g

Sulfadiazine Salmonids Edible tissue 0.1 µg/g

Trimethoprim Edible tissue 0.1 µg/gMuscle/skin 1.0 µg/g

Tricaine methanesulfonate Salmonids Edible tissue 0.02 µg/g

Formaldehyde Salmonids n/a2

Florfenicol Salmonids Edible tissue 0.1 µg/g3

Notes:1 AMRL = administrative MRL.2 Regulated biological substance, ubiquitous in nature.3 MRL is specified for the metabolite, florfenicol amine.

TABLE 15 Additional amended MRLs in Canada

Drug Marker residue MRL Species(µg/g)

Florfenicol Florfenicol amine 0.8 Muscle of salmonids (salmon, trout, char, whitefish and grayling)

Sulfadiazine Sulfadiazine 0.1 Muscle of salmonids (salmon, trout, char, whitefish and grayling)

Trimethoprim Trimethoprim 0.1 Muscle of salmonids (salmon, trout, char, whitefish and grayling)

MRL, but additional data needed to allocatefull MRL;

• Annex IV: on safety grounds, no MRL can beset. Substances placed in this Annex areprohibited from use in food animal species,although they may still be used in pet species.

It should be noted that, although no formal MRLregulation has been established in the UnitedStates, the equivalent there is the tolerance, whichis established by the regulatory authorities.

GLOBAL PERSPECTIVEHACCP as a risk-based management tool forantibiotic use in aquaculture. In aquaculture,antibiotics are generally administered in feeds,having been either added during feedmanufacture or surface-coated on to pellets bythe manufacturer or the farmer. During outbreaksof disease, farmers may apply antibiotics usingother routes. Clear instructions are thereforerequired for the feed manufacturers, antibioticdealers, veterinary authorities and farmers whoare responsible for the use of antibiotics. Whoprovides such information, and who isresponsible for regulating and controllingantibiotics nationally?

The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point(HACCP) system is recommended as a way ofreducing hazards stemming from the processingof fish and fishery products. Implementation ofthe HACCP system in fish processing ismandatory, and all exporting countries have tocomply with this requirement for internationaltrade. Since the middle of 1990, some developedcountries have introduced the system to controlhazards from the use of antibiotics at the pondlevel.30 The introduction of HACCP to controlfood hazards in aquaculture, including thosestemming from the irresponsible use of antibioticshas been widely recommended31 and has beendiscussed by an FAO/Network of AquacultureCentres in Asia-Pacific (NACA)/WHO StudyGroup on Food Safety.32

HACCP is currently not mandated by mostprimary animal production regulations thatinclude aquaculture. In many countries, evenwhen the liability may be shared or (dependingon regulations) when it remains on theproduction side, the actual obligation to controlthe use of antibiotics and their residues rests withthe processing industry, as HACCP is mandatedwithin the processing sector. This createsdifficulties in implementing control measures onantibiotic use in aquaculture.

All the elements for identifying the criticalcontrol points (CCPs) and critical limits ofregulatory requirements exist for approvedantibiotics and veterinary drugs, specific fish orshellfish species, diagnosis (purpose of use), dose,duration of treatment and withdrawal period. Ithas been suggested that the CCP would be at thefeeding stage, since this is when antibiotics areusually introduced into the production process.The analysis of residues of the antibiotics used,and the checking of compliance with regulations,would form part of the verification procedures. Inaddition, as USFDA has suggested, themonitoring of residues in flesh may be notenough, and the development of resistance inpond micro-organisms (and/or the target micro-organism) should also be monitored – anadditional CCP.

Regarding the fish processing industry, furtherprocedures, activities and monitoring should beperformed in addition to the HACCP plan. Inparticular, prerequisites (e.g. plant location, watersupply and effluent control) and good hygienepractices at the pond should be implemented.The storage and handling of antibiotics should beput under a scheme of monitoring, as indicated inthe United States HACCP-based regulation forstorage of chemicals in the plant, for example.33

82

31 A. Reilly, P. Howgate and F. Kaferstein. 1997. Safety hazards

and the application of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point

System (HACCP) in aquaculture. In R.E. Martin, R.L. Collette and

J.W. Slavin. Fish inspection, quality control, and HACCP, pp.

353–375. Lancaster, PA, USA, Technomic Publishing. See also:

R. Armstrong. International hazard controls in aquaculture,

pp. 403–406, in the same work.32 WHO. 1999. Food safety issues associated with products fromaquaculture. Report of a Joint FAO/NACA/WHO Study Group.

WHO Technical Report Series No. 883. Geneva. 55 pp.

30 G. Valset. 1997. Norwegian hazard controls for aquaculture.

In R.E. Martin, R.L. Collette and J.W. Slavin. Fish inspection,quality control, and HACCP, pp. 392–402. Lancaster, PA, USA,

Technomic Publishing.

As with most food hazard-related areas, manypeople are involved in aquaculture hazardmonitoring, including regulators, consumers,producers, processors, journalists and –sometimes – researchers, who may lack acomplete picture of a given risk and itspossibilities of management. The importance ofcommunicating problems widely has beenrecognized.34 Risk communication is a necessarycomponent of antibiotic use for aquaculturepurposes. In some countries, there is aconsiderable lack of information andtransparency, which conspires against the propersolution of possible problems, and eventuallycreates additional ones. Communication with theconsumer is particularly important. A crisis, suchas the one involving chloramphenicol, alters thenational and international fish markets because itfosters consumers’ fears about fish as food.

The proper use of approved antibiotics willcontinue to be necessary in animal production,including aquaculture, and consumers should bereassured that the use of approved antibiotics, inparticular under "label use" conditions, does notimply a hazard. In addition to the public healthproblems that result from people being rendereddefenceless to illnesses caused by antibiotic-resistant bacteria and the residues of bannedantibiotics, there are also economic constraints tobe taken into account.

The future of aquaculture depends, inter alia,on the production of safe and wholesomeproducts, and this goal can be achieved.However, the recent crisis with chloramphenicolindicates that the current situation with regard tothe use of antibiotics is far from satisfactory. Theresponsible use of antibiotics can be achievedthrough implementing adequate risk managementmeasures, including developing and enforcingappropriate regulatory procedures. Theinformation and knowledge base concerning thehazards and risks involved in the use ofantibiotics should be improved, and the risksposed by existing hazards, in particular of drug

supplies and use, should be communicated.Additional efforts are required in the areas ofresearch, training, capacity building, legalframeworks and communication. Aquaculturistsin developing countries should be encouragedalways to seek professional guidance in the use ofantibiotics, particularly from the regulatoryagencies, extension services and qualifiedprofessionals. Where there is no adequateprofessional guidance, countries should embarkon developing the necessary capability, and aidagencies and development partners shouldprovide all necessary assistance to this process.

Application of HACCP-based managementpractices within production systems is central forreducing possible risks. Appropriate guidelinesand technical standards should be developed inconsultation with all stakeholders. There is also aneed to reassure consumers about the safe use ofapproved antibiotics and measures to constrainthe use of banned substances. Relevantinformation should be made readily available tothe general public through various informationdissemination mechanisms.35 Efforts should bemade to restrict the use of antibiotics totherapeutic purposes only.36 Countries should beencouraged to develop and implement moreinternationally harmonized and transparentprocedures for managing and controlling the useof antibiotics in aquaculture.

National or market-area MRLs. National ormarket-area MRLs will continue to exist untilCAC has been able to set MRLs with wideinternational acceptance. However, the CACprocess is slow, so a full range of MRLs will notbe available for many years. If there are science-based national or regional MRLs, and the controlprocedures are based on reasons of consumersafety, claims that trade barriers exist will beunsupportable, provided that the residue controlprogrammes are operated fairly and equivalentlybetween national and imported products.

83

35 www.anmv.afssa.fr/oiecc/documents/recommendationsconf.pdf;

and www.anmv.afssa.fr/oiecc/documents/recommendations_ha-

noi.pdf36 http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt

=gt&doc=IP/02/466|0|RAPID&lg=EN&display=

33 USFDA. 21 CFR Parts 123 and 124.34 E. Spencer Garrett, C. Lima dos Santos and M.L. Jahnke. 1997.

Public, animal and environmental health implications of aqua-

culture. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 3(4).

PART 3

Highlights of special FAO studies

FISHERIES AND LONG-TERMCLIMATE VARIABILITY

BACKGROUNDNatural long-term variations in the abundance ofwild marine capture fishery resources have beena matter of debate and concern for more than acentury. At first, it was the fishery scientificcommunity who paid most attention to thesetypes of long-term fluctuations. However, asworld fisheries develop, and as more and longerfishery records become available, long-termchanges affecting fisheries have started to attractthe attention of fishers, fisheries managers,policy- and decision-makers and the generalpublic.

The first scientific report of long-termfluctuations in herring abundance was publishedin 1879,1 based on observations made since thesixteenth century. This report described the so-called "herring periods" in the Bohuslänarchipelago, Sweden, which lasted for anythingfrom 30 to 60 years. Since then, many morereports dealing with long-term fluctuations inmarine capture fisheries have appeared. As worldfisheries expand and more evidence of long-termfluctuations in fish abundance emerges, increasedattempts have been made to relate fisheriescycles to available long-term climatic variabilitysignals as a way to identify the possible causalmechanisms of fish fluctuations.

Over the last two decades, relevant researchefforts have been devoted to describing andanalysing long-term fluctuations in theabundance of commercial species and thepossible relationships between ocean climate andfish stock size. FAO has supported this type ofstudy, in which particular attention is paid toimproving the knowledge about possiblerelationships, causes and mechanisms, as well asto the possible uses and applications of improved

knowledge for world fisheries conservation anddevelopment planning.

FISHERIES AND LONG-TERM CLIMATEFLUCTUATIONSThe abundance of a number of species that showlong-term fluctuations, such as the Japanesesardine and the Californian sardine, has beenshown to have some correlation with climaticindices. Long-term observations of Japanesesardine outbursts and atmospheric temperatureindices (Figure 38) have led to proposals that thelong-term regular changes in Japanese sardinecatches could be explained by cyclic climatechanges.2 More recently, available FAO andother data sets of world fisheries landings wereanalysed3 in an attempt to explore the possiblerelationships between various climate indicesand the catches of selected groups of fish stocks.A time series model, based on well-knownclimate cycles, was also developed in order toforecast possible trends in main commercial fishcatches for 5 to 15 years into the future. Whilesuch forecasts must be made with great caution,their results are both provoking and interestingenough to merit further attention and analysis.This article is, to a great extent, devoted toillustrating Klyashtorin’s theories and findings,which refer to fish abundance indices as reflectedby the possible relationship between annualcatches and climate changes. In this context, theterm "climate changes" refers to large-scale, long-term effects – or shifts from one climatic state toanother – that seem to respond to deterministiccycles, rather than individual climatic events,such as El Niño, or long-term trends, such asglobal warming.

The causal mechanisms that drive most of the

87

Highlights of special FAO studies

1 See the citation to A.V. Ljungman (1879) in: FAO. 1983. FAO

Fisheries Report, by A. Lindquist. 291(3): 813–821.

2 T. Kawasaki. 1994. A decade of the regime shift of small pe-

lagics – from the FAO Expert Consultation (1983) to the PICES

III (1994). Bull. Japanese Soc. Fish. Ocean., 58: 321–333.3 FAO. 2001. Climate change and long-term fluctuations of com-

mercial catches: the possibility of forecasting, by L.B. Klyashto-

rin. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 410. Rome. 86 pp.

88

long-term periodic fish abundance fluctuationsanalysed by Klyashtorin remain unclear, andsome of his findings are still working hypotheses.However, the signals and trends in climaticindices and historical fish landings that emergefrom his work are of utmost interest, and meritclose study so that the mechanisms governingclimate change and long-term fish productionvariability can be understood better and used formanagement purposes. The argument put forwardin most of the cases is that biomass and catchesare ultimately driven by climate fluctuations. Thisruns counter to the conventional wisdom offisheries management, which considers thatbiomass and catches are driven mostly by fishingpressure. It has already been suggested4 thatupwelling intensity is linked to large-scaleclimatic effects, which ultimately affect the rate ofnutrient transport into the eutrophic upper oceanlayer, thereby changing primary production and,subsequently, fish production. However, whilehypotheses relating climate to nutrient availabilitymay be correct, there is no direct evidence of the

mechanism, and no conclusivemodelling of the causal relationshiphas so far been possible.

Spectral analysis of the time series ofthe atmospheric global temperatureanomaly (dT), the atmosphericcirculation index (ACI) and the lengthof day (LOD) estimated from availabledirect observations (110 to 150 years)shows a common periodicity of 55 to65 years (Figure 39). Spectral analysisof the reconstructed time series of airsurface temperatures for the last 1 500years suggests a similar (55 to 60years) periodicity. Furthermore, theACI observations show two alternatingclimatic epochs, each ofapproximately 30 years duration,according to the dominance in airmass transport on the hemisphericscale (Figure 40). The ACI hastherefore been used as a suitable

climatic index for further investigation of long-term regular changes in the landings of majorcommercial fish stocks.

CORRELATION BETWEEN FISHERIES ANDCLIMATEEvidence for the relationship between climateand fisheries landings comes from two mainsources: a few long-term indices of climate andfish stock size for up to 1 700 years, which showsimilar cyclic patterns as well as correlationbetween series; and fluctuations in catches frommost of the stocks that were examined, whichhave synchronized since 1900, corresponding toclimatic indices over the same period. Both long-and short-term series appear to have a commoncycle. The most pronounced periodicity of long-term fluctuations in catches for all time series(excluding anchovy) varies from about 54 to 58years. The corresponding climate cycles (bothmeasured and reconstructed) vary from 50 to 65years (with an average of 56 years). Other, lesssignificant, cycles (13 and 20 year fluctuations ofsummer temperature) may also be of interest, butso far no reliable correlation between thesecycles and commercial catch fluctuations hasbeen found.

4 A. Bakun. 1996. Ocean processes and marine population dy-

namics. La Paz, Mexico, California Sea Grant and CIB. 323 pp.

16001600 16401640 16801680 17201720 17601760 18001800 18401840 18801880 19201920 19601960 20002000

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-32.6

-33

-33.4

-33.8

-34.2

-34.6

-35

Temperature anomaly (ºC) Greenland ice core temperature (ºC)

Japanese sardine outbursts

Global temperatures anomaly (dT)Temperature reconstructed by Greenland ice cores

FIGURE 38Cyclic temperature fluctuations and Japanese sardine outbursts 1600Ð2000

Among the long-term cycles,Japanese chronicles contain historicalinformation on Japanese sardineabundance for the last 400 years(Figure 38). Changes in the availabilityand abundance of sardine stocks ledto the development of several coastalfishing villages, as well as the collapseof others. The average cycle length isabout 60 years, and periods of highabundance tend to coincide withwarmer atmospheric periods.

Off the coast of California,anaerobic conditions in seasonallylayered sediments have preserved fishscales from populations of smallpelagic fish. Two time series of theabundance index could bereconstructed for sardine and anchovystocks for the last 1 700 years fromthese sediments.5 Although theydemonstrate large fluctuations, it isinteresting to note that these timeseries show no clear differencesbetween the earlier period, whenfishing was negligible, and the morerecent period, when exploitation hasbecome far greater.

Analysis of the periodicity indicatedtwo principal oscillations in sardineabundance time series: one occurringevery 54 to 57 years, and the otherevery 223 to 273 years. The first ofthese oscillations is similar to thatobserved in both air temperature asmeasured from fossil ice cores andsardine biomass, making it particularlyimportant for fishery forecasting.Dominant fluctuation periods for anchovy areabout 100, 70 and 55 years in duration.However, unlike other commercial pelagicspecies, the regular climate-dependent dynamicsof Peruvian anchovy are greatly perturbed every10 to 15 years by strong El Niño events, so the

future catch dynamics of this species are not wellapproximated by a smooth "average" curve.About 70 to 75 percent of the total anchovy catchin the Pacific is Peruvian anchovy. The increasesin sardine and anchovy abundance appear to belinked, respectively, to the two atmosphericregimes (zonal and meridional epochs) that havealready been mentioned, suggesting that thesetwo species may be favoured by different climaticconditions.

It is reasonable to expect that fish landings

89

5 T.R. Baumgartner, A. Soutar and V. Ferreira–Bartrina. 1992.

Recontruction of the history of Pacific sardine and northern an-

chovy populations over the past two millennia from sediments

of the Santa Barbara Basin, California. CalCOFI Report, 33: 24–40.

would have a greater correlation withcorresponding regional climatic indices than withmore global ones. However, the results obtainedso far suggest that the catch dynamics of the mainPacific commercial species (Pacific salmon,Japanese, Californian and Peruvian sardine,Alaska pollock and Chilean jack mackerel) are incloser correlation with the global climaticindices, dT and ACI than they are with theircorresponding regional indices. There is not yet asatisfactory explanation for this.

FORECASTING POSSIBILITIESAssuming that the observed pastcorrelation between fish catches andatmospheric regimes will continue inthe future, Klyashtorin attempts toforecast total catches of a selectedgroup of major commercial species byfixing the cycle periods at 55, 60 and65 years (based on the climate cycle)rather than relying on estimates of thecycle length from the relatively shortcatch time series. His analyses suggestthat a shift between the two alternativeatmospheric regimes is, indeed,occurring. As a result, provided thatthe observed synchrony between fishand climatic epochs persists,production of the selected majorcommercial species over the nextdecade would be expected todecrease in the North Pacific andincrease in the North Atlantic (Figure41). Forecasting of the majorcommercial fish landings for the next30 to 40 years is largely insensitive tothe choice of periodicity within the 55to 65 year range. Species such asAtlantic and Pacific herring, Atlanticcod, South African sardine andPeruvian and Japanese anchovywould be expected to increase during2000–2015, decreasing thereafter.During the same period, total catch ofspecies such as Japanese, Peruvian,Californian and European sardine,Pacific salmon, Alaska pollock andChilean jack mackerel would beexpected to decrease, increasing

thereafter. Overall, the total catch of the mainworld commercial species considered in theanalyses, and representing about one-third ofworld marine capture landings, would beexpected to increase by 5.6 million tonnes by2015, then to decrease by 2.8 million tonnes by2030.

POLICY IMPLICATIONSThe possibility of forecasting long-term changesin world capture fish production, based on

90

observable indices of long-termclimatic variability, raises justifiedscientific, economic and policyexpectations and concerns. Fishingpressure is usually claimed to have themajor influence on the long-termproductivity and size of wild fishstocks. It is commonly accepted thatappropriate management couldmaintain stock size levels that arecommensurate with sustainably highcatches, and that the usualconsequences of management failureare depressed – and even depleted –stock sizes and lower yields.Recognition that, for some keyspecies, deterministic long-termclimate-driven impacts on stockabundance are, or could be, asimportant as suggested calls for areview of research and managementstrategies and objectives regardingfisheries of the species concerned, as well as ofrelated species. Management responses to short-term fluctuations would have to take into accountthe possibility that underlying long-termdeterministic fluctuations exist. Long-termmanagement aims, which would typically involvecapital investment and social and infrastructuredevelopment, would also benefit fromconsideration of the long-term climate effects.

Overall, deterministic climate-driven increasesand decreases in fish production do not seem tobe of great global importance, as increases in agroup of stocks in one region tend to be balancedby decreases in another group in another region.However, the fact that long-term climaticchanges could determine major epochalincreases in fish production from some stocks insome areas, and equivalent declines from otherstocks and areas, merits serious considerationbecause the impacts at the local and regionallevels are bound to be far larger. For instance, atpresent, large international market flows comefrom developing areas into developed ones (i.e.from the tropics to the North), but the oscillationsin production between the North Atlantic and thePacific Ocean are likely to result in changes tothese trade flows. Such changes would have

significant impacts on national and regionalmarkets, even though the total supply couldremain stable. Changes in investments and fleetmovements (and fishing agreements) are alsoexpected to be greater than suggested by theworld accumulated total landing figures.

This analysis has not considered anthropogenicclimate change and its possible effects on fishproduction. However, as available data suggestthat there is a link between fish production andclimate, the need to include the effects of globalwarming in possible projections is clear. Theresults reported suggest that shifts in climate couldhave noticeable positive or negative effects onsome, if not most, major commercial fish stocks.

THE SEARCH FOR AN OPERATIONALDEFINITION OF SUBSIDIES PROVIDED

TO THE FISHERIES SECTOR

BACKGROUNDLeading fishing nations are debating the size, theeffects and various ways to deal with subsidies inthe fisheries sector. The debate is conducted ininternational fora and started about a decade ago.Progress has been slow, in part because of a lackof clarity in the terms used. Not all participants in

91

the debate have the same understanding of whatis, and what is not, a subsidy in the fisheriessector.6

One of the first tasks that FAO undertook insupport of this debate was, therefore, to examinethe term "subsidy" and to try to obtain consensus– at least among experts – as to what it shouldmean in the context of fisheries and aquaculture.The examination took the form of an FAO ExpertConsultation, held in December 2000.

The experts discussed, inter alia, what wouldconstitute a suitable and operational definition of"subsidy" for the purpose of analysing the effectsof subsidies on resource sustainability and ontrade. This discussion drew the conclusion thatno single definition could be agreed to. Instead,the experts identified four sets of subsidies. Theywent on to recommend that these sets ofsubsidies be referred to and used as standards infuture studies and discussions.

The experts had two major reasons forchoosing this solution: they wanted to make thedefinition independent of any evaluation of theeffects of subsidies and, at the same time, theywanted to ensure that the definition wouldfacilitate such evaluation. They achieved theseobjectives by, on the one hand, tying thedefinition to the form of the subsidy – as opposedto its effects – and, on the other hand, classifyingsubsidies into four groups according to criteriathat reflect the relative ease of identifying andquantifying a subsidy and its effects: set 1 beingthe easiest, and set 4 the most complicated.

In addition, the experts intended that thedefinition respect the notion that a subsidy is anational policy instrument that reflects anexception to a nationwide policy. The exception

is generally reflected both in the form of thepolicy instrument and in its effects.

The international debate about subsidiescontinues. It has moved on from the definition ofsubsidies and is now more concerned with theirclassification – which is usually based on theirperceived effects – and with how to assess theirimpact.

This article describes the definition of subsidies,as proposed by the FAO Expert Consultation. Thetext, with a few editorial differences, can befound in the report of the Expert Consultation.7

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Many different definitions of a subsidy have beenused in economic analyses of trade and naturalresource use. Review of these leads to theconclusion that none of the commonly useddefinitions is adequate for a comprehensiveanalysis of subsidies’ effects on trade andsustainability in fisheries and aquaculture.Unfortunately, the Expert Consultation did notrecommend any single definition for themeasurement, analysis and political debate ofsubsidies in fisheries.

Experts tend to place different emphasis on fourattributes of subsidies in fisheries andaquaculture:

1. government interventions that involve onlyfinancial transfers to producers;8

2. government interventions that conferbenefits to producers, without involvingfinancial transfers from the government toproducers;

3. an absence of government interventions tocorrect distortions that confer benefits onproducers; and

4. the long- and short-term effects ofgovernment interventions on firms’ benefitsand costs.

92

7 FAO. 2001. Report of the Expert Consultation on Economic

Incentives and Responsible Fisheries. Rome, 28 November – 1

December 2000.8 The term "producers" includes primary producers (fishing firms),

fish processors, distributors, wholesalers and retailers of fish and

fish products. In other words, producers include all the firms

involved in supplying fish to the final users of fish and fish

products.

6 Examples of different understandings of the term "subsidy" can

be obtained from: FAO. 1993. Marine fisheries and the Law of

the Sea: a decade of change. Special chapter (revised) of The

State of Food and Agriculture 1992. FAO Fisheries Circular No.

853. Rome; M. Milazzo. 1998. Subsidies in world fisheries – a

re-examination. World Bank Technical Paper No. 406. Wa-

shington, DC, International Bank for Reconstruction and Deve-

lopment/World Bank, 86 pp.; FAO. 2001. Subsidies for fishe-

ries: a review of concepts, by W.E. Schrank. In Papers presen-

ted at the Expert Consultation on Economic Incentives and Re-

sponsible Fisheries, Rome, 28 November – 1 December 2000.

FAO Fisheries Report No. 638, Suppl., pp. 11–39. Rome.

93

In order to advance themeasurement, analysis and discussionof subsidies in fisheries andaquaculture, the experts at theconsultation proposed definitions forfour sets of subsidies. The consultationrecommended that any analysis anddiscussion of this issue state explicitlywhich of the four sets of subsidies isbeing considered.

The numbering of sets 1, 2, 3 and 4is not meant to imply any ranking ofsubsidies. Rather, it indicates that thedefinition of subsidies in highernumbered sets includes moreelements. In other words, set 2includes the elements that areincluded in set 1, set 3 includes theelements included in set 2, and so on.This is illustrated in Figure 42.

SUBSIDIESSet 1 subsidies Subsidies in set 1 are government financialtransfers that reduce the costs and/or increase therevenues of producers in the short term.

Set 1 subsidies include direct payments bygovernment to or on behalf of producers, forexample, grants to purchase or modernize vesselsand income support payments.

All the experts at the consultation believed thatdefinitions of subsidies that include onlygovernment financial transfers to producers aretoo narrow for the present purposes. Suchdefinitions exclude government interventions thataffect trade and the use of fishery resources andthat involve no financial transfers. Therefore, thedefinition of set 2 subsidies includes all thegovernment interventions – regardless of whetheror not they involve financial transfers – that canpotentially reduce the costs and/or increase therevenues of producers in the short term.

Set 2 subsidiesSubsidies in set 2 are government interventions –regardless of whether or not they involvefinancial transfers – that reduce the costs and/orincrease the revenues of producers in the shortterm.

Set 2 subsidies include tax waivers anddeferrals, as well as insurance, loans and loanguarantees provided by government. Set 2subsidies also include government provision ofgoods and services at below market prices.9 Set 2subsidies correspond closely to many of thedefinitions used by, for example, the World TradeOrganization (WTO).

Most experts at the consultation vieweddefinitions of subsidies that require active andexplicit government intervention, including set 2subsidies, as too narrow. The lack of governmentaction to correct distortions (imperfections) in theproduction of, and markets for, fish and fishproducts confers an implicit benefit to producers,which can affect trade and the use of fisheryresources. The experts at the consultationtherefore defined set 3 subsidies as including thelack of correcting interventions by government toremove distortions (imperfections) that canpotentially affect fishery resources and trade.

Set 3 subsidiesSubsidies in set 3 are set 2 subsidies plus the

9 Note that this applies only to goods and services for which a

market exists. It does not apply to goods and services provided

by the government and for which there is no market. See the di-

scussion of management costs in set 3 subsidies.

Set 1

Set 2

Set 3

Set 4

FIGURE 42Sets of subsidies

short-term benefits to producers that result fromthe absence or lack of interventions bygovernment to correct distortions (imperfections)in production and markets, which can potentiallyaffect fishery resources and trade.

Set 3 subsidies include the implicit benefits toproducers that are associated with a lack ofgovernment regulations requiring producers tobear the costs that they impose on other parties,including the costs on the environment andnatural resources. When the costs imposed onothers do not have to be paid for, the cost ofproduction is lower, which in turn influences theamounts of fish produced and traded as well asthe health of resource stocks. Such implicitbenefits are present where government does notrequire measures to reduce the catch of, forexample, sea turtles, sea birds or marinemammals. In such cases, producers impose costson others, in the form of damage to theenvironment, which they do not pay for and donot take into account in their productiondecisions. Another example is where governmentdoes not do enough to prevent theoverexploitation of a fishery resource. In this case,producers avoid paying for the costs of harvestingthe resource in the short term, while imposingcosts on others – and themselves – in the longterm. Both the sustainability of the resources andthe trade in fish are thereby affected.

All the experts at the consultation agreed thatthese types of implicit benefits (unpaid costs) canhave significant impacts on fishery resourcesustainability and trade. However, not all agreedthat such implicit benefits should be included assubsidies for the present purposes. In particular,some of the experts believed that this definitionencompasses measures that are not open toclassification as subsidies, and that their inclusionmoves the discussion of fisheries subsidies intoareas that are distinct from, and should beaddressed in different contexts from, the fisheriessubsidies debate.

The experts at the consultation were unable todecide whether the failure to charge for the costsof fisheries management services constitutes asubsidy to producers. There is a lack of researchon this issue, and economic reasoning leads toambiguous conclusions.

Clearly, government provision of a factor inputat below the market price constitutes a subsidyunder all four definitions. However, there is nomarket for management services in mostfisheries.10 Some experts argue that producershave no demand for management services andthat, instead, management is forced upon them.In addition, in managing fisheries, government isattempting to ensure the sustainability of theresource for the use of future generations and theenjoyment of non-producers who value theexistence of healthy fishery resources.

The professional literature on recovering thecosts of fisheries management essentiallyconcludes that requiring producers to pay userfees improves the overall efficiency ofmanagement; in other words, user fees enhancethe value gained from the use of scarcemanagement resources. However, the literaturedoes not address the issue of whether a failure tocharge user fees (or to introduce some other formof cost recovery) should be considered a subsidy.Charging user fees reduces revenues (or increasescosts), but whether such fees affect supply, tradeand sustainability, and how they do so, are notclear at this time. More research is required onthis important issue.

Some of the experts at the consultation arguedthat definitions of subsidies that include onlythose government interventions (or an absence ofcorrecting interventions) that confer short-termbenefits on producers are limited because they donot account for the effects over time of suchinterventions. An intervention that confers animmediate benefit can ultimately confer harm orlosses on producers, especially in fisheries. Someof the experts recommended extending thedefinition of a subsidy to include interventions(and the absence of correcting interventions) thataffect costs and revenues in any direction andover time, i.e. in the short, medium and longterms.

94

10 The case of sole ownership is an exception in which the

owners of the fishery resource would be willing to pay for a set

of services that include research, management administration

and enforcement.

Set 4 subsidiesSubsidies in set 4 are government interventions,or the absence of correcting interventions, thataffect the costs and/or revenues of producing andmarketing fish and fish products in the short,medium or long term.

Set 4 subsidies include all set 3 subsidies plussuch interventions as management measures thatmay decrease (or increase) the short-term benefitsto producers but that result in an increase (ordecrease) in long-term benefits to producers. Anexample is where closure of a fishery (or an areaof a fishery), which imposes short-term losses onproducers, ultimately results in a rebuilt resourcestock and higher long-term benefits to producers.Set 4 subsidies explicitly account for the effectsover time of government interventions and theabsence of correcting interventions. The effectson benefits to producers in the short term may bethe opposite of the long-term effects.

TECHNO-ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE OFMARINE CAPTURE FISHERIES

INTRODUCTION In 1999 and 2000, in close cooperation withseveral fisheries research institutions and nationalfisheries administrations in Asia, Africa, LatinAmerica and Europe, FAO reviewed theeconomic and financial performance of morethan 100 fishing fleets in 15 countries. The resultsare presented in a FAO Fisheries TechnicalPaper.11 The studies are part of the monitoring ofthe economic viability of marine capture fisheriesorganized by the FAO Fisheries Department.

The studies highlight two aspects of theeconomic and financial data: the structure ofcosts and the profitability. In 1999–2000, theinfluence of financial transfers on profitabilitywas also reviewed.

This article contains some of the highlights ofthe data collected and the conclusions reached.Special emphasis is given to an internationalcomparison of the structure of costs for small-scale fishing vessels.

COST STRUCTURE OF SMALL-SCALEFISHING VESSELSEurope Labour costs account for the major share ofoperating costs (45 to 64 percent) in Europeansmall-scale fisheries (Norway, Germany andFrance). Vessel costs are the second highest costcomponent, ranging from 20 to 35 percent oftotal operating costs. At 7 to 20 percent, runningcosts play a minor role, mainly because of lowerfuel expenses. The importance of labour costscompared with vessel costs and running costs iseven higher than it is in deep sea trawl fisheries.

When adding the costs of investment, i.e.depreciation and interest on vessel costs, vesselcosts gain considerable importance, as shown inFigure 43. Vessel costs and depreciation andinterest combined range from 33 to 51 percent ofthe total costs.

This finding shows that European small-scalefisheries are relatively capital-intensive and thatcapital is substituting expensive labour. This trendis more pronounced in the case of German andFrench vessels than it is in the case of Norwegianvessels.

Senegal The cost structure of Senegalese small-scalefishing vessels differs from that observed inEurope. While labour costs are the mostimportant element of the operating costs inEurope, their share is significantly higher inSenegal than in the developed Europeancountries reported. This supports the generalnotion that small-scale fisheries in developingcountries are more labour-intensive than indeveloped countries. It is worth noting that vesselcosts are the least important element of operatingcosts in Senegal, reflecting the low costs of vesselmaintenance and repair.

Depreciation and interest are less important inSenegal than in most European countries. Thisreflects the fact that vessels are less expensive, sodepreciation and interest are also reduced, andrange from 7 percent of the total costs (forhandliners) to 21 percent (for two-canoe purseseining), compared with Europe where their shareis between 33 and 51 percent.

95

11 FAO. 2001. Techno-economic performance of marine cap-

ture fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 421. Rome.

The CaribbeanIn the case of small-scale fishing vessels in theCaribbean, a different picture emerges. Only forfishing boats that exploit flying fish fromBarbados (using gillnets, dip nets, handlines andfish aggregating devices) do labour costs rank asthe highest cost component, followed by runningcosts and vessel costs. In all the other cases (boatsfishing for lobster and high-value bottom speciesin Antigua and Barbuda, and artisanal shrimptrawlers in Trinidad), running costs are the most

important cost component. This reflects thesituation observed for deep sea trawlers operatingin developing countries.

For traditional lobster boats in Antigua andBarbuda, labour costs are the least important costcomponent. This contrasts with the situationreported for the country’s larger lobster boats andfor the artisanal shrimp trawlers in Trinidad,where labour costs are the second highest costcomponent, followed by vessel costs.

In fact, the total cost structure of small-scale

96

fishing vessels in the Caribbean resembles thesituation found in Europe more closely than itdoes the one in Senegal. When depreciation andinterest are added, the vessel costs range from 24to 48 percent, which is close to the situation inEurope and indicates only a slightly lower level ofcapital investment than that observed there. Forboats that catch flying fish in Barbados andsloops that catch lobsters and bottom fish inAntigua and Barbuda the result is even closer toEurope’s. For these vessels, the vessel costs plusdepreciation and interest account for the highestshare of the total operating costs.

Running costs rank second, and labour costsare the least important component of bothoperating and total expenses for small-scalefishing vessels in the Caribbean (Figure 45). Inthis they differ from European vessels.

South and Southeast AsiaIn South and Southeast Asia, labour costs are themost important component of the operating costsfor four of the six types of small-scale fishingvessels studied. The situation is thus similar tothat of small-scale fishing vessels in Europe andSenegal. In the cases of the Indian log raft, whichoperates trammel nets, and the Thai push-netter,

running costs exceed labour costs. As is the casefor most Caribbean and Senegalese vessels (butnot for European small-scale fishing vessels),running costs rank second, and vessel costs third.

Figure 46 shows that vessel costs, together withthe costs of depreciation and interest, range from15 to 46 percent, which is more similar to thesituation found in the Caribbean and Europe thanto that of small-scale fishing vessels in Senegal.

However, in no case do vessel costs plusdepreciation and interest account for the highestshare of total expenses, as was observed for somecategories of vessels in Europe and theCaribbean. In three of the six cases (Thai push-netters and anchovy boats and Indian catamaran),vessel costs plus depreciation and interest ranksecond, while for the other three fleets they arethe least important cost component. Again, thisindicates a relatively low level of capitalinvestment.

RECENT TRENDS IN FINANCIAL ANDECONOMIC PERFORMANCE The studies carried out in 1999 and 2000 confirmand validate the findings of the cost and earningsstudies carried out between 1995 and 1997. Ofthe 108 types of fishing vessels studied, 105 (97

97

Antigua and Barbuda,open trap/line vessel, 6 m

Antigua and Barbuda,decked trap/line vessel, 7 m

Antigua and Barbuda,trap/line sloop, 10 m

Antigua and Barbuda,wooden launch, trap/lines, 11 m

Barbados,flying fish day boat, 9 m

Barbados,flying fish ice boat, 12 m

Trinidad,artisanal shrimp trawler, 9 m

17%

22%

18%

12%

10%

17%

26%

32%

37%

30%16%

22%

12% 8%

15%22%

8%

15%

20%

21% 2% 1%

Running costs

Vessel costs

Labour costs

Depreciation

Interest

0%0% 20%20% 40%40% 60%60% 80%80% 100%100%

FIGURE 45

percent) had a positive gross cash flow and fullyrecovered their cost of operation. Only threetypes of vessels (stow-netters in China and semi-industrial and industrial shrimp and bottom fishtrawlers in Trinidad and Tobago) showedoperational losses. Some 92 of the 108 types ofvessels (85 percent) showed a net profit after thecosts of depreciation and interest had beendeducted. This composite result is more positivethan that obtained from studies carried out duringthe 1995–1997 period, when only 61 of the 84types of vessels studied (73 percent) had apositive net cash flow. The improvement islargely due to the inclusion of fleets operating inNorway, Thailand and the Caribbean, all ofwhich recorded net profits.

Of the ten countries that participated in boththe previous and the recent studies, two (Franceand Spain) showed marked improvements in theprofitability of their fishing vessels, while anothertwo (China and Germany) showed decliningprofitability. In the remaining six countries(Republic of Korea, Indonesia, India, Senegal,Argentina and Peru), the economic resultsremained substantially unchanged.

The higher prices paid to producers in1999–2000, compared with the previous studyperiod, contributed to these overall positiveresults. There were few indications that fishing

effort had been reduced and fish stocks hadrecovered. It was also observed that some fleetshad changed their fishing operations to adapt tothe new conditions that resulted from depletedand changing abundances of resources andaccess to new markets.

The impact of cost-reducing and revenue-enhancing government financial transfers differedsignificantly from country to country. In twocountries in the EC and in India, there werestrong indications that almost all the vessel typesthat were covered by the cost and earnings studyand received financial transfers would have beenprofitable even without those transfers. Thetransfers played a role, however, in increasingearnings and profitability significantly. In theRepublic of Korea the situation was mixed, whilein Thailand vessels that could avail themselves oftax exemptions on fuel needed to do so in orderto have a positive gross cash flow.

Examples of new trends in coastal fisheriesinclude the expanded use of trammel nets bytraditional log rafts (kattumarams) on the eastcoast of India, the introduction of mini outriggertrawlers fishing for shrimp and demersal speciesin shallow waters off the Indian coast of Orissaand Bengal, the replacement of day boats by so-called ice boats with improved onboardpreservation facilities in the flying fish fishery of

98

Barbados, the modernization and improvement ofsloops and launches to cater to the requirementsof export markets in Antigua and Barbuda, thediversification of purse seining and pole and linefishing in Indonesia, and the modernization andupgrading of coastal vessels in Thailand, Norway,France and Germany.

In offshore fisheries, the expansion/developmentof new profitable fisheries with highcapitalization and technology was observed.Examples include French and Spanish tunaseiners, German pelagic trawlers, Norwegiancombination vessels equipped for pelagictrawling and purse seining, and tuna longliners inIndia and Indonesia.

Vessels that had previously shown positiveresults but now incurred losses were generallyolder vessels, which were continuing to work onoverexploited stocks. Examples are Chinesebottom pair trawlers of 25 to 28 m in length,Chinese single bottom trawlers of 26 m in length,Chinese stow-netters of 30.5 m in length andChinese purse seiners/set-netters of 36 m inlength, all of which showed net losses – the stow-netters even showed operational losses – whilepreviously only pair trawlers had shown a netloss and no vessel showed operational losses.Indian purse seiners of 14 m in length fishingmackerel and sardine in the Arabian Sea alsoshowed net losses, while previously they hadmade a net profit.

Senegalese purse seiners targeting smallpelagics and fishing off the West African coast,which had previously shown net profits, nowrecorded net losses, although they still recoveredtheir operating costs.

The situation also deteriorated for Germancutter trawlers of 22 to 32 m in length fishingdemersal fish stocks in the North Sea and BalticSea, as well as for German factory trawlers of 60to 80 m in length fishing demersal fish resourcesoff Greenland and in the waters of the EC. Theseall showed net losses, but not operational losses,having previously shown a net profit.

Spanish pole and line vessels of 24 m in lengthalso made net losses after making a net profitduring the previous study period.

Types of vessels that showed net losses duringthe first study and a net profit in the second

include three types of Spanish tuna seiners of 56,64 and 70 m in length, deep sea trawlers of about30 m in length, and three types of deep seatrawlers ranging from 15 to 24 m in length.

AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA:THE ROLE OF PUBLIC SECTOR POLICIES

INTRODUCTIONPolicy-makers and development agents areincreasingly viewing aquaculture as an integralcomponent of the search for global food securityand economic development. Mainland China isthe world’s leader in aquaculture productionfollowing a steady development during the lastthree decades. Identification and analysis of theissues and factors that motivated aquaculturedevelopment in China could play a critical role,not only in understanding the future ofaquaculture in China, but also in shapingaquaculture development in many parts of theworld. It is within this framework that the FAOFisheries Department and the Government ofChina jointly conducted this study. The ultimategoal was to evaluate ways in which the Chineseexperience of sustainable and lucrativeaquaculture development could benefit othercountries with aquaculture potential, especiallydeveloping countries.12

The approach taken to achieving this goalconsisted of answering four questions concerningaquaculture in China: Why did aquaculturedevelop so sustainably? What is its currentdevelopment level? How was this developmentachieved? and Where is aquaculture heading?

The information presented in this article came

99

12 This article is a summary of FAO. In press. Aquaculture de-

velopment in China. The role of public sector policies. FAO Fi-

sheries Technical Paper No. 426. The paper and the associated

study cover all of China except Taiwan Province of China. It was

prepared by a team of Chinese experts and FAO staff and con-

sultants. The data presented on Chinese aquaculture were pro-

vided by the Government of China and differ somewhat from

some of the data previously published by FAO. Given that the

primary purpose of this article is to highlight the policy contri-

butions to the rapid growth of aquaculture in China, it was not

considered essential that these statistical differences be recon-

ciled.

mainly from existing documentation on thesector, observations from field visits by experts,and the study team’s knowledge of the sector.Major players in the sector also provided usefulinformation. The article discusses the mainfindings of the study before closing with someconcluding comments.

MAIN FINDINGSThe reason for aquaculture developmentChina has a long history of aquaculturedevelopment, which can be divided into threemain phases: the pre-1949 period, the1949–1978 period, and the period from 1978 tothe present. The foundations for aquaculturedevelopment and growth were laid in the periodbetween 1949 and 1978, after whichdevelopment has been rapid and steady.

Development seems to have been prompted byfood self-sufficiency and economic factors. Whenthe People’s Republic of China was born in 1949,the country had just emerged from a period offoreign domination and civil strife. The economywas totally wrecked. Poverty was rampant, foodscarce and famines frequent and widespread. Asthe government strived to rebuild the country’seconomy, its first priority was to mobilize andorganize all the available national resources at itsdisposal in order to produce enough food andraw materials to feed and clothe the population.Given their production cycles, fisheries andaquaculture were considered to be two sources ofanimal protein that could be tapped in a shorttime. In addition, fish was already an acceptedfood item in people’s diet and its productionthrough farming and the harvest of natural waterswas well established in China. The goal was alsoto produce for export in order to earn much-needed foreign exchange with which to purchasecapital goods for the construction of theeconomy.

Current state of the artMajor aquaculture systems, species andproduction technologies. Major freshwateraquaculture systems include pond, cage, pen andpaddy–fish culture in rice fields and indoorrunning water systems. Pond culture is the mostpopular and most important fish farming system

in China. Major species cultivated in pondsinclude carps, Chinese bream (Megalobramaamblyocephala), mandarin fish (Sinipercachautsi), Japanese eel (Anguilla japonica),Japanese prawn (Macrobrachium nipponensis),mussel (Hyriopsis cumingii and Cristalia plicata),river crab (Eriocheir sinsensis), soft-shelled turtle(Trionyx sinensis) and introduced exotic speciessuch as channel catfish (Ictalurus punctutatus),tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), giant prawn(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), large-mouth bass(Micropterus salmoides) and rainbow trout(Onchorhynchus mykiss).

Marine and brackish water culture systemsrange in type from ponds to floating rafts, pens,cages (inshore, offshore and submerged), tunnels,indoor tanks with water recirculation, sea bottomculture and sea ranching. Before 1980, threespecies – the seaweeds Japanese kelp (Laminariajaponica) and purple laver (Porphyra tenera) andthe mollusc blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) –accounted for about 98 percent of the totalmarine aquaculture output. Currently, in additionto these species, important marine speciesinclude two shrimp species (Penaeous monodonand P. chinensis), the molluscs oysters (Ostreaspp.) and razor clam (Solen constricta), scallops(Argoipecten spp.), abalone (Haliotis discusshannai and H. diversidor) and finfish.

Farm organization and structure, andrelationships among farmers. Ownership ofaquaculture ventures in China comprises state,corporate, individual, joint venture andindependent foreign venture ownership. In thesouthern part of China’s coastal provinces andautonomous regions, including Zhejiang, Fujian,Guangdong, Guangxi and Hainan, more than 90percent of the farms belong to individuals andprivate corporations. In some areas of the region,such as Wenzhou and Taizhou in ZhejiangProvince, joint ventures and cooperative farmsaccount for 100 percent of aquaculturebusinesses. Most partners in joint ventures withforeign investors are from Taiwan Province ofChina. In the northern part of China’s coastalprovinces, about 80 percent of aquaculturebusinesses are corporations. In the country’sinland areas, more than 90 percent of freshwater

100

fish farms are individually or family-owned. Farm sizes and distribution depend on the

species cultured and the geographical location. Innorthern areas, especially in Shandong andLiaoning provinces, most mariculture farms arelarge-scale, commercial operations producingmainly kelp, flatfish (Paralichthys olivaceus),scallop and abalone. In southern and inlandareas, small-scale farms are preponderant; mostof them are freshwater fish farms operated byfamily units.

Mutually reinforcing relationships betweensmall- and large-scale producers exist. The headsof large-scale companies, referred to as "heads ofdragons", can sign contracts with small-scale fishfarms involving capital investment, productcollection, technical guidance and provision ofmarket information to the small-scale farms. Inreturn for these services, large-scale companiesgain community support, which is an essentialingredient for the sustainability of theirenterprises, and economic gains.

Seed and feed production. Because of the highdemand for seeds, China has hatcheries for a hostof different species.

With the exception of eel farming, which stillcollects seeds from estuarine areas or importsthem from other countries, including France,most of the seeds of farmed species are suppliedfrom hatcheries. Hatcheries consist of well-developed bases/stations that are operated bycorporations, collectives or individuals. TheNational Fisheries Technology Extension Centreis responsible for guiding breeding techniquesand introducing genetic materials from oneregion to another. The Fish IdentificationCommittee, under the leadership of the NationalBureau of Fisheries, is responsible for theidentification of genetic materials and theestablishment of multiplication centres.

There are about 12 000 feed mills producingvarious kinds of animal feeds, including fish feed.Of these, about 1 900 have a production capacityexceeding 5 tonnes per hour. The state still playsan important role in the production of feed foraquatic animals and owns slightly more than 47percent of the mills, down from 99 percent in1990. Domestic corporations control 47.6

percent of the mills, up from 0 percent in 1990.The contribution of joint ventures has also beenincreasing, although slowly; in 1999, theyaccounted for 3.8 percent of the feed mills foraquatic animals, compared with 0.1 percent in1990.

Markets and marketing. Aquaculture products aresold in fresh and processed forms. Although mostproducts are sold fresh, basic fish handling andprocessing technologies are being progressivelyreplaced by the latest modern technologies toadd more value to various fish products. Frozenor cold-stored products are replacing salted ones;large packages are giving way to small ones; andsoft tin containers are used in lieu of glasscontainers.

Research, education and extension. The researchsystem consists mainly of national and localfisheries research institutions and universities. In1999, there were 210 fisheries research institutesin China. National research institutions anduniversities, most of which are engaged in basicand applied research, are the major power foraquaculture research and technologicaldevelopment. National research institutions arefunded by the central government and are underthe direct administration of the Chinese Academyof Fishery Sciences within the Ministry ofAgriculture. Universities fall under theadministration of the Ministry of Education orprovincial governments. Local institutions focuson solving the technical problems that affect localaquaculture development. They are moreproducer-oriented and are sometimes quicker torespond to farmers’ needs than are the other twocategories. Often, they are also a step ahead ofnational institutions and universities in terms ofpractical technological advances. They arefunded mainly by provincial and/or municipalgovernments. Non-fisheries commercial privatecompanies also sponsor aquaculture research,especially in the areas of aquaculture feeds,chemicals (for the control of fish diseases) andbreeding and culture technologies of high-valuespecies.

The government has established a system ofaquaculture education and training that can

101

generally meet human resource requirements forthe development of the sector.

Education and on-the-job training are fullysupported by central and local government. Some30 universities enrol about 1 000 undergraduatestudents in aquaculture every year, fiveuniversities and research institutions offerdoctoral degrees, and nine award master’sdegrees in aquaculture and closely related areas.There are also about 20 technical secondaryschools and a large number of vocational schoolswith the major task of producing skilled workersfor the aquaculture and fisheries sector.

Aquaculture extension has always beenstrongly supported by the government. TheNational Fisheries Technology Extension Centreis the national institution responsible foraquaculture extension, and 18 462 fisheriesextension stations form a network of servicesacross the country. Extension is jointly funded bycentral and local government. Researchinstitutions are also starting to extend theirfindings directly to farmers. As aquaculturedevelops, a growing number of organizations andcommercial companies outside government,especially feed and chemical companies, areshowing interest in extension activities. Theirmotive is profit, as they see extension as aneffective means of promoting markets for theirproducts.

Major strengths and constraints. As well assupportive government policies (which arediscussed in the following subsection), the mainstrengths of Chinese aquaculture include well-established seed production technology forfreshwater species, a strong and continuingresearch and development infrastructure, a solidextension service, relatively higher profit and netincome per unit of labour, and a strong domesticand international demand for aquatic products.Major constraints include: the continued threat ofenvironmental degradation and diseaseoutbreaks; little improvement in seed supply andgenetic conservation; limited suitable land forexpansion of land-based aquaculture; and, inmany areas, inadequate primary fishery facilitiesand infrastructure.

DEVELOPMENT POLICIESGeneral sector-specific policies A rich general policy mix led to the noticeabledevelopment of aquaculture at different periodsin China.

Self-reliance in fish through the full employmentof resources. When the People’s Republic ofChina was proclaimed in 1949, the governmentdeveloped a highly centralized system ofplanning, development and management thatcontinued until the implementation of an open-door policy and economic reforms in the late1970s. During this period, the government’spolicy was to push for the population’s fullparticipation in the economic life of the country,including in the aquaculture sector. The primarygoal was fish self-reliance.

Setting aquaculture as a priority in thedevelopment of the fisheries sector. Before 1979,the guiding principles for fisheries andaquaculture emphasized marine fisheries andfishing and tended to underrate freshwaterfisheries and aquaculture. This policy led to thesevere destruction of fishery resources and theslow development of aquaculture. Thereafter, thegovernment issued a series of regulations toprotect fishery resources and to make aquaculturedevelopment one of its priorities. Targets were setand means of achieving them defined. Guided bythese general principles and policies, which weresupplemented by other relevant and morespecific policies, Chinese aquaculturedevelopment recovered from stagnation. By1985, output from freshwater and marine wateraquaculture had reached 3 090 000 tonnes,accounting for about 43 percent of the combinedcapture fisheries and aquaculture output.

Establishment of aquaculture production bases.Owing to the construction of governmentaquaculture production bases, aquaculturedeveloped into an important industry for the ruraleconomy. By 1986, the total area covered by thegovernment’s aquaculture bases in China hadreached nearly 2 400 km2 and was yielding 1.5 million tonnes, nearly 50 percent of thecountry’s total aquaculture output for that year.

102

Promotion of sustainable aquaculturedevelopment. Ten years after the Instructions onthe Release of Restrictions to Expedite theDevelopment of the Aquatic Products Industrywere promulgated in 1986, the industry haddeveloped very rapidly. However, manyproblems emerged alongside the increase inoutput. Poor management of aquatic seedresulted in high mortality; diseases broke out; thedissemination and transfer of aquaculturetechnologies was inadequate; and poorlyconstructed infrastructures and facilities werewidespread. In order to foster and boost thesustainable and rapid development ofaquaculture, the State Council issued regulationsthat demanded further reform and liberalizationof aquaculture, radical changes to the structure ofthe sector, adjustment of the species mix andproduction structure to market conditions, andthe development of new technologies to improvethe performance of the whole fisheries sector soas to ensure its sustainable development.

Continuous adjustment of the structure of theaquaculture sector. As the industry developed, itsoon became apparent that there were seriousinherent structural problems, which needed to beaddressed if growth was to continue. In the mainaquaculture production areas, the supply of sometraditional species exceeded demand, resulting inlow prices, reduced sector efficiency anddepressed producer incomes. In response, in1999 the Ministry of Agriculture released theGuiding Instrument on Adjusting the Structure ofthe Fishery Sector, which had the aim ofrestructuring the fisheries sector, includingaquaculture. The guiding principle concerningaquaculture was to increase efforts to developnew markets and expand existing ones, increasethe demand for fish through market promotion,develop new value-added products, improve thequality of aquatic products through technologicalinnovation, provide improved infrastructure andfacilities, and reform the legal system.

Establishment of a good administrative frameworkfor aquaculture management and creation of aspecialized agency. The National Bureau ofFisheries is the functional department in the

Ministry of Agriculture that coordinates theadministration of the fisheries sector, includingaquaculture. Its main functions are to:

• supervise implementation of the state’sgeneral principles, policies and plans for thefisheries sector;

• study and put forward measures fortechnological advances in fisheriesdevelopment;

• protect fishery resources and utilize themrationally;

• promote fisheries development; • organize and supervise the construction of

infrastructure in the fisheries sector.

In general, the National Bureau of Fisheriesstudies and initiates the establishment of generalpolicies and regulations, which are thensubmitted to the Ministry of Agriculture, the StateCouncil or the People’s Congress for approval.Once general policies and regulations have beenpromulgated, the National Bureau of Fisheriessupervises their implementation. The bureau canalso set up some specific policies within its areaof jurisdiction. Depending on the provinceconcerned, province-level fishery authoritiesinitiate the implementation of thepolicies/regulations by themselves or afterobtaining approval from the provincialgovernment. Other supporting structures for thefisheries sector include: the National FisheriesTechnology Extension Centre, which is a semi-governmental institution dealing withimplementation of the state’s policies on fisherytechnology and extension services; the ChineseFishery Academy, which is the national-levelacademy involved in research on specificsubjects, such as the biology of aquatic animals,fishery resources and the socio-economics offisheries; and the China Society of Fisheries,which is an organization of fishery techniciansdealing with technical exchange and promotion.The activities of all of these are coordinated bythe National Bureau of Fisheries.

Establishment of a good legal and regulatoryframework for aquaculture development. Thebasic law in fisheries and aquaculture is the

103

Fisheries Law of the People’s Republic of China,which was promulgated by the StandingCommittee of the National People’s Congress in1986 and revised in 2000. It first establishedguiding principles in the development ofaquaculture, fishing and processing. Otherimportant parts of the legal system that regulatesustainable development in the fisheries sector,including aquaculture, are the regulations, rulesand directive notices that protect fisheryresources, provide access to water and areas,protect the environment and control aquacultureproduction methods and techniques, as well asensuring the safety of aquatic products. TheFisheries Law is often supplemented by Noticesfocusing on critical issues facing the industry atthe national level.

Emphasis on research, technologicaldevelopment and information dissemination. Therapid development of aquaculture of the past twodecades has been strongly supported by research,technology development, education, training andextension, most of which is funded by thegovernment. Scientific research andtechnological progress, especially the adoption ofbreeding technologies for different culturespecies, contributed more than 50 percent to thegrowth of aquaculture output between 1979 and1999.

Promotion of high-value species. Prior to the1970s, the main species cultured in mariculturewere seaweeds and molluscs, while herbivorousor omnivorous filter-feeding fish species, such ascarps, dominated freshwater aquaculture. Therewere no feed manufacturers for aquatic animalsin China, as there was no supporting demand.When a protein diet was required, trash fish wereused as the main ingredient. With theintroduction of high-value species such as shrimpin the late 1970s, the home-based feedprocessing model quickly failed to meet theincreasingly high demand for high-quality feed,and this stimulated the development of the fishfeed industry. The development of the feedindustry further induced the private sector toengage in the farming of more high-value speciesin both fresh and brackish water, such as the

mitten crab, the soft-shelled turtle, eel and the redseabream in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Thediversification of high-value species resulted inexpanded aquaculture output.

Issue-specific policies The government also used policies to addressspecific issues, such as seeds, feed, technology,land and marketing.

Policies on seed issues. The governmentaddressed the limited availability of high-qualityseeds, especially of strong, disease-free anddisease-resistant seeds, by encouraging privateinvestment in hatcheries, enacting policies aimed at controlling seed quality, and setting up legal provisions on seed production anddissemination.

Policies dealing with feed issues. Feed-relatedissues were alleviated through the sponsoring ofresearch in feeds and nutrition, the establishmentof a regulatory framework for the development ofthe feed industry, and the provision of economicincentives to investors, especially preferentialtariffs on the raw materials used in feedmanufacturing.

Policies dealing with appropriate technologies.The government has continued to apply amultitechnology policy to the development ofaquaculture. Thus, national research institutionsare distributed across the country’s climatic andgeographic zones. There are five freshwaterfisheries research institutions: one in thesubtropics; one in the area close to frigid zones;one in the central eastern part of the country; andtwo in the inner western part. The three marinefisheries research institutes are also evenlydistributed, from south to north along China’scoast. Different research institutions havedeveloped broad varieties of productiontechnologies for different regions. Thegovernment also strongly promotes thediversification of species, especially through theintroduction of foreign technologies and exoticspecies with good commercial aquaculturepotential and the expansion of private sectorinvolvement in technological development,

104

particularly in such areas as the breeding of high-value species and the enclosure of running watersystems.

Policies dealing with marketing issues. Recentgovernment policies in marketing have consistedof breaking the state’s market monopoly. Underthe centralized planning economic structure priorto 1978, the state had the monopoly for buyingand distributing aquatic products. This policygreatly reduced farmers’ incentives to expandaquaculture production. Since 1979, thegovernment has been reforming the marketingsystem for aquatic products by gradually, butdrastically, liberalizing and privatizing theirproduction, marketing and distribution. Tradebarriers among the country’s regions were alsoabolished. In order to develop China’s fisheriesand aquaculture further, since 1985 thegovernment has created an enabling environmentfor market development by issuing a series ofpolicies that allow market forces to determineprices of aquatic products; influence open marketdynamics and create and set criteria for theconstruction, design, organization andmanagement of wholesale markets; establishoffices responsible for the management of fishproduct distribution channels; and promote localwholesale market development. The governmenthas also established seafood market informationnetworks and centres which collect informationfrom various markets and disseminate it to thepublic, especially to companies for use in theirproduction decision-making and planning.

Land issue policies. Land issues were addressedthrough the structural reform of farm ownershipand property rights policies. Since the early1980s, the government has encouraged andsupported the transfer of farm ownership from thepublic to the private sector. In contrast to theformer collective system, in which ownership andthe benefits accruing from farming belonged tothe state and/or the collective, under the newland law, the socialistic principle of a collectiveeconomy and property rights (particularlyownership and individual rights to farm produce)are guaranteed and given to collective members.Each member has equal rights to the farm and

gets a share of the value of its produce.Investment issue policies. Prior to 1979,government enterprises were the norm.Thereafter, a proportion of the productive capitalhas changed from government allocation togovernment loans. The government has alsoprovided grants and subsidies to investors,introduced a tax system whereby the tax burdenon investments is shared between central andlocal government, and encouraged joint venturesbetween central and local government, on theone hand, and between domestic and foreignprivate investors, on the other.

THE WAY FORWARDThe government intends that aquaculture inChina should not only be environmentallyfriendly, but also rational, healthy andsustainable. It is working towards establishing aplan of action and a sound management systemto safeguard the environment. Steps have alsobeen made in developing appropriatemanagement strategies through adoption of theprecautionary principle approach, as embodiedin FAO’s Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries. Preventive measures for non-pointsources of pollution affecting aquaculture, mainlyresulting from land wastes, are planned. Thesewill be achieved through suitable awarenessbuilding and the implementation of regulatorycontrol programmes by the responsibleauthorities.

The future of aquaculture in China lookspromising. The government’s commitment andsupport of the sector is strong. Aquaculturecontinues to be a high priority. The private sectoris more interested in aquaculture than it is inother agriculture subsectors of the nationaleconomy. Output from capture fisheries isunlikely to increase in the foreseeable future. Thedemand for fishery products is growing, bothwithin China and internationally. China has goodpotential for increasing the share of itsaquaculture products in international markets,helped by its membership of the World TradeOrganization (WTO). The development offreshwater integrated farming, paddy–fish cultureand marine aquaculture, and the implementationof participatory community extension services are

105

the main means for achieving these expectations.As it continues to develop, aquaculture is

expected to continue playing an important role inChinese society by ensuring food supply andalleviating rural poverty, especially through jobcreation and income generation for the ruralpoor. Processing, value adding, marketing andthe ornamental fish industry are expected toimprove, thereby contributing to the well-beingof China’s urban, suburban and rural population.

Nevertheless, there are some majorimpediments to further aquaculture developmentin China. The supply and availability of qualityseed in marine aquaculture are still low. In somewell-established aquaculture areas, the supply oftraditionally cultured species such as Chinesecarps greatly exceeds the market demand, andthis seriously depresses prices. The high-value ormarket-preferred species that are in demand indomestic and international markets are not fullyexploited on a large scale. Farming technologiesare outdated, often resulting in inefficiency.Water is polluted in some areas, leading todisease outbreaks. Suitable land for land-basedaquaculture is also limited.

CONCLUSIONS China is the world’s largest producer of farm-grown aquatic products today. Apart from thecountry’s sheer size and population, thisachievement stems mainly from proactivegovernment policies on fisheries, in general, andaquaculture, in particular.

Aquaculture in China has developed throughtwo policy regimes: the egalitarian model undercentralized state planning from 1949 to 1978,and the open market economy regime, whichstarted in 1978. The early egalitarian model wasprimarily responsible for much of the progressachieved in securing food self-sufficiency in fish.Under this model, the government’s first prioritywas to mobilize and organize all the availablenational resources at its disposal in order toproduce more food and raw materials with whichto feed and clothe the population. These policiesinvolved the full participation of China’s ruralcommunities, which constituted almost 80percent of the country’s total population in the1950s, and have been highly effective in making

Chinese aquaculture what it is today. In addition,the policies led to the creation and accumulationof real assets and wealth at the national, localand individual levels. Rural incomes andlivelihoods significantly improved. The policy ofrural communities’ full participation inaquaculture also produced skilled aquacultureworkers for the development and expansion ofthe industry. In the open market economy model,in which free market forces are allowed todetermine the allocation and transformation ofproductive resources and to allocate aquacultureoutput among consumers, food self-sufficiencypolicy has continued to be the pillar ofaquaculture development. Other goals areefficiency and acquisition of the much-neededforeign exchange with which to purchase capitalgoods for rebuilding the economy.

The main engines of aquaculture growth havebeen the government’s recognition of the sectoras a development priority; the full utilization ofproductive resources, including suitable watersurfaces, mudflats and waterlogged lands, as wellas people; investment in research andtechnology; the establishment of a nationwideaquaculture extension network reaching thegrassroots level; the promotion of aquaculture forpoverty alleviation, food security andemployment in poorer provinces; and theestablishment and constant improvement of thelegal framework and regulatory system.

With continued proactive government policies,adequate advanced planning, scientificallydesigned production technologies and soundmanagement, aquaculture in China can be, andis likely to be, productively stable, sustainable,equitable and profitable. Responsibleaquaculture intensification remains physicallyfeasible and will most likely develop, as the bestsites have already been used and there is agrowing need to protect and preserve the naturalenvironment.

The main challenges to further aquaculturedevelopment in China are the limited supply ofgood-quality seeds for some species; theoversupply of traditionally cultured species, suchas carps, which results in low prices; theunderexploitation of high-value species; outdatedfarming technologies; water pollution; the limited

106

suitable land for expansion; and frequent fishdisease outbreaks. In order to overcome theseconstraints, it can be expected that the Chineseauthorities will:

• consider developing industrialized farmingsystems by improving the design of andupgrading production systems, employing thelatest technology and selecting the bestcombination of species to respond to marketconditions in both domestic and internationalarenas;

• strive to increase the market share of high-value freshwater species suitable for export,and achieve production efficiency, which inturn suggests large-scale industrial farms;

• give greater emphasis to the production ofhigh-quality seed by making use of modernbiotechnology;

• establish an integrated scientific system andnetwork of fish breeding and seed productionfor high-quality indigenous or endemicspecies, as well as developing fish healthmanagement and disease prevention,diagnosis, control and treatment.

The pursuit of policies of this kind impliesallocating additional funds to aquaculturedevelopment, particularly to support projects in

appropriate areas and locations, especially inmid-western regions of the country.

The Chinese models and experiences ofaquaculture development provide the followingvaluable lessons to other developing countries intheir efforts to promote and develop aquaculture:

• Aquaculture can be developed in asustainable manner to generate food and jobsand improve the income and livelihoods ofrural and urban populations, thus alleviatinghunger and poverty.

• The engine for economically resilient andsustainable aquaculture is the government’swill and resolve to establish sound policies tosupport and develop the sector.

• Full employment of productive factors,including human resources, continuousimprovements in the legal and regulatoryframework for the development of the sector,and scientific breakthroughs in productiontechnologies will strengthen aquaculture andensure its sustainability, thereby making it agood contributor to the country’s overalleconomic growth through the supply of food,employment and foreign exchange and thecreation of infrastructure, especially in ruralareas. !

107

PART 4

Outlook

INTRODUCTIONAs part of an Organization-wide study ofagriculture in the coming decades,1 the FAOFisheries Department has commissioned studiesof future fish consumption. These are generallydeveloped around economic models of thedemand, trade and supply of fish2 in mainmarkets. One of the main limitations of suchstudies – including these FAO studies – is thatthey are usually developed against a backgroundof "business as usual" in respect of public policiesand technology change. This means that in themodels (real) prices are assumed not to change,which implies that any policy changes ortechnological developments are assumed to haveaffected all producers and consumers in auniform and similar fashion. This is seldom, ifever, the case.

A description of work in progress is given in thefirst section of this article. It contains preliminaryresults from studies being undertaken to predictfish consumption by 2015–2030, on the basis ofeconomic modelling.

The second section is an effort to mitigate theweakness of economic modelling. It investigatesthe "business as usual" scenario in order to seewhether it would be realistic, at least in theimmediate future, to expect that policy andtechnology change will not influencedevelopments in the sector and, in particular, thelevels of future fish consumption. Thus, thesecond section is an attempt to foresee the impactof changes in public policies regarding capturefisheries and aquaculture, on the one hand, andthe impact of the developments in technologythat can be applied by capture fishers andaquaculturists, on the other.

TRENDS IN LONG-TERM PROJECTIONS OF FISH PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION

With a view to predicting future fisheries and fishproduction, FAO commissioned three long-termfish market forecast studies of Japan, 28 European

countries3 and the United States, as well as twoglobal studies.4 (An analysis of China was alsoattempted, but proved difficult to realize at thistime.) Based on economic models of demand,trade and the supply of fish in main markets,these studies are helpful in providing an analysisof plausible trends in production, consumptionand trade. The following five gross trends inproduction and consumption for the period up to2030 emerge from the analyses:

• World production, total consumption, fooddemand and per capita food consumption willincrease over the next three decades;however, the rate of these increases will slowover time.

• World capture production is projected tostagnate, while world aquaculture productionis projected to increase, albeit at a slower ratethan in the past.

• In developed countries, consumption patternswill reflect demand for, and imports of, high-cost/high-value species.

• In developing countries, trade flows willreflect the exportation of high-cost/high-valuespecies and the importation of low-cost/low-value species.

CAPTURE AND AQUACULTUREPRODUCTIONTable 16 gives forecasts for fish consumption, netexport and production trends up to 2030. LatinAmerica, Europe and China will supply most ofthe fish used for non-food uses. Small pelagic

111

Outlook

1 FAO. In press. Agriculture towards 2015/30. Rome.2 In this section the term “fish” also includes crustaceans and

molluscs, unless otherwise stated.3 Austria, Belgium-Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Re-

public, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,

Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands,

Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,

Sweden and the United Kingdom.4 The results of these five reports will be finalized and published

as a series of FAO publications by 2003.

112

species will continue to dominate the fish speciesused as inputs for aquaculture production (via thefishmeal component of fish feeds).

The largest share in the increase of worldcapture production over the projection period ispredicted to come from Latin America, solidifyingits position as the leading producer of capturefisheries production and the leading net exporter.Small pelagic and demersal fish will continue asthe major fish groups in total capture fisheries.

Over the last decade, European production hasbeen characterized by stagnation in capturefisheries production and strong growth inaquaculture production. Ranging from a low of8.6 million tonnes in 1990 to a high of 10.8

million tonnes in 1995, capture production from28 countries averaged 10.4 million tonnesbetween 1994 and 1998. Of this total production,15 percent was small pelagics and 23 percentdemersal fishes. During the same period, theshare of aquaculture production increasedsteadily from 10 percent of total production in1989 to 15 percent in 1998. The productionforecasts for the Europe-28 study reveal astagnation of capture fisheries production.

Japanese domestic production peaked at 12millions tonnes in 1974, and has subsequentlydecreased by almost half to 6.72 million tonnesin 1997; production from capture fisheries isexpected to remain at the 1997 level of

TABLE 16 Fish consumption, net export and production trends 1997–2030

Country group Trend in Trend in Increase Increaseper capita net export in capture in aquacultureconsumption production production

(‘000 tonnes) (‘000 tonnes)

World + n.a. 13 700 54 000

Share in Share inworld increase world increase

Africa -/+ - 4% 1%

China, mainland + + 5% 70%

Europe, 28 countries / -/+ 0% 5%

Former USSR -/+ No change 0% 0%

Japan + - 0% 1%

Latin America and the Caribbean + + 57% 7%

Near East in Asia -/+ + 2% 2%

Oceania, developed + -/+ 5% 1%

Oceania, developing -/+ No change 0% 0%

South Asia / - 10% 8%

United States + - 0% 1%

Rest of Asia, developing + - 17% 5%

Rest of Europe, developed + No change 0% 0%

Rest of Europe, developing + No change 0% 0%

Rest of North America + - 0% 0%

Notes: Percentage data were derived from the Global 1 study, supported by all other studies.-/+ indicates that results differed depending on the model used.

approximately 6 million tonnes.Aquaculture production is expected todouble to 1.5 million tonnes in threedecades. Total production is projectedto increase by 11 percent over the 30-year period, with small pelagics,demersals and molluscs remaining thetop three nationally produced speciesgroups.

Trends in United States seafoodproduction, consumption and tradeare expected to differ widely amongspecies. Trends will also vary as aresult of "supply side" changes incapture harvests and differences in theextent to which aquaculture canexpand and increase production, aswell as of "demand side" differencesamong species in the effects ofchanging consumer preferences. As United Statesper capita income rises, demand is likely to shiftfrom lower-priced species to higher-priced ones.

The projections for United States seafoodproduction and consumption were generated bya simple model based on assumptions aboutchanges in fish supply and fish demand in theUnited States and in the rest of the world, as wellas price elasticities of fish supply and fishdemand. In the model, prices, consumption andnet trade between the United States and the restof the world are simultaneously determined atlevels at which world supply and demand arebalanced. Given the simplicity of the modelstructure and assumptions, the model projectionsshould be considered illustrations of potentialfuture changes rather than reliable projections ofwhat will actually occur. Table 17 summarizesthe consumption projections for the year 2030 forfour scenarios, or sets of assumptions: mediumgrowth, slower aquaculture growth, highdemand, and restricted/partial trade. In allscenarios, changes from the base period (the1995–1997 average) are driven by growth inaquaculture production and growth in demand,both of which are higher in the rest of the worldthan in the United States.

In all four of the United States scenarios, withthe exception of substantial growth inaquaculture production of freshwater and

diadromous fish, relatively little change in UnitedStates fish production by 2030 is forecast.

Increases in world aquaculture production willbe driven by increases in Chinese production,with South Asia, Latin America and theCaribbean and Europe providing smallerincreases. Freshwater species and molluscs willdominate aquaculture production.5

In order to meet growing projectedconsumption needs in Europe, total productionincreases in volume are estimated to resultprimarily from increases in aquacultureproduction. Indeed, the model estimates thatfarmed production will likely double by 2030,exceeding 2.5 million tonnes in 2015 andreaching 4 million tonnes in 2030.

In the United States, aquaculture production islikely to grow less rapidly than in other countriesbecause of higher costs of labour and land andstricter environmental, health and food safetyregulations. As a result, an increasing share ofUnited States fish consumption is expected tocome from imports.

113

5 However, as indicated in the previous subsection, public po-

licy support for aquaculture is likely to grow worldwide. The im-

plication is that output might, in fact, be expanding at the rates

implied here, even if the Chinese production increases do not

reach the levels foreseen.

CONSUMPTIONAlthough global annual per capita consumptionof fish is predicted to increase over time, fromabout 16 kg today to between 19 and 21 kg6 (liveweight equivalent) in 2030, the regional picturewill be very diverse. Fish consumption per personis projected to increase in some areas: South Asia(up by almost 60 percent), Latin America and theCaribbean (up by almost 50 percent) and China(up by more than 84 percent) being the top threegrowth regions. However, it may stagnate ordecline in other areas, including: Africa (down by3 percent), the Near East in Asia (down by 17percent), Oceania, developing (down by 8percent), and the countries of the former USSR(down by 4 percent). Non-food use of fish isprojected to grow more slowly than total supply,thereby representing a declining share over time.7

The projections produced in the five studies(Japan, Europe, United States, Global 1 andGlobal 2) that are currently under preparation

show future consumption reaching levels that aremarginally (about 10 percent) below thosesuggested in an earlier FAO study. The presentstudies indicate an average per capitaconsumption of 19 to 21 kg for the world as awhole, against a prior study showing about 22.5kg.8

Globally, changes in consumption patternsreflect increased demand for ready-to-cook or

114

TABLE 17 Summary of projections for 2030 based on the United States model(thousand tonnes, live weight)

Average for Projections for 2030 under alternative scenarios1995–1997base period Medium Slower High demand Partial trade

aquaculturegrowth

Production Freshwater 691 852 814 1 012 915Pelagic 1 322 1 322 1 322 1 322 1 322

Demersal 2 251 2 251 2 251 2 251 2 251Marine 29 29 29 29 29

Crustaceans 387 363 363 363 363Molluscs 684 627 654 646 659

Cephalopods 105 105 105 105 105Total 5 469 5 549 5 538 5 728 5 643

Net imports Freshwater - 25 167 139 71 62Pelagic 169 256 255 107 216

Demersal 273 488 453 250 378Marine 14 20 18 15 18

Crustaceans 538 872 794 843 796Molluscs 202 724 607 792 512

Cephalopods - 29 - 25 - 25 - 32 - 28Total 1 142 2 501 2 242 2 046 1 955

Consumption Freshwater 666 1 019 954 1 084 977Pelagic 1 491 1 578 1 577 1 429 1 538

Demersal 2 525 2 739 2 705 2 501 2 630Marine 42 48 47 44 46

Crustaceans 925 1 235 1 157 1 205 1 159Molluscs 886 1 351 1 261 1 438 1 171

Cephalopods 76 80 80 72 77Total 6 611 8 050 7 780 7 774 7 598

6 In World agriculture: towards 2015/30 projected annual per

capita consumption is between 19 and 20 kg.7 There is some uncertainty in estimates of non-food use of fish pro-

duction because an unknown portion of fresh fish is used directly as

inputs into aquaculture, and not for food consumption as was pre-

viously believed. For example, in FAO’s Food Balance Sheets, when

estimates of fish that is input directly into

aquaculture are included, the per capita consumption estimates for

China are reduced by approximately 3 kg.8 FAO. 1999. Historical consumption and future demand for

fish and fishery products: exploratory calculations for the years 2015/30,

by Y. Ye. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 946. Rome. 31 pp.

ready-to-eat products. The emergenceand growth of supermarkets’ shares inthe distribution of seafood continuesto facilitate a greater penetration ofseafood products in areas that areremote from the sea. Increased healthconsciousness has also changedconsumption patterns. The processingsector of the fishery industry hasdemonstrated its capacity to adjustand innovate, and the increase in theimportance of supermarkets in fishdistribution has had a substantialimpact on the source and form of fishproducts for human consumption.9

Providers of fish products havegenerally benefited from all thesechanges by providing a broader variety of cookeddishes, including fish.

Demand for fishery products10 has beenincreasing in Asia, partly owing to populationand income growth; Japan leads per capitaconsumption in the region with historical levelsof approximately 70 kg per capita, whichconstitutes approximately 10 percent of theglobal demand for fish products.

In the Japanese study, only weak substitutionand complementarity effects were found betweenfish and other protein sources.11 Japanesedemand over the 30-year period for variouscategories of fish is represented in Figure 49.Non-food use is not expected to change over thisperiod, while average per capita consumption isexpected to increase by 16 percent. Again, pricesin every grouping are expected to increase overtime, with demersal fish and aquatic animalsprices more than doubling.

In 1998, the main species consumed in Europewere mussels (7 percent of all apparentconsumption), followed by cod (7 percent), tuna(6 percent), herring (6 percent), cephalopods(squid, octopus and cuttlefish – 5 percent),sardines (5 percent) and salmon (4 percent).Other significant species included shrimps (4 percent) and trout (3 percent). In terms of totalquantity consumed, small pelagic fish such asherrings, sardines, anchovies and pilchards arethe main species group and represent 15 percentof the overall consumption, but their market

share in terms of value is relatively low owing totheir low unit prices.

In contrast, demersal species (in particular, thewhitefish species group) are the main group ofspecies in terms of value, either for directconsumption or for use in the primary andsecondary processing industries of Europe.12 In1998, this group accounted for 15 percent of

115

9 In 1986, United Kingdom fishmongers had a 51 percent market

share of fresh fish, while supermarkets’ share was 15 percent.

By 1996, the situation was dramatically different: fishmongers’

market share had fallen to 30 percent, while that of supermarkets

had increased to approximately 50 percent. In France, super-

markets are now the source of approximately 60 percent of re-

tail fish sales. In Spain, it has been estimated that traditional

fish markets generated less than 40 percent of retail sales in 1998

and that they will continue to lose market share in the future.10 Fish and fish products groupings comprise: freshwater fish,

anadromous fish, marine fish-pelagic-tunas, marine fish-pela-

gic-small, marine fish-demersal, marine fish-others, crustaceans,

molluscs, cephalopods, aquatic animals and aquatic plants.11 Own-price elasticities ranged from -0.12 to -0.80 (seaweeds

to seabreams), while income elasticities ranged from 0.07 to

0.80 (pelagic smalls to aquatic animals). As a result, the Japa-

nese regional study includes a detailed econometric analysis of

demand for fish products with the goal of estimating precise

own-price and income elasticities for a large number of fish spe-

cies categories. Substitutions among protein sources (i.e. fish,

beef, pork, chicken and egg) are analysed using an "almost ideal

demand" system. A separate time trend analysis is used to fore-

cast income to 2030, which is then fed back into the previous-

ly estimated demand function in order to estimate fish demand

until 2030.

1999 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 20300

4 000

8 000

12 000

16 000

20 000

FIGURE 48Evolution of Europe–28 total fish production over time

Capture production

Total fish demand

Aquaculture production

Imports

Thousand tonnes

consumption in volume, but had an appreciablyhigher market share in terms of value.

Future trends in fish production andconsumption in 28 European countries areprojected on the basis of estimated productioncapabilities, demand functions and the politicalframework of the European Union, and the

detailed results of the model can be shown interms of percentage changes from the base period(the average for 1994–1998). Although theabsolute estimates of fish for food consumptionare expected to decrease in only three countries(Estonia, Latvia and Spain), per capita fishconsumption is expected to decrease in the samethree countries, plus Norway, Portugal andSweden, as a result of demographic changes.Marine fish (tunas, small pelagic, demersal andothers) will provide the majority of total

116

12 The principal species in this group include cod, hake, had-

dock and whiting.

117

consumption; however, the growth inconsumption will be greatest for cephalopods,crustaceans, freshwater fish and anadromous fish.Frozen and prepared and/or preserved fish areexpected to dominate the category of fish for foodconsumption.

In all four of the United States model scenarios,net imports and consumption are projected toincrease, but growth in total fish consumption isrelatively modest, at less than 25 percent in thehighest scenario. Slower aquaculture growthresults in less growth in consumption. Higherdemand in the rest of the world also results in lessgrowth in United States consumption and importsbecause relatively higher growth in demand inthe rest of the world causes a greater share ofworld production to be consumed in othercountries. Less trade in fish results in less growthin imports and, correspondingly, less growth inconsumption.

As elsewhere in the world, future United Statesconsumption of fish from capture harvests ishighly uncertain and unlikely to increase. Indeed,both the volumes of fish that are potentiallyavailable to the United States for consumptionand the prices of fish relative to other animalproteins will be significantly influenced, if notdetermined, by global capture harvests andaquaculture production. Thus, the rapid growthin United States per capita consumption ofimported farmed shrimp and salmon provides anexample of the kind of changes in United Statesfish consumption and trade that will be mostimportant in the future.

By themselves, the historical trends of the pastseveral decades do not provide a clear indicationof how United States fish consumption maychange in the future. Total United States percapita seafood consumption was relatively stablefor the six decades prior to 1970, increasedrapidly during the 1970s and 1980s, and showedlittle change during the 1990s. Different fishspecies and products exhibit widely varyingtrends, many of them driven by changes incapture fishery conditions. The clearest long-termtrend is for growing per capita consumption ofaquaculture products such as shrimp, salmon andcatfish.

WORLD TRADE FLOWSIn very general terms, the distribution of netexports at the country/regional level shows:

• increasing net exports for some of thecountries/regions, such as China and LatinAmerica and the Caribbean;

• declining net exports for the rest of Asia andthe rest of North America;

• rising net imports for Africa, the United States,Europe and Japan;

• a switch from net imports to net exports in thecase of the Near East in Asia;

• a change from net exports to net imports forSouth Asia.

Because Japan relies increasingly on its importsas a source of supply, and because these importsrepresent 30 percent of world trade in fishproducts, it is plausible to anticipate that shifts inJapanese consumption trends will have significantimpacts on world markets.13

Europe, including the EC, is one of threeimportant markets for fish products. Of Europe’smore than 480 million consumers, 370 millionlive in EC member countries, making the EC asimportant an importer of fish as Japan and theUnited States are. In addition, because ofdiffering consumer preferences, there is alsostrong intraregional trade of fish products.

The most important developments affectingfuture United States fish consumption and tradewill occur outside the United States. In short, theshare of world production that is consumed bythe United States will be affected by the globaldemand for fish. Domestically, future captureharvests are expected to continue to vary overtime as a result of natural factors, such as changesin ocean conditions, even though United Statesfisheries have to be managed to preventoverfishing (as defined in United Stateslegislation) and the stocks of most importantcommercial species in the United States are notconsidered overfished.

In general, those species imported into andconsumed in developed nations are considered

13 See footnote 11, p. 115.

118

TABLE 18 Estimated percentage changes in European fish production and consumption,1994–1998 to 2030

Fish for food use Fish for non-food use Fish production by source

Production Consumption Production Use Aquaculture Capture Totalproduction

Austria - 60 21 - - 7 - 65 0 - 57

Belgium and Luxembourg - 5 12 - 24 74 - 1 0 0

Bulgaria - 18 142 - - 2 78 0 28

Cyprus 11 40 - - 2 261 0 58

Czech Republic - 5 29 - - 30 80 0 66

Denmark 8 35 - 10 - 8 95 0 2

Estonia 0 - 19 - 6 - 38 - 13 0 0

Finland 6 13 - 69 - 23 - 41 0 - 4

France - 6 16 - 1 - 6 109 0 33

Germany 18 33 14 6 217 0 43

Greece - 1 12 - 58 12 160 0 33

Hungary 5 50 - - 11 - 54 0 - 30

Ireland 8 9 12 - 3 1 073 0 91

Italy 3 21 13 - 18 136 0 52

Latvia - 3 - 19 - 23 - 17 - 7 0 0

Lithuania - 28 47 - 5 - 11 - 7 0 0

Malta 27 49 - - 28 159 0 98

Netherlands 11 10 - - 75 45 0 8

Norway 5 9 25 15 142 0 14

Poland - 28 29 - 13 9 463 0 32

Portugal - 6 2 - 42 - 24 35 0 1

Romania - 49 81 - 57 11 - 33 0 - 14

Slovakia - 29 16 - - 11 - 5 0 - 2

Slovenia 0 26 - 100 - 35 100 0 27

Spain 4 - 2 26 12 222 0 39

Sweden 7 5 5 - 58 - 20 0 0

United Kingdom 21 24 - 24 - 24 189 0 21

Note: - = the average 1994–1998 base was zero.

high-value species (in monetary terms). Incontrast, those imported and consumed indeveloping nations tend to be classified as low-value species, and serve both as important sourcesof protein for a large portion of the world’s poorand as inputs into fish and livestock production.

Exports of high-value products from developingcountries may serve as important sources ofincome and may compensate for the decline inlocal market access to high-value species.However, additional research is necessary beforethe implications of these trade patterns on foodsecurity can be evaluated.

THE LONG-TERM OUTLOOKProjecting long-term changes in seafoodproduction, consumption and trade is acomplicated and challenging task. The factorsthat affect the respective models’ results include:

• the increasingly global scale of markets forfishery products;

• the interdependence of the demand for fishand the supply of competing food products;

• the number and diversity of fish species;• uncertainty about factors affecting supply and

demand;• a lack of data.

These factors present significant challenges andmean that any long-term projections up to 2030must be carefully interpreted. The practicalmodelling assumptions and limitations make ituseful to interpret the models’ results in thecontext of possible technological and policychanges.

Despite these difficulties and detractions, themodels do provide the opportunity to makegeneral inferences about probable long-termtrends, given the current state of knowledge. Thesimilarity of different models’ results in the face ofvaried approaches, data sources and assumptionsprovides fortuitous reassurance that the trendsdepicted by the models are not unreasonable.14

FOOD AND EMPLOYMENT:THE PROSPECTS

This second section reviews the interactionbetween production possibilities (as limited by

the ecosystem and available technology) andpublic sector policies in the short and mediumterms. The review is carried out from of the pointof view of capture fishers, aquaculturists andpolicy-makers. Because there are different pointsof view and interests within these groups, theanalysis is broad and not applicable to allmembers of the groups; there will be exceptions.

Public sector policy-makers are primarilyconcerned about the contribution thataquaculture and capture fisheries make, and canmake, to jobs and food supplies. They formulatepublic sector policies for fisheries andaquaculture, taking into account the extent towhich food and employment are created by thesetwo sectors of the economy.

Capture fishers and fish farmers are largelypreoccupied about the same aspects as policy-makers – food and employment – but on amicroscale. They strive to improve their incomesby perfecting equipment and methods. Generally,each individual has a natural tendency to try tocircumvent the limits imposed by nature (theecosystem) and by public sector policies.

CAPTURE FISHERSAs reported in The status of fishery resources (Part1, p. 21), most capture fishers harvest fullyexploited or overexploited stocks, often underaccess conditions that are similar to those of openaccess. This means that, in the long term, as agroup, they cannot expect to increase the volumeof fish captured – or the profits – simply by tryingharder or fishing more, and from society’s pointof view there is a waste of resources. For fishersthis is a problem; and in growing economies it isa growing problem because, as time passes,

119

14 Although reflecting different levels of detail (e.g. different lev-

els of aggregations of species groups and geographic regions),

there are similarities in the ways in which the models were de-

veloped. The respective authors first analysed historical trends

to determine income and price elasticities, consumption, pro-

duction and trade patterns related to fish and fish products. Next,

using trend analysis techniques and a multitude of probable as-

sumptions about the future, the authors projected future demand

and supply for fish and fish products. Imbalances were then re-

conciled, either through price clearing mechanisms or through

fluctuations in trade.

fishers will lag further and further behind theircompatriots who are employed in other sectors.To improve their standard of living at the samerate as the rest of the community, fishers need toincrease their net (real) income every year. To doso they must earn more, and this generally meanscatching more, as prices of fish are difficult toraise unilaterally. Increasing volume caught perperson and year is not feasible unless somefishers leave the industry voluntarily. In that case,the use of superior technology or fishing methodswould result in higher catches, without otherfishers necessarily being worse off.

The reduction in the number of fishers that was

observed during the last decades in severalOrganisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD) countries explains why, inrich economies recording steady economicgrowth, many capture fisheries experienceproductivity growth through the adoption of newmaterials, equipment and fishing methods.15 Thelabour force usually shrinks because elderlyfishers stop fishing and few young people join thefishing fleet.

120

15 See: FAO. 2000. The State of World Fisheries and Aquacul-

ture 2000, pp. 13–16. Rome.

BOX 12Limitations inherent in long-term fish projections

For reasons of tractability, the FAO studies used the following

assumptions:

•Fish within a species group are homogeneous.

•Fish within a species group are traded freely at a single

world price.

•There is no interspecies interaction (i.e. zero cross-price

elasticities among species groups), and no cross-price

effects of other substitute commodities.

•No major changes in environmental conditions (i.e. normal

weather and climate patterns) have occurred.

•No major breakthroughs in science and technology, as well

as in resource management practices, have been made.

•No major changes in national, regional and international

regulations governing the fisheries sector have been made.

In modelling fish production and consumption, the number

and diversity of fish species and products pose a major

challenge. Even within seemingly similar species groups, the

outlook for future capture or aquaculture production varies

(e.g. salmonids or crustaceans). Similarly, future demand may

differ from species to species, and different species are likely

to vary in the extent to which they are substitutes for each

other. The more these differences are accounted for, the more

complex the modelling task becomes in terms of statistical

analyses and general control; conversely, the more different

species or species groups are aggregated, the less reliable or

"useful" the results.

A lack of, or inconsistency in, data presents another of the

major challenges in modelling fish production and

consumption. Often, consumption and trade data are

presented as product weight, and production – or landings –

as live fish weight; exact conversion rates are therefore

necessary in order to match these two sets of data.

Sometimes, price data do not exist, and inexact proxies such

as trade weighted values have to be used. For simplicity, a

single world price may be assumed, even though much

information is lost when price variation is ignored in this way

(e.g. barriers to trade and transportation costs). As with the

diversity of species, the type and quality of data may

constrain a model’s structure and the general methodology

that can be used.

Improving the quality of data and solving these issues

constitutes a major, ongoing research effort for FAO.

Source: C. de Young, FAO Fisheries Department.

In some fisheries, however, the nature of thefishing (the combination of the species’ biologicalcharacteristics and the environment) is such thatfishers have not managed to become significantlymore effective, even when those employed incommercial fishing have declined in number. Inaddition, there are instances in which, after sometime, commercial fishing has ceased altogether,in spite of fish stocks remaining healthy. This hasbeen the case in inland fisheries in temperateclimates, particularly in smaller lakes and rivers.It is likely to become gradually the case in small-scale marine fisheries, initially in temperateclimates.

In poor countries and in countries with stagnanteconomies most fishers harvest stocks that arefully exploited or overexploited. Growth ofpopulation, and limited employmentopportunities outside the fisheries sector, lead toa situation in which young people have littlechoice but to try to join the sector, thus thenumber of fishers increases, or at the very leastremains constant. Only economic growth in theeconomy as a whole will make it possible tointroduce technology that will increaseproductivity – in parallel with a reduction in thenumber of effectively employed.

In summary, it seems clear that technology willnot help capture fisheries to overcome thepresent limits to global landings. In fact, it isdoubtful that technology developments will besuch that the fishing of smaller fish stocks,particularly in smaller water bodies, will continueto be economically attractive.

In the course of the 1990s, it became clear thatthe combined capacity of fishing fleets should notcontinue to grow and that, in many cases, fleetswere already too large. Several countries haveintroduced measures to control and reducefishing capacity. As those concerned analysedhow this situation had come about, a consensusdeveloped that fisheries management must bebased on more secure rights for those whoengage in commercial fishing. Simultaneously, inseveral countries, particularly in rich marketeconomies, the economic consequences of somepublic sector activities are being seen as contraryto the interests of the sector and of society as awhole. As a result, three public sector-specific

policies are being promoted: the reduction, oreven the complete elimination, of subsidies; theadoption of an ecosystems-based approach tofisheries management; and in countries with openmarket economies, a call for the state to becompensated for the costs of managing thefisheries sector.

Where adopted and promoted, these policieswill increase the average costs per kilogram ofthe fish produced by capture fishers. In OECDcountries, yearly financial transfers have beenrecorded as corresponding to between 3 and 90percent of the value of landings.16 The costs offisheries management have been estimated asbeing between 3 and 20 percent of landedvalues.17

It is clear that such cost increases could besubstantial if they were all passed on to theindustry at the same time; such costs could not bepassed on abruptly to the consumer. However,even when shifted gradually to the fishingindustry, and by the industry gradually to theconsumer, the effect will be that the market forwild-caught fish will shrink in size as real pricesof fish products rise. Production will contract.

These policies may also contribute to anincrease in volumes landed. However, after sometime, the fisheries will encounter a new upperlimit – imposed by the natural conditions of theaquatic ecosystem. Global production increasesfrom improved management have been estimatedto be a few million tonnes, but it is important tonote that better management would, above all,lead to smaller but economically far healthiercapture fisheries.

In poor economies, if the same policies (nosubsidies, an ecosystems approach tomanagement, and cost recovery) wereimplemented, costs would increase, although lessso than in developed economies. There areseveral reasons for this, including: the existingweak, or even absent, fisheries management,

121

16 OECD. 2000. Transition to responsible fisheries: economic

and policy implications, p.131. Paris.17 E. William, R. Arnason and R. Hanesson, eds. In press. The

cost of fisheries management. Aldershot, UK, Ashgate Publi-

shing.

implies that there are correspondingly fewer coststo recover; a lack of resources for ecosystems-based management; and limited money forfinancial transfers.

It seems likely that these policies will bepromoted first in rich, open market economies.Even if they were also promoted in developingcountries, cost increases would be morepronounced in rich economies. The net resultwill be that demand for "cheap" imports willintensify in North America, Europe and, possibly,Japan. Exports from developing countries arelikely to increase, reflecting the growing gap inprices between local and export markets.

AQUACULTURISTSThe ecosystem and the technologies used favouraquaculturists in comparison with capture fishers.Aquaculturists benefit from the fact that, in theirsearch for lower costs of production and highernet revenues, they can work to improve both thefish and the production methods used, whilefishers can do little or nothing about the fish18

and have to concentrate on fishing gear andmethods. However, aquaculturists’ freedom toimprove fish is limited by the need to considerthe effects of new or modified fish on the aquaticecosystem and human health.

Many aquaculturists have already benefitedfrom not only the selective breeding of fish19 butalso the better performance of, for example,feeds, vaccines and the automatic handling offeed, as well as of the fish produced. This is likelyto continue to be the case. The effects have beensignificant in terms of increased production ofconcerned species. Development has been of thewin–win type, as both producers and consumershave gained when prices for cultured specieshave fallen as a result of increased production.20

As is natural in market economies, savings havebeen passed on to consumers, leading to theopening up of non-traditional markets (Atlantic

salmon in Asia, tropical marine shrimps inEurope). This trend will certainly continue.

The vast bulk of aquaculture production iscomposed of a small number of species; in 2000,29 species accounted for 78 percent ofproduction. There is no evident reason why otherspecies from among the several thousand that areexploited by capture fisheries could noteventually be raised economically in a controlledenvironment.

The appropriate legal framework for mostmodern aquaculture technologies is known. It isgenerally in place in rich economies whereaquaculture is an established economic activityand is being put in place in developingeconomies. In developed economies,management and enforcement costs as a share ofthe value of the produce are lower foraquaculture than for capture fisheries.

At present, more than 90 percent of productioncomes from Asia, although there is no inherentreason for aquaculture not to be a common,viable and sustainable activity outside Asia.Increasingly, it is being realized that aquaculturecan be effectively promoted through appropriatepolicies, and in Asia – particularly China (seeAquaculture development in China: the role ofpublic sector policies, Part 3, p. 99) – it hasgrown in response to consciously developedpolicies aimed at its promotion. Publicmanagement of aquaculture is not dissimilar topublic management of agriculture; it is thusgenerally cheaper than the management ofcapture fisheries.

So, in developed economies, application of thethree policies will lead to some increase inaquaculture production costs but, as a rule, thisincrease will be significantly smaller than it willbe for capture fishery products. In developingeconomies the costs will probably be somewhathigher.

The real costs of transport and communication

122

18 See: FAO. 2001. The economics of ocean ranching. Expe-

riences, outlook and theory, by R. Arnason. FAO Fisheries Te-

chnical Paper No. 413. Rome.19 Selective breeding has contributed to improving yields and

results for fish (carp, salmon, tilapia) more than for shrimps or

bivalves.

20 Over a period of 15 years since the mid-1980s, the average

operating costs per kilogram of salmon in Norwegian fish farms

declined by two-thirds in real terms. See: J.L. Anderson. 2002.

Aquaculture and the future, why fisheries economists should ca-

re. Marine Resource Economics, 17(2): 133–151.

will most likely continue to fall – albeit slowly.As a result, aquaculturists in rich, temperatezone economies will be exposed to competitionwith producers from increasingly distant areas.Temperature zone aquaculturists may still beable to compete, depending on the rate oftechnological development and application. It isnot unlikely, however, that they will find itincreasingly difficult to compete withaquaculture products from poor countries(tropical and temperate). To some extent, theoutcome will depend largely on whether or notthe "anti-subsidy" lobby wins the presentinternational argument and, if it does, onwhether the subsidy ban would then be extendedto aquaculture processes and products. In thatcase, the possibilities for stimulating andpromoting aquaculture growth in rich, openmarket economies will be curtailed and futuregrowth in non-OECD countries will bestimulated.

POLICY-MAKERSPolicy-makers for fisheries and aquaculture havetraditionally been concerned with foodproduction and employment. While policyobjectives in these areas continue to be valid,policy-makers increasingly need to – and do –give attention to demands for non-consumptiveand recreational uses of aquatic resources and tothe imperative demand from global civil societythat the aquatic ecosystem as a whole beconserved and maintained.

During the last decades the contribution ofaquaculture and capture fisheries to food andemployment has been mixed. Aquaculture hasgenerally done better than capture fisheries. Inpercentage terms, world production andemployment have, since 1990, grown faster inaquaculture than in capture fisheries (see Figure1, p. 5, and Figure 12, p. 15).

Although most aquaculture systems are notlabour-intensive, aquaculture has become animportant source of employment in manycountries. In Norway, employment in the sectorrose from virtually zero to about 3 500 people in1999. In China, expanding aquacultureproduction is reflected in a rapidly increasingnumber of people employed.

During the recent past, the demand for non-consumptive and recreational uses of aquaticresources has, in some instances, conflicted withthe interests of commercial fishers. Althoughthese conflicts are important where they occur,they are not frequent and, seen in a globalperspective, they are not a significant impedimentto commercial fisheries. This is likely to remainthe case, at least for recreational fisheries,because the majority of these fisheries willgravitate towards smaller water bodies and arecontent with small catches; that is, they will takeover fisheries as they become economicallyuninteresting for commercial fishers. Theconflicting interests of non-consumptive usersand commercial fishers, on the other hand, mayremain or even expand.

Policies that aim to preserve the aquaticecosystem will have an impact on both capturefishers and aquaculturists, and policy-makers willbe increasingly obliged to ensure that suchpolicies work. Large-scale, commercialaquaculturists will probably be able to coexistwith the policies through the adequate selectionof culture sites and technologies. Costs forcultured products will be higher than when thepolicies are not present, but activities willdevelop.

Some capture fishers are in a less fortunatesituation. What for them is normal fishing may bejudged by others to have negative consequencesfor the aquatic environment. If the fisheries aresmall, or not developed, it may becomeeconomically convenient for the government toclose them down or prevent their development.The cost of compensating (including retraining)existing fishers may be smaller than the costsincurred in managing and/or developing thefisheries.

This is not to say that aquaculture will notencounter difficulties. It has encounteredobstacles (environmental destruction, disease) inthe past and will do so in the future. So far,however, major obstacles have been overcomeand, although several species have run intodifficulties, overall growth has been steady.

In summary its seems likely that many policy-makers will find that, on balance, aquacultureconforms better than capture fisheries to public

123

policy objectives for food production,employment, environment and non-food use ofaquatic resources. In concrete terms, fishproduced by capture fishers are likely to becomeincreasingly costly, and in some instances morerare, while fish produced through aquaculturewill become more common and price trends forcultured species may start high but are then likelyto fall.

Some policy-makers will not have to choosebetween supporting capture fisheries andsupporting aquaculture. However, representativesof either group – capture fishers or aquaculturists– will no doubt draw the attention of policy-makers and the general public to any advantagethat their own sector has over the other.

CONCLUSIONSIt seems plausible that, in the medium term, inboth developed and developing countries, publicpolicies will favour aquaculture, but not

necessarily at the expense of capture fisheries. Itis plausible that policy-makers will find it easierto defend public support for aquaculture than forcapture fisheries, although among those who putthe environment before employment and incomegeneration there will be some who argue that theemergency that must be remedied is that ofunmanaged, or badly managed, capture fisheries,and not aquaculture.

Part of the analysis in the preceding sectioncalls into question a commonly held assumptionabout the future of capture fisheries: that catchesof food fish have stabilized and will remain attheir present levels during the coming decades. Ifthe analysis is correct, current landings ofharvested species might fall, not because ofexcessive effort but because of a reduction ineffort. Of course, this will be a gradualdevelopment that may not even be noticeable inthis decade. �

124

PART 5

Fisheries activities of country groupings

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established on 8 August 1967,in Bangkok, with the signing of the Bangkok Declaration. At present, its members areBrunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic,Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam.

The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the Association are: i) toaccelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region,through joint endeavours and in the spirit of equality and partnership, in order tostrengthen the foundations for a prosperous and peaceful community of Southeast Asiannations; and ii) to promote regional peace and stability, through maintaining respect forjustice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and throughadherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.

FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESIn consideration of the conceptual framework of the Hanoi Plan of Action to implementthe ASEAN Vision 2020, the Senior Officers of the ASEAN Ministers of Agriculture andForestry (SOM-AMAF) held a Special Meeting from 27 to 29 April 1998 in Phuket,Thailand. At that meeting, it was decided that the Strategic Plan on ASEAN Cooperationin Food, Agriculture (including Fisheries) and Forestry (1999–2004) should cover overallcooperation in the three major sectors, with particular emphasis on strengthening food

127

ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS

TABLE 19ASEAN: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade

1988 1992 1996 2000

Aquaculture productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 856 1 007 1 520 1 830Percentage of world total 12.0 10.9 9.6 8.5Marine Production (�000 tonnes) 341 596 742 876Percentage of world total 7.5 9.7 6.9 6.2

Fisheries productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 971 1 036 1 128 1 319Percentage of world total 15.7 16.7 15.2 15.0Marine production (�000 tonnes) 7 882 9 372 10 309 11 760Percentage of world total 9.6 11.8 12.0 13.7

Fisheries and aquaculture productionCombined total (�000 tonnes) 10 051 12 012 13 700 15 785Percentage of world total 10.0 11.9 11.4 12.1

Food balanceTotal food supply (�000 tonnes) 8 033 9 624 11 015 …Per capita supply (kg) 19.0 21.1 22.5 …Fish as share of animal protein (%) 46.4 44.9 43.9 …

Trade in fishery commoditiesTotal imports (US$ millions) 1 142 1 904 2 078 1 878Percentage of world total 3.6 4.7 3.9 3.4Total exports (US$ millions) 3 437 5 753 7 619 8 666Percentage of world total 10.8 14.3 14.5 15.7

Note: … = data not available.

security arrangements in the region, enhancing the international competitiveness of food,agricultural and forest products and strengthening ASEAN’s position in international fora.

The Plan’s implementation is coordinated by the ASEAN Secretariat. In the field offisheries and aquaculture, the implementation is carried out by the Sectoral WorkingGroup on Fisheries. Cooperation in fisheries focuses on: the standardization of qualitycontrol measures and processing techniques for fish and fishery products; thestandardization, and subsequent adoption, of aquaculture practices, particularly forshrimps; the harmonization of fisheries sanitary measures; and the harmonization ofregulations for agricultural products (including those from fisheries) derived frombiotechnology. In 1994, ASEAN started to collaborate with the Southeast Asian FisheriesDevelopment Centre (SEAFDEC) in promoting the sustainable management andutilization of marine fisheries resources in the Southeast Asia region. ASEAN-SEAFDECcooperation has strengthened further in recent years, especially since the ASEAN-SEAFDEC Fisheries Consultative Group was established in 1999.

The Special Meeting of SOM-AMAF, held in April 2000 in Brunei, decided on theimplementation of seven ASEAN-SEAFDEC collaborative programmes (all of which havealready been started). The programmes cover: the upgrading of the traditional fishprocessing industry; promotion of mangrove-friendly aquaculture; conservation andmanagement of the sea turtle; regionalization of the Code of Conduct for ResponsibleFisheries; development of a fish disease diagnostical inspection mechanism;improvement of fisheries statistics; and fish trade and environment. The Special Meetingalso decided to organize an ASEAN-SEAFDEC Conference on Sustainable Fisheries forFood Security in the New Millennium (Fish for the People), which took place inNovember 2001. This Conference approved the Resolution on Sustainable Fisheries forFood Security for the ASEAN Region and a related Plan of Action.

COOPERATION WITH FAOMember countries of ASEAN and its Fisheries Working Group do cooperate closely withFAO through the FAO Regional Office in Bangkok. The ASEAN-SEAFDEC Conference onSustainable Fisheries for Food Security in the New Millennium (Fish for the People) wasprepared in collaboration with FAO.

128

The Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) was established by theTreaty of Chaguaramas on 4 July 1973 for the principal purpose of enhancing, throughcooperation, the economic, social and cultural development of the populations ofmember countries. CARICOM’S members are Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados,Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat, Saint Lucia, Saint Kittsand 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 subsector inmember states with a view to optimal exploitation of their resources on a sustainablebasis". It intends to do this by strengthening the legal and institutional framework, in partthrough the formulation and implementation of a common CARICOM Fisheries Policy.

The CARICOM Fisheries Unit, located in Belize, was established in 1991 to executethe CARICOM Fisheries Resource Assessment and Management Program (CFRAMP),which ended in 2001. It was funded jointly by the Canadian Government, through theCanadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and participating CARICOMcountries. One of the outcomes of CFRAMP is the formation of the Caribbean RegionalFisheries Mechanism (CRFM). In February 2002, the heads of government of CARICOMmember countries signed the Inter-Governmental Agreement that established the CRFM.

129

CARIBBEAN COMMUNITY AND COMMON MARKET

TABLE 20CARICOM: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade

1988 1992 1996 2000

Aquaculture productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 3 3 4 5Percentage of world total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Marine production (�000 tonnes) 0 0 1 3Percentage of world total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Fisheries productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 2 2 2 2Percentage of world total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Marine production (�000 tonnes) 87 101 107 172Percentage of world total 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Fisheries and aquaculture productionCombined total (�000 tonnes) 92 107 114 182Percentage of world total 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Food balanceTotal food supply (�000 tonnes) 146 143 162 …Per capita supply (kg) 11.7 10.8 11.7 …Fish as share of animal protein (%) 19.2 18.9 18.8 …

Trade in fishery commoditiesTotal imports (US$ millions) 67 55 98 102Percentage of world total 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2Total exports (US$ millions) 82 106 141 211Percentage of world total 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4


The mission of the CARICOM Fisheries Unit includes: improving the quality andavailability of fisheries resource information, including improving fisheries managementinformation systems; strengthening the capacity of national fisheries administrations tomanage fisheries; promoting fishers’ involvement in development; implementing andmonitoring fishery management plans; improving scientific capability in the region’sfishery sector; supporting Caribbean researchers and managers in the sustainablemanagement of aquatic resources; supporting the development of a multi-stakeholdersapproach to coastal zone management; and promoting the rational use and managementof fisheries resources in the Caribbean.

The CARICOM Fisheries Unit is currently executing the following projects:

• the EC-funded fisheries component of the Lomé IV Integrated Caribbean RegionalAgricultural and Fisheries Development Program (CARIFORUM Fisheries Project),which is intended to benefit several African Caribbean and Pacific Group of States(ACP) countries in the Caribbean region, including CARICOM countries. This six-yearproject 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 various aspects offisheries, including policy and legal matters. FAO has provided technical assistance toCFRAMP in specific areas since its inception in 1991 and, over the past four years, FAOand CFRAMP have collaborated in implementing joint technical activities through theWestern Central Atlantic Fisheries Commission (WECAFC). Such activities have includedtraining in stock assessment and the assessment of major fish stocks (e.g. spiny lobster,penaeid shrimp, flying fish) in the WECAFC region. Over the past two years, FAO hasprovided technical support to member countries of the Organization of Caribbean Statesand Barbados (a subset of CARICOM member countries) through an FAO TechnicalCooperation Programme on the development of standards for the construction andinspection of small fishing vessels. At present, FAO is providing assistance through theTechnical Cooperation Programme project, Preparation for an Expansion of theDomestic Fisheries for Large Pelagic Species.

130

The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was established in December 1991. It isa voluntary association consisting of the following States: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus,Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation,Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. The main purpose of theCommonwealth is to develop and strengthen cooperation and to serve the cause of peaceand security.

FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESTo date, no common fisheries policy among countries of the CIS has been elaborated.Coordination is achieved through bilateral and multilateral agreements among themember countries, which can be divided into two groups:

i) states that have inland water fisheries and aquaculture activities only (Armenia,Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, Tajikistan,Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan); and

ii) states that have a well-developed distant-water fisheries sector (the RussianFederation, Ukraine and – to a certain extent – Georgia).

Most CIS countries have concentrated on the restructuring of their fleets and on theprocessing and marketing sectors.

131

COMMONWEALTH OF INDEPENDENT STATES

TABLE 21CIS: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade

1988 1992 1996 2000


Fisheries productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 679 441 306 359Percentage of world total 11.0 7.1 4.1 4.1Marine production (�000 tonnes) 8 952 5 707 4 853 4 072Percentage of world total 10.9 7.2 5.6 4.7


Food balanceTotal food supply (�000 tonnes) … 3 519 3 759 …Per capita supply (kg) … 12.4 13.2 …Fish as share of animal protein (%) … 10.1 10.5 …

Trade in fishery commoditiesTotal imports (US$ millions) - 35 574 443Percentage of world total - 0.1 1.1 0.8Total exports (US$ millions) … 826 1 780 1 466Percentage of world total … 2.1 3.4 2.7


COOPERATION WITH FAOTo date there is no agreed policy within the CIS countries concerning their cooperationwith FAO. Each State acts independently in fishery matters.

132

The Treaty of Lagos, which established the Economic Community of West African States(ECOWAS), was signed by representatives of 15 West African States in Lagos on 28 May1975. At present, the following countries adhere to the treaty: Benin, Burkina Faso, CapeVerde, Côte d’Ivoire, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali,Mauritania, the Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo.

The ECOWAS Treaty specifies the Community’s objective, to be achieved in stages, asbeing the creation of an economic and monetary union. Cooperation in the developmentof agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry and fisheries is one of its primary aims. Thefirst stage in this cooperation entails the harmonization of internal and external policies;the second stage envisages the adoption of a common agricultural policy.

FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIES Based 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 bettermanagement and surveillance of waters under the jurisdiction of its Member States andalso to ensure the conservation of fisheries resources in the region. Severalrecommendations were made concerning research, surveillance, the harmonization offishing agreements and legislation, trade in fish and fishery products, data collection, etc.Members have made progress in implementing such recommendations.

133

ECONOMIC COMMUNITY OF WEST AFRICAN STATES

TABLE 22ECOWAS: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade

1988 1992 1996 2000

Aquaculture productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 11 17 21 28Percentage of world total 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1Marine production (�000 tonnes) 0 1 … …Percentage of world total 0.0 0.0 … …

Fisheries productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 333 330 390 435Percentage of world total 5.4 5.3 5.2 4.9Marine production (�000 tonnes) 975 1 201 1 322 1 390Percentage of world total 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.6





COOPERATION WITH FAOECOWAS’s formal relationship with FAO is based on an exchange of letters between theDirector-General of FAO and the Executive Secretary of ECOWAS. A CooperationAgreement was established with FAO in December 1984, since which time FAO hasbeen cooperating with the Community in various fields. However, as an 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 of fisheriesby foreign vessels off West Africa. In its conclusions, the study emphasized the necessityand the opportunities for regional cooperation in support of fisheries management andregional food security. Furthermore, FAO regional fishery projects have beencooperating with ECOWAS Member States, especially in promoting fisheriesmanagement in the artisanal subsector.

134

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 legal entity.The aims of the EC include the abolition of restrictive trading practices and the freemovement of capital and labour within the union. A single market with free movementof goods and capital was established in January 1993. The following countries aremembers of the EC: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the UnitedKingdom.

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 managing acommon resource and meeting the obligation set in the original Community Treaties.Wild fish are a natural and mobile resource that is considered common property. Thetreaties creating the Community stated that there should be a common policy in thisarea; that is, common rules adopted at the Community level and implemented in allMember States. DG Fisheries is the Directorate-General responsible for the CFP, which isscheduled to be reviewed in 2002.

135

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

TABLE 23EC: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade

1988 1992 1996 2000

Aquaculture productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 195 226 250 240Percentage of world total 2.7 2.4 1.6 1.1Marine production (�000 tonnes) 714 686 889 1 049Percentage of world total 15.7 11.2 8.2 7.4






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 the ECitself. The CFP takes into account the biological, economic, social and environmentaldimensions of fishing. Its implementation entails the following main issues and relatedmeasures.

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 and shellfishlanding sizes and limits of by-catch;

• reducing fishing capacity to a level compatible with fishery resources availability;• adapting management to fishing areas shared between the Community and third

parties through active membership in nine regional fisheries bodies.

Fishing beyond Community waters. The EC has exclusive competence in internationalrelations in the domain of fisheries. It is empowered to undertake internationalcommitments towards third countries or international organizations in matters relating tofisheries. The European Commission, on behalf of the Community, negotiates fisheriesagreements with third countries and participates in various regional fisheries organizations.The EC has concluded 21 fishing agreements with third countries and is currently amember of nine regional fisheries organizations. The EC is also member of FAO.

Restructuring the fishing sector.Restructuring of the EC fisheries sector relies heavily onthe implementation of the structural policy, the purpose of which is to adapt and managethe development of structures (the equipment required to produce goods and theorganization of production processes) in the fishing and aquaculture industry. ECassistance in the fisheries sector is provided under the Financial Instrument for FisheriesGuidance (FIFG). The FIFG aims to:

• contribute to the achievement of a lasting balance between fisheries resources andtheir exploitation;

• strengthen competitiveness and the development of economically viable businessesin 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.

Common organization of the market. The EC set up a system for the commonorganization of the market for fisheries and aquaculture products almost 30 years ago.Since July 1996, the common market organization in fisheries and aquaculture productshas been being adapted to increased globalization of markets, greater dependence onimports, continued scarcity of resources, change in consumption patterns andconcentration and vertical integration within the distribution chain. The commonorganization of the EC market has four components:

136

• common marketing standards for quality, grades, packaging and labelling of both ECand 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 products cannot besold. Financial support is available to producers’ organizations if they have to takefish and shellfish off the market, store them for later use or process them;

• rules for trade with non-EC countries.

Enforcement of the law in the fishing sector.The 1992 review of the CFP stressed theneed to make the policy more effective. A new control regulation, created in 1993,reinforced the role of surveillance and extended the CFP’s domain of action from that ofdirect conservation measures to one that also included implementation of structuralpolicy, marketing, transport and sale of fish and shellfish. The new regulation alsoencouraged harmonization of the proceedings and penalties against wrongdoers acrossthe EC. Information technology was to be used to complement traditional monitoringmethods. Fishing surveillance has also been substantially strengthened by the setting upof a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS).

Fishing and the wider environment. In 1997, a ministerial meeting on the integration offisheries and environmental issues, held in Bergen, Norway, and attended by ministersfrom all North Sea States and by EC representatives, agreed on a so-called "ecosystemapproach" to marine environments, which included elements of the precautionaryapproach. More recently, a group of nations and the EC adopted the ReykjavikDeclaration in October 2001. The Declaration pledged that they would "in an effort toreinforce responsible and sustainable fisheries in the marine ecosystem, ... work onincorporating ecosystem considerations into that management to that aim." Given thecommitment demonstrated by various states and international organizations, includingthe EC, to integrating an environmental dimension into their policies, greater effort isnow being made to implement a strategy for enhancing the integration of environmentalprotection requirements into the CFP.

The international dimension of fisheries in relation to environmental issues hasacquired greater importance for the EC in recent years. Bilateral and multilateralnegotiations with third countries have increased, as have negotiations within regionalfisheries organizations and international bodies. International trade of fish and fisheryproducts has also become more important for the Community, especially in relation toimport trade as well as to environmental issues and health and safety standards of fishand fishery products.

Review of the CFP.EC legislation foresees a review of the CFP during 2002. It alsoprovides that, before 31 December 2002, the Council shall decide on any necessaryadjustments to be made. In March 2001, the Commission published a report on thefisheries situation in the EC and a Green Paper on the future of the CFP, which discussesthe weaknesses and challenges facing the CFP and presents a number of options for itsreform. On the basis of that Green Paper, the Commission launched wide consultationwith all interested parties and, on 28 May 2002, issued the Communication from theCommission on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. This document presents a

137

brief review of the crucial issues to be addressed by CFP reform, taking into account theoutcome of the recent debate. It also states that the reform must lead to a new CFP that iscapable of providing sustainable development in environmental, economic and socialterms. This will be achieved through measures aimed at meeting several CFP objectives:responsible and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture activities that contribute to healthymarine ecosystems; an economically viable and competitive fisheries and aquacultureindustry that benefits the consumer; and a fair standard of living for those who dependon fishing activities. In order for the CFP to function effectively it is essential that itinclude good governance principles. The reforms that have been proposed regard thenine areas: resources conservation and fisheries management; repercussions of theconservation policy on the fishing fleet; access to waters and resources; control andenforcement; international fisheries; aquaculture; the social dimension of the CFP;economic management of fisheries in the EC; and effective and participatory decision-making. Measures to pursue, objectives to be achieved and a package of reforms areproposed.

COOPERATION WITH FAOThe EC is a full member of FAO. The EC is also a member of most FAO regional fisherybodies and participates actively in the work of several of these.

In the recent past, the EC has provided funds to support FAO work in theimplementation of its international agreements and plans of action for improved globalmanagement of fishing capacity, shark fisheries, incidental catch of seabirds in longlinefisheries and illegal, unreported and urregulated (IUU) fishing.

138

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, Trinidadand Tobago, Uruguay and Venezuela. LAES was established on 17 October 1975 by thePanama 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 common strategiesmay be for individual countries or groups of countries. LAES also serves to promotecooperation and integration among the countries of the region.

FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESThe Action Committees of LAES are flexible cooperation mechanisms set up when morethan two Member States voice interest in promoting joint programmes and projects inspecific areas. These committees are dissolved once their objectives are fulfilled,otherwise they may become Permanent Bodies of the System.

At present, LAES has no Action Committees, but it does have two functioning

139

LATIN AMERICAN ECONOMIC SYSTEM

TABLE 24LAES: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade

1988 1992 1996 2000





Trade in fishery commoditiesTotal imports (US$ millions) 358 472 1 049 1 022Percentage of world total 1.1 1.2 2.0 1.9Total exports (US$ millions) 3 139 4 243 6 633 6 544Percentage of world total 9.9 10.6 12.6 11.9


cooperation mechanisms. One of these – the Latin American Organization for FisheriesDevelopment (OLDEPESCA) – has the objectives of promoting the rational exploitationof fisheries in the region and coordinating joint actions with its Member States:Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru,Uruguay and Venezuela.

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-waterProducts. When this action committee was dissolved, OLDEPESCA was established, andthis independent body has become the centre of cooperation. FAO usually attends theannual OLDEPESCA conferences of Fisheries Ministers.

140

The League of Arab States, more generally known as the Arab League, was establishedon 22 March 1945. It comprises Algeria, Bahrain, the Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq,Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Mauritania, Mayotte, 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, social andmilitary fields. To do so, the League has set up several specialized agencies. Those ofinterest to FAO are: the Arab Bank for Economic Development in Africa (Khartoum, theSudan); the Arab Centre for the Study of Arid Zones and Dry Lands (Damascus, theSyrian Arab Republic); the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (Kuwait);the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (Tunis, Tunisia); theArab Organization for Agricultural Development (Khartoum, the Sudan); the ArabAcademy for Science, and Maritime Transport (Alexandria, Egypt); and the Inter-ArabInvestment Guarantee Corporation (Kuwait).

FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESThe League of Arab States has no subsidiary body or institution that deals exclusivelywith fisheries matters.

141

LEAGUE OF ARAB STATES

TABLE 25League of Arab States: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade

1988 1992 1996 2000





Trade in fishery commoditiesTotal imports (US$ millions) 248 259 395 473Percentage of world total 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.9Total exports (US$ millions) 754 841 1 102 1 323Percentage of world total 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.4


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 the Developmentof Marine Fisheries in the Arab World, organized by the Council.

142

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; create newemployment opportunities and improve working conditions and living standards in theirrespective 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. Current discussionsenvisage the linking of existing subregional integration schemes, of which NAFTA is one,into a Free Trade Area of the Americas.

FISHERIES: PURPOSES 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. NAFTAmember countries deal individually with FAO in this field.

143

NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

TABLE 26NAFTA: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade

1988 1992 1996 2000







144

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in 1985by the Heads of State and Government of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal,Pakistan and Sri Lanka. SAARC’s main goal is to accelerate economic and socialdevelopment 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 realize their fullpotential;

• promote and strengthen collective self-reliance among the countries of South Asia;• promote active collaboration and mutual assistance in the economic, social, cultural,

technical and scientific fields;• strengthen cooperation with other developing countries;• strengthen cooperation among Member States in international fora on matters of

common interest, and cooperate with international and regional organizations withsimilar aims and purposes.

SOUTH ASIAN ASSOCIATION FOR REGIONAL COOPERATION

TABLE 27SAARC: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade

1988 1992 1996 2000

Aquaculture productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 1 050 1 581 2 045 2 673Percentage of world total 14.7 17.0 12.9 12.5Marine production (�000 tonnes) 37 63 148 119Percentage of world total 0.8 1.0 1.4 0.8

Fisheries productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 986 935 1 345 1 697Percentage of world total 15.9 15.1 18.1 19.3Marine production (�000 tonnes) 2 615 3 458 3 816 3 966Percentage of world total 3.2 4.4 4.4 4.6



Trade in fishery commoditiesTotal imports (US$ millions) 38 61 79 89Percentage of world total 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2Total exports (US$ millions) 765 1 012 1 680 2 102Percentage of world total 2.4 2.5 3.2 3.8


145

FISHERIES: PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVESThe Integrated Programme of Action is the key component of SAARC’s activities. It nowincludes 11 areas of cooperation, each covered by a Technical Committee: Agriculture;Communications; Education; Culture and Sports; Environment and Meteorology; Healthand Population Activities; Prevention of Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse; RuralDevelopment, Science and Technology; Tourism; Transport; and Women inDevelopment. Regular meetings of counterpart scientists are a very important feature ofthe Technical Committee on Agriculture, and a list of fisheries counterpart scientists hasalso been prepared and made available.

COOPERATION WITH FAOSAARC does not cooperate formally with FAO in fisheries or aquaculture.

146

The Declaration and Treaty establishing the Southern African Development Community(SADC) was signed at the Summit of Heads of Government in Windhoek, Namibia, inAugust 1992. Its member countries are Angola, Botswana, the Democratic Republic ofthe Congo, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, SouthAfrica, Swaziland, the United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Theobjectives of the SADC are to:

• achieve development and economic growth, alleviate poverty, enhance the standardand quality of life of the peoples of southern Africa and support the sociallydisadvantaged 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;

SOUTHERN AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY

TABLE 28SADC: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade

1988 1992 1996 2000


Fisheries productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 679 632 583 631Percentage of world total 11.0 10.2 7.8 7.2Marine production (�000 tonnes) 1 556 1 205 947 1 289Percentage of world total 1.9 1.5 1.1 1.5





147

• strengthen and consolidate the long-standing historical, social and cultural affinitiesand links among the peoples of the region.

FISHERIES: PURPOSES AND ACTIVITIESSADC’s work related to specific sectors has been handled by Sector Coordinating Units(SCUs). These were allocated to individual Member States, who provided coordination,leadership and guidance on the formulation, implementation and management of sector-specific policies, programmes and projects. A Sectoral Committee of Ministers, chairedby the coordinating country’s minister for the sector, supervised the sectoral activities.There are currently 21 such SCUs. At present, however, SADC is undergoing aninstitutional restructuring process, which involves strengthening the SADC Secretariatbased in Gaborone and phasing out the SCUs within the next two years. As part of thisrestructuring, in December 2001, SADC launched a new Food, Agriculture and NaturalResources Directorate (FANR) which deals with eight subsectors, including MarineFisheries and Resources. FANR is gradually assuming responsibility for marine fisheriesand resources, and the previous Council of Ministers decision to allocate suchresponsibility to Namibia’s Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (taken in 1991)has been cancelled.

One of SADC’s most important recent achievements in the field of marine and inlandfisheries and aquaculture is the Protocol on Fisheries, which was adopted during theSummit of Heads of State and Government in August 2001. The Protocol is inspired bythe FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and aims to promote the responsibleuse of living aquatic resources in the SADC region. Specialist committees and technicalworking groups have been established to this end.

SADC has also identified and analysed priorities for marine policy issues within theregion with a view to developing a strategy to support the harmonization of fisheriespolicy and the legal framework, based on the principles established by the Code ofConduct for Responsible Fisheries and the Protocol on Fisheries. This process receivedtechnical and financial assistance from an FAO Technical Cooperation Programmeproject.

The SCU of marine and fisheries resources is coordinating the implementation ofseven projects that focus on the priority areas for the sector: the Regional FisheriesInformation System; SADC monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) of fishingactivities; support to the SADC Marine Fisheries Sector SCU; and Benguela Current LargeMarine Ecosystem programmes.

Funding of more than US$60 million, for current SADC marine fisheries projects overthe next five years, has been committed.

COOPERATION WITH FAOSADC and FAO cooperate closely in relation to fishery matters. FAO is providingtechnical and financial assistance to two of the projects being implemented by the SCUfor marine and fisheries resources.

148

The South Pacific Forum (SPF), consisting of Heads of Government, was established in1971. 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 New Guinea,Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. The SPF has a Secretariat (ForumSecretariat) which promotes regional cooperation among members on importanteconomic issues.

FISHERIES: PURPOSE AND ACTIVITIESThe South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) was established as a specialized agencyby the SPF in 1979. The FFA Convention reflects the common concerns of membercountries regarding conservation, optimum utilization and coastal states’ sovereign rightsover the region’s living marine resources. The functions of FFA include accumulatingdetailed and up-to-date information on aspects of living marine resources in the region;evaluating and analysing data to provide clear, timely, concise, complete and accurateadvice to member countries; developing and maintaining a communication network forthe dissemination of information to member countries, and implementing policies and

SOUTH PACIFIC FORUM

TABLE 29SPF: fisheries and aquaculture production, food balance and trade

1988 1992 1996 2000


Fisheries productionInland production (�000 tonnes) 22 23 19 22Percentage of world total 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3Marine production (�000 tonnes) 588 856 824 1 031Percentage of world total 0.7 1.1 1.0 1.2

Fisheries and aquaculture productionCombined total (�000 tonnes) 650 947 943 1 181Percentage of world total 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.9

Food balanceTotal food supply (�000 tonnes) 522 537 584 …Per capita supply (kg) 20.9 20.2 20.7 …Fish as share of animal protein (%) 8.8 8.6 9.2 …

Trade in fishery commoditiesTotal imports (US$ millions) 415 483 599 610Percentage of world total 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1Total exports (US$ millions) 1 095 1 372 1 743 1 767Percentage of world total 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2


149

programmes that been approved by the Forum Fisheries Committee. The following arethe main functions and objectives of FFA.

Economics and marketing. Assistance is given to member countries in the formulation ofpolicies and identification of projects for the sustained use of their tuna resources (themain areas covered are tuna management, industry, marketing, fisheries access, trainingand linkages).

Legal services. Support is provided to strengthen member countries in the understandingof their legal responsibilities and rights and ability to fulfil responsibilities and takeadvantage of rights. This support includes the provision of advice in the fields ofinternational law, national legislation, illegal fishing, access negotiations and of trainingfor responsible lawyers and officers within member countries. FFA is simultaneouslyassisting members in achieving full and independent legislative control of their fisheriesresources and ensuring the necessary regional compatibility and cohesion.

Monitoring, control and surveillance. MCS activities aim at reinforcing the capacity offishing operators in member countries to comply with national regulations and regionallicence conditions. This function includes such actions as: assistance to membercountries in developing and coordinating national MCS plans; coordination of regionalobserver programmes and assistance to the development of national observerprogrammes; coordination of regional surveillance operations; collection anddissemination of data in support of national MCS operations; assistance to FFA membersin determining their maritime boundaries; and provision of training, advice and regionalexchanges on enforcement and technological developments. FFA’s achievements in thisfield include:

• participation in the coordination and planning of aerial surveillance flights coveringmembers’ EEZs;

• the successful development and implementation of a regional observer programmefor the South Pacific;

• the research, design and implementation of a satellite-based VMS;• the establishment of a Maritime Surveillance Communications Network, which will

integrate other information systems, including the VMS.

The FFA also undertakes corporate and treaty services, including the establishmentand maintenance 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 computer systemthat provides support in the reception, processing and transfer of information to facilitatethe monitoring and control of foreign fishing fleets as well as to increase the speed,efficiency and cost-effectiveness with which FFA conducts its work.

FFA has brought important economic and social benefits to its members. Small islanddeveloping states have benefited, in particular through regional cooperation and theadoption of regional minimum standards. Regionally agreed measures to limit fishingeffort (e.g. in the purse seine tuna fishery) have also been of tangible benefit to FFAmember countries.

150

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 Forum Fisheries Committeemeeting as an observer.

FAO also participates as an observer in the Preparatory Conference for theEstablishment of the Commission for the Conservation and Management of HighlyMigratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. This conference ispreparing for the establishment of the Commission after the entry into force of theConvention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in theWestern and Central Pacific. !

Date post:	28-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	12 times
Download:	0 times

VLIZ · J ? 6 ˇ > ˙ % ( ˇ > ( ˇ > (> ˜ 6 8 > _ ˆ 8 > ˆ ˚ 8 > ˆ ;/3˜< ˆ ˇ ˘ˇ + ( *...

Documents