Trends in Fisheries Data, Estimation of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) and Optimum Fishing Effort (fMSY) in the Marine Capture Fisheries of Terengganu, Malaysia

Hussain Ahmed and Zelina Zaiton IbrahimFaculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia,

43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.{email: hussahmed77@email.com }

1

ABSTRACT

This study was undertaken to evaluatetrends in fisheries data, estimate themaximum sustainable yield (MSY) andthe optimum level of fishing effort (fMSY)for the marine capture fisheries industryin Terengganu, Malaysia. Various fisherydata were studied from 2001-2010. Thetrend analysis was done to variousparameters such as; number of fishingtrips, fishermen, vessels, tonnage class,fishing gears, fishing days, hauls, enginehorsepower, and yield in each year. Themaximum sustainable yield (MSY) andoptimum level of fishing effort (fMSY) wasestimated using Schafer and Fox model.Based on the results it can be seen thatfish landing was decreasing and overallfishing effort was continuouslyincreasing throughout the study period.The fish landing in 2010 was decreasedto 67.97 % compared to the base year of2001. The Schafer model maximumsustainable yield (MSY) level was107,251.70 tonnes and optimum level offishing effort (fMSY) was 0.47 tonnes pertrip, which would imply only 228,193standard trips per year. Whereas, in theFox model the maximum sustainableyield (MSY) level was 106,042.81 tonneand optimum level of fishing effort (fMSY)was 0.54 tonnes, which imply only1963,74 standard trips per year.Furthermore, the result obtainedshowed that, current fishing effort wasexceeding beyond the optimum leveland the yield was lower than the

estimated maximum sustainable yieldsince 2003. This indicates a condition ofunsustainable fishery.

KEYWORDS. Fishery management, fish landings, fishing gears, fishing vessels.

1. INTRODUCTION

Fishery is a vital resource for humans by providing income, food, employment and recreation. World fisheries provide at least 20% of the average annual per capita protein intake for approximately more than 2.6 billion people around the globe (Allison et al., 2009). The fisheries sector in Malaysia is an extremely important sector and which plays a vital role in the national economy. In 2010, thefisheries sector contributed 1.3% of the nation GDP. Moreover, in Malaysia it also contributes to employment, foreign exchange and major source of protein as over 60% animal protein comes from fish(Abu Talib et al., 2003). In addition, the total fish landings value compared from 2009 to 2010, it was recognized as an increase of

2

8.86% to 10.02% respectively (DOF annual report, 2010). In terms of fish landings in Asia, Malaysia is one of the top 10 fish landing countries (Stobutzki et al., 2006). However, in contrast with these findings, Malaysia is also in the list of one of theeight Asian countries showed an alarming decline in coastalfishery (Salayo et al., 2008; Silvestre, et al., 2003).

Malaysian fishing watersare divided into major four fishing zones namely; Zone A, Zone B, Zone C and Zone C2. The proper zoning helps to maintain sustainable fishery by protecting juvenile fish and to reduce the conflict andensure the equitable allocation of resources among the fishermen (Garces et al., 2006; Barut et al., 2003). Fishing zones are categorized relate to the allowed fishing vessels size gross registered tonnage (GRT) and fishing gear. Although, the vessel nearer to the coast are allowed to operates in other zones for example zone A vessel can catch fish in zone B,C, and C2 as well (DOF Malaysia).

In terms of fishing grounds on the west coast of

Peninsular Malaysia is generally muddy and shallow, where fishing activities are highly capitalized (Tai et al., 2000). In contrast, on the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia, the marine environmental conditions are slightly less favorable for fishing during the monsoon season (Islam et al., 2011). Terengganu is one of the states of Malaysia which is located on the east coast of peninsula Malaysia and faced to the South China Sea. It is recognize as one of the famousfishing state. In Terengganu there are major seven fishing districts namely; Kemamam, Dungun, Marang, Kuala Terengganu Utara, Kuala Terengganu Selatan, Besut and Setiu (DOF Malaysia). Nevertheless, today Terengganu’s marine capture fisheries comprises of three sub sectors which are traditional, commercial and deep sea fishery. Among these three most fish landings are come from inshore commercial and deep sea fishery (DOF Malaysia).

The coastal capture fishery is an integral part ofTerengganu’s people daily life. However, fish stock

3

assessment studies have been investigated in Southeast Asiaincluding Malaysia. The finding shows that, coastal fish stock has been severely depleted at an alarming speed due to excess fishing effort and environmental degradation (Salayo et al., 2008; Sugiyama, 2004).

Trend analysis andMaximum sustainable yield(MSY) is the crucial conceptto understand biologicalbottom line of fisheriesmanagement (Mesnil, 2012;Wang, Chang and Lin., 1988).In addition, by understandingmaximum sustainable yield willhelp to estimate how muchfisheries resources can betaken out from sea withoutfurther degradation. Moreover,in the recent year’s fisheriessector brought considerablechanges. Based on marine fishlanding data in 2010,Terengganu was landed 72921tonnes of fish with the valueof RM 422.8 million whichcontributes 26% of the eastcoast fish production value.

Therefore, consideringthe socioeconomic, commercialand ecological importance ofcoastal capture fisheries moreefforts should be taken tomanagement a sustainable

fishery. The purpose of thisstudy is to evaluate thecurrent fishery status withrespect to future sustainablefishery management. Thisstudy is primarily focused ontrends in fisheries data,estimation of the maximumsustainable yield (MSY) andthe optimum level of fishingeffort (fMSY) for the marinecapture fisheries industry ofTerengganu, Malaysia.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The marine fish landing data of Terengganu was obtained from Department of Fisheries Malaysia website. The data series covered from 2001 to 2010 and which consists of yield, number of fishing trips, fishermen, vessels, tonnage class, fishing gears, hauls, and engine horsepower in each year. Furthermore, in this study maximum sustainableyield (MSY) and optimum level of fishing effort (fMSY) was estimated by using two models which are namely; Schaefer model and Fox model (Sparre and Venema., 1998).

4

2.1 Estimation of Maximum sustainableyield (MSY) and optimum level of fishingeffort (fMSY)

In this study the maximumsustainable yield (MSY) andoptimum level of fishingeffort (fMSY) was studied byusing a Schaefer model whichwas introduced by Schaefer1954 and Fox model which wasintroduced by 1970. The bothmodel are widely used infishery stock assessment,because it is very simple andconvenient method (Punt andSzuwalski., 2012; Sparre andVenema., 1998; Yeh and Wang,1996). The two models arebased on mathematicalestimation and it is a lineargraph that demonstrates ageneral type of curve. Thecurve was derived from catch(yield) and effort data which wasillustrated in figure 2.1. Inboth models the curve is auseful tool, which providesinformation to estimatemaximum sustainable yield(MSY) and optimum level offishing effort (fMSY). In orderto calculate MSY the totalcatch (yield) and fishing effort(trips) was determined and thenthe Catch-Per Unit Effort(CPUE) was estimated by using

the same formula in bothmodels:

CPUE = Total catch(1) effort(trip)

In Schaefer model to derivethe curve following formulawas used. (y= total yield, f=CPUE, i= year, a= virgin stockbiomass or intercept and b=coefficient of x or slope).

Y(i)/f(i) = a + b*f(i) iff(i)  ≤  -a/b (2)In the Schaefer model thevalue of virgin stock biomassand coefficient of x wasobtained by using the aboveformula. The optimum level offishing effort (fMSY) wasestimated

fMSY = 0.5 * a/b(3) Then the maximum sustainableyield (MSY) was estimated byusing

MSY = -0.25*a2/b(4)

Where in Fox model to derivethe curve the followingformula was used (ln=logarithms, y= total yield, f=CPUE, i= year, c= virgin stock

5

biomass or intercept and d=coefficient of x or slope).

ln(Y(i)/f(i)) = c + d*f(i)(5)

The value of virgin stockbiomass and coefficient valueof x was estimated using theabove formula. The optimumlevel of fishing effort (fMSY)was estimated using followingformula.

FMSY = -1/d(7)

The corresponding yield ormaximum sustainable yield(MSY) was estimated

MSY= - (1/d)*exp(c-1)(8)

Fig 2.1: Schaefer and Fox model (Source:Sparre and Venema.,1998)

2.2 Data analysis

In each year fisheries datawas studied statistically byusing descriptive statisticmethod. The descriptivestatistical analysis was doneby using the Microsoft ExcelAnalysis Tool Pack. The trendanalysis was done into variousparameters such as; number offishing trips, fishermen,vessels, gross tonnage class,fishing gears, hauls, enginehorsepower and yield.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Trend analysis

The marine fish landing data of Terengganu was studied from2001 to 2010. The fish landingdata consists of catch or yield, number of fishing trips, fishermen, vessels, tonnage class, fishing gears, hauls, fishing hours and engine horsepower in each year. To analyze the data, theyear 2001 was considered as a base year.

The figure 3.1.1 shows the trend analysis of fish landing (yield) in percentage andcatch per unit effort (CPUE) by number of trips in each year respectively. The overall

6

fish landings did not show an increasing trend and it was erratically fluctuating duringthe study period. The percentage of landing decreases since 2003 and does not shows increasing trend. However, since from 2009 it dropped sharply and further drops to 67.97 in 2010. In terms of catch per unit effort(CPUE) shows CPUE significantly decreasing. It was declines since from 2003 to over the years. However, itrose steadily 0.31 to 0.46 tonnes per trip in 2008. Sincethen, it has been shown a rapid drop over the next two years.

Fig 3.1.1: Fish landing (yield) inpercentage and catch per unit effort(CPUE)

The highly fluctuating trend line was observed in fish landings and considerabledrop in CPUE is due to fishing

effort. It can be seen that, percentage of fishing gears namely; trawl nets, fish purseseines, lift nets and portabletraps are decline. Meanwhile the fishing trips and fishing gears shows moderate growth atthe same time. The number of commercial fishing vessels, fish purse seine, and trawl increase with greater horsepower and also vessels become larger in gross registered tonnage (GRT) over the years. Hence, based on those assumptions, a dramatic change in fish landing and CPUE is due to overfishing andexcess fishing effort.

Figure 3.1.2 presents the trend of marine fish landing with major three categories inpercentage from 2001 to 2010.The crustaceans and cephalopods landings rapidly raised by 227.25% from base year to 2010. The trend line shows increasing trend but slightly drop in 2004 and also2005 to 238.47%. In 2006 it shoot up to its peak by 467.49% but, sharply it drops in 2007. In 2008 it increases rapidly to 349.47% and then drop again over next two years. The percentage of demersal fish landing shows an

7

increasing trend slightly from2001 to 2003 and it rose rapidly by 160.60% in 2004. The landings decrease gradually in 2007. In 2008 to 2009 it gradually increases 138.87% to140.92% and the following year it shown a sudden decline by 91.35%. The percentage of pelagic fish catch decreases and then further decreases to 73.63% compare to base year.

Fig 3.1.2: Fish landings by categories

The result shows that, among the three groups; crustaceans and cephalopods landings percentage are considerably higher compared to demersal and pelagic fish landings. While, percentage of, demersal fish landing shows moderate and whereas pelagic fish shows significantdecline with overtime in this period. The crustaceans and cephalopods landings are

relatively high in 2006 due torapid increase of drift and gill nets in the same year by 286.40% from base year.

The pelagic fish catch percentage declines due to high fishing pressure on commercial pelagic species. The fish catch rate is higher than the stock recruitment. The commercial fishing vessel shows increasing trend from more than 40 GRT and 70 and above GRT. As a result both fish purse and trawl nets increase respectively. Meanwhile it shows less than 40 GRT is decreasing and thesesmall vessels divert to higherGRT. However, the effort increases the yield is lower than the base year 2001, this indicates the current fish population is below carrying capacity of the environment.

Fig 3.1.3: Fishing efforts withvarious parameters

8

Figure 3.1.3 is showing the percentage of various fishing efforts respectively throughout the study period. The overall fishing efforts showed steadily increasing trend during this period. The percentage of fishing trips shows a considerable increase as 160.69 % from 2001. Trend lines shows, in 2002 there is a slight decrease in percentage of trips and it started to increase over the next two years and also reaches to its peak as 215.65%in 2004. In 2005 it drops sharply to 158.32% and it fluctuates over the years.

The percentage of fishinggears increases by 133.77% in 2010 compared to base year. The trend line shows, it is slightly fluctuating throughout the study period. However, from 2002 the percentage of gears drops to 96.24% and it gradually increases to 110.04% in 2003. The percentage of gears remains stable from 2002 to 2004, and in 2005 it rise up to 129.23%. In 2006 it increases slightly to 134.98% and it fluctuated over the next three years and in 2010 to 133.77%.

The total percentage of licensed fishing vessels showsa moderate increasing trend from 2001 to 2008. However, from 2009 it rises up to 127.46% and further it shoots up to 136.27% in 2010. Percentage of licensed fishermen shows a steady growth from 2001 to 2007. Since 2008 it rise up for the following year and in 2010 it increases to 144.41%.

The percentage of both licensed fishing vessels and fishing gears shows a difference in total number. Innormal condition, each fishingvessel would be licensed to operate only one fishing gear.The above finding is related to various reasons. Therefore,there are circumstances where fishing vessels are authorizedto operate more than one category of fishing gears. Firstly, for a particular season or for one year the fishing gear licensed are issued. Secondly, there are licensed fishing vessels whichare not issued to operate any type of fishing gears. These vessels are used for fish processing and surveillance offish aggregation device. Finally, there are fishing vessels licensed to operate

9

one fishing gear for both vessels.

However, the finding shows that, increasing trend in fishing efforts over the years. The total percentage offishing trips increases in 2010 to 160.69 % from 2001. The total percentage of fishing gears also increase to133.77% from 2001. The total percentage of licensed fishingvessels are increase in 2010 to 136.27% from 2001. The increasing percentage of fishing efforts indicates that, there is a higher demandfor fish and fishery products over the years.

In terms of fish landing gearsthere are seven common fishinggears which are used tocapture fisheries from 2001 to2010. The figure 3.1.4a and3.1.4b show that, catch perunit effort (CPUE) by usingspecific type of fishing gearrespectively. In terms of CPUEfish purse seine catches anenormous amount of fish amongthe gears. However it shows amoderate fluctuation since2001 to 2010. Initially in2001 it is 2.80 tonnes pertrip and from 2003 it start toslightly decrease but in 2004

it drops further. Since 2005it shows a moderatelyincreasing trend until 3.97tonnes per trip by 2008 andthen it reduce to 3.39 tonnesper trip in 2010.

a. CPUE, greater than 0.5 tonnesper trip

b. CPUE, less than 0.5 tonnesper trip

Fig 3.1.4: Catch per unit effort(CPUE) by gear

a. CPUE, greater than 0.5 tonnes per trip

10

b. CPUE, less than 0.5 tonnes pertrip

The trawl net is thesecond highest among thefishing gears and it showsgradually increasing trendfrom 2001 to 2010. In 2001 itcatches 0.44 tonnes per tripand rise up gradually over theyears until 2006. In 2007 itdrops sharply to 1.09 tonnesper trip and it continues anupward trend with somefluctuations in the last threeyears. The anchovy purse seineis the third highest and itshows a fluctuation in thetrend over the years. Thetrend line did not show anincreasing trend from 2001 andit shows more or less or same.The lift net shows a highvariation in the trend overthe years and it showsslightly increasing from thestudy period. Initially it is0.58 tonnes per trip in 2001and then it steadily increasesto 0.91 tonnes per trip in2010.

The rest of the gears aredrift or gill net, hooks andlines and portable traps.These three gears contributeless than 0.5 tonnes per trip.These gears are shown inseparately in figure 3.1.4b.

The portable traps shows ahigh fluctuation over theyears among these three gears.However, it shows decreasingtrend from 0.33 to 0.29 tonnesper trip in 2010. Drift orGill net does not show muchvariation during the studyperiod and it shows decreasingtrend over the years. Hooksand lines CPUE also showsdecreasing trend from 0.12 to0.6 tonnes per trip and overthe ten years it contributesleast amount of CPUE among thefishing gears.

While it can be seenthat, among the fishing gearsfish purse seines, trawl netsand lift nets shows onlyincreasing trend in CPUE.However, the rest of thefishing gears; anchovy purseseines drift or gill nets,portable traps, and hooks andlines shows decline CPUE overthe years. Moreover, from thefindings it can be seen thatmost of the fish landings aredone by using fish purse seineand there is a significantchange in CPUE by it. Thefinding shows that the numberof vessels tonnage class frommore than 40 and 70 and aboveGRT are increasing and in 2008it hits the peak as 3.97tonnes per trip. At the same

11

time less than 40 GRTdecreases. However, from2009 the number of higher GRTvessels also starts todecline. This is the reasonwhy the variations in CPUE offish purse seine.

The percentage of licensed fishing gears from 2001to 2010are shown in figure 3.1.5a and3.1.5b respectively. Among thefishing gears drift or gill net shows a high variation in increasing the trend and followed by hook and lines andthen anchovy purse seines. Thepercentage of drift or gill net shows a slight increase from 2002 and in 2005 dramatically increases to its peak as 316.05%. Since, 2006 to 2008 it shows gradually declining although, from 2009 to 2010 it shows a considerable increase. The percentage of drift or gill net licensed increases to 312.17 % from 2001.The percentage of Hooks and lines gears also increase slightly from 2001 and the trend remainrelatively unchanged until 2005. However, from 2006 it reaches to peak as 143.72%. The percentage of hooks and lines in 2010 slightly increases to 141.86%. The

percentage of anchovy purse seines steadily decline from 2002 until 2004 and then it rise rapidly to 90.73% in 2005. Since 2006 it was fluctuating over the years. The percentage of lift net shows significantly declining from base year to 2010. It decreases to 40.32% in 2010 from base year 2001.

The percentage of trawl nets, fish purse seines, and portable traps shows a considerable declining percentage over the years. Among the fishing gears the trawl nets depicts downward trend and where the numbers oftrawl nets shows decreasing to59.47 % from the base year. The portable trap fishing gears decreases to 63.78 % andfish purse seines also declineto 51.67 % from 2001. The percentage of lift nets shows most significant decline from base year to 2010 as 40.32%. Nevertheless, it shows that drift or gill nets percentage increases significantly among the fishing gears. However, hooks and lines show a moderate increasing from the base year to 2010 as 141.86%. Meanwhile Anchovy purse seinesshow more or less stable compared to base year 2001.

12

a. Percentage of licensed fishing gears

b. Percentage of licensed fishing gears

Fig 3.1.5: a. Percentage of licensed

fishing gears: Drift/ gillnet, hooks & lines, anchovy purse seines & lift net.

b. Percentage of licensed fishing gears: Fish purse seines, portable traps & trawl nets.

The figure 3.1.6 shows the licensed outboard vessels withhorsepower. The vessels (40HP-59HP) shows the highest increasing percentage among

the category from 2003 and it shows significant increasing. However, in 2006 and 2008 it shows slight decreasing and rise to 2912.50% from base year. The vessels (10HP-19HP) rise steadily since from 2003 and it contributes 536.51% from base year 2001.The vessels (20HP- 39HP) shows overall increasing trend in 2010 compare to base year. This is the third highest increasing percentage among the categories. The vessels (60HP & above) shows considerable increasing from 2009 and it increases to 658.33% in 2010. The percentage of fishing vessel engine capacity (1- 9HP) decreases over the years and 32.08% in 2010.

It can be seen that except (1- 9HP) other four categories shows increasing trend over the years since from 2003. Moreover, this result indicates that fishers are increasing fishing effort to increase or maintain their catch. The previous fishing grounds have been overfished and then fishers gone further or deeper to search for other fishing grounds. The significant change in engine horsepower and gross

13

registered tonnage (GRT), fishers can catch more fish within a short period of time and fishing capacity increases.

Fig3.1.6:Licensed outboard vessels with horsepower

The figure 3.1.7 depicts thelicensed inboard vessels withhorsepower. The inboardfishing vessels (250 HP &above) increases significantlyand show a strong rapid growthover the years. However, itshows a slight decrease in2009 and then it shoots up to329.03% in 2010. The secondhighest (100-249HP) it showsnormal trend over the years,and does not show muchvariation although; it showsslightly increasing compare tobase year. In addition, studyshows that the inboard fishingvessels which are (greaterthan 100HP) shows increasingtrend while fishing vesselswhich are (less than 100HP)

shows decreasing trend theover the years. Based on theseresults it can be concludethat the traditional fishersor small scale fishers did notmaintain or increases theircatch due to decline of fishstock biomass within the zone.There for the small scalefisher’s increase fishingeffort by diverting to biggervessels and engine horsepower.

Fig 3.1.7: Licensed inboard vesselswith horsepower

The figure 3.1.8 presents the percentage comparison of inboard and outboard fishing vessels throughout the study period from 2001 to 2010. In terms of horsepower, outboard fishing vessels percentage shows dramatic change over theyears compared to inboard fishing vessels. The trend line shows that the percentageof outboard fishing vessels increases greatly since 2003 and shows an upward trend over

14

the years. In 2002 it is 67.75% and then dramatically increasing over the years until 2007. In 2008 it shows aslight fall and then it rise up to 322.52% in 2010.

However, on the other hand inboard fishing vessels did not show increasing trend.It start decline since 2003 and then steadily drop vastly over the years. In 2001 and inboard fishing vessels decreases to 89.39 %. It can be seen from the findings morefishers’ are diverting to outboard fishing vessels compared to inboard vessels. Outboard fishing vessels have multiple advantages over inboard such as; high speed, easy to maintenance, and save time to find other fishing grounds to increase their yield. This is the reasons why this study shows most of the fishers’ divert to outboard to increase their fishing effort.

Fig 3.1.8: Comparison of inboard andoutboard fishing vessels

3.2 Estimation of Maximum sustainableyield (MSY) and optimum level of fishingeffort (fMSY)

The maximum sustainable yield (MSY) and optimum level of fishing effort (fMSY) was estimated by using catch (yield) and effort (trips) data from 2001to 2010. The figure 3.2.1a and3.2.1b shows the general type of curve which was derived from Schaefer model and Fox model respectively by using catch and effort data. In addition the models give slightly different results as seen in Table 3.2.1.

a. Schaefer model

15

b. Fox modelFigure 3.2.1: Curve derived by usingcatch and effort data:

a. Schaefer modelb. Fox model

In the Schafer model maximum sustainable yield (MSY) level is 107,251.70 tonnes and optimum level of fishing effort (fMSY) is 0.47 tonnes per trip and that would imply only 228,193 standard trips per year. Whereas the Fox model the Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) level is 106,042.81 and optimum level of fishing effort (fMSY) is 0.54 tonnes per trip and whichalso imply only 196,374 standard trips. Nevertheless, the result from both models greatly shows that fishing effort has exceeding beyond the optimum level and the yield is lower than the estimated maximum sustainable yield since from 2003.

In terms, of fishingeffort both models support

with the trend analysisfindings in the figure 3.1.3and which also shows overallfishing effort are increasingsince 2003. Moreover, in termsof fishing effort severalstudies reported that, in thisregion such as; Vietnam,Malaysia, Thailand,Philippines and Indonesia, thefishing efforts was increasedovertime (Son and Thuoc, 2003;Abu Talib et al., 2003;Stobutzki et al., 2006; Barutet al., 2003; & Purwanto,2003). Based on thoseassumptions and presentfindings, it can be consideredthat a fish landing inTerengganu is decreasing dueto overfishing. The fishingeffort is higher than therecruitment rate. This is thereason why fish catch is lowerthan the estimated maximumsustainable yield (MSY).

16

Table 3.2. 1 The comparison of estimated maximum sustainable yield(MSY) and optimum level of fishing effort (fMSY) using Schaefer modeland Fox model.

(Source: Thisstudy)

17

Year Total Yield

CPUE Trip

Yield/CPUE (Schafer)

In(Yield/CPUE)

(Fox)2001 107277 0.55 196379.00 12.192002 106244 0.58 183201.00 12.122003 90951 0.35 262241.00 12.482004 107348 0.25 423496.00 12.962005 93012 0.30 310902.00 12.652006 111393 0.34 323429.00 12.692007 81008 0.31 259774.00 12.472008 104699 0.46 226227.00 12.332009 84320 0.31 273796.00 12.522010 72921 0.23 315555.00 12.66

Mean 95917.3 0.37 277500.00 12.51

Median 98855.5 0.33 268018.50 12.50

Range 38472 0.35 240295.00 0.84Minimum 72921 0.23 183201.00 12.12Maximum 111393 0.58 423496.00 12.96

Stdv 13340.33 0.12 70435.78 0.24

Intercept 456185 13.187Slope -485058 -1.8504MSY 107,251.70 106,042.81Optimum number of trips per year 228,193 196,374

FMSY

0.47 (tonnes pertrip)

0.54 (tonnes pertrip)

3.3 The Relationship between the MSY,Yield, CPUE and also the models

The figure 3.3.1 showsrelationship between MSY,Yield and CPUE using Schaeferand Fox model. The findingsshows that, fish landing in

2010 decreases to 67.97 %compare to base year and theoverall fishing effortincreasing since 2003. TheSchafer model maximumsustainable yield (MSY) is107,251.70 tonnes and optimumlevel of fishing effort (fMSY)is 0.47 tonnes per trip andthat imply from 2,28,193standard trips per year.Whereas the Fox model themaximum sustainable yield(MSY) is 106,042.81 andoptimum level of fishingeffort (fMSY) is 0.54 tonnesper trip and that imply from1, 96,374 standard trips peryear. The slight differencesin findings cause the way ofplotting the graph in bothmodels. In Schaefer model itrepresents a normal straightline whereas, in the Fox modelit represents a slight curvethat has been linearized byusing the logarithm.

Fig 3.3.1: Relationship between the

18

MSY, CPUE, yield and models

The figure 3.3.2 shows thedecreasing pattern of MSY andyield and also CPUE ofSchaefer and Fox model.However, in this study findsthat, the decreasing patternyield is more similar to theFox model rather than Schafermodel. According Schafer modelthe fish stock biomass wouldbecome annihilation whereas,fishing effort increases thanthe recruitment. However,according to fox model thefish stock biomass would notbecome extinct immediatelyalthough, it would decreasegradually overtime. Thepresent findings also shownthat, fishing effort wereexceeding beyond the optimumlevel however, the fish stockis not annihilated but it isgradually decreasing over theyears. Even though, the bothmodels shows fishing effortare exceeding beyond theoptimum level. The yield andCPUE is lower than theestimated maximum sustainableyield (MSY). This decline ofMSY is due to the continuousfishing of virgin stockbiomass for long time. Thefindings from the study alsoshows that, the number of

fishing effort namely; numberof fishing vessels, fishermen,engine horsepower, fishingtrips and vessel increase insize and better equipped overthe years.

Fig 3.3.2: Decreasing pattern of yield and also CPUE using Schaefer and Fox model. (Source: Sparre and Venema.,1998)

Moreover, based on several studies reported that the global fish catch has declining since 1980s, around the world due to technologicaladvancement and excess fishingeffort ( Wastson and Pauly, 2001; Pauly, et al., 2002; Garcia and Grainger, 1997; Hall, et al. 2000). Furthermore in Southeast Asia,also reported there is a serious concern on fisheries resources declining due to overfishing, excess fishing effort and environmental

19

degradation ( Salayo, et al., 2008; Stobutzki, et al., 2006;Silvestre, et al., 2003; Krongprom, et al., 2003 and Barut, 2003). The present findings are similar to those researchers. Nevertheless, thepresent findings also shown that, declining fish catch andthe fishing effort were exceeding beyond the optimum level since 2003. Based on those assumptions and present findings and the models and trend analysis shows that, thefish catch and fish stock biomass is fallen below the carrying capacity of the environment due to overfishing. When overfishing occurs the fish stock biomass fallen below the level it can produce MSY. This is the reason why in this study showslower level of MSY than the estimated MSY since 2003 in Terengganu. However, in this situation still overfishing continues with a virgin stock biomass to get short term benefit rather than the sustainable economic returns.

4. CONCLUSION

The marine fishery data ofTerengganu studies from 2001

to 2010. The data consistsof catch or yield, number offishing trips, fishermen,vessels, tonnage class,fishing gears, hauls, andengine horsepower in eachyear. The maximum sustainableyield (MSY) and optimum levelof fishing effort (fMSY) wasestimated using both Schaferand Fox model.

Based on the trend it canbe seen that fish landingdecreases and overall fishingeffort increases throughoutthe study period. The fishlanding in 2010 decreases to67.97 % compare to base year2001. In addition, the Schafermodel maximum sustainableyield (MSY) is 107,251.70tonnes and optimum level offishing effort (fMSY) is 0.47 atonne per trip and that implyfrom 2,28,193 standard tripsper year. Whereas, in the Foxmodel the maximum sustainableyield (MSY) is 106,042.81 andoptimum level of fishingeffort (fMSY) is 0.54 tonnesper trip and it imply from196,374 standard trips.Moreover, the result obtainedfrom the study shown thecurrent fish stock has beenoverfished. The fishing effortwas exceeding beyond theoptimum level and the yield

20

was lower than the estimatedmaximum sustainable yieldsince 2003. This indicates thecondition of unsustainablefishery.

Therefore, managementmeasures should be taken basedon fisheries managementapproaches to sustain thefishery recourses for futuregeneration. This can beachieved through controllingboth fishing input (fishing effort)

and fishing output (harvest).

However, limiting the numberof fishing effort and catch isnot an acceptable measure forthe fishers’. The governmentshould find anotheralternative such as;increasing awareness among thefishers via environmentaleducation and giving funds andloans for the fishers’ todivert to aquaculture.Considering all the enormousfacts and findings of thepresent study will be helpfulfor examine the major issues,opportunities and sustainablemanagement of marine capturefishery in Terengganu.Furthermore, the resultobtained from this study isthus anticipated to give alimelight to the future studyin fishery management.Nevertheless, further studies

need to be conducted in otherstates of Malaysia and alsocan be compared state by stateto know the current fisherystatus and ensure thesustainable management of thefishery.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thanks theDepartment of FisheriesMalaysia for providingsecondary data for this studyand we also thank who assistedus during the preparation ofthis manuscript.

REFERENCES

Allison, E.H., Perry, A.L.,Adger, W.N., Badjeck, M.C.,Brown, K., Conway, D., Halls,A., Pilling, G.M., Reynolds,J.D and Dulvy, N.K. 2009.Vulnerability of nationaleconomies to the impact ofclimate change on fisheries.Fish and Fisheries. 10: 173-196.

Abu Talib, A., Tan, M.G.H.,Yasin, A.H., 2003b. Overviewof the national fisheriessituation with emphasis onthe demersal fisheries offthe west coast of peninsulaMalaysia. In: Silvestre, G.,Garces, L., Stobutzki, I.,

21

Luna, C., Ahmed, M.,Valmonte-Santos, R.A.,Lachica-Alino, L., Munro, P.,Christensen, V., Pauly, D.(Eds.), Assessment,Management and FutureDirections for CoastalFisheries in Asian Countries.World Fish Center Conf. Proc.67: 833–884.

Barut, N.C., Santos, D.M.D.,Mijares, L.L., Subade, R.,Armada, N.B., Garces, L.R.,2003. Philippine coastalfisheries situation. In:Silvestre, G., Garces, L.,Stobutzki, I., Luna, C.,Ahmed, M., Valmonte-Santos,R.A., Lachica-Alino, L.,Munro, P., Christensen, V.,Pauly, D. (Eds.), Assessment,Management and FutureDirections for CoastalFisheries in Asian Countries.WorldFish Center Conf. Proc.67: 885–914.

DOF .2010. Department ofFisheries MalaysiaFisherystatisticshttp://www.dof.gov.my[Accessed on 16May 2012- 15 September 2012]

Garcia, S.M., Grainger, R.J.R.,1997. Chronicles of marinefishery landings(1950–1994).Trend analysis and fisheriespotential. FAO Fish. Tech.Pap. No. 359, pp. 1–51.

Garces, L.R., Stobutzki, I.,Alias, M., Campos, W.,Koongchai, N., Lachica-Alino, L., Mustafa, G.,Nurhakim, S., Srinath, M.,Silvestre, G., 2006. Spatialstructure of demersal fishassemblages in South andSoutheast Asia and theirimplications for fisheriesmanagement. Fisheries Research78: 143–157.

Hall, M., Alverson, D., Metuzals, K., 2000. Bycatch: problems and solutions. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 41: 204–219.

Islam, G.M.N., Noh, K.M., and Yew. T.S., 2011. Measuring productivity in fishery sector of peninsular Malaysia. Fisheries Research. 108: 52–57.

Kimoto, H. and Ibrahim, J.1996.The stock status andmanagement scheme of kerisi(Nemipterus peronii) in the eastcoast ofMalaysia.SEAFDEC/MFRDMD/RES/1, Kuala Terengganu,Malaysia.

Mesnil, B.,2012.The hesitantemergence of maximumsustainable yield (MSY) insheries policies in Europe.fi

Marine Policy. 36: 473-480.

22

Pauly, D., Christensen, V.,Gueınette, S., Pitcher, T.J.,Sumaila, U.R., Walters, C.J.,2002. Towards sustainabilityin world fisheries. Nature.418: 689–695.

Purwanto. 2003. Status andmanagement of the Java Seafisheries. in: Silvestre, G.,Garces, L., Stobutzki, I.,Ahmed, M., Valmonte- Santos,R.A., Luna, C., Lachica-Ali˜no, L., Munro, P.,Christensen, V., Pauly, D.,(Eds.), Assessment,Management and FutureDirections for CoastalFisheries in Asian Countries.World Fish Center Conf. Proc.Penang, Malaysia, 67: 793–832.

Punt.A.E., and Szuwalski.C., 2012. How well can FMY and BMSY be estimated using empirical measure of surplusproduction? Fisheries Research. 134-136 : 113–124.

Salayo, N., Garces, L., Pido, M., Viswanathan, K., Pomeroy,R., Ahmed,M., Siason, I., Keang Seng. K., and Masae. A., 2008. Managing excess capacity in small-scale fisheries: Perspectives from stakeholders in three Southeast Asian countries. Marine Policy 32: 692-700.

Silvestre GT, Garces LR,Stobutzki I, Ahmed M,Valmonte-Santos R, Luna CZ,2003. South and South-EastAsian coastal fisheries:their status and directionsfor improved managementconference synopsis andrecommendations. In:Silvestre G, Garces L,Stobutzki I, Ahmed M,Valmonte-Santos RA, Luna CZ,et al., editors. Assessment,management and futuredirections for coastalfisheries in Asiancountries. WorldFish Centerconference proceedings 67.Penang, Malaysia: WorldFishCenter; 2003.

Son, D.M., Thuoc, P., 2003.Management of coastalfisheries in Vietnam. in:Silvestre, G., Garces, L.,Stobutzki, I., Ahmed, M.,Valmonte- Santos, R.A., Luna,C., Lachica-Ali˜no, L.,Munro, P., Christensen, V.,Pauly, D., (Eds.),Assessment, Management andFuture Directions for CoastalFisheries in Asian Countries.World Fish Center.

Stobutzki, I.C., Silvestre,G.T., Abu Talib, A.,Krongpr omc, A., Supongpan,M., Khemakorn, P.,Armadae, N., and Garces,L.R. 2006. Decline of

23

demersal coastal fisheriesresources in threedeveloping Asian countries.Fisheries Research. 78: 130- 142.

Stobutzki, I.C., Silvestre,G.T., and Garces, L.R.2006. Key issues in coastalfisheries in South andSoutheast Asia, outcomes ofa regional initiative.Fisheries Research. 78: 109- 118.

Sugiyama S, Staples D, Funge-Smith S,. 2004. Status andpotential of fisheries and aquaculture inAsia and the Pacific. Bangkok: FAORegional Office for Asia andthe Pacific; 2004.

Sparre, P. and Venema,S,C.(1998). Introduction to TropicalFish Stock Assessment. Rome,Italy: Food and AgricultureOrganization of the UnitedNations. FAO FishriesTechnical Paper 306:1-2.

Tai, S.Y., Kusairi, M.N.,Abdullah, N.M.R., 2000.Valuing fisheries

depreciation in naturalresource accounting, thepelagic fisheries inNortheast PeninsularMalaysia. Environmental andResource Economics. 15: 227–241.

Wang, C.H., Chang, M.S., Lin,M.C., 1988. Estimating themaximum sustainable yield ofthe South Pacific albacore,1971-1985. ACTA OceanographicaTaiwanica. 21: 67-81.

Watson, R., Pauly, D., 2001.Systematic distortions inworld fisheries catch trends.Nature. 414: 534–536.

Yeh, Y.M., Wang, C.H., 1996.Stock assessment of the SouthPacific albacore by using thegeneralized production model1967- 1991. ACTA OceanographicaTaiwanica. 35: 135-139.

Generalized production model1967 -1991.

ACTA Oceanographica Taiwanica. 35:135-139

24

25