UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Fisheries Catch Reconstructions : Islands, Part III Harper, Sarah; Zylich, Kyrstn; Boonzaier, Lisa; Le Manach, Frédéric; Pauly, Daniel; Zeller, Dirk 2012

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Harper_S_et_al_Fisheries_catch_reconstructions.pdf [ 4.72MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0353175.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0353175-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0353175-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0353175-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0353175-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0353175-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0353175-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0353175-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0353175.ris

Full Text

NumberVolume2012Fisheries Centre Research ReportsISSN 1198-6727Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, Part iii20 5ISSN 1198-6727 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, CanadaFisheries Centre Research ReportsFisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III2012 Volume 20 Number 5Edited byFisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5)134 pages © published 2012 byThe Fisheries Centre,University of British Columbia2202 Main MallVancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4 ISSN 1198-6727 Sarah Harper, Kyrstn Zylich, Lisa Boonzaier,  Frédéric Le Manach, Daniel Pauly and Dirk ZellerContentA Research Report from the Fisheries Centre at UBCFisheries centre research rePorts are abstracted in the Fao aquatic sciences and Fisheries abstracts (asFa)issn 1198-6727  Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5)2012Edited bySarah Harper, Kyrstn Zylich, Lisa Boonzaier,  Frédéric Le Manach, Daniel Pauly and Dirk ZellerFisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5)134 pages © Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2012Director’s Foreword iCocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island: Brief history of fishing and coastal catches (1950–2010) 1Krista Greer, Sarah Harper, Dirk Zeller, and Daniel PaulyReconstruction of the Cook Islands fisheries catches: 1950–2010 15Andrea Haas, Teina Rongo, Nicole Hefferman, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Fiji (1950–2009) 25Kyrstn Zylich, Devon O’Meara, Jennifer Jacquet, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Haiti and Navassa Island (1950–2010) 37Robin Ramdeen, Dyhia Belhabib, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerMarine fisheries of Jamaica: total reconstructed catch 1950-2010 47Stephanie Lingard, Sarah Harper, Karl Aiken, Nakhle Hado, Stephen Smikle, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Kermadec Islands (1950–2010) 61Kyrstn Zylich, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Montserrat (1950–2010) 69Robin Ramdeen, Alwyn Ponteen, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Niue (1950–2010) 77Kyrstn Zylich, Sarah Harper, Nicolas Winkler, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for the Pitcairn Islands (1950–2009) 87Devraj Chaitanya, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerA brief history of fishing in the Prince Edward Islands, South Africa, 1950–2010 95Lisa Boonzaier, Sarah Harper, Dirk Zeller, and Daniel PaulyReconstructed catches of Samoa 1950–2010 103Stephanie Lingard, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerReconstructing marine fisheries catches in the Solomon Islands: 1950–2009 119Bridget Doyle, Sarah Harper, Jennifer Jacquet, and Dirk ZelleriMarine fisheries are exposed to a number of challenges, many deriving from other human activities. However, while they are impacted by coastal pollution, overfishing, habitat modification and climate changes, this is not necessarily reflected in their reported catch levels and/or composition, as catches are often unreported and also taxonomically over-aggregated. Indeed, environmental data quality is a growing problem, as public entities increasingly lack the resources to generate reliable statistics, resulting in important trends not being detected or detected too late. Fishery resources, moreover, cannot be managed sustainably without correct baseline data. This is particularly important in small island states, where marine resources are often crucial to the food security, as well as financial security, of the islands’ inhabitants. The fisheries that residents rely on are mostly the small-scale sectors (subsistence and artisanal), which often remain unmonitored and overlooked, thus representing the majority of unreported catches within global fisheries statistics. The fishing capacity of developed countries has increased dramatically in the last decades as a result of successive waves of investments and technological innovation. Small island developing states and territories lack the resources to emulate these developments, and therefore must resign themselves to allow foreign vessels to exploit the resources of their Exclusive Economic Zones, usually for modest access fees. The income derived from selling the right to access their EEZs to foreign fleets can be a major source of revenue for these developing countries. Unfortunately, this also puts further stress on the marine resources, and may lead to competition when the species exploited by the foreign fleets are also consumed locally. The extent of reporting coverage varies from country to country, but in almost every case, there are instances of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) catches. Catches may be missing from official statistics for a variety of reasons, but for most developing countries, lack of resources to properly monitor their fisheries appears to be the main problem. Unfortunately, it is also these developing countries that are most in need of proper monitoring, as the effects of overfishing and collapsed fisheries will have the most impact on them. A more accurate and complete estimate of total fisheries extractions is crucial to the implementation of proper management schemes, which will help to ensure continued food security. In some places, monitoring and reporting have drastically improved in more recent years, which is hopefully a sign of change to come.As a follow up to Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part I and Part II, this report continues to utilize the methodology of reconstructing a historic time series of marine fisheries catches which was developed by researchers at the Sea Around Us Project. This edition carries on the assessment of islands in the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans, with the main focus being on South Pacific and Caribbean island countries and territories. Total marine fisheries extractions are estimated for the period of 1950 to 2010 in an effort to improve the reporting baseline for monitoring and management purposes. Regardless of the uncertainties emanating from having to utilize limited data, these catch reconstructions still provide a more complete and improved picture of the status of the fisheries compared to the official statistics currently used to inform management and policy decisions.Ussif Rashid Sumaila, DirectorUBC Fisheries CentreNovember 2012director’s ForewordCocos (Keeling) Is. and Christmas Is. - Greer et al. 1cocos (Keeling) islands and christmas island: brieF history oF Fishing and coastal catches (1950–2010)1Krista Greer, Sarah Harper, Dirk Zeller, and Daniel PaulySea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,  2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canadak.greer@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.caabstractThe fisheries statistics systems of many countries are performing poorly, often failing to report small-scale catches, particularly from subsistence and recreational fisheries. These deficiencies, which lead to the underestimation of catches, are particularly evident in overseas territories of developed countries. This study is an attempt to remedy this for the years 1950–2010 for the Australia Indian Ocean Territories, an area from which little reporting is done. The results suggest that the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (which Charles Darwin famously visited in 1836) had a catch of approximately 80 t∙year-1 in the 1950s (subsitence only), which increased, starting in the mid-1980s, to 250 t∙year-1 in recent years mainly due to the introduction of recreational and later large-scale commercial fishing, with signs of overexploitation since 2000. On the other hand, the coastal catch from Christmas Island was tentatively assessed as being higher (40-70 t∙year-1) in the 1950s and 1960s than in the 2000s (32 t∙year-1). Fisheries managers in these areas should focus on determining primary target species and their vulnerability to overfishing as well as developing island-specific recreational fishing management plans.introductionOverexploitation of marine resources continues worldwide despite growing appreciation for the need to maintain marine ecosystem health and biodiversity. Fisheries management has traditionally focused on large-scale commercial operations mainly because of their economic importance and potential for overexploitation. Consequently, fisheries managers have typically ignored a significant portion of the world’s catches – those derived from artisanal, subsistence or recreational fishing (e.g., Zeller et al. 2006; Zeller et al. 2007a; Jacquet et al. 2010; Le Manach et al. 2012). Historically, the importance of subsistence and artisanal fishing operations occurring along much of the world’s coasts has gone unrecognized and subsequently unreported. And in places where reporting has occurred, catch statistics are often too vague to be useful for ecosystem analyses (Watson et al. 2004). The high prevalence of unreported subsistence, artisanal and recreational fisheries represents a critical knowledge gap in fisheries management and subsequent data-users often interpret non-reported or missing data as “zero” catches (Zeller et al. 2007a). Despite the general notion that they are data-poor, small-scale fisheries have recently been demonstrated to play important roles in economics, food security, culture, society and recreation (e.g., Sadovy 2005; Chuenpagdee et al. 2006; Zeller et al. 2007b; Boistol et al. 2011; Lingard et al. 2011; Le Manach et al. 2012). It is thus both necessary and justifiable to retroactively estimate catches using subjective inferences and interpolation methods in order to gain insight into historical catch trends based on the premise that the alternative assumption of zero catch is less desirable (Pauly 2007; Zeller et al. 2007a; Watson et al. 2011).Many small islands, where substantial subsistence fishing occurs, are associated with larger developed countries, for example, Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island, which are both Indian Ocean Territories of Australia (Figure 1). Despite this association, these small islands retain much of their traditional way of life, including being heavily dependent on marine resources (Alder et al. 2000). Currently, the small-scale fishing that occurs in these islands is excluded in the reporting of Australian national fisheries statistics. The remote nature of these islands and low urban development often result in them being described as pristine ecosystems (Parks Australia 2005). However, there have been recent reports of local extinctions and significant decreases in the density of highly sought-after marine species, especially in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Hender et al. 2001). As such, it is the aim of the present study to apply a “reconstruction approach” 1 Cite as: Greer, K., Harper, S., Zeller, D., and Pauly, D. (2012) Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Islands: Brief history of fishing and coastal catches (1950-2010). pp. 1-13. In: Harper, S., Zylich, K., Boonzaier, L., Le Manach, F., Pauly, D., and Zeller D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].100°E10°S±0 300150 kmCocos (Keeling) Is.Christmas Is.Figure 1.  Location of Cocos (Keeling) and Christmas Islands. The gray areas correspond to their respective EEZs.2 Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III(Zeller et al. 2007a) to derive historic catch time series for the Australian Indian Ocean Territories (AIOT): Cocos (Keeling) Islands (CKI) and Christmas Island (CI). Note that the catch data presented here pertain only to coastal catches, i.e., exclude large pelagic fishes (mainly tuna).Geographical, environmental and historical review of the island areasCocos (Keeling) Islands (12˚12’ S, 96˚54’ E) are situated in the eastern Indian Ocean, lying approximately 2,950 km north-west of Perth, Australia, and about 1,000 km south-west of Java, Indonesia (Figure 1). The CKI consist of 27 low-lying islands, which comprise two atolls: North Keeling and South Keeling. The single island of North Keeling remains uninhabited, and in 1995 was established as Pulu Keeling National Park, where access is by permit only. The park boundaries extend from the coastline to 1.5 km into the surrounding sea (Alder et al. 2000). South Keeling Atoll is comprised of 26 islands, with a total land area of 14 km² (Armstrong 1992). The islands are remote and are thought to have been completely submerged 4,000 years ago, implying that sea level fluctuations have affected shallow water marine biota (Woodroffe and Berry 1994). Endemism is unexpectedly low given the atoll’s isolation.The South Keeling Islands were first settled in 1827 by John Clunies-Ross and Alexander Hare who brought with them workers from Java and Sumatra (Gibson-Hill 1946). The Clunies-Ross family, which became known as the “King of Cocos,” reigned over the island for more than 150 years (Woodroffe and Berry 1994). The family operated a feudal-style government whereby the Malay population (descendants of the original workforce brought in 1827) worked on the family’s coconut oil plantation in exchange for housing and food. During this period, the islands were annexed by Britain. However, Queen Victoria granted full control of the islands to the Clunies-Ross family “in perpetuity” (Woodroffe and Berry 1994; Kerr 2009).The CKI are well known among biologists because Charles Darwin on board HMS Beagle visited during the ship’s circumnavigation of the world (Pauly 2004). The Beagle visited the CKI from April 1 to 12, 1836, and this gave Darwin the opportunity to test his theory of coral reef formation, the basic outline of which was thought out well before he had his first (and only) opportunity to study a coral reef during his visit to the CKI (Stoddart 1962; Woodroffe et al. 1990; Armstrong 1991). This theory, which turned out to be correct, was thus developed well before Darwin had all his “facts,” in stark contrast to naïve perceptions of how science works. Here is an observation he recorded in his diary:I was employed all the day in examining the very interesting yet simple structure & origin of these islands. The water being unusually smooth, I waded in as far as the living mounds of coral on which the swell of the open sea breaks. In some of the gullies & hollows, there were beautiful green & other colored fishes, & the forms & tints of many of the Zoophites were admirable. It is excusable to grow enthusiastic over the infinite numbers of organic beings with which the sea of the tropics, so prodigal of life, teems; yet I must confess I think those naturalists who have described in well-known words the submarine grottoes, decked with a thousand beauties, have indulged in rather extravagant language. (April 4, 1836)A total of 533 fish species are now reported from the CKI (Allen and Smith-Vaniz 1994), and 11 of those were sampled by Darwin (details in Pauly 2004), who also reported key observations on invertebrates and coral reefs (Armstrong 2004). Referring to “agencies” working against the growth of corals, Darwin also stated that “…some years before our visit unusually heavy rain killed nearly all the fish in the lagoon, and probably the same cause would likewise injure the corals” (in Stoddart 1962).In 1955, the islands became a territory of Australia, and in 1978, unsatisfied with the Clunies-Ross rule of the island, Australia purchased all the lands except for the family home (Woodroffe and Berry 1994). However, it was not until 1984, that the Malay population still residing in CKI became citizens of Australia (Kerr 2009). Since the 1950s, the population of the CKI has fluctuated from 600–700, with a slight decrease in the late 1970s (Figure 2). However, there is an indication that prior to the 1950s, the population was around 1,000, with emigration to Borneo (probably due to decreased opportunities on CKI) accounting for the observed decline. The vast majority of the current population are “Cocos-Malay” people, who have maintained a largely traditional way of life rooted in Islam. They are heavily reliant on local marine resources for protein, although this reliance may 05001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010PopulationYearCocos (Keeling) IslandsChristmas IslandFigure 2.  Population estimates for Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island, 1950-2010.Cocos (Keeling) Is. and Christmas Is. - Greer et al. 3have decreased slightly with mainland Australia’s increasing presence. However, shipped products are expensive and employment opportunities on the island are few. Thus, many locals remain rooted in traditional cuisine and resource use. Culturally important species are the giant clam (Tridacna spp.), spider conch shell (Lambis lambis) and coral trout (Plectropomus leopardus) (Gibson-Hill 1946; Hender et al. 2001). The locals do not consume sharks, but those captured can be sold internationally (Gibson-Hill 1946). Fresh water and land suitable for agriculture are scarce on the islands. A small proportion of the CKI resident population is comprised of Australian expatriates and government workers. It is thought that this portion of the population, relative to the Cocos-Malay people, relies more on resources brought in from mainland Australia, but contributes significantly to a recreational fishing sector. There is a relatively small tourism industry which has been growing, with currently approximately 150 beds available for tourism, and flights occurring 1-2 times a week from Perth, Australia. The main attractions for tourists are fishing and diving.Christmas Island (10˚30’ S, 105˚40’ E) is located 2,600 km north-west of Perth and 290 km south of Java, Indonesia (Figure 1). Geographically, although part of the same Vening-Meinesz seamount chain, CI differs drastically from CKI. CI is mountainous, surrounded by a fringing reef, which quickly drops off to deep, oceanic water (Hourston 2010). Although less remote than CKI, CI remained unsettled until the late 1800s when the Clunies-Ross family established a permanent settlement to provide lumber for use on CKI (Hourston 2010). Soon after, the settlement expanded to provide workers for phosphate mining. At this time, the islands were annexed by Britain and were later co-managed with Singapore. In 1957, the island was transferred to Australia. The majority of the island has since been designated a national park (Christmas Island National Park).The population of CI has fluctuated since the 1950s, likely as a result of its boom and bust economy (Roughan et al. 2011), and its current size is approximately 1,600 permanent residents (Figure 2). In addition to phosphate mining, a large casino and resort was opened on the island in 1993, aimed primarily at rich Asian clientele. However, the resort began losing money and was shut down in 1998, causing job losses. The resort has since re-opened without the casino in an attempt to bring jobs and money to the island, but without the potential dire consequences of a casino in a small community. The resort is now one of four, forming the backbone of a small tourism industry. Like the CKI, most tourists come to the island for fishing or diving.Since the 1970s, boats carrying asylum seekers have come to CI. In 2001, Australia opened the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre capable of housing approximately 1,200 asylum seekers (www.immi.gov.au). In 2010, the Australian government reported that there were more than 2,000 asylum seekers residing at the centre (Maley and Taylor 2010). The effect of the detention centre on local resources is unknown.Much like those of the CKI, the local residents of CI are the descendants of mainly Chinese and Malaysian workers. Resources are brought in from mainland Australia. However, they are expensive and mainly consumed by the small Australian expatriate population. Less is known about the traditional and subsistence needs of the local people on CI than the CKI; however, it is thought that they also rely heavily on local marine resources. The bulk of the research about local biodiversity has focused on the (terrestrial) red crab (Gecarcoidae natalis) and the bird populations. There has been little study on local marine resources, and their level of exploitation and vulnerability remains unknown.For a detailed description of the Australian acquisition of the CKI and CI, see A Federation of these Seas by Allan Kerr (2009).methodsThe coastal catches of the AIOT have gone unreported; therefore they had to be reconstructed entirely. The methods used in this study were based on the methodology of Zeller et al. (2007). Estimates of marine catches were based on a literature review and utilized single-year anchor points of catch data in tonnes (t), per capita catch rates, human population data, interpolation techniques and anecdotal information. The available coverage in terms of fisheries sectors, targeted species, and culturally important information differed between island areas. Consequently the development of data anchor points also differed between the CKI and CI. The following sections outline, in detail, the methods used for each island territory. It should be noted that this study does not include large-scale commercial catches of high-seas species such as tunas, marlins and sharks.Cocos (Keeling) IslandsSmall-scale fishingSmall-scale fishing on the CKI consists of both subsistence and artisanal fishing. For the purposes of this study, subsistence fishing was defined as any fishing activity that does not generate an income above that needed to live at the most basic subsistence level. In contrast, artisanal fishing is defined as that carried out by individuals or households, involving low investment in technology and gear, whose catch is usually sold locally. A literature search uncovered two anchor points described as subsistence fishing for the years 1992 (Alder et al. 2000) and 1993 (Hender et al. 2001). In order to derive a complete time series of catch estimates we converted these anchor points to an average per capita consumption rate.4 Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IIIIn order to estimate an average catch rate per capita it was necessary to first estimate the annual human population of the CKI since 1950. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) has been collecting census data every 5 years since 1986 for the CKI. Prior to 1986, population estimates were found on Populstat (www.populstat.info; accessed: April, 2012) for the following years: 1940, 1951, 1961, 1966, 1971, 1976 and 1981. In order to obtain a complete population time series since 1950, linear interpolation between years of known data was used to estimate the population for unknown years (Figure 2).The 1992 and 1993 subsistence catch estimates given by Alder et al. (2000) and Hender et al. (2001) were given as ranges. The median for each range was used to calculate an average between the two years. The average population for those two years was also calculated. Therefore the average catch rate in kilograms per capita was calculated by dividing the average catch of 1992 and 1993 by the average population in those years. The average catch rate was found to be 115.11 kg∙person-1∙year-1. We assume that the per capita catch rate in 1950 was the same as for the 1992-1993 period. Thus, we multiplied this average per capita catch rate by the total population size for each year since 1950 to estimate the subsistence catch per year. We also assumed the same catch rate per capita going forward to 2010.In small communities, it is often difficult to distinguish between fish used strictly for subsistence needs and fish that are sold to generate income for the household. In order to account for artisanal catch, we assumed no market economy existed prior to 1985. The arrival of Australian expatriates and government employees in the mid-1980s, together with a budding tourism industry, stimulated the economy, and hence stimulated the growth of an artisanal sector. As such, it was assumed that 10% of the estimated total subsistence catch turned into artisanal fishing from 1985 onwards. The artisanal catch remained constant at 10%, because resources brought in from mainland Australia are expensive, consequently it is likely that Cocos-Malay people continued to fish for themselves as opposed to transitioning over time to purchasing all their food.Recreational fishingRecreational catch can be defined as fishing where the main motivation is not consumption, trade or sale of the catch, but rather enjoyment. It is unlikely that prior to 1985 there was much recreational fishing occurring due to the absence of non-Cocos-Malay people in the CKI. As such, it was assumed that prior to 1985, the recreational catch was zero. For the remaining time period, two anchor points were found; one in 1993 and another in 2001 (Hender et al. 2001). A linear interpolation between a catch of zero tonnes in 1984 and an average recreational catch of 22.5 t in 1992 (Hender et al. 2001) was done to estimate annual recreational catches for the missing years. Similarly, an interpolation was used between the 1992 recreational catch estimate and a 2001 average recreational estimate of 106.2 t (Hender et al. 2001). The observed increase in recreational catches between these two anchor points is large. It is likely erroneous to assume that recreational catches continued to increase at such a rate past 2001, especially when tourism trends are considered (see below).The tourism industry in the CKI remains relatively small, with regular flights initiated in the early 1990s. In addition, there have been no major developments to increase the tourist capacity on the island within the last decade. As a result, the recreational catch from 2002 until 2010 was estimated using a per tourist catch rate. Hotel occupancy rates for each state since 2001 are available on the ABS website. In order to estimate the occupancy rate for hotels in the CKI, the state of Western Australia’s statistics were used as they are the governing state body of the AIOT. We were able to estimate the number of beds available for tourists on the island (approximately 150) and use the annual average occupancy rate derived from Western Australia statistics to determine the likely number of tourists on the island per year. It was then possible to take the recreational catch known in 2001, divide it by the number of tourists per year to yield a per tourist catch rate of 25 kg assuming that each tourist stays one week. The recreational catch rate from 2002 to 2010 was calculated by multiplying the number of tourists visiting the CKI per year, based on a one-week stay using an average occupancy rate as collected by the Western Australia government. Although the estimated catch of 25 kg per tourist may be high and not all tourists are going to fish, our estimate of recreational catch was considered conservative as the recreational catch of local residents was not estimated in addition to this.Large-scale commercial fishingCurrently, there appear to be five large-scale commercial fishing licenses on issue, only one of which is considered active and it is a permit for the capture of live aquarium fish (beginning in 1993). Our study does not include fish taken for the aquarium trade, thus these data were excluded. Two more permits (out of the five) were issued beginning in 2002 by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) for exploratory purposes (AFMA 2002). At this time, the total allowable catch (TAC) was set at 20 t per permit annually. It is unknown to the authors whether or not this exploratory fishing continues to occur; the permits are renewed each year, but the fishery may be inactive. When contacted, the AFMA maintained its policy prohibiting the release of catch data to researchers. Thus, we assumed that since the licenses are issued annually, the fishery remains active and catches its total TAC of 20 t. The final two of the five permits issued allow Australian boats to fish for tuna in the CKI and CI offshore longline fisheries. However, these catches were not included here as large pelagic fishes (i.e., tunas) were not considered in this analysis. The total annual catch from 1950 to 2010 was derived by adding the annual catches from subsistence, artisanal, recreational and large-scale commercial fishing sectors.Cocos (Keeling) Is. and Christmas Is. - Greer et al. 5Taxonomic breakdown of the catchThe baseline for determining what species comprise the catch came from an anthropological study completed in the mid-1940s, which outlined the catch supplied to European workers of the Cocos Cable Station over a four-month period by local Cocos-Malay fishers (Gibson-Hill 1946). The lowest taxonomic unit that could be distinguished was the family level, with fish from the families Serranidae, Latidae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Gerreidae, Labridae and Carangidae all contributing to the catch. The average proportion of each family over the four month period was calculated. When comparing the above list of families with other sources describing fisheries targets, it was found that it was a reasonable representation of reef fish, but failed to incorporate some culturally important species that would have likely been kept and consumed by Cocos-Malay fishers and not given to the European workers (i.e., spider conch shell, giant clam and sea cucumbers). Thus, the proportions were adjusted such that 90% of the catch is comprised of the aforementioned seven reef fish families, with the remaining 10% allocated to spider conch (L. lambis; 5%), sea cucumber (Holothurians; 2.5%) and Tridacna spp. (2.5%).The above proportions were assumed to be constant from 1950-1992. In 1993 and again in 2001, studies were conducted on the densities of fish on the CKI (Hender et al. 2001). In particular, it was noted that the density of groupers (Serranidae), which made up the highest proportion of the catch in the 1940s, had declined from 136 individuals∙hectare-1 to 36 individuals∙hectare-1 (a decrease of about 75%). It is thus unlikely that the high proportion of Serranidae observed earlier in the catch continued throughout the 1990s. Therefore, we decreased the proportion of Serranidae in the catch in equal increments between the years 1993 and 2002, and increased the contribution of the other reef fish families accordingly. From 2003 onwards, the proportions of the reef fish families were assumed to remain constant.Similarly, it was found that the giant clam may now be extinct from the near-shore waters of the CKI. According to a study conducted in 2001, there were only two individuals of Tridacna gigas known from the atoll at the time (Hender et al. 2001). In order to account for the change in density of Tridacna spp., the proportion of the total catch was decreased from 2.5% to 0.005% from 1993 to 2002. In order to account for this change, the proportion of spider conch shells increased to make up the difference. The increase in spider conch is justified because prior to contact with mainland Australia, its collection was largely restricted to exposed reefs during low tide whereby women and children would collect them by hand. However, increased access to equipment such as masks and snorkels has made it possible to now access spider conchs in deeper waters (J. Hender, pers. comm., Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency).Christmas IslandSmall-scale fishingOur literature search yielded no quantitative data on subsistence or artisanal fishing on CI. In order to estimate catches for these sectors, a seafood consumption estimate was used. The first step in this approach was to estimate the annual resident population since 1950. This was done in the same manner as for Cocos (Keeling) Island, first using ABS and Populstat (www.populstat.info; accessed: April, 2012) to provide anchor points, followed by linear interpolations between census population estimates (Figure 2). The next step was to determine an estimate of per capita consumption of seafood on CI. The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that in 1997 the global average was 16 kg of fish per capita with island countries having substantially higher dependence on protein derived from fish (www.who.in.en; accessed: April, 2012). A study conducted by Bell et al. (2009) found fish consumption in the Pacific Islands and territories to be much higher than what was indicated by the WHO. On average, Pacific Island countries and territories consume 50.7 kg per capita per year (Bell et al. 2009). It is likely that CI has fishing habits similar to Pacific countries, but to remain conservative, a per capita consumption rate of 35.5 kg was used for the 1950-1989 time period. Increasing presence from mainland Australia would likely have decreased fish consumption rates due to increased availability of alternative protein sources. Therefore beginning in 1990, we assumed per capita consumption started to decrease so that by the year 2000 it had decreased by 30%. For the remaining years it was assumed that the per capita consumption rate remained constant and the rate for 2000 was thus carried forward, unaltered, to 2010. To remain conservative, only 60% of the population was considered to partake in small-scale fishing throughout the entire time period.For the purpose of this study, it was necessary to allocate proportions of the total small-scale catch to either subsistence or artisanal sectors. CI has had a stronger presence from mainland Australia than the CKI due to phosphate mining, resort development, asylum seekers, and the development of a large immigration detention centre. Consequently, there has been greater potential for market growth over a longer period of time. Subsistence fishing was considered responsible for 75% of the total small-scale catch and artisanal fishing made up the remaining 25%. These proportions remained unchanged from 1950-2010.Large-scale commercial fishingThere is one large-scale commercial fishery operating out of CI: the Christmas Island Line Fishery (CILF). It is not known exactly when the fishery opened, but there were six large-scale commercial fishing permits issued as early as 1992 (APH 1997). However, by 2007, there were only three large-scale commercial fishing permits available and only one operating in 2008 (DoF 2009). In keeping with Western Australia’s privacy Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III6policy, reported catches were not available. As such, catch was estimated since 1992, gradually decreasing the number of boats (assumed to be less than 10 m) fishing for 100 days of the year with a starting catch rate of 30 kg∙day-1. This catch rate was assumed to remain constant for the remainder of the study period.Recreational fishingInformation on recreational fishing for CI was unavailable. However, it is likely that some recreational fishing does occur, albeit to a lesser extent than on CKI, due to the substantially more inaccessible coast and coastal waters of Christmas Island. It was assumed that recreational fishing in CI also started in 1985 (as in CKI). However, CI did not experience the changes in the tourism industry that CKI did, and therefore does not exhibit the same increase in catches. Catches were assumed to be zero tonnes in 1984, with a conservative estimate of a constant 1 t∙year-1 from 1985-2010. Taxonomic breakdown of catchNo studies have investigated the species caught from either small-scale fisheries or large-scale commercial fishing on CI. Thus, we used the catch composition established for the CKI, due to similarities between the reef species composition on the two islands, with some small adjustments. We assumed again that seven reef fish families (Serranidae, Latidae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Gerreidae, Labridae, and Carangidae) comprise 60% of the total catch from 1950–2010, with the remaining 40% divided between crustaceans (25%) and an “other invertebrates” category (15%).resultsCocos (Keeling) IslandsThe total reconstructed estimate of coastal catches for the CKI over the 1950-2010 time period was 6,453 t. Estimated catches have risen from approximately 70 t∙year-1 in the 1950s to 250 t∙year-1 in the late 2000s (Figure 3). This has occurred despite the population remaining quite stable (Figure 2). Prior to the early 2000s, the bulk of the catch was taken by local subsistence fishers. However, beginning in the early 1990s, fishing by other sectors (recreational and large-scale commercial) began increasing. Presently, it is estimated that the large-scale commercial and recreational fishing sectors extract more than three times as much as small-scale fishing (subsistence and artisanal) in any given year (Figure 3). The analysis regarding species landed from the CKI revealed that the majority of fish caught are likely to be groupers (family Serranidae) especially prior to the early 1990s (Figure 4). Prior to their decrease in the 1990s, serranids comprised 63% of the total catch and more recently comprise 15% of the total annual catch.Christmas IslandThe total reconstructed estimate for coastal catches of CI over the 1950-2010 time period was 3,115 t. The total catch on CI peaked at 72 t∙year-1 in 1966 and is presently estimated to be about 31 t∙year-1 0501001502002503001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearLatidaeSerranidaeTridacna spp.HolothuriansLambis lambisCarangidaeLabridaeGerreidaeLutjanidaeLethrinidaeFigure 4.  Taxonomic breakdown of Cocos (Keeling) Islands total catch, 1950-2010.0501001502002503001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearArtisanalSubsistenceRecreationalLarge-scale commercialFigure 3.  Estimated total catch for Cocos (Keeling) Islands, a remote Australian Indian Ocean territory, indicating individual fishing sector contributions, 1950-2010. Cocos (Keeling) Is. and Christmas Is. - Greer et al. 7(Figure 5). The catch almost doubled from 1991 to the mid-1990s (resulting in a secondary peak), which can be explained by the introduction of a large-scale commercial fishing sector in 1992. After a short-lived increase, catches again decreased. This was both a product of decreased consumption and decreased effort in the large-scale commercial sector. This led to a decline in catches to approximately 31 t∙year-1 by the late 2000s. As a result of our assumptions, the taxonomic breakdown of the catch is dominated by reef fish families, each of which comprise approximately 8% of the total annual catch from 1950-2010 (Figure 6). Crustaceans are likely to contribute a significant proportion of annual catches, estimated to be about 25% in this study. Other invertebrates, such as squid and bivalves, constitute the remaining 15% of the catch.discussionThe present study used a reconstruction approach (Zeller et al. 2007) to retrospectively calculate the total catch, as well as the contributions of individual fishing sectors and the taxonomic breakdown of the catch, for 1950-2010 for the Australian Indian Ocean Territories. There has been no formal collection of data for these territories, therefore this is the first attempt to provide a historical total fisheries catch time series for these islands. The results suggest that fishing is far from negligible, with the CKI landing approximately 250 t and CI landing approximately 31 t in 2010.What remain to be determined are the levels of fishing that can be sustained. One such estimate was generated in 1999, based on standing stock biomass collected in 1993 by Lincoln-Smith and a sustainable catch rate of 160–320 tonnes per year was estimated (Hender et al. 2001). Thus, our results suggest that overfishing may have been occurring in the waters of the CKI for about a decade. These results are further supported by anecdotal evidence describing local depletions of less resilient species such as coral trout (Plectropomus spp.) and humphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus), in addition to the groupers mentioned above (Hender et al. 2001; Hourston 2010).For both islands, recreational fishing presents a problem. The CKI’s small-scale fishery, apart from a few culturally important species, likely remains below the estimated sustainable annual stock harvest (Hender et al. 2001). The recreational fishing industry has grown substantially in the last two decades, placing unprecedented pressure on marine populations of the atoll. For CI, the impact of recreational fishing remains unknown. The need for management of the marine resources of the CKI is not lost on the Australian Government: “Island specific recreational fisheries management arrangements for the Indian Ocean Territories are currently being progressed to legislation” (DoF 2011).We have no evidence suggesting any overfishing around CI. However, the lack of information on CI is alarming. The present study was not able to accurately estimate catches for the recreational sector, which for CKI, was a substantial component of the total catch since the mid-1990s. Also, the consumption rate used in this study was a conservative per capita estimate of 35.5 kg at the start and 24.85 kg at the end of the study period. Comparable island entities have been found to have much higher per capita consumption rates (Bell et al. 2009; Gillett 2009; Trujillo et al. 2011). Therefore it is important to find out what the habits of Christmas Islanders are. Presently, there is little information regarding their dietary or cultural habits and this represents a critical limiting factor 010203040506070801950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearSerranidaeLutjanidaeGerreidaeLabridaeCarangidaeCrustaceansOther invertebratesLatidaeLethrinidaeFigure 6.  Taxonomic breakdown assumed for Christmas Island catch, 1950-2010.010203040506070801950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearArtisanalSubsistenceLarge-scale commercialRecreationalFigure 5.  Estimated total catch for Christmas Island, an Australian Indian Ocean Territory, indicating different fishing sector contributions, 1950-2010.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III8for the methods used to determine catches in this study. Research tactics such as a household survey every couple of years would provide a greater understanding of the needs of these islanders (Zeller et al. 2007).Large-scale commercial fishing in both territories appears to be minimal. However, the study was hindered by the inaccessibility of catch data. A report for the CKI evaluated the viability of large-scale commercial fishing for some species, such as sea cucumbers and spider conch shell. However, it also found that the majority of “potential” fisheries candidates were not actually viable (Hourston 2010). The large-scale commercial catch for the CKI estimated here, assumed that exploratory fishing continues to occur in the absence of a CKI-specific fisheries management plan. In contrast, the large-scale commercial fishing that takes place at CI does have some form of management in place. It should also be noted that large-scale commercial fishing for large pelagic species such as tuna and billfish does occur in the EEZ of both CKI and CI. These data were not included in this report as the fishery is part of the Western Australia Tuna and Billfish fishery, which also fishes off the west coast of Australia. These data are difficult to disaggregate spatially and are likely accounted for in the statistics of regional fisheries management organizations and by FAO reported landings for Australia. The interaction between this large-scale commercial fishery and the small-scale fishing sector is not well understood and research of this interaction would be crucial to any fisheries management plan.Another problem in the EEZ of CI is illegal foreign fishing (APH 1997). The EEZ claimed by Australia for CI and by Indonesia for Java overlap, which has created disputes over fishing rights and management of resources. Australia reported that in the 1990s, 40-60 illegal foreign fishing vessels were apprehended per year in the EEZ of CI (APH 1997). Although illegal fishing was not included in this analysis, it should be addressed by resource managers.Overall, this study found the extraction of fisheries resources from the AIOT to be significant, and thus requires implementation and enforcement of a fisheries management plan specific to each island area. The time series presented here are an attempt to provide managers with an estimation of catches in areas where fishing is occurring, but reporting is not. It is hoped that fishing on what are considered some of the last pristine reefs of the world does not continue to go unnoticed and unmanaged because of the notion that impacts resulting from small-scale fishing are negligible.acKnowledgementsThis work was completed as part of the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.reFerencesAFMA (2002) Fishing using non-trawl methods to take demersal fish off the Cocos (Keeling) Islands: exploratory management report. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Australia.Alder J, Hillard R and Pobar G (2000) Integrated marine planning for Cocos (Keeling), an isolated Australian atoll (Indian Ocean). Coastal Management 28: 109-117.Allen GR and Smith-Vaniz WF (1994) Fishes of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Atoll Research Bulletin 412: 1-21.APH (1997) Australia-Indonesia maritime delimitation treaty 12th report. The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Canberra, Australia. 89 p.Armstrong P (1992) Human Impacts on Australia’s Indian Ocean tropical island ecosystem: a review. The Environmentalist 12(3): 191–206.Armstrong P (2004) Darwin’s Other Islands. Servis Filmsetting Ltd., Manchester, Great Britain. 258 p.Armstrong PH (1991) Under the blue vault of heaven: Charles Darwin’s sojourn at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Indian Ocean Centre for Peace Studies, Nedlands. xii+147 p.Bell J, Kronen M, Vunisea A, Warwick J, Keeble G, Demmke A, Pontifex S and Andrefouet S (2009) Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific. Marine Policy 33: 64–76.Boistol L, Harper S, Booth S and Zeller D (2011) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Mauritius and its outer islands, 1950-2008. Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands part II 19, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, British Columbia, Canada. 143 p.Chuenpagdee R, Liguori L, Palomares D and Pauly D (2006) Bottom-up, global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(8): 1–110.DoF (2009) State of the fisheries report 2008/2009. Western Australia Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 295 p.DoF (2011) State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2010/2011. Western Australia Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 359 p.Gibson-Hill C (1946) Boats and fishing on the Cocos-Keeling islands. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 76(1): 13–23.Gillett R (2009) Fisheries in the economies of the Pacific island countries and territories. Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City, Philippines. 521 p.Hender J, McDonald C and Gilligan J (2001) Baseline surveys of the marine environments and stock size estimates of marine resources of the south Cocos (Keeling) atoll (0–15m), eastern Indian Ocean. Draft Report to Fisheries Resources Research Fund, Canberra. 69 p.Cocos (Keeling) Is. and Christmas Is. - Greer et al. 9Hourston M (2010) Review of the exploitation of marine resources of the Australian Indian Ocean Territories: the implications of biogeographic isolation for tropical island fisheries. Fisheries Research Report No. 208, Government of Western Australia, Department of Fisheries. 45 p.Jacquet JL, Fox H, Motta H, Ngusaru A and Zeller D (2010) Few data but many fish: marine small-scale fisheries catches for Mozambique and Tanzania. African Journal of Marine Science 32(2): 197-206.Kerr A (2009) Chapter 11: Cocos (Keeling) Islands. pp. 267-315 In Kerr A (ed.) A Federation in these Seas Part 1. Attorney General’s Office, Robert Garrin Offices, Barton, ACT.Le Manach F, Gough C, Harris A, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2012) Unreported fishing, hungry people and political turmoil: the recipe for a food security crisis in Madagascar. Marine Policy 36: 218-225.Lingard S, Harper S, Ota Y and Zeller D (2011) Marine fisheries of Palau, 1950-2008: total reconstructed catches. pp. 73-84. In Harper S and Zeller D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19(4), Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada.Maley P and Taylor P (2010) Christmas Island goes over the limit for detainees. The Australian, edition of April 3, 2010. Available at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/christmas-island-goes-over-the-limit-for-detainees/story-e6frgczf-1225849066781 [Accessed: May, 2012].Parks Australia (2005) Status of the coral reefs at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands: a report on the status of the marine community at Cocos (Keeling) Islands, east Indian Ocean, 1997–2005. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australia. 26 p.Pauly D (2004) Darwin’s fishes: an encyclopedia of ichthyology, ecology and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 340 p.Pauly D (2007) The Sea Around Us Project: documenting and communicating global fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems. Ambio 36(4): 290-296.Roughan S, Casement D, Simpson V and Stovell S (2011) A community capacity assessment of the long-term residents of Christmas Island. Rural Solutions, South Australia.Sadovy Y (2005) Trouble on the reef: the imperative for managing vulnerable and valuable fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 6: 167-185.Stoddart D (1962) Coral islands by Charles Darwin, with introduction, maps and remarks. Atoll Research Bulletin 88: 1-26.Trujillo P, Harper S and Zeller D (2011) Reconstruction of Nauru’s fisheries catches: 1950-2008. pp. 63-71. In Harper S and Zeller D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19(4), Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada.Watson R, Kitchingman A, Glechu A and Pauly D (2004) Mapping global fisheries: sharpening our focus. Fish and Fisheries 5: 168-177.Watson R, Sumaila RU and Zeller D (2011) How much fish is being extracted from the oceans and what is it worth? pp. 55-71 In Christensen V and Maclean J (eds.), Ecosystem approaches to fisheries: a global perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Woodroffe C and Berry P (1994) Scientific studies in the Cocos (Keeling Islands): an introduction. Atoll Research Bulletin 399: 1–16.Woodroffe C, McLean R and Wallensky E (1990) Darwin’s coral atoll: geomorphology and recent development of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, Indian Ocean. National Geographic Research 6(3): 262-275.Zeller D, Booth S, Craig P and Pauly D (2006) Reconstruction of coral reef fisheries catches in American Samoa, 1950-2002. Coral Reefs 25: 144-152.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007a) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for U.S. flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fisheries Bulletin 105: 266-277.Zeller D, Booth S and Pauly D (2007b) Fisheries contributions to the gross domestic product: underestimating small-scale fisheries in the Pacific. Marine Resource Economics 21: 355-374.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III10Appendix Table A1.   Total reconstructed catch (t) for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands by sector, 1950-2010.Year Total reconstructed catch Subsistence Artisanal Large-scale commercial Recreational1950 77 77 - - -1951 72 72 - - -1952 72 72 - - -1953 71 71 - - -1954 71 71 - - -1955 71 71 - - -1956 71 71 - - -1957 71 71 - - -1958 70 70 - - -1959 70 70 - - -1960 70 70 - - -1961 70 70 - - -1962 72 72 - - -1963 73 73 - - -1964 75 75 - - -1965 77 77 - - -1966 79 79 - - -1967 77 77 - - -1968 76 76 - - -1969 75 75 - - -1970 73 73 - - -1971 72 72 - - -1972 70 70 - - -1973 68 68 - - -1974 66 66 - - -1975 64 64 - - -1976 63 63 - - -1977 62 62 - - -1978 62 62 - - -1979 62 62 - - -1980 62 62 - - -1981 64 64 - - -1982 67 67 - - -1983 69 69 - - -1984 72 72 - - -1985 78 68 7.5 - 2.81986 83 70 7.8 - 5.61987 86 69 7.7 - 8.41988 88 69 7.6 - 11.31989 90 68 7.6 - 14.11990 92 68 7.5 - 16.91991 94 67 7.4 - 19.71992 97 67 7.5 - 22.51993 92 67 7.5 - 17.51994 102 68 7.5 - 27.41995 112 68 7.5 - 37.21996 122 68 7.5 - 47.11997 132 67 7.5 - 56.91998 141 66 7.4 - 66.81999 150 66 7.3 - 76.62000 159 65 7.2 - 86.52001 168 64 7.1 - 96.32002 179 65 7.2 - 106.22003 226 66 7.3 40 112.32004 230 67 7.4 40 115.12005 237 68 7.5 40 121.32006 245 69 7.6 40 128.12007 253 70 7.7 40 135.12008 252 71 7.8 40 134.02009 245 71 7.9 40 126.02010 244 72 8.0 40 123.2Cocos (Keeling) Is. and Christmas Is. - Greer et al. 11Appendix Table A2.   Total reconstructed catch (t) for the Cocos (Keeling) Islands by major taxa, 1950-2010.Year Serranidae Latidae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Gerreidae Labridae Carangidae Lambis lambis Holothurians Tridacna spp.1950 49 1.5 4.2 0.70 8.5 0.35 5.3 3.9 1.9 1.91951 46 1.4 3.9 0.65 7.9 0.32 4.9 3.6 1.8 1.81952 45 1.4 3.9 0.64 7.9 0.32 4.9 3.6 1.8 1.81953 45 1.4 3.9 0.64 7.9 0.32 4.9 3.6 1.8 1.81954 45 1.4 3.8 0.64 7.9 0.32 4.9 3.6 1.8 1.81955 45 1.4 3.8 0.64 7.8 0.32 4.9 3.5 1.8 1.81956 45 1.4 3.8 0.64 7.8 0.32 4.9 3.5 1.8 1.81957 45 1.3 3.8 0.64 7.8 0.32 4.8 3.5 1.8 1.81958 45 1.3 3.8 0.63 7.8 0.32 4.8 3.5 1.8 1.81959 45 1.3 3.8 0.63 7.7 0.32 4.8 3.5 1.8 1.81960 44 1.3 3.8 0.63 7.7 0.31 4.8 3.5 1.7 1.71961 44 1.3 3.8 0.63 7.7 0.31 4.8 3.5 1.7 1.71962 45 1.4 3.9 0.64 7.9 0.32 4.9 3.6 1.8 1.81963 47 1.4 4.0 0.66 8.1 0.33 5.0 3.7 1.8 1.81964 48 1.4 4.1 0.68 8.3 0.34 5.2 3.8 1.9 1.91965 49 1.5 4.2 0.69 8.5 0.35 5.3 3.8 1.9 1.91966 50 1.5 4.3 0.71 8.7 0.35 5.4 3.9 2.0 2.01967 49 1.5 4.2 0.70 8.5 0.35 5.3 3.9 1.9 1.91968 48 1.5 4.1 0.68 8.4 0.34 5.2 3.8 1.9 1.91969 47 1.4 4.0 0.67 8.2 0.34 5.1 3.7 1.9 1.91970 47 1.4 4.0 0.66 8.1 0.33 5.0 3.7 1.8 1.81971 46 1.4 3.9 0.65 7.9 0.32 4.9 3.6 1.8 1.81972 44 1.3 3.8 0.63 7.7 0.32 4.8 3.5 1.8 1.81973 43 1.3 3.7 0.61 7.5 0.31 4.7 3.4 1.7 1.71974 42 1.3 3.6 0.60 7.3 0.30 4.6 3.3 1.7 1.71975 41 1.2 3.5 0.58 7.1 0.29 4.4 3.2 1.6 1.61976 40 1.2 3.4 0.56 6.9 0.28 4.3 3.1 1.6 1.61977 40 1.2 3.4 0.56 6.9 0.28 4.3 3.1 1.6 1.61978 39 1.2 3.4 0.56 6.8 0.28 4.3 3.1 1.6 1.61979 39 1.2 3.3 0.56 6.8 0.28 4.2 3.1 1.5 1.51980 39 1.2 3.3 0.55 6.8 0.28 4.2 3.1 1.5 1.51981 41 1.2 3.4 0.57 7.0 0.29 4.4 3.2 1.6 1.61982 42 1.3 3.6 0.60 7.4 0.30 4.6 3.3 1.7 1.71983 44 1.3 3.8 0.63 7.7 0.31 4.8 3.5 1.7 1.71984 46 1.4 3.9 0.65 8.0 0.33 5.0 3.6 1.8 1.81985 49 1.5 4.2 0.70 8.6 0.35 5.3 3.9 1.9 1.91986 53 1.6 4.5 0.75 9.2 0.38 5.7 4.2 2.1 2.11987 54 1.6 4.6 0.77 9.4 0.39 5.9 4.3 2.1 2.11988 56 1.7 4.7 0.79 9.7 0.39 6.0 4.4 2.2 2.21989 57 1.7 4.9 0.81 9.9 0.40 6.2 4.5 2.2 2.21990 58 1.8 5.0 0.83 10.1 0.41 6.3 4.6 2.3 2.31991 60 1.8 5.1 0.85 10.4 0.42 6.5 4.7 2.4 2.41992 62 1.9 5.2 0.87 10.7 0.44 6.7 4.9 2.4 2.41993 54 2.5 5.7 1.56 10.9 1.15 7.1 4.8 2.3 2.11994 55 3.6 7.2 2.55 12.9 2.09 8.7 5.5 2.6 2.21995 55 4.8 8.7 3.69 15.1 3.18 10.4 6.3 2.8 2.11996 54 6.2 10.5 4.99 17.4 4.44 12.3 7.1 3.1 2.11997 52 7.7 12.3 6.40 19.7 5.81 14.2 7.9 3.3 2.01998 49 9.4 14.3 7.96 22.2 7.33 16.3 8.7 3.5 1.81999 45 11.2 16.4 9.66 24.8 8.99 18.6 9.6 3.7 1.62000 40 13.1 18.7 11.50 27.6 10.79 21.0 10.5 4.0 1.42001 35 15.2 21.0 13.49 30.5 12.74 23.5 11.4 4.2 1.22002 28 17.6 23.8 15.78 33.9 14.98 26.4 12.5 4.5 0.92003 36 22.2 30.1 19.94 42.8 18.93 33.4 15.8 5.6 1.12004 36 22.6 30.6 20.27 43.5 19.24 34.0 16.1 5.7 1.12005 38 23.3 31.6 20.91 44.9 19.84 35.0 16.6 5.9 1.22006 39 24.1 32.6 21.60 46.4 20.50 36.2 17.1 6.1 1.22007 40 24.9 33.7 22.31 47.9 21.17 37.4 17.7 6.3 1.32008 40 24.8 33.7 22.29 47.8 21.16 37.3 17.7 6.3 1.32009 39 24.2 32.7 21.67 46.5 20.57 36.3 17.2 6.1 1.22010 39 24.0 32.5 21.52 46.2 20.42 36.0 17.1 6.1 1.2Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III12Appendix Table A3.   Total reconstructed catch (t) for Christmas Island by sector, 1950-2010.Year Total reconstructed catch Subsistence Artisanal Large-scale commercial Recreational1950 40 30 10.0 - -1951 41 31 10.3 - -1952 44 33 11.0 - -1953 47 35 11.7 - -1954 49 37 12.3 - -1955 52 39 13.0 - -1956 55 41 13.7 - -1957 58 43 14.4 - -1958 60 45 15.1 - -1959 63 47 15.8 - -1960 66 50 16.5 - -1961 67 50 16.8 - -1962 68 51 17.0 - -1963 69 52 17.3 - -1964 70 53 17.5 - -1965 71 53 17.8 - -1966 72 54 18.0 - -1967 71 53 17.6 - -1968 69 52 17.3 - -1969 68 51 16.9 - -1970 66 50 16.6 - -1971 65 49 16.2 - -1972 66 49 16.4 - -1973 67 50 16.7 - -1974 68 51 16.9 - -1975 69 51 17.1 - -1976 69 52 17.4 - -1977 68 51 16.9 - -1978 66 50 16.5 - -1979 64 48 16.1 - -1980 63 47 15.7 - -1981 61 46 15.3 - -1982 57 42 14.1 - -1983 52 39 13.0 - -1984 47 35 11.8 - -1985 44 32 10.7 - 11986 39 29 9.5 - 11987 37 27 9.0 - 11988 35 25 8.4 - 11989 33 24 7.9 - 11990 29 21 7.1 - 11991 27 19 6.4 - 11992 46 20 6.8 18 11993 48 22 7.2 18 11994 49 23 7.5 18 11995 50 23 7.8 18 11996 48 24 8.1 15 11997 46 22 7.5 15 11998 43 21 6.9 15 11999 38 19 6.3 12 12000 37 18 5.9 12 12001 35 17 5.6 12 12002 33 17 5.7 9 12003 33 17 5.7 9 12004 33 17 5.8 9 12005 30 17 5.8 6 12006 30 18 5.8 6 12007 32 18 5.9 7 12008 31 18 5.9 6 12009 31 18 6.0 6 12010 31 18 6.0 6 1Cocos (Keeling) Is. and Christmas Is. - Greer et al. 13Appendix Table A4.   Total reconstructed catch (t) for Christmas Island by major taxa, 1950-2010.Year Serranidae Latidae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Gerreidae Labridae Carangidae Crustaceans Other invertebrates1950 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 10.0 6.01951 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 10.3 6.21952 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 11.0 6.61953 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 11.7 7.01954 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 12.3 7.41955 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 13.0 7.81956 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 13.7 8.21957 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 14.4 8.71958 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 15.1 9.11959 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 15.8 9.51960 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 16.5 9.91961 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 16.8 10.11962 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 17.0 10.21963 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 17.3 10.41964 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 17.5 10.51965 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 17.8 10.71966 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.2 18.0 10.81967 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 17.6 10.61968 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 17.3 10.41969 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 16.9 10.21970 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 16.6 9.91971 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 16.2 9.71972 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.6 16.4 9.91973 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 16.7 10.01974 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 16.9 10.11975 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 17.1 10.31976 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 17.4 10.41977 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 16.9 10.21978 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.7 16.5 9.91979 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 16.1 9.71980 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 15.7 9.41981 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 15.3 9.21982 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 14.1 8.51983 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 13.0 7.81984 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 11.8 7.11985 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 10.9 6.61986 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 9.8 5.91987 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 9.2 5.51988 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 8.7 5.21989 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 8.1 4.91990 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 7.4 4.41991 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 6.6 4.01992 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 11.6 6.91993 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 11.9 7.21994 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.2 12.3 7.41995 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 12.6 7.51996 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 12.1 7.21997 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9 11.5 6.91998 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 10.9 6.51999 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 9.5 5.72000 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 9.2 5.52001 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 8.9 5.32002 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 8.2 4.92003 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 8.2 4.92004 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 8.3 5.02005 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 7.5 4.52006 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 7.6 4.62007 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 7.9 4.72008 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 7.7 4.62009 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 7.7 4.62010 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 7.8 4.7Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III14Cook Is. - Haas et al. 15reconstruction oF the cooK islands Fisheries catches: 1950–20101Andrea Haas1, Teina Rongo2, Nicole Hefferman1, Sarah Harper1, and Dirk Zeller11Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,  2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada2PO Box 881, Avarua, Rarotonga, Cook Islandsa.haas@fisheries.ubc.ca; eturere@yahoo.com; nheffern@mail.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstractThe Cook Islands is a nation comprised of small islands, which lie in the eastern central Pacific Ocean. In this study, we reconstructed the marine fisheries catches for the Cook Islands from 1950-2010, including the subsistence sector, the small-scale artisanal fishery, and the large-scale commercial sector, which is aimed at exports. We found catches from the Cook Islands to be almost 2 times the amount reported by the FAO on behalf of the Cook Islands. The majority of this discrepancy was attributed to the subsistence fishery, which is largely unreported. This study demonstrates the need for improved monitoring and reporting in all fisheries sectors to assist managers in maintaining fisheries resources, which are crucial for domestic livelihoods and food security.introductionThe Cook Islands lie in the Pacific Ocean (between latitudes 8° S and 23° S, and longitudes 157° W and 167° W) bordered by French Polynesia to the east, American Samoa and Tonga to the west, and New Zealand to the south-west (Figure 1). The Cook Islands comprise 15 individual islands with a combined land area of 237 km2 and an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of almost 2 million km2 (www.seaaroundus.org; accessed: August 16, 2012). The population of the Cook Islands (as of 2011) was approximately 17,800, with the majority of Cook Islanders living on the island of Rarotonga (Cook Islands Statistics Office 2011). The islands are named after the English explorer Captain James Cook who visited them in 1773. They became a British protectorate in 1888, and were later annexed to New Zealand in 1901. Although the Cook Islands chose independent rule in 1965, they maintain a special relationship with New Zealand in terms of aid and citizenship. Its people identify themselves as Cook Island Maori, and are closely related to the Maori of New Zealand.Cook Islanders have relied heavily on marine resources for hundreds of years, as have most of the inhabitants of the Pacific region (Johannes 1997). They therefore have a strong sense of stewardship for the sea. A traditional land and sea tenure system helped to create enforceable controls, and a form of prohibition known as ra’ui could be placed on an area by the traditional chief to protect the resources (Hoffmann 2002). When the Cook Islands Act of 1915 was introduced, it replaced the landowner’s ability to enact these controls with English law, leading to less robust management practices (FAO 2010).Cook Islanders employ a variety of traditional fishing methods, which utilize many locally-sourced materials. Tītomo is a type of hook-and-line fishing carried out while diving; young coconut flesh and fish pieces are offered as bait by the diver to catch kōperu (Decapterus macallerus) and pātuki marau (Epinephalus hexagonatus) respectively. Once the fish is hooked, it is transferred to the canoe that floats alongside the diver. Matau tāmoe is another type of hook-and-line fishing using a line (often secured to a reef structure) that is baited with live freshwater eel or octopus to attract large trevally. Canoes are commonly used for a type of trolling for reef fishes known as tavere and for i’i (drop-stone fishing) to catch large pelagic fishes, such as tuna. I’i is carried 1 Cite as: Haas, A., Rongo, T., Hefferman, N., Harper, S., and Zeller, D. (2012) Reconstruction of the Cook Islands fisheries catches: 1950-2010. pp. 15-24. In: Harper, S., Zylich, K., Boonzaier, L., Le Manach, F., Pauly, D., and Zeller D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].160°W15°S0 1,000500 km±RarotongaFigure 1.  Map of the Cook Islands and its exclusive economic zone (gray area).16 Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IIIout by placing ground bait and a baited hook inside a leaf, which is then secured by a slip-knot to a weight (typically a rock) that is lowered over the side of the canoe. At the required depth, the line is pulled briskly upward to release the bait and hook from the leaf. Similarly, drop-stone fishing with baited hook (without using ground bait) is also used to catch mangā (Promethichthys prometheus) at night. Coconut palm fronds have been used in the past for a type of fishing known as rau; the fronds were tied together to make a wall held up by men and women and used to surround a shallow school of fish which were then collected. This rau, or “leaf sweep,” has been replaced by modern fishing gear, such as gillnetting (Anon. 2000). Although these traditional fishing methods (including reef gleaning) are still practiced throughout the islands, traps, gillnets, rod-and-reel, trolling, and longlining are becoming more prevalent (Anon. 2000; FAO 2010). In addition, canoes are being replaced by fiberglass or aluminum boats with outboard motors. However, those canoes that are still in use are typically powered by outboard motors.The Cook Islands have experienced relatively constant population growth since the 1950s, estimated at 0.4% per year (Cook Islands Statistics Office 2006), except for a decline in the early 1970s, which occurred after the opening of Rarotonga International Airport, and caused migration to New Zealand. Of the total population of the Cook Islands, approximately 7,500 people participate in the labor force. One of the largest sectors of employment in the Cook Islands is trade, restaurants and accommodation (Cook Islands Statistics Office 2006), indicating the importance of tourism on the islands. Indeed, between 2007 and 2011, there was an average of just over 100,000 visitors to the islands annually, with New Zealanders, Australians, and Europeans being the most frequent visitors (Cook Islands Statistics Office 2012). Although the thriving tourism industry has provided many income opportunities and increased purchasing power, approximately half of all households still engage in subsistence activities, such as fishing, for their livelihoods (Cook Islands Statistics Office 2006). Most subsistence fishing occurs in the northern and southern island groups with very little in Rarotonga itself due to its developed marketplace for fish sales (Gillett 2011b).There are several distinct types of fishing fleets in the Cook Islands. The locally based offshore fleet consists of either Cook Islands-owned and -operated vessels, or joint-venture vessels owned by investors, but operated by Cook Islanders. Landings of both of these fleets are considered domestic irrespective of whether the catch remains in the country, although the majority of catches from these fleets are destined for export. Furthermore, joint-venture vessels likely have the majority of their beneficial ownership residing outside the country. The Cook Islands’ locally based offshore fishery has two parts: a fishery in the northern island group that typically offloads its catches to the canneries in American Samoa, and a smaller fishery in the southern island group that typically supplies the demand in Rarotonga (Anon. 2010b). Both these fisheries target tunas and billfishes primarily with longline gear. The foreign-based offshore fleet consists of foreign-owned and operated vessels that fish the EEZ waters of the Cook Islands under foreign-access agreements (Anon. 2008; Gillett 2009). The inshore fishery consists of an artisanal and a subsistence sector. The artisanal fishery describes small-scale fishers who supply domestic markets, while subsistence fishers are those who fish to provide food for themselves and their kin (Gillett 2011b).The western and central zones of the Pacific Ocean contain the largest tuna fisheries in the world, and generate the largest source of income of any industry in the Pacific Islands (Hunt 2002; Gillett 2011b). The Multilateral Treaty on Fisheries Between Certain Governments of the Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America (“the US Treaty”) was created in 1987 and allows US-flagged purse seine vessels – in exchange for a foreign access fee – to fish the waters of 16 different Pacific Island states including the Cook Islands, mainly for tuna (Anon. 2008).While fisheries landings data have been collected by the FAO since 1950, much of the subsistence fishing on the islands goes unreported. Often a lack of data is misinterpreted as “zero catches,” which is a misleading and potentially dangerous assumption for fisheries managers to make (Pauly 1998). In order to fully understand the changes that are occurring in a dynamic system such as a fishery, catch time series are needed to evaluate trends and assist managers in making sound decisions regarding sustainability and future use of resources (Pauly 1998). Given the importance that the ocean and its resources play in the lives of Cook Islanders, it is critical to account for all fisheries sectors and components.methodsData presented by the FAO on behalf of the Cook Islands were obtained from the FishStat capture production database for FAO areas 77 and 81. Using information presented in Gillett (2009), and following the reconstruction approach described in Zeller et al. (2007), we estimated demand of locally sourced seafood and compared this to the portion of FAO landings considered to remain in-country for domestic consumption in order to determine missing (i.e., unreported) catch amounts.Domestic fisheries in the Cook Islands were primarily small in scale until the establishment of a locally based offshore longline fleet in the late 1990s (Chapman 2001; Gillett 2009). The number of longline vessels increased from one vessel in 2000 (Gillett and Lightfoot 2002) to 35 vessels in 2007 (Gillett 2009). Seafood exports were negligible prior to the mid-1990s, but as the longline fleet expanded, exports of tuna subsequently increased. Current estimates suggest that approximately 10% of the longline catch is retained for domestic consumption (FAO 2010; Gillett 2011b). Prior to the 2000s, the majority, if not all, of the catch was consumed by the domestic market.Cook Is. - Haas et al. 17Human population and demandPopulation data were obtained for the Cook Islands (Cook Islands Statistics Office 2011; www.populstat.info/ >; accessed: May, 2012), and linear interpolation was used where data were unavailable. Using per capita consumption estimates from previous food consumption studies in Rarotonga in combination with human population data, we estimated local seafood demand. The per capita seafood consumption estimates were 116.0 kg∙person-1∙year-1 in 1989 (Solomona et al. 2009) and 64.2 kg∙person-1∙year-1 in 2006 (Moore 2006; Table 1). The same rate of decrease as calculated between these points was carried forward to estimate consumption rates from 2007 to 2010. For 1950, we assumed a consumption rate that was 20% higher than in 1989 (i.e., 139.2 kg∙person-1∙year-1) due to reduced availability of protein alternatives (e.g., imports) at this time. To derive a complete time series of consumption rates, we interpolated linearly between anchor points. To adjust for import-derived consumption, we used the per capita canned fish consumption rates summarized in Rongo and van Woesik (2012) for 1989 to 2007, and the anchor point for 2008 summarized by Gillett (2009; Table 2), and assumed that the Cook Islanders were eating negligible amounts of canned proteins immediately following WWII (i.e., assumed zero consumption in 1945) and interpolated linearly between these estimates. Although some sources have found higher consumption rates of tinned proteins at the time (Fry 1957), these estimates are only from the island of Rarotonga, where most exports arrive. Outer islands are not likely to have had access to these imports as easily and have been shown to rely more heavily on locally sourced foods (Faine and Hercus 1951; Gillett 2011b). Furthermore, they have higher fish consumption rates in comparison to Rarotongans (Passfield 1997 in Gillett 2009). The time series of canned protein consumption was then subtracted from the seafood consumption rates estimated earlier to derive an approximate demand of domestically sourced fresh fish. This demand was then compared to the domestically available supply in order to determine whether there were any unreported or “missing” catches. The difference between the reported supply (i.e., landings as presented by the FAO minus exports; discussed below) and our estimated demand was considered unreported catch. The catches of all invertebrates, reef-associated and demersal fishes, and 10% of the tunas (Thunnus alalunga, T. obesus, T. albacares, and Katsuwonus pelamis), which were attributed to the small-scale sector, were assumed to be consumed domestically. The catches of the remaining 90% of tunas and 100% of the billfishes (family Istiophoridae) and Pacific bluefin tuna (T. orientalis) were attributed to the large-scale sector, which was for export.Small-scale sectorThe Cook Islands communities are largely subsistence based, relying heavily on the ocean for their wellbeing, livelihood, culture and food (Gillett 2011b). Because of this dependence, we assumed that in 1950, 90% of the small-scale catch was from the non-commercial (i.e., subsistence) sector and that the remaining 10% was from the commercial (i.e., artisanal) sector. Gillett (2009) estimated artisanal (133 t) and subsistence (267 t) catches in 2007. Using this, we determined a breakdown of 33% artisanal and 67% subsistence fishing. To derive a breakdown from 1950 to 2010, we linearly interpolated between the 1950 and 2007 percentages for the subsistence sector (i.e., from 90% to 67%) and artisanal sector (i.e., from 10% to 33%) catches, and continued to apply the same interpolation rates up to 2010. This breakdown was then applied to the reconstructed small-scale catches, which included both reported and unreported components.Large-scale sectorAs the large-scale commercial sector of the Cook Islands fishery only became established in the mid-1990s, we assumed that reporting had improved by this time and therefore accepted the FAO data for large pelagic species. We assumed that 90% of the catches reported for FAO area 77 of albacore (T. alalunga), bigeye (T. obesus), yellowfin (T. albacares), and skipjack (K. pelamis) tunas were taken by the large-scale sector, while the remaining 10% were from small-scale operations. Futhermore, we assumed 100% of the other large pelagic species catches, such as the billfishes and the Pacific bluefin tuna (T. orientalis), were also from the large-scale sector. All catches taken within FAO area 81 were considered to be part of the large-scale sector as this area of the EEZ does not overlap with the inshore area where small-scale fishing is taking place. As the large-scale sector was Table 1.   Anchor points used to determine local consumption rates employed in this study.Year Per capita consumption rate (kg/person/year)Source1950 139.2 Estimate1951-1988 - Linear interpolation1989 116.0 Solomona et al. (2009)1990-2005 - Linear interpolation2006 64.2 Moore (2006)2007-2010 - Interpolation carried forwardTable 2.   Anchor points used to determine import-derived (canned-fish) consumption rates employed in this study.Year Per capita consumption rate (kg/person/year)Source1945 0.0 Estimate1946-1988 - Linear interpolation1989 6.7 Solomona et al. (2009)1990-2000 - Linear interpolation2001 6.5 Solomona et al. (2009)2002-2005 - Linear interpolation2006 11.2 Moore (2006)2007 10.9 Pinca et al. (2007)2008 10.8 Gillett (2009)2009-2010 10.8 Gillett (2009)Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III18assumed to be primarily for export, it was not considered part of the domestic supply. The majority of tuna catches from the Cook Islands go to overseas markets, with more than half being exported to the US, and the remainder destined for Japan, Australia and New Zealand.The locally based offshore fishing sector in the Cook Islands uses longline vessels exclusively (Anon. 2010b; FAO 2010). Trolling vessels were used in the past, but since 2008 they have not been licensed for offshore fishing (Gillett 2011b). The longline fishery in the Cook Islands targets primarily large tuna species with albacore (T. alalunga) making up approximately 75% of this catch (FAO 2010; Gillett 2011b).Large-scale operations of tuna fishing can include fishing grounds outside of the EEZ. Therefore, data from the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) for albacore, bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna, were used to determine the spatial allocation of the tuna catch. Upon comparison with the FAO data, it was determined that the FFA data covered catches from FAO area 77 only. We therefore made an assumption that all catches from FAO area 81 were taken within the EEZ as these catches were relatively small. In regards to the catches taken from within FAO area 77, for the years 2002-2010, the FFA data were directly utilized to allocate tuna catches within and outside the EEZ with relative proportions being utilized when necessary. The reported small-scale tuna catches are included in the portion assigned to within the EEZ. For the years 1997-2001, the FFA data suggest that all catches come from outside the EEZ. As we know that the small-scale catches must have been taken from within the EEZ boundaries, we assume that the 10% of tuna catches that were assigned to the small-scale sector come from within the EEZ and the rest of the catch (which is industrial) is taken outside the EEZ. For the years prior to the start of the FFA data we also assume that the 10% small-scale tuna is caught within the EEZ and all of the industrial catch is taken outside. The FFA data were also used to differentiate the catches taken outside of the EEZ into high seas catches and catch taken from another country’s EEZ for the years 1997-2010. The other large pelagic species associated with the large-scale fleet were spatially distributed in proportion to the overall tuna allocation of the large-scale fleet.Foreign fishingThe US is the primary foreign entity with access to Cook Islands waters (Gillett 2009), although other nations such as the Republic of Korea have had access at times (Gillett and Lightfoot 2002). The revenue from this access doubled between 1999 and 2008 (Gillett and Lightfoot 2002; Maoate 2008 in Gillett 2009). Gillett and Lightfoot (2002) estimated the annual catch of offshore foreign fishing in the Cook Islands during the late 1990s as 300 t. Since 2000, foreign access has been suspended (except through charter arrangements with local companies), as the focus of government policy shifted towards promoting the development of the domestic longline fishing industry (CSIRO 2003). In 2011, however, China began negotiating fishing agreements for access to Cook Islands’ waters (Manins 2011). Under foreign access agreements, vessels are allowed to fish in the Cook Islands’ EEZ. However these catches were not landed in the Cook Islands and are in theory accounted for in the catches reported by the foreign fishing nation for that FAO area, and were therefore not included in this reconstruction.By-catch and discardsBy-catch and discarded catches are common to many fishing sectors and locations. While by-catch may occur to some extent in the Cook Islands, little of it is discarded because all of the catch is seen as economically valuable (Gillett 2011a) and sold in local markets (FAO 2010). However, this also means that there is little incentive to avoid by-catch (Davies et al. 2009; Gillett 2011a). Some reports of by-catch in the Cook Islands estimate it as being very small, approximately 2-3% (Anon. 2010b). And because by-catch is retained and sold, it is considered as being consumed locally and therefore assumed to be accounted for in the artisanal and subsistence catches estimated here. However, both the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Third Session report (Anon. 2007) and the Seventh Session report (Anon. 2010b) noted that the by-catch of sharks was under-reported and not well documented.Taxonomic catch compositionFrom 1950-1969, almost all catches in the Cook Islands were reported to the FAO as “marine fish nei,” and to a much lesser extent “marine molluscs nei.” From 1970 to the mid-1990s, taxonomic detail improved, but tuna catches remain taxonomically unreported until 1994, with the exception of some skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) in the 1970s. To assign the unreported catches to taxa and improve the resolution of the FAO miscellaneous marine fishes category prior to the mid-1990s, we used the taxonomic breakdown of the fish taxa commonly caught in the Cook Islands presented Table 3.   Taxonomic breakdown of demersal and reef-associated fishes (adapted from Pratchett et al. 2011). Also applied to the ‘marine fishes nei’ category of the FAO reported data.Taxonomic family Common name Catch (%)Scaridae Parrotfishes 36.8Kyphosidae Sea chubs 14.5Acanthuridae Surgeonfishes, tangs, unicornfishes 10.4Serranidae Groupers and fairy basslets 9.7Holocentridae Squirrelfishes and soldierfishes 4.9Siganidae Rabbitfishes 4.6Mullidae Goatfishes 4.1Lethrinidae Emperors or scavengers 2.6Labridae Wrasses 2.3Lutjanidae Snappers 2.3Others - 7.9Cook Is. - Haas et al. 19by Pratchett et al. (2011). The unreported catch was broken down into near-shore pelagics, demersal fishes and invertebrates. According to Pratchett et al. (2011), near-shore pelagics (dominated by tuna) compose 60% of the catches, demersal fishes represent 36.5%, and the remaining 3.5% comprises invertebrates. The demersal fishes were broken down into the 11 families outlined by Pratchett et al. (2011; Table 3). Unreported invertebrates were further broken down into the groups outlined by Pratchett et al. (2011; Table 4). As sea urchins were not included in this breakdown, but were represented in the FAO landings, we assigned the “Others” category as urchins to account for this discrepancy. Where reported catches were assigned to taxa in the FAO reports, they were accepted as reported. Therefore the taxonomic breakdowns were applied only to unreported catches and the FAO “marine fish nei” category.resultsTotal reconstructed catches for the Cook Islands for the period 1950-2010 were estimated to be 144,842 t. This estimate includes catches for the subsistence, artisanal and large-scale sectors, and is 1.88 times the FAO reported landings of 77,031 t for the same time period (Figure 2a). Of this reconstructed catch, the majority came from the subsistence fishery, which totalled approximately 96,000 t for the 1950-2010 period, much of which was unreported. The catches of the artisanal fishery were estimated to be almost 25,000 t over the same time period, and catches from the large-scale sector (despite its recent introduction) totalled around 24,000 t for the 1950-2010 period. Overall, small-scale catches (i.e., artisanal and subsistence) increased from 2,077 t in 1950 to a peak of 2,687 t in 1964, before declining steadily to 929 t by 2010 (Figure 2a). Starting in the early 2000s, total catches increased rapidly due to the large-scale sector’s catches of tuna and billfish, which dominate total catches (Figures 2a, 2b).Four species (T. alalunga, T. obesus, T. albacares, and K. pelamis) accounted for more than 87,000 t of the total reconstructed catches (Figure 2b). The parrotfishes (family Scaridae) also accounted for a noteworthy amount of the early subsistence catches (nearly 13,000 t). Other taxa that made important contributions to the reconstruction were chubs (family Kyphosidae) with 5,000 t, groupers (family Serranidae) with 7,400 t, and invertebrates, accounting for almost 10,500 t. The diversity of the catches is demonstrated by the “Others” category, which contributed over 16,000 t.As part of the allocation process, it was estimated that approximately 28% of the large-scale catches were taken from outside of the EEZ. These catches represent 4.6% of the total reconstructed catch.discussionOur reconstructed catch for the time period 1950-2010 shows that total estimated catches in the Cook Islands were almost 2 times that reported by the FAO on behalf of the Cook Islands, with a large portion attributed to unreported subsistence catches. This confirms a recent report from the World Bank (2012), which demonstrates that the contribution of subsistence fisheries to overall catches is more important than previously thought. Our estimation was based on demand for locally sourced fresh fish using the anchor points listed in Tables 1 and 2, 012345Catch (t x 103 )Supplied to FAOArtisanalSubsistenceLarge-scale commerciala)0123451950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearOther large pelagic speciesSerranidaeScaridaeTunaOthersKyphosidaeInvertebratesAcanthuridaeb)Figure 2.  Total reconstructed catches for the Cook Islands for the time period 1950-2010, by (a) sector and (b) major taxa. “Tuna” includes T. alalunga, T. obesus, T. albacares, and K. pelamis. “Others” includes 10 different taxa and a “miscellaneous” category. “Other large pelagic species” includes the family Istiophoridae and T. orientalis.Table 4.   Taxonomic breakdown of invertebrates.Taxa Catch (%)Giant clam 30.8Sea cucumber 24.4Gastropods 15.4Spiny lobster 15.3Crustaceans 4.3Bivalve 2.7Octopus 2.3Trochus niloticus 0.8Others (sea urchins) 4.0Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III20and the assumption that the demand was 20% higher in 1950 than in 1989. This was a conservative assumption based on a lower availability of imported proteins in the 1950s as compared with the more recent periods, when diet is known to have changed (World Health Organization 2003).Ciguatera poisoning, a type of seafood intoxication that renders reef fishes dangerous to eat, has been problematic for almost 20 years in most of the southern Cook Islands (Rongo et al. 2009; Rongo and van Woesik 2011). This has caused a shift in fresh fish consumption towards pelagic species that are unaffected by ciguatera poisoning (Rongo and van Woesik 2012). In addition, ciguatera poisoning has caused a reduction in the frequency of subsistence fishing in Rarotonga, where the majority of Cook Islanders reside (Rongo and van Woesik 2012), and likely explains the decline in subsistence fishing catches in the 2000s (Figure 2a). The impact of ciguatera poisoning also halved the per capita seafood consumption in Rarotonga from 1989-2006, while meat consumption doubled during this period (Rongo and van Woesik 2012).While finfish comprise the majority of the catch, several types of invertebrates such as molluscs, crustaceans, and urchins are also harvested. Zoutendyk (1989, in Dalzell et al. 1996) found that several species of sea cucumbers are important subsistence items that do not appear in the FAO reported data. Exports from the Pacific islands region in the 1990s were estimated at 15,000-20,000 t of fresh (wet) weight per year (Dalzell et al. 1996), although specific estimates for the Cook Islands were unavailable. Our reconstructed catch estimates that 140 t of sea cucumber were harvested from 1950-2010, and this may be an underestimate. Pratchett et al. (2011) notes that a wide range of invertebrates, which goes beyond the major groups listed (Table 3), are collected, and therefore the reconstructed catch of invertebrates should be considered a conservative estimate.In this study, by-catch and discards were considered as being accounted for by the small-scale fisheries, because much of the non-target catch is consumed locally (FAO 2010; Gillett 2011a). However, it should be noted that in the case of the northern longline fleet, which operates out of American Samoa and delivers its catches to the canneries in Pago Pago, there is no domestic market to utilize the non-target catches, and by-catch from these fleets is likely discarded at sea (Gillett 2011b). Another cause for concern in relation to by-catch is juvenile bigeye tuna (T. obesus), which are often caught around fish aggregating devices (FADs) targeting skipjack tunas (K. pelamis). The small-scale tuna fishery in the Cook Islands has developed around the use of FADs, and local fishers are heavily reliant upon them to increase their catches while simultaneously reducing their costs (Chapman 2001). However, a decline in the stock of bigeye (Gillett 2011b) is being attributed to the increased use of FADs (Hunt 2002; Chapman 2004; World Bank 2012).Monitoring, control and surveillance is arguably one of the best ways to obtain accurate reporting in fisheries. A WCPFC report (Anon. 2007) noted that in 2006, less than 5% of all vessels were sampled at ports in the Cook Islands and only one trip in 2007 had a fisheries observer on board. Our estimates demonstrate the need for improved monitoring of subsistence fisheries, given that this sector made significant contributions to overall reconstructed catches. The WCPFC Seventh Session report (Anon. 2010b) noted that a workshop was held in 2011 to help tackle this challenge.Illegal fishing is known to occur in the Cook Islands, and the country is vigilant about prosecuting these crimes when the vessels are caught (Anon. 2010a). However, given the size of the Cook Islands’ EEZ, patrolling and enforcing this vast expanse of ocean is a major challenge, and it is reasonable to assume that many cases of illegal fishing go unseen.The capture of reef fish from the Cook Islands for the home aquarium trade is considerable. The value of the aquarium fish trade in 2000 was estimated at NZ$252,000 (approximately US$130,990; Gillett and Lightfoot 2002). Although this value does not translate easily into tonnage, due to different fishes having different values, it should still be thought of as a noteworthy contribution to the marine harvests of the Cook Islands. Fish are not the only items to be exported for the aquarium trade; invertebrates are taken as well. In 2008, approximately 1,800 live clams (Tridacna derasa) were exported for this purpose (Gillette 2009). Aquarium trade fishes and invertebrates were not included in this reconstruction. However, these catches should be included in future plans for marine resource management.Recreational fisheries data for the Cook Islands were not readily available. However, Chapman (2004) reported only 14 recreational sport-fishing boats in the Cook Islands. These boats typically target large pelagic species for game-fishing tournaments. Other information related to recreational fisheries in the Cook Islands (i.e., number of recreational fishers, amount of catch per fisher, and number of fishing trips per fisher) were not found. For the purposes of this reconstruction, we assume the contribution of recreational fisheries to be negligible; however recreational fishing is an issue that needs to be addressed in the future given the expanding tourism industry in the country.This study has demonstrated the importance of comprehensive accounting for all sectors of fisheries in the Cook Islands, as improper accounting can lead to unintentional mismanagement of resources. Although the country appears to be improving its marine resources monitoring, the previously unaccounted subsistence sector has large implications for long-term trends and potentially impacts sustainable management of these resources.Cook Is. - Haas et al. 21acKnowledgementsThis work was completed as part of the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.reFerencesAnon. (2000) Basic information on the marine resources of the Cook Islands. Ministry of Marine Resources, Government of the Cook Islands and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. 66 p.Anon. (2007) Scientific Committee Third Regular Session. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Honolulu, United States of America. 3 p.Anon. (2008) US Treaty. Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency. Available at: http://www.ffa.int/usa_pi_treaty#attachments [Accessed: August 16, 2012].Anon. (2010a) $2.1 m for illegal fishing in Cook Islands. Islands Business, edition of July 8, 2010. Available at: http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/index_dynamic/containerNameToReplace=MiddleMiddle/focusModuleID=130/focusContentID=20105/tableName=mediaRelease/overideSkinName=newsArticle-full.tpl [Accessed: May 29, 2012].Anon. (2010b) Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. 4 p.Chapman L (2001) Tuna fishery development strategy for the Cook Islands. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. X+23 p.Chapman L (2004) Nearshore domestic fisheries development in Pacific Island countries and territories. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. 255 p.Cook Islands Statistics Office (2006) Cook Islands 2006 census of population and housing, final report. 214 p.Cook Islands Statistics Office (2011) Census and surveys. Available at: http://www.stats.gov.ck/Statistics/CensusSurveys/censurvnav.htm [Accessed: August 16, 2012].Cook Islands Statistics Office (2012) Visitor arrivals by country of usual residence. Available at: http://www.stats.gov.ck/Statistics/Tourism/tourismQ_country.pdf [Accessed: August 16, 2012].CSIRO (2003) Report of the sixteenth meeting of the standing committee on tuna and billfish. Mooloolaba, Australia. V+210 p.Dalzell P, Adams TJH and Polunin NVC (1996) Coastal fisheries in the Pacific islands. Oceanography and Marine Biology 34: 395-531.Davies RWD, Cripps SJ, Nickson A and Porter G (2009) Defining and estimating global marine fisheries bycatch. Marine Policy 33: 661-672.Faine S and Hercus CE (1951) The nutritional status of Cook Islanders. British Journal of Nutrition 5(3-4): 327-343.FAO (2010) Fisheries and aquaculture country profile. National Fishery Sector Overview–Cook Islands. 25 p. Fry PC (1957) Dietary survey on Rarotonga, Cook Islands. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 5(1): 42-50.Gillett R (2009) Fisheries in the economies of Pacific island countries. Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City, Philippines. 521 p.Gillett R (2011a) Bycatch in small-scale tuna fisheries: a global study. FAO, Rome. 132 p.Gillett R (2011b) Fisheries of the Pacific islands. Regional and national Information, FAO, Bangkok, Thailand. 290 p.Gillett R and Lightfoot C (2002) The contribution of fisheries to the economies of Pacific island countries. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. 242 p.Hoffmann TC (2002) The reimplementation of the Ra’ui: coral reef management in Rarotonga, Cook Islands. Coastal Management 30: 401-418.Hunt C (2002) Economic globalisation impacts on Pacific marine resources. Marine Policy 27: 79-85.Johannes RE (1997) Traditional coral-reef fisheries management. pp. 380-385 In Birkeland C (ed.) Life and death of coral reefs. Chapman and Hall, New York, United States of America.Manins R (2011) CI finalises fisheries deal with China. Cook Islands News, edition of November 2, 2011. Available at: http://www3.cookislandsnews.com/2011/November/Wed02/local.htm#1111020106 [Accessed: July 9, 2012].Moore J (2006) Seafood consumption survey, Rarotonga. Windmere Campus, Bay of Plenty Polytechnic, Tauranga. 36 p.Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 11(2): 4-7.Pinca S, Awira R, Kronen M, Chapman L, Lasi F, Pakoa K, Boblin P, K F, Magron F and Tardy E (2007) Cook Islands country report: profiles and results from survey work at Aitutaki, Palmerston, Mangaia and Rarotonga. Pacific Regional Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries Development Programme (PROCFish/C/CoFish), Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea Cedex, New Caledonia. 373 p.Pratchett MS, Munday PL, Graham NAJ, Kronen M, Pinca S, Friedman K, Brewer TD, Bell JD, Wilson SK, Cinner JE, Kinch JP, Lawton RJ, Williams AJ, Chapman L, Magron F and Webb A (2011) Vulnerability of coastal fisheries in the tropical Pacific to climate change. pp. 493-576 In Bell JD, Johnson JE and Hobday AJ (eds.), Vulnerability of tropical Pacific fisheries and aquaculture to climate change. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III22Rongo T, Bush M and van Woesik R (2009) Did ciguatera prompt the late Holocene Polynesian voyages of discovery? Journal of Biogeography 36: 1423-1432.Rongo T and van Woesik R (2011) Ciguatera poisoning in Rarotonga, southern Cook Islands. Harmful Algae 10: 345-355.Rongo T and van Woesik R (2012) Socioeconomic consequences of ciguatera poisoning in Rarotonga, southern Cook Islands. Harmful Algae. dx.doi.ay/10.106/j.haL.2012.08.003Solomona DM, Tuatai T, Vuki V and Koroa M (2009) Decadal changes in subsistence fishing and seafood consumption patterns on Rarotonga, Cook Islands. SPC Women in Fisheries Information Bulletin 19: 19-27.World Bank (2012) Hidden harvest: the global contribution of capture fisheries. The World Bank. XX+69 p.World Health Organization (2003) Diet, food supply and obesity in the Pacific. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. 63 p.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for U.S. flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266-277.Cook Is. - Haas et al. 23Appendix Table A1.  FAO landings vs. total reconstructed catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector, for the Cook Islands, 1950-2010.Year FAO landings Total reconstructed catch Subsistence Artisanal Large-scale commercial 1950 700 2,080 1,869 208 01951 700 2,070 1,851 215 01952 800 2,050 1,833 221 01953 900 2,100 1,863 234 01954 800 2,170 1,917 250 01955 800 2,160 1,898 257 01956 700 2,140 1,879 264 01957 700 2,250 1,963 288 01958 700 2,250 1,955 297 01959 800 2,320 2,002 316 01960 800 2,420 2,083 340 01961 850 2,340 2,005 338 01962 850 2,330 1,985 346 01963 800 2,460 2,084 375 01964 800 2,690 2,267 421 01965 850 2,610 2,189 419 01966 850 2,430 2,029 400 01967 900 2,390 1,986 403 01968 900 2,500 2,068 432 01969 900 2,390 1,964 421 01970 850 2,600 2,129 464 91971 850 2,610 2,126 476 91972 850 2,570 2,084 478 91973 900 2,560 2,061 485 91974 900 2,420 1,941 469 91975 900 2,280 1,824 451 91976 1,000 2,160 1,719 435 91977 1,000 2,180 1,728 448 91978 1,091 2,180 1,713 461 51979 830 2,140 1,671 454 111980 840 2,080 1,625 452 01981 880 2,050 1,598 454 01982 910 1,990 1,545 448 01983 940 1,980 1,527 452 01984 970 1,920 1,476 446 01985 1,017 1,930 1,480 452 01986 1,055 1,960 1,499 464 01987 1,058 1,960 1,486 474 01988 1,060 1,950 1,469 478 01989 1,106 1,960 1,470 486 01990 1,125 1,950 1,461 493 01991 1,108 1,920 1,426 492 01992 993 1,870 1,384 488 01993 1,010 1,830 1,350 485 01994 1,025 1,860 1,315 482 661995 1,107 1,850 1,265 473 1121996 1,025 1,760 1,217 464 801997 897 1,720 1,187 464 661998 805 1,670 1,156 463 541999 795 1,670 1,124 461 852000 1,025 1,880 1,092 456 3362001 827 1,710 1,054 447 2132002 1,412 2,210 997 435 7822003 3,306 3,860 942 419 2,4962004 4,070 4,520 887 403 3,2342005 3,962 4,310 831 385 3,0982006 3,594 3,880 774 364 2,7402007 4,000 4,200 733 351 3,1122008 3,424 3,660 695 338 2,6252009 2,578 2,890 668 331 1,8942010 3,835 3,980 618 311 3,053Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III24Appendix Table A2.  Total reconstructed catch (in tonnes) by major taxonomic group for the Cook Islands, 1950-2010. Year Acanthuridae Scaridae Kyphosidae Serranidae Tunas1 T. orientalis and Istiophoridae Invertebrates Others21950 79 279 110 73 1,246 0 73 2171951 78 277 109 73 1,239 0 72 2161952 83 294 116 78 1,182 0 72 2291953 94 331 130 87 1,124 0 73 2581954 83 294 116 78 1,291 0 76 2291955 83 294 116 78 1,280 0 75 2291956 81 288 113 76 1,286 0 75 2241957 85 302 119 80 1,351 0 79 2361958 85 302 119 80 1,351 0 79 2361959 88 311 123 82 1,372 0 100 2431960 92 325 128 86 1,438 0 100 2541961 89 315 124 83 1,388 0 100 2451962 88 313 123 82 1,380 0 100 2441963 93 330 130 87 1,461 0 100 2571964 102 361 142 95 1,607 0 100 2811965 99 350 138 92 1,556 0 100 2731966 92 326 128 86 1,442 0 100 2541967 91 321 126 84 1,417 0 100 2501968 95 335 132 88 1,487 0 100 2621969 90 320 126 84 1,415 0 100 2501970 73 260 102 118 1,456 0 200 3931971 74 261 103 119 1,461 0 200 3931972 72 256 101 117 1,436 0 200 3891973 66 235 93 162 1,426 0 200 3731974 61 217 85 157 1,339 0 200 3591975 56 199 78 152 1,254 0 200 3451976 52 182 72 148 1,077 0 300 3321977 52 185 73 149 1,091 0 300 3351978 52 185 73 188 1,092 0 192 3971979 56 198 78 162 1,098 0 262 2821980 53 187 74 163 1,049 0 270 2801981 51 180 71 166 1,022 0 281 2811982 48 168 66 167 976 0 289 2771983 46 163 64 170 962 0 295 2781984 43 152 60 172 922 0 298 2751985 42 150 59 175 899 0 327 2791986 43 151 59 180 899 0 347 2841987 43 153 60 185 903 0 323 2931988 43 153 60 185 888 0 325 2931989 46 161 63 194 850 0 335 3071990 46 161 64 202 828 0 338 3151991 47 167 66 190 810 0 335 3031992 41 147 58 169 861 0 328 2681993 41 144 57 170 825 0 328 2701994 40 140 55 162 866 37 304 2581995 47 167 66 164 803 59 280 2641996 48 170 67 155 802 21 250 2481997 41 145 57 138 871 20 217 2281998 40 142 56 127 878 20 184 2261999 40 141 56 117 920 20 151 2252000 39 140 55 107 1,171 20 128 2242001 39 137 54 96 1,039 20 107 2222002 38 133 52 95 1,574 49 68 2052003 34 120 47 82 3,015 278 48 2332004 31 110 43 79 3,660 346 45 2092005 33 118 47 81 3,477 285 44 2282006 36 129 51 84 3,146 161 46 2252007 35 125 49 83 3,518 117 46 2232008 31 110 43 79 3,065 76 46 2072009 29 103 41 72 2,369 46 42 1912010 29 103 41 72 3,338 168 42 1891 Tunas category includes Thunnus alalunga, T. obesus, T. albacares, and Katsuwonus pelamis. 2 Others category includes five taxa and a “miscellaneous” group.Fiji - Zylich et al. 25reconstruction oF marine Fisheries catches For the rePublic oF Fiji  (1950–2009)1Kyrstn Zylich, Devon O’Meara, Jennifer Jacquet, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,  2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canadak.zylich@fisheries.ubc.ca; devonomeara@gmail.com; j.jacquet@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstractFiji’s fisheries have undergone many changes over the past 50+ years. Urbanization, technological innovations, and increased incentives from the government (subsidies, loans, etc.) have all shaped the landscape of Fiji’s marine fisheries. In this study, the total reconstructed catch for Fiji’s marine fisheries (1950-2009) is estimated to be approximately 2,760,000 tonnes.2 This total includes subsistence, artisanal, and large-scale commercial fisheries (plus discards). This estimate is 2.8 times the total landings presented by the FAO on behalf of Fiji. This discrepancy is much lower in the recent time period, with the reconstructed estimate being only 18% larger than the data reported to the FAO in the last decade. The main reporting issue in Fiji appears to be under-reporting of subsistence catches due to incomplete estimates made in the past. This study highlights the need for improved fisheries catch monitoring, including non-commercial catches, in light of concerns over sustainable management of fisheries resources and the associated food security issue.introductionThe Republic of Fiji is an archipelago in the south-west Pacific Ocean, which consists of 322 volcanic or limestone islands (Vunivalu 1957; USDS 2010), as well as numerous other cays and islets (Teh et al. 2009). Fiji is located at 15-23°S and 177°E-178°W with a land area of 18,500 km2 (Teh et al. 2009), and an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 1.28 million km2 (www.seaaroundus.org; Figure 1). There is a mixture of fringing and barrier reefs surrounding almost all of the islands (Vunivalu 1957). The climate is tropical but relatively mild due to the position of the islands, which puts them in the path of easterly instead of south-easterly trade winds (Vunivalu 1957). Fiji also experiences heavier rainfall than most tropical countries and in the wet season monsoonal winds accompany the rain (Horne 1881; Vunivalu 1957). Suva, the capital of Fiji, is located on the largest and most populous island, Viti Levu. Although 70% of Fiji’s population resides in Viti Levu, the majority are located in coastal areas due to the rough terrain of the interior (USDS 2010). The second largest island is Vanua Levu (Teh et al. 2009).Fijians are of Polynesian and Melanesian descent (Deane 1921). The current population of Fiji consists of mostly Fijians and Indians, but also includes Europeans, Chinese, and other Pacific Islanders. Fiji was proclaimed a British dependency in 1874, and in 1879, was opened to immigration by Indians who were essentially brought in to work as labourers in the sugar mills, as well as cotton, coconut, and coffee 1 Cite as: Zylich, K., O’Meara, D., Jacquet J., Harper, S., and Zeller, D. (2012) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Fiji (1950-2009). pp. 25-36. In: Harper, S., Zylich, K., Boonzaier, L., Le Manach, F., Pauly, D., and Zeller D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].2 See addendum for updating dataset to 2010.!!!177°E15°S±0 300150 kmLautokaSuvaLevukaViti LevuVanua LevuFigure 1.  Map of the Republic of Fiji and its EEZ, showing the major cities of Suva, Lautoka, and Levuka, as well as the two largest islands, Viti Levu and Vanua Levu.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III26plantations (Vunivalu 1957). In 1970, Fiji gained its independence, after which native Fijians spent the next 17 years struggling to accept Indo-Fijian rule (USDS 2010). In 1987, two consecutive military coups overthrew the government and the country officially became the Republic of Fiji (USDS 2010). Despite these tensions, there has been very little ethnic violence within the country (Norton 1990).Important sectors of Fiji’s economy are sugar, fisheries, and tourism (Gillett 2011). Marine resources have always been important to the Fijian diet, although market-based economic utilization has occurred relatively recently (DeMers and Kahui 2012). There has recently been a strong trend of urbanization in Fiji (Norton 1990) and this has been one of the contributing factors to the changes in Fiji’s fisheries (Jennings and Polunin 1996).Early fishing by the Fijians was almost exclusively subsistence based, with effort focused on reef and coastal areas (DeMers and Kahui 2012). Fisheries were controlled through long standing customs and administered by chiefs, when necessary. Fishing areas, known as qoliqoli, were controlled by individual families with well recognized boundaries (DeMers and Kahui 2012). Around the 1950s, the nature of Fiji’s fisheries began to change. The open ocean was relatively untapped and traditional methods were still in use; however, newly acquired equipment and technology started to be incorporated (Roth 1953; DeMers and Kahui 2012). Furthermore, local fish trade increased, which gave way to the commercialization of Fijian fisheries (DeMers and Kahui 2012). At the time (1950s), three ports existed. Suva was the most active, receiving cargo ships from North America, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and other Pacific Island countries (Vunivalu 1957). The other two ports were located in Lautoka and Levuka (Vunivalu 1957; Figure 1). Thanks to infrastructure left over from World War II, an international airport became operational in Nadi in the late 1940s, with local air service to Nausori, Labasa, and Lautoka on Viti Levu as well as Vanua Levu and Taveuni (Vunivalu, 1957). In the late 1940s, a small cannery opened in Pago Pago (American Samoa), as a result of efforts by a Fiji fishing company, which had been developing a pole-and-line fleet (Gillett 2007). Having a cannery in American Samoa would give access to the foreign tuna market, predominantly the United States (Gillett 2007). Unfortunately, catches were not consistent enough for the cannery to be profitable, forcing it to close (Gillett 2007). The US opened their own cannery in Pago Pago in the early 1950s, which was instrumental in the success of fishing endeavours by the US and others in the Pacific, including in Fijian waters (DeMers and Kahui 2012). In 1964, the Pacific Fishing Company (PAFCO), a fish-processing facility which supports local fisheries and prepares fish for re-export, was opened (DeMers and Kahui 2012). PAFCO also built a cannery in Levuka, Ovalau in 1970, and employed a large proportion of the villagers from all over the island (Barclay 2010). The IKA Corporation, a domestic fishing company, was founded in the mid-1970s to supply PAFCO with tuna (DeMers and Kahui 2012). Unfortunately, IKA collapsed in the 1990s, due to the introduction of cheaper purse seine fleets (Barclay 2010). In the mid 1980s, a deep-slope fishery in Fiji was active and would export the catches to more demanding overseas markets (Dalzell et al. 1996). In 1987, the fishery declined due to disruption in air service, and the vessels from the fleet were utilized for pelagic longlining, which saw much better returns (Dalzell et al. 1996). Unfortunately, encouragement from the government and other organizations to increase fishing efforts (through subsidies, loans, and instructional programs), has lead to problems of overcapacity in Fiji’s fisheries sector (DeMers and Kahui 2012). Legislation and management is more geared toward commercialization than sustainability.The domestic, and especially the small scale, fisheries of Fiji have been largely overlooked in monitoring and management considerations. Much of the recent research highlighting the importance of these fisheries only appears in reports which are less widely accessible (DeMers and Kahui 2012). The purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of all Fiji’s fisheries and to reconstruct the total catch history over time for all sectors, from 1950 to 2009.methodsTotal marine fisheries catches were estimated using information obtained from national reports, independent studies, local experts, and grey literature. Fisheries catches were estimated based on household surveys and consumption data presented in the literature. The Fiji Department of Fisheries reports catches for subsistence, artisanal, and large-scale commercial sectors. Most of the literature differed in their definition of these sectors. For example, Rawlinson et al. (1995) and Gillett (2009) differed slightly in their definition of subsistence and artisanal sectors, although combined, both refer to small-scale similarly. Although this may have resulted in categorizing of catch amounts into different sectors, the total catch is not affected. Here, we follow the general definition of subsistence and artisanal catches as being primarily for non-commercial (direct consumption) and commercial (sale) purposes, respectively.Human population dataHuman population data were acquired in order to estimate subsistence and artisanal fishery catches. Population data were used to convert per capita seafood consumption rates into estimates of total demand. Population data for Fiji were obtained from a population statistics historical demography website3 for 1950-1959, and from The World Bank databank4 for the years 1960-2009 (Figure 2).3 www.populstat.info, accessed June 16, 20114 http://databank.worldbank.org/ddp/home.do, accessed June 16, 2011Fiji - Zylich et al. 27Subsistence fisheriesAnchor points of either per capita subsistence catch or consumption rates were extracted from the literature in order to estimate subsistence catches from 1950-2009. For the recent time period, Gillett (2009) estimated subsistence catch in 2007 to be 17,400 tonnes. Using the 2007 population, a per capita subsistence catch rate of 20.75 kg·person-1·year-1 was calculated. This anchor point was carried forward and used as the subsistence catch rate estimate for 2008 and 2009. Gillett (2003) gave an estimate for 1999 of 21,600 tonnes total annual subsistence catch. This equated to a subsistence catch rate of 27.14 kg·person-1·year-1 for 1999. A linear interpolation was done between the 1999 and 2007 subsistence catch rate anchor points. Finally, it was necessary to obtain an estimate for the early time period (1950s). Jennings and Polunin (1996) completed a study on three islands in the Lau Islands group of Fiji, which are some of the most remote islands of the country. They found that the Fijians on these islands maintained a traditional diet high in marine derived protein (Jennings and Polunin 1996). Therefore, we assumed remote island seafood consumption rates were similar to consumption rates in the early time period for the entire country. Three different estimates of remote island per capita subsistence consumption were obtained (Kuster et al. 2005; Bell et al. 2009). When averaged, they yielded an estimate of 128.31 kg·person-1·year-1. This estimate was used as the anchor point for 1950. Catch rates were linearly interpolated from the 1950 anchor point to the 1999 anchor point, giving us a complete time series of subsistence catch rates for 1950-2009 (Table 1). Using the subsistence catch rates along with the population data gathered, total annual subsistence catches were estimated for the 1950-2009 time period.Artisanal fisheriesArtisanal (i.e., small-scale commercial) fisheries catches were estimated using anchor points of artisanal per capita consumption catch rates from the literature. Rawlinson et al. (1995) estimated the total annual artisanal catch in 1993 to be 6,206 tonnes. Using the human population data, the estimated artisanal per capita catch rate for 1993 was therefore 11.6 kg·person-1·year-1. Gillett (2009) estimated the 2007 total artisanal catch to be 9,500 tonnes, which translates to a per capita rate of 11.3 kg·person-1·year-1. A linear interpolation was performed between the per capita rates based on Rawlinson et al.’s (1995) estimate and Gillett’s (2009) estimate. The 2007 estimate was carried forward unaltered to 2009. An assumption-based starting point of zero artisanal catch in 1945 was chosen due to the end of WWII and thus the presence of a minimal cash-economy at the time. A linear interpolation was performed between the anchor points of zero kilograms per capita in 1945 and the Rawlinson et al. (1995) estimate of 11.6 kg·person-1·year-1 in 1993 (Table 2). The derived artisanal catch rates for 1950-2009 were then combined with human population data to establish a complete time series (1950-2009) of catch data for the artisanal fishery.When assigning the FAO data to sectors (see “Reported catch” in methods section) the artisanal sector was assigned last, as national reports mainly provided detailed information on subsistence and large-scale commercial sectors. Therefore, when comparing our reconstructed estimate to the reported data, the artisanal sector catches had the most variation. In the period of 2006-2008 there was an apparent spike in FAO catches for the artisanal sector. We assumed that the FAO had access to additional information we were Table 2.   Per capita catch rates used to estimate total artisanal catch in Fiji.Years Catch rate(kg/person/year)Source1945 0 Assumption1946-1992 - Linear interpolation1993 11.63 Rawlinson et al. (1995)1994-2006 - Linear interpolation2007 11.33 Gillett (2009)2008-2009 11.33 Carried forward from 200701002003004005006007008009001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Population (x 103 )YearFigure 2.  Estimated human population of Fiji, 1950-2009.Table 1.   Per capita catch rates used to estimate total subsistence catch in Fiji.Years Catch rate(kg/person/year)Source1950 128.31 Average of Kuster et al. (2005) and Bell et al. (2009)1951-1998 - Linear interpolation1999 27.14 Gillett (2003)2000-2006 - Linear interpolation2007 20.75 Gillett (2009)2008-2009 20.75 Carried forward from 2007Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III28not aware of and we accept the FAO data as the best representation of artisanal catches for the years in which our estimates were below FAO totals. The large increase followed by an immediate decrease seen in the 2006-2008 FAO data could be due to changes in trade, unusual weather patterns, or a combination of factors.Large-scale commercial fisheriesThe large-scale commercial fishery targets large pelagic fish such as tunas and billfish. When comparing the FAO reported catches for tuna and billfish species to national and independent reports, the various reports were all close to each other. Thus, the FAO reported catches for tuna and billfishes (Thunnus alalunga, T. obesus, Katsuwonus pelamis, T. albacares, Makaira indica, M. mazara, Tetrapturus audax, and Xiphias gladius) were accepted and taken to be the best representation of large-scale commercial fisheries catches. However, by-catch associated with the longline fishery does not seem to be accounted for by FAO data. These catches consist largely of sharks, rays, skates, mantas, and other fishes. There is a high market demand for shark fins and therefore when there is shark by-catch, the fins are usually retained while the rest of the shark body is discarded.To estimate shark by-catch from domestic longline vessels, it was assumed that Fiji’s shark fin exports equalled the total amount of foreign and domestically caught shark fins. To separate out the domestic portion, we used the percentage of exported domestic shark fins reported by Swamy (1999) for 1996 and 1997, to estimate the percent contribution of domestic to total shark fin exports (in dry fin weight) for the entire time period. Domestic shark fin exports were zero prior to 1988 (Swamy 1999). We linearly interpolated between 0% domestic shark fin exports in 1987 and 46% (calculated from Swamy 1999) in 1996. Swamy’s (1999) reported value of 57% for the proportion of domestic shark fin exports in 1997 was carried forward, unaltered, to 2009. We assumed that the catch profile documented by the SPC observer programme for domestic longline vessels in Fiji, and reported by Swamy (1999), was representative of the species caught by the entire domestic longline fleet. Swamy’s (1999) data provided us with the number and average length of each species caught.A species breakdown was achieved by using the data from Swamy (1999) and conversion factors to determine the percentage that each species contributed to wet fin weight. However, before determining the species composition it needs to be noted that shark fin export totals are in dry fin weight and thus need to be converted into wet fin weight in order to be utilized in the species breakdown. A conversion factor of 0.43 was used (i.e., dry fin weight equates to 43% of the wet fin weight; Biery et al. 2011). Also note that only after completing the species breakdown were the wet fin weights converted to wet round weight. In order to determine the percentage contribution of each species to the total wet fin weight the average length of each species was first converted to average weight using the Fishbase life-history tool (www.fishbase.org). Round (i.e., whole) weight to fin weight conversion factors were then used to calculate average wet fin weight for each species (Biery et al. 2011). Average wet fin weight and numbers of each shark species caught were used to calculate the percent contribution of each species to domestic exports. Using this breakdown, total domestic shark fin exports for each year were separated into the different species and then converted back to round weight. “Unidentified sharks” reported in observer data (Swamy 1999) had the smallest average length (93.0 cm) and were likely composed of small pelagic sharks (Williams 1997). To determine the relative contribution of “unidentified sharks”, fin to round weight conversion factors and average weights of three small pelagic sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus, C. sorrah, and C. albimarginatus) occurring in the Pacific were used as proxies. In addition, 10-23% of sharks (by weight) were additionally discarded without being finned (Gilman et al. 2007) and hence not accounted for in the fin export data. To remain conservative, 10% (round weight) was added to the domestic shark catch derived from the fin data under the assumption that this discarded catch was composed of unwanted species such as pelagic stingrays and other rays, skates, and mantas not appropriate for finning (Swamy 1999). By-catch was further broken down into discards and unreported commercial landings. Wet weight of the landed fins equalled the unreported commercial component and the discarded shark carcasses, pelagic stingrays, and other rays, skates, and mantas equalled the discards of the commercial sector. Spatial allocationLarge-scale operations of tuna fishing can include fishing grounds outside of the EEZ. Therefore, data from the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) for albacore, bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna, were used to determine the spatial allocation of the tuna catch. The data only cover the years from 1997-2010. For the years 1997-2008, the FFA data Table 3.   Taxonomic breakdown applied to the unreported subsistence catch of Fiji, 1950-2009. Also applied to the “marine fishes nei” category within the reported subsistence catch for the years 2002-2009. Derived from Kuster et al. (2005).Taxa Catch (%)1950-1981a 2002-2009Lethrinidae 16.1 19.7Mullidae 10.9 9.8Miscellaneous pelagic fish 9.7 1.9Bivalves 9.6 17.9Scaridae 9.5 5.8Acanthuridae 8.6 6.6Miscellaneous marine crustaceans 6.9 1.4Siganidae 5.6 6.8Gastropoda 4.7 4.4Mugilidae 4.0 1.0Serranidae 3.9 5.7Carangidae 3.9 0.0Lutjanidae 2.5 0.3Miscellaneous aquatic invertebrates 2.1 1.8Holocentridae 2.0 3.1Balistidae 0.0 10.6Kyphosidae 0.0 1.9Labridae 0.0 1.3a For the 1982-2001 period, the breakdown was interpolated.Fiji - Zylich et al. 29were used directly to allocate catches to either within the EEZ, into another country’s EEZ or to the high seas. For 2009, proportions from the data were utilized as there were slight discrepancies in the totals from the FAO and the FFA. The proportions of the catch inside and outside of the EEZ from 1997 were also used to spatially disaggregate the catch from 1970-1996. The other large pelagic species associated with the large-scale fleet (black marlin, blue marlin, striped marlin, swordfish, and sharks) were allocated in proportion to the overall tuna allocation of the large-scale fleet.Catch CompositionReported catchThe reported subsistence and artisanal catches were broken down by taxa based on the FAO taxonomic breakdown (excluding the large-scale pelagic species: Thunnus alalunga, T. obesus, Katsuwonus pelamis, T. albacares, Makaira indica, M. mazara, Tetrapturus audax, and Xiphias gladius). First, we calculated what the proportion of subsistence and artisanal catches were of total small-scale catches for each year. These percentages were then multiplied by the amount of the catch in each FAO category per year to estimate how much of each individually reported taxon (i.e., FAO category) was caught by the subsistence and artisanal sectors. Thus, we assumed equal representation of each reported taxa in both small-scale sectors. After completing this breakdown, it was observed that the “marine fishes nei” category in the FAO data increased substantially, from an average of 1,000 t·year-1 over the 1950-2001 time span to 8,000 t in 2002 and then over 19,000 t in 2003, after which it began to level out. Therefore, from 2002-2009, an additional breakdown was applied to the “marine fishes nei” category for both the reported subsistence and artisanal sectors. For the subsistence sector, a species breakdown derived from Kuster et al. (2005) (see “Unreported catch” below for details) was applied to the “marine fishes nei” category for the time period of 2002-2009 only (Table 3). The same method was used for the artisanal sector, except that a breakdown from a Fiji Fisheries Division annual report (see “Unreported catch” below for details) was used instead (Table 4).Unreported catchUnreported small-scale catches were also assigned taxonomically. Unreported subsistence catches were broken down into taxa based on the Kuster et al. (2005) remote island consumption survey that reported total subsistence catches for finfish and invertebrates for the years 1982 and 2002 (Table 3). For the 1950-1982 time period, the 1982 species composition was used. From 1983-2001, a linear interpolation between the 1982 and 2002 anchor points was done. For 2002-2009, the 2002 species breakdown was used. These percentages were then multiplied by the unreported subsistence catch to obtain an estimated annual catch in tonnes by taxa from 1950 to 2009.The unreported artisanal catch was broken down using artisanal catches reported in the 1990 Fiji Fisheries Division annual report (Anon. 1991). The species composition was applied to the unreported artisanal catches for each year to obtain an estimate, in tonnes, for individual taxa (Table 4).Unreported large-scale commercial fishery catches included shark by-catch (landed and discarded). The taxonomic breakdown of the by-catch was completed during the process of estimating total by-catch (see “Large-scale commercial fisheries” in the methods section). By-catch included mostly shark species, with Prionace glauca, Carcharhinus falciformis, Isurus oxyrinchus, and C. longimanus representing the largest proportions of the catch (Table 5). There were also small percentages of pelagic stingrays and rays, skates, and mantas.resultsThe reconstructed total catch estimate over the 1950-2009 time period (2,759,723 t) is 2.8 times the catch reported by the FAO on behalf of the Republic of Fiji (991,024 t; Figure 3a, Appendix Table A1). Of the total reconstructed catch, 77.7% is from the subsistence fishery (Figure 3a) with 72.9% of the subsistence catches being unreported. Subsistence catches in the 1950s were on average 40,040 t·year-1, increasing to a peak in 1967 of 45,470 t·year-1, after which catches decrease to an average of 18,950 t·year-1 in the 2000s. Artisanal catches accounted for 11.9% of the total catch (Figure 3a). Artisanal catches increased throughout the time period from 800 t·year-1 in the 1950s to 8,740 t·year-1 in the 1990s, and peaked in 2007 with 15,960 t. Large-scale commercial catches (including estimated shark and associated species Table 4.   Taxonomic breakdown for the unreported artisanal catch of Fiji, 1950-2009. Also applied to the “marine fishes nei” category within the reported artisanal catch for the years 2002-2009. Taxa Catch (%)Miscellaneous aquatic invertebrates 28.2Scombridae 22.9Lethrinidae 14.7Carangidae 9.6Sphyraena spp. 9.4Serranidae 8.4Mugilidae 6.9Source: Anon. (1991).Table 5.   Taxonomic breakdown of unreported longline fishery by-catch (landed and discarded), 1950-2009. Adapted from Swamy (1999) with conversion factors provided by Biery et al. (2011).Taxa Catch (%)Prionace glauca 50.9Carcharhinus longimanus 13.6Isurus oxyrinchus 9.6Carcharhinus falciformis 9.6Dasyatidae 9.0Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos 2.5Isurus paucus 1.2Other Carcharhinidae 1.1Rajiformes 1.0Alopias vulpinus 0.8Galeocerdo cuvier 0.4Sphyrna lewini 0.2Alopias pelagicus 0.1Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III30by-catch) amounted to 10.4% of the total catch (discards contributed 2.0% to the total reconstructed catch) (Figure 3a). Large-scale commercial fishing did not begin until the early 1970s. Catches follow a general increasing trend until 2004 when catches peak and then decline. Average annual catches for the 1970s were approximately 870 t·year-1 and then increased to an average of 17,090 t·year-1 in the 2000s. For the most recent decade (2000-2009) the total reconstructed catch (all sectors) was estimated at an average of 46,390 t·year-1. Catches were highest in the 1980s with an average annual catch of 50,070 t·year-1.The total reconstructed catch was dominated by the family Lethrinidae, which represented 14.6% of the catch (over 401,500 t) over the 1950-2009 time period (Figure 3b, Appendix Table A2). The second largest contribution was the family Scombridae, accounting for 12.4% of the total catch. Molluscs (7.5%), Mullidae (6.7%), Scaridae (5.5%), Acanthuridae (5.4%), “miscellaneous pelagic fishes nei” (5.3%), and Mugilidae (5.1%) also represented substantial portions of the catch. Scombridae catches exhibit an increase over the time period, which is to be expected with the development of the large-scale commercial sector.The large-scale commercial catch was dominated by albacore tuna (T. alalunga) with 93,114 tonnes caught over the study period (1950-2009) and an annual average of 4430 t·year-1 since 1989 when Fiji began catching it commercially. Skipjack tuna (K. pelamis) and yellowfin tuna (T. albacares) fishing both began in 1970 and have had annual averages since then of approximately 1,910 t·year-1 and 1,040 t·year-1, respectively. Bigeye tuna (T. obesus) had the smallest catches which were on average 390 t·year-1 since 1982. By-catch from the Fiji longline fishery consists of both a landed shark fin portion and a discarded, unused, whole shark body portion. The landed shark fins only represent 4.8% of the shark (and related species) by-catch. The other 95.2% represents the discards, which equates to 54,000 t. This consists of discarded, finned shark bodies and unfinned pelagic stingrays, rays, skates, and mantas which are thrown overboard. Discards were dominated by oceanic blue shark (Prionace glauca) which represented 50% of the total discards. Discards started at only 54 t in 1988 and peaked at over 4,900 t in 2001. The annual average in the last 5 years (2005-2009) was 3,900 t·year-1. As part of the allocation process, it was estimated that approximately 21% of the large-scale catches were taken from outside of the EEZ. These catches represent 2.2% of the total reconstructed catch.discussionThe total reconstructed catch for the Republic of Fiji for the 1950-2009 period totalled over 2.7 million t which was 2.8 times the total catch reported by Fiji to the FAO. The discrepancy between the reported and reconstructed total is mainly due to a large amount of unreported subsistence catch, especially for earlier time periods.Subsistence catches not only represented the largest proportion of the total catch, but it was also estimated that 72.9% of subsistence catches were unreported. While the subsistence fishery is undoubtedly a very important fishery to the Fijian people, its importance has been underestimated in the past. Throughout the time span considered here, subsistence catches decreased despite the population of Fiji increasing steadily over time. This decrease in subsistence catch is due to a decrease in subsistence consumption, most likely the product of a shift to an increasingly cash based economy (Veitayaki 1995).Accordingly, there has been an increase in artisanal catch. This has been accompanied by a shift in the diet of the women (and their families) who sell artisanal catches at the market. The women are in need of money and tend to 0102030405060Catch (t x 103 )Large-scale commercial DiscardsSubsistenceArtisanala)01020304050601950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000YearMullidaeMolluscsScaridae Miscellaneous pelagic fishesAcanthuridaeOther taxaMugilidaeScombridaeLethrinidaeb)Supplied to FAOFigure 3.  Total reconstructed fisheries catches for Fiji, 1950-2009, (a) by sector, with comparison to the total catch data supplied to the FAO; and (b) by major taxa. The grouping ‘other taxa’ represents 47 individual taxonomic categories.Fiji - Zylich et al. 31sell off all of their catch, and therefore end up buying cheap canned meats for themselves and their families to eat (Vunisea 2005). This may have contributed to the decrease in consumption of subsistence catch and an increase in health issues (Anon. 2003). This same effect can be attributed to other types of working individuals as well. More Fijians are moving to urban areas and accepting full-time jobs, leaving them little time to fish to feed themselves (Jennings and Polunin 1996). Therefore, they either buy fresh fish from the market or buy imported alternatives (Jennings and Polunin 1996; Sadovy 2005).Most significantly, however, is that after accounting for all catches, the overall time trend in catches changes, from a generally increasing trend based on the data supplied to the FAO, to a slowly declining trend (peak in 1981) in total catches in Fiji (Figure 3a). It is important to note that although subsistence catch has declined and there has been a shift towards commercialization, the subsistence fishery still remains the largest contributing sector of Fiji’s fishing industry (accounting for 42% of the total catches in 2009) and will continue to be an important component (DeMers and Kahui 2012), particularly in rural and remote areas. Despite advances in technology, subsistence fishing remains largely traditional (DeMers and Kahui 2012).Although Fiji is one of the few Pacific Island countries to estimate subsistence catch, there is justified criticism in these estimates (Gillett 2009). National subsistence catches prior to the 1979 survey were based on an estimate made by a fisheries official of 2,500 tonnes per year, which is low considering the results of a 1979 survey estimating subsistence catches of almost 14,000 tonnes. Gillett (2009) also questions the accuracy of the 1979 survey. Further estimates of subsistence catch by national authorities were then made by simply adding 200 tonnes to the previous year’s catch as a way of accounting for population growth (Sharma 1988; Rawlinson et al. 1995). Our reconstructed catch estimate suggests a very different trend. The two estimates generally agree for the recent time period, with the difference in annual averages being approximately 10%, but for the early time period, the reconstructed annual average is just over 17 times the national estimate. The total reconstructed time series estimate of the subsistence fishery is 3.7 times the reported subsistence estimate. Given that the total reconstructed estimate is only 2.8 times the total reported by the FAO, we can see that subsistence catches are extremely important to the Republic of Fiji.It should be noted that within the Republic of Fiji, catch rates and fishing patterns can fluctuate greatly. Rawlinson et al. (1995) has shown that there are significant differences between the fishing practices of native Fijians and Indo-Fijians. Indo-Fijians are more likely to buy seafood than fish for their own, whereas native Fijians tend to catch their own fish (Rawlinson et al. 1995). As Jennings and Polunin (1996) have shown, there are large differences between those living on more remote islands or in rural areas and those who live in urban centres. People in urban centres tend to have public sector jobs which keep them busy and unable to fish for their own food. There is also a greater sense of commercialization in urban centres due to more extensive communication and transportation networks. These allow more cost effective imports and trade, as well as form better environments for markets to be profitable. These wide variations in consumption have also been discussed in a nutrition study conducted in Fiji (Jansen et al. 1990). The study assesses almost all aspects of the Fijian diet, including nutritional composition, preparation, preservation, intake, feeding in children, technology, and fish consumption. The study is very thorough and is the type of research which is important and useful for assessing the utilization and demand of marine resources. The study presented estimates of seafood consumption rates which did fall within our range throughout the time period. However, the estimates were not used directly to calculate our own estimates. The study states that precise consumption estimates are not available (Jansen et al. 1990) and thus the subsistence consumption estimate may, in this case, be based on national estimates. Another estimate which was not used was that of Starkhouse (2009) because when his estimate of the subsistence catch is divided by population, the resulting consumption rate is slightly smaller than that of Gillett (2009), who’s estimate we utilized in our reconstruction. This is just another example of how varied these estimates can be, based on what information is utilized. Although great variations exist within Fiji’s borders, here we focused on overall national trends and averages. However, such variability should be taken into account in the development of policies and frameworks that address issues such as food security and livelihood maintenance.Sharks need better protection in Fijian waters. In the last five years, the tuna longline fleet has averaged 3,700 tonnes of shark by-catch per year (which equates to an average of 22.4% of total large-scale commercial catch annually). Since 1988, shark by-catch has ranged anywhere from 1% to almost 45% of the total large-scale commercial catch. All species discarded have an IUCN Red List designation of Threatened or Near Threatened (IUCN 2011) and 66% of all shark species found in Fijian waters fall into these categories as well (Anon. 2011c). Although there has not been much research on the shark fisheries of Fiji, it is known that they are a significant exporter of shark fins and are mostly exporting to the largest importer of shark fins, Hong Kong (Juncker et al. 2006). The Fijian government is aware of this issue, which is why they are working with the Coral Reef Alliance and the Pew Environment Group to create the Fiji National Shark Sanctuary (Anon. 2011a). The proposed sanctuary would cover Fiji’s entire EEZ. This would prohibit the commercial fishing of sharks as well as the import, export, and sale of shark products in Fiji; this is welcome because not only are the sharks themselves endangered, but their demise also threatens the marine environment, as sharks are important to the health of marine ecosystems (Anon. 2011a).Traditional management of Fiji’s marine resources was characterized by restricted access to inshore resources and a detailed understanding of the marine flora and fauna within their waters, which created a perfect environment for sustainable exploitation (DeMers and Kahui 2012). However, recent efforts to capitalize on and commercialize Fiji’s resources threaten to upset the balance. Although our estimates do show a decline in catches within Fiji’s EEZ, this may largely be due to a shift in preference from subsistence supplied protein to market-based, non-marine protein sources. However, overexploitation is possible if fisheries management does not evolve to be more sustainable. Depletion of the inshore marine environment could cause declines in tourism, as a large part of Fiji’s appeal is its natural beauty (DeMers and Kahui 2012). Introduction of Locally Managed Marine Areas has had some positive effects but more is needed (DeMers and Kahui 2012). Fiji’s marine resources can be a great asset Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III32to their economy, if managed wisely. Fiji is a perfect example of how modern technology and policy do not always equal more sustainable catches and better management, and that tradition should not be disregarded. DeMers and Kahui (2012) conclude that it is traditional management which can help put Fiji back on track towards economically valuable and sustainable inshore fisheries.Large-scale pelagic fisheries may require a broader management approach which involves regional management authorities and transboundary considerations. Fishing of large pelagics within a country’s EEZ does not only occur by the host country. Foreign fleets pay access fees for rights to fish those waters. Host countries may also engage in joint venture operations, in which they combine forces with another country to permit easy access of large-scale fleets to local waters. This usually occurs when the host country has the marine resources but lacks the equipment to take advantage of their own resources. Therefore, tuna management is not exclusively a domestic issue. There can also be issues of illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing within large-scale operations. In fact, there have been recent coordinated efforts to try and identify and eradicate these types of fishing. The Pacific Island Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Regional Fisheries Surveillance Centre (RFSC) coordinated Operation Kurukuru 2011, which covered approximately 30 million square kilometres of ocean in the South Pacific, encompassing the majority of Pacific Island EEZs, including Fiji’s (Anon. 2011b). Individual countries surveyed their own EEZs, as well as adjacent high seas areas, and were supported by aerial surveillance provided by Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and France (Anon. 2011b). This highly coordinated and cooperative venture successfully identified, apprehended, and fined a number of vessels which were operating illegally or violating regulations (Anon. 2011b). Sustainable tuna management is a global issue which will require international cooperation (DeMers and Kahui 2012), as shown in Operation Kurukuru. Although it is easier to convince governments and organizations to change when there is dramatic evidence of trouble, Fiji is an example of how future problems can be predicted before irreversible damage is done and while there is still time to adjust policies and practices so that the fishery can remain sustainable and profitable.Women in fisheriesFijian women provide a large contribution to fishing. When surveying the village of Tailevu, both men and women stated that women’s work was limited to household tasks, but observations indicated that women also participated in fishing activities (Schoeffel 1985). The women of Fiji transfer their knowledge of the intricacies of fishing the reef flats (i.e., reef gleaning) to young girls, thus creating a long line of women fishers (Chapman 1987). The women of Fiji are also known to be more knowledgeable than the men when it comes to certain aspects of fisheries (Chapman 1987; Vunisea 2005). For example, reef gleaning, the major fishing activity that women take part in, requires detailed knowledge of the habitat and range of tools used (Vunisea 2005). Some of the gear used by women includes nylon hand lines to fish on the reef. In the past, women used scoop nets and hand nets, usually in conjunction with poison to fish in the inshore areas and tidal pools. This no longer occurs due to a national ban on the use of poisons, starting in 1996 (Cumming et al. 2004), and the introduction of large gillnets which have resulted in men taking over netting activities (Vunisea 2005). Other techniques employed by fisherwomen in the past include certain barrier techniques to trap fish (Vunisea 2005). Both men and women fish at night for a variety of finfish and invertebrates using either a benzene pressure lamp or waterproof flashlight, both of which have replaced the more traditionally used torch (Vunisea 2005). Technological innovations have had little impact on women in fisheries, as rudimentary methods and tools are actually better suited to the nature of the fishery and the species targeted (Vunisea 2005).Change has occurred in conjunction with the change in market demand. Previously, the focus of fishing was for food, whereas the focus has shifted toward catches to sell at the market (Vunisea 2005). Women who live on more remote islands continue to fish the way they always have, but women who live in or near urban centres have their effort determined by the market demand (Vunisea 2005).Within the subsistence and artisanal sectors, women are also the primary processors of fish and are skilled in not only smoking and drying, but also in techniques to keep the catch fresh until market day in order to sell fresh fish (Vunisea 2005). Fijian women mostly sell their own catch (and occasionally those of male relatives) at local markets and this can include shellfish, prawns, shrimps, and octopus, as well as cooked or smoked fish (Schoeffel 1985). Many women will make long trips to the Suva market because they are “guaranteed better sales” (Vunisea 2005).The life of catching and selling fish is not an easy one for the women of Fiji. They involve long trips on unsafe transportation and result in little sleep and poor nutrition, with little reward (Vunisea 2005). Although there is a lot of focus on the fact that women’s fisheries are often dismissed as being relatively unimportant, what is often most overlooked is the social importance of women’s fishing (Vunisea 2005). Despite the sometimes gruelling conditions, for the women themselves it is an opportunity to spend time with the other women of the village, get out of the house, and to prove their fishing abilities (Vunisea 2005). This social aspect has also allowed women to network with one another and share resources.Although women mostly contribute to the subsistence and artisanal fisheries, when it comes to larger-scale commercial endeavours, women play a key role in the processing sector. For instance, a joint venture fishing operation (PAFCO), has over 100 women employed (out of 150 workers) at its cannery (Schoeffel 1985). Although there has been recognition that women’s participation in and contributions to fisheries have been overlooked, most researchers who undertake the task of describing the importance of women fishers, do it in a qualitative manner. Mostly researchers discuss women’s role as an “immense contribution” with no quantitative measure or any indication of the contribution towards the economy or household (Vunisea 2005).Fiji - Zylich et al. 33addendumSince completing this reconstruction, FAO data became available to 2010. To update the above reconstruction, the 2010 FAO data were accepted as the reported component. In the recent time period, it was determined that almost all catches were reported, thus leaving large-scale commercial by-catch (landings and discards) as the only unreported component for 2010. Landed by-catch and discards for 2010 were calculated based on the proportion of 2009 landed by-catch and discards to the FAO total of 2009, respectively. The sectoral breakdown (artisanal, subsistence, large-scale etc.) for 2010 for the reported component was based on taxa for the large-scale commercial component, whereas for the artisanal and subsistence sectors, the 2009 proportions (of the reported component only) were used. Spatial allocation for the large-scale catches of 2010 was completed using the proportions present in the FFA data, as was also done for 2009. Please note that the values and comparisons for the years 1950-2009 were based on the 2009 FAO dataset, and changes were not made to account for small differences within the 2010 dataset regarding previous years. acKnowledgementsThis is a contribution from the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. We also would like to thank the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for their support on this project.reFerencesAnon. (1991) Fiji Fisheries Division: Annual Report 1990. Ministry of Primary Industries, Suva (Fiji). 48 p.Anon. (2003) Diet, food supply and obesity in the pacific. World Health Organization Regional Office for the Western Pacific. 63 p.Anon. (2011a) Groups to kick off shark awareness campaign in Suva. PEW Environment Group. Available at: http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/press-releases/groups-to-kick-off-shark-awareness-campaign-in-suva-85899365465 [Accessed: November 29, 2011].Anon. (2011b) Region’s biggest maritime surveillance operation acts to stop illegal fishing. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara (Solomon Islands). Available at: http://www.ffa.int/node/565 [Accessed: November 24, 2011].Anon. (2011c) Shark conservation in Fiji. PEW Environment Group. Available at: http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/compilations/shark-conservation-in-fiji-85899365631 [Accessed: November 29, 2011].Barclay K (2010) Impacts of tuna industries on coastal communities in Pacific Island countries. Marine Policy 34: 406-413.Bell JD, Kronen M, Vunisea A, Warwick JN, Keeble G, Demmke A, Pontifex S and Andréfouët S (2009) Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific. Marine Policy 33: 64-76.Biery L, Palomares MLD, Morissette L, Cheung W, Watson R, Harper S, Jacquet J, Zeller D and Pauly D (2011) Sharks in the seas around us: how the Sea Around Us Project is working to shape our collective understanding of global shark fisheries. Pew Environment Group and the Sea Around Us Project, Vancouver (Canada). 53 p.Chapman MD (1987) Women’s fishing in Oceania. Human Ecology 15(3): 267-288.Cumming RL, Aalbersberg WGL, Lovell ER, Sykes H and Vuki VC (2004) Coral reefs of Fiji Islands: current issues. Reef Encounter: Magazine of the International Society for Reef Studies 32: 52-56.Dalzell P, Adams TJH and Polunin NVC (1996) Coastal fisheries in the Pacific Islands. pp. 395-531 In Ansell AD, Gibson RN and Barnes M (eds.), Oceanography and marine biology: an annual review. UCL Press, London.Deane W (1921) Fijian society: sociology and psychology of the Fijians. MacMillan and Co. Limited, London. 255 p.DeMers A and Kahui V (2012) An overview of Fiji’s fisheries development. Marine Policy 36: 174-179.Gillett R (2003) Small island developing states of the Southwest Pacific. pp. 121-140 In De Young C (ed.) Review of the state of world marine capture fisheries management: Pacific Ocean. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Gillett R (2007) A short history of industrial fishing in the Pacific Islands. Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.Gillett R (2009) Fisheries in the economies of the Pacific Island countries and territories. Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City (Philippines). 521 p.Gillett R (2011) Fisheries of the Pacific Islands: regional and national information. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok. 279 p.Gilman E, Clarke S, Brothers N, Alfaro-Shigueto J, Mandelman J, Mangel J, Petersen S, Piovano S, Thompson N, Donoso M, Goreb M and Werner T (2007) Shark depredation and unwanted bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries: industry practices and attitudes, and shark avoidance strategies. Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council, Honolulu. 148 p.Horne J (1881) A year in Fiji: an inquiry into the botanical, agricultural, and economical resources of the colony. Eyre and Spottiswoode, London. 298 p.IUCN (2011) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.1. Available at: www.iucnredlist.org [Accessed: November 8, 2011].Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III34Jansen AAJ, Parkinson S and Robertson AFS, editors (1990) Food and nutrition in Fiji: a historical review. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Fiji School of Medicine and The Institute of Pacific Studies, The University of the South Pacific, Suva (Fiji). 479 p.Jennings S and Polunin NVC (1996) Fishing strategies, fishery development and socioeconomics in traditionally managed Fijian fishing grounds. Fisheries Management and Ecology 3: 335-347.Juncker M, Robert M and Clua E (2006) Coastal shark fisheries in the Pacific: a brief overview of current knowledge. Coral Reef Initiative for the South Pacific, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 38 p.Kuster C, Vuki VC and Zann LP (2005) Long-term trends in subsistence fishing patterns and coral reef fisheries yield from a remote Fijian island. Fisheries Research 76: 221-228.Norton R (1990) Race and politics in Fiji, 2nd edition. University of Queensland Press, St Lucia (Australia). 212 p.Rawlinson NJF, Milton DA, Blaber SJM, Sesewa A and Sharma SP (1995) A survey of the subsistence fisheries and artisanal fisheries in rural areas of Viti Levu, Fiji. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. 126 p.Roth GK (1953) Fijian way of life. Oxford University Press, London. 176 p.Sadovy Y (2005) Trouble on the reef: the imperative for managing vulnerable and valuable fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 6: 167-185.Schoeffel P (1985) Women in the fisheries of the South Pacific. In Women in development in the South Pacific: Barriers and opportunities. Development Studies Centre, The Australian National University, Canberra.Sharma SP (1988) Fiji’s fisheries data collection and information system. South Pacific Commission, Nouméa (New Caledonia).Starkhouse BA (2009) What’s the catch: uncovering the catch volume and value of Fiji’s coral reef-based artisanal and subsistence fisheries. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 120 p.Swamy K (1999) Shark fisheries in Fiji: their management and issues of future concern. In Shotton R (ed.) Case studies of the management of elasmobranch fisheries, volume 2. FAO, Rome.Teh LCL, Teh LSL, Starkhouse B and Sumalia R (2009) An overview of socio-economic and ecological perspectives of Fiji’s inshore reef fisheries. Marine Policy 33: 807-817.USDS (2010) Background note: Fiji. Bureau of East Asian and Pacific affairs, United States Department of State. Available at: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1834.htm# [Accessed: May 25, 2011].Veitayaki J (1995) Fisheries development in Fiji: the quest for sustainability. Institute of Pacific Studies and the Ocean Resources Management Programme, The University of the South Pacific, Suva (Fiji). 233 p.Vunisea A (2005) Women’s changing roles in the subsistence fishing sector in Fiji. pp. 89-105 In Novaczek I, Mitchell J and Vietayaki J (eds.), Pacific voices: Equity and sustainability in Pacific Island fisheries. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the South Pacific, Suva (Fiji).Vunivalu R (1957) Colony of Fiji: a handbook, 6th edition. Government Press, Suva (Fiji). 122 p.Williams PG (1997) Shark and related species catch in tuna fisheries of the tropical Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Case studies of management of elasmobranch fisheries 378, FAO Fish. Tech. Pap., Nouméa (New Caledonia). 860-879 p.Fiji - Zylich et al. 35Appendix Table A1.   FAO landings vs. total reconstructed catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector, for Fiji, 1950-2009.Year FAO Landings Total reconstructed catch Subsistence Artisanal Large-scale commercial Discards1950 2000 38,100 37,700 356 - -1951 2000 38,600 38,100 439 - -1952 2000 39,400 38,900 531 - -1953 2200 40,100 39,400 626 - -1954 2200 40,700 40,000 726 - -1955 2500 41,500 40,700 836 - -1956 2500 41,000 40,100 922 - -1957 2500 42,200 41,100 1,049 - -1958 2800 43,000 41,800 1,178 - -1959 2800 43,900 42,600 1,316 - -1960 3000 43,900 42,400 1,431 - -1961 3000 44,600 43,000 1,580 - -1962 3000 45,400 43,700 1,737 - -1963 3200 46,200 44,300 1,903 - -1964 3200 46,900 44,800 2,074 - -1965 3300 47,400 45,200 2,247 - -1966 3300 47,800 45,400 2,423 - -1967 3300 48,100 45,500 2,600 - -1968 3500 48,200 45,500 2,778 - -1969 3500 48,300 45,400 2,962 - -1970 3610 48,400 45,300 3,151 0.5 -1971 3610 48,500 45,100 3,346 0.5 -1972 4200 48,500 45,000 3,548 0.5 -1973 4100 48,600 44,800 3,755 100.3 -1974 4410 48,500 44,500 3,968 83.0 -1975 4610 48,500 44,200 4,185 91.0 -1976 5020 48,900 43,800 4,406 742.0 -1977 6380 49,700 43,300 4,630 1,711.0 -1978 8220 50,300 42,900 4,861 2,524.0 -1979 19300 51,000 42,400 5,107 3,494.0 -1980 19640 49,900 42,100 5,372 2,496.0 -1981 22460 53,200 41,700 5,660 5,836.0 -1982 22570 51,900 41,500 5,970 4,436.0 -1983 21630 51,100 41,100 6,287 3,755.0 -1984 22670 51,700 40,500 6,591 4,588.0 -1985 23080 50,700 39,700 6,866 4,079.0 -1986 22650 48,900 38,600 7,103 3,219.0 -1987 22340 48,500 37,300 7,304 3,938.0 -1988 23730 47,300 35,800 7,486 3,911.7 541989 24770 47,300 34,400 7,673 5,192.1 611990 27880 45,100 33,100 8,022 3,843.9 1561991 24510 45,500 31,900 8,133 5,330.2 1821992 20590 44,700 30,700 8,408 4,859.7 7461993 25060 44,200 29,600 8,704 5,058.1 8521994 26320 43,900 28,400 8,805 6,220.2 4541995 25850 44,700 27,200 8,895 7,569.8 1,0441996 22460 43,000 25,900 8,971 7,262.6 9221997 23940 39,800 24,500 9,038 4,842.0 1,4241998 23680 37,500 23,100 9,096 4,584.0 7911999 31870 40,400 21,600 9,282 4,993.1 4,5092000 35020 45,700 21,100 9,200 10,535.7 4,8002001 37600 46,800 20,600 9,248 11,993.4 4,9312002 35000 45,900 20,100 9,292 12,312.4 4,2192003 34510 45,300 19,600 9,333 11,609.1 4,7472004 45080 51,400 19,000 9,374 18,386.4 4,6152005 40000 44,900 18,500 9,415 12,756.4 4,2192006 44340 48,800 18,000 10,237 16,361.4 4,2192007 43780 47,400 17,400 15,955 10,591.1 3,4032008 41360 45,500 17,500 11,855 12,188.9 3,9522009 37400 42,300 17,600 9,619 11,382.1 3,700Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III36Appendix Table A2. Total reconstructed catch (in tonnes) for Fiji by major taxa, 1950-2009. Year Lethrinidae Scombridae Mullidae Molluscs Scaridae Acanthuridae Miscellaneous pelagic fishesMugilidae Others1 1950 6,310 181 3,893 3,420 3,399 3,071 3,454 1,650 12,7001951 6,390 200 3,937 3,460 3,438 3,105 3,493 1,672 12,9001952 6,520 221 4,018 3,530 3,508 3,169 3,565 1,708 13,2001953 6,690 243 4,059 3,570 3,544 3,201 3,601 1,729 13,4001954 6,790 266 4,117 3,620 3,595 3,247 3,653 1,758 13,7001955 6,880 391 4,163 3,660 3,636 3,284 3,694 1,882 13,9001956 6,800 411 4,098 3,600 3,579 3,233 3,637 1,864 13,8001957 6,980 440 4,207 3,700 3,674 3,318 3,733 1,913 14,2001958 7,160 501 4,284 3,770 3,741 3,379 3,801 1,929 14,4001959 7,310 532 4,367 3,840 3,814 3,445 3,875 1,969 14,7001960 7,370 513 4,350 3,820 3,799 3,431 3,860 2,057 14,6001961 7,490 547 4,419 3,890 3,859 3,485 3,921 2,092 14,9001962 7,620 583 4,488 3,950 3,919 3,540 3,983 2,129 15,2001963 7,810 675 4,554 4,000 3,977 3,592 4,041 2,250 15,3001964 7,920 714 4,609 4,050 4,025 3,635 4,090 2,282 15,5001965 7,990 731 4,649 4,090 4,060 3,667 4,125 2,302 15,8001966 8,050 771 4,673 4,110 4,081 3,686 4,147 2,323 16,0001967 8,090 811 4,683 4,120 4,089 3,694 4,155 2,339 16,1001968 8,180 806 4,682 4,120 4,088 3,693 4,154 2,337 16,2001969 8,200 848 4,674 4,110 4,081 3,686 4,147 2,347 16,3001970 8,190 968 4,762 4,100 4,071 3,777 4,136 2,348 16,1001971 8,200 1,013 4,746 4,090 4,057 3,765 4,123 2,356 16,1001972 8,110 922 4,728 4,070 4,041 3,750 4,106 2,722 16,1001973 8,140 1,115 4,705 4,050 4,021 3,732 4,086 2,641 16,1001974 8,050 1,019 4,664 4,050 3,996 3,741 4,060 2,689 16,3001975 8,070 1,066 4,636 4,010 3,966 3,723 4,030 2,742 16,2001976 8,000 1,785 4,587 3,980 3,929 3,680 3,993 2,689 16,3001977 7,840 2,985 4,566 3,960 3,887 3,565 3,950 2,506 16,4001978 7,720 3,780 4,517 3,890 3,843 3,551 3,905 2,638 16,4001979 9,300 6,085 3,220 2,760 2,723 2,774 2,767 2,987 18,4001980 8,570 6,280 3,378 2,700 2,668 2,876 2,711 4,440 16,3001981 8,080 9,852 3,268 2,670 2,619 2,629 2,661 2,941 18,5001982 6,920 8,454 3,302 2,640 2,573 2,632 2,614 3,920 18,8001983 6,990 8,695 3,127 2,670 2,471 2,556 2,457 3,902 18,3001984 7,440 7,192 3,234 3,040 2,352 2,632 2,286 2,474 21,1001985 7,300 7,361 2,858 3,030 2,213 2,541 2,099 2,703 20,6001986 8,050 6,122 2,722 2,860 2,052 2,294 1,896 3,230 19,7001987 7,220 6,497 2,522 2,950 1,877 2,061 1,687 2,993 20,7001988 6,860 6,342 2,456 2,710 1,698 2,000 1,481 4,475 19,3001989 6,400 9,191 2,210 2,790 1,527 1,785 1,289 2,113 20,0001990 6,420 7,510 2,064 2,770 1,370 1,831 1,117 1,942 20,1001991 6,060 9,748 1,779 2,470 1,228 1,572 963 1,898 19,8001992 5,590 8,481 1,722 2,560 1,146 1,314 863 2,239 20,8001993 6,230 7,764 1,454 2,880 970 1,320 697 3,148 19,7001994 5,900 8,848 1,309 2,760 846 1,213 578 3,162 19,3001995 4,370 10,798 1,046 4,280 722 1,021 467 2,523 19,5001996 4,550 10,630 1,186 3,740 735 892 447 1,576 19,3001997 4,200 7,504 903 5,080 476 608 269 1,484 19,3001998 3,900 7,574 701 4,200 356 562 186 1,803 18,3001999 3,740 7,252 537 4,040 240 467 114 3,121 20,9002000 3,700 13,032 447 3,720 191 391 82 3,012 21,1002001 3,620 14,689 394 3,670 144 357 54 3,054 20,8002002 4,420 14,718 932 3,160 480 718 154 2,322 19,0002003 5,160 13,093 1,709 3,030 972 1,255 311 1,174 18,6002004 5,200 19,622 1,520 2,800 876 1,255 281 1,011 18,9002005 5,170 14,299 1,438 2,680 832 1,209 267 948 18,1002006 5,250 17,973 1,358 2,560 790 1,169 253 939 18,5002007 6,110 13,583 1,399 2,500 780 1,102 250 1,700 19,9002008 5,130 14,416 1,448 2,530 796 1,309 255 1,272 18,4002009 4,820 13,317 1,472 2,590 820 1,005 263 1,282 16,7001 Others category includes 47 additional taxonomic groups.Haiti and Navassa Is. - Ramdeen et al. 37reconstruction oF total marine Fisheries catches For haiti and navassa island (1950–2010)1Robin Ramdeen, Dyhia Belhabib, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,  2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canadar.ramdeen@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.belhabib@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstractA reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Haiti and Navassa from 1950 to 2010 was undertaken. The catch reconstruction combines estimates of artisanal catches with subsistence catches estimated from seafood consumption data combined with trade and aquaculture data. The reconstructed total catch for Haiti and Navassa was estimated at 846,900 t for the study period (1950-2010), which is approximately three times the reported catch of 280,272 t. A large part of this discrepancy was due to the inclusion of unreported subsistence catch estimates and the improved accounting of conch, lobster, crab and shrimp artisanal fisheries catches in the early time period.introductionFamous for its practice of the voodoo religion, a tumultuous history of successive dictatorship and, recently, a catastrophic earthquake in 2010, the rugged tropical Republic of Haiti shares the island of Hispaniola with the Dominican Republic. Hispaniola, “discovered” by Christopher Columbus in 1492, lies in the north central Caribbean, between 18° and 20° north latitudes, and 71° 30’ and 74° 30’ west longitudes (Figure 1). The island was the first Spanish settlement in the New World (Smucker 2001) and the world’s first black republic. Haiti is a mountainous country characterized by steep slopes and a narrow shelf (Appledoorn and Meyers 1993). It is associated with 5 small islands: Tortuga Island, Gonaive Island, Vache, Les Arcadins, and Navassa Island, located between Haiti and Jamaica. Note that while Haiti claimed Navassa in 1804, it has been under the jurisdiction of the USA as part of the Caribbean Islands National Wildlife Refuge since 1856 (Wiener 2006). However, we at the Sea Around Us Project have allocated Navassa Island’s EEZ to Haiti as it is Haitians who fish in Navassa’s waters and not the US. Haiti has a land area of approximately 27,750 km2, occupying the western third of the island of Hispaniola. It is bounded to the north by the Atlantic Ocean and to the south by the Caribbean Sea. Haiti and its associated islands experience a tropical climate with temperatures between 25.5°C and 28°C depending on altitude and exposure to the prevailing north-east trade winds. Rainfall is irregular, giving Haiti a semi-arid climate, with little to no rainfall from December through February. A considerable portion of the Haitian coast is fringed with coral and rocky reefs, with large areas of sand and gravel beach and low-lying mangrove swamps (Fiedler et al. 1943), while Navassa Island is comprised of a raised plateau surrounded by limestone cliffs. In terms of ecosystem productivity, the waters off Haiti are largely regarded as rather poor producers of fish, since there are no large fluxes of nutrients available to support plankton production. However, to the north, a branch of the North Equatorial Current passes approximately 20 miles offshore. This current is one of the major migration routes of tuna, marlin, swordfish and other large migratory species (Fiedler et al. 1943). Also, due to its isolation and uninhabited status, Navassa had been described as having a relatively pristine reef community (Miller et al. 2002).Haiti is one of the poorest and most densely populated countries in the Western Hemisphere. Current per capita GDP stands at $500 (UNEP 2010). Haiti is a country with enormous environmental problems, a direct consequence of the poverty which plagues a large fraction of the population. The diet of the average Haitian includes meals in which beans and occasionally meat (goat, beef, or pork) or fish serve as the main source of protein (Sebrell et al. 1959). However, such proteins are not consumed every day. Haiti has a continental shelf area of approximately 1 Cite as: Ramdeen, R., Belhabib, D., Harper, S., and Zeller, D. (2012) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Haiti and Navassa Island (1950-2010). pp. 37-45. In: Harper, S., Zylich, K., Boonzaier, L., Le Manach, F., Pauly, D., and Zeller D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].!Port-au-Prince74°W16°N0 200100 km±Navassa Is.Figure 1.  Map of Haiti and associated islands including Navassa. The black line corresponds to the demarcation of the Exclusive Economic Zone.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III38435 km2 and an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of approximately 112,000 km2 (www.seaaroundus.org), which was declared in 1977. This is the smallest EEZ of all the Greater Antillean Islands, which also include Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic. The main marine resources exploited within the EEZ are demersal (reef) fish and a limited quantity of pelagic fish, both over the continental shelf and offshore (Romain 2005). The continental shelf around Haiti is relatively narrow and easily accessible to fishers, and as a result, the coastal and demersal fish stocks are heavily over-exploited (FAO 1981). In contrast, offshore pelagic fisheries and deep-water demersal fisheries are said to be under-exploited due to technological limitations (Mateo and Haughton 2003). Marine species are also exploited in the mangrove forests, where people mainly catch crabs as well as shrimp, fish and shellfish (Aube and Caron 2001).Small-scale fishing has a long history along Haiti’s coast (Fiedler et al. 1943), and it absorbed many underemployed and unemployed Haitians (Zacks 1998). Marine resource exploitation in Haiti has always been open-access. Thus the fisheries resources of Navassa are extremely important to Haitian fishers, and appear to have been exploited since at least the 1970s (Wiener 2006). The fishing sector is primarily artisanal, multi-gear, multi-species and marketed mainly for local sale and personal consumption (FAO 1981). Small-scale fishers operate from small wooden boats (Zacks 1998), canoes and pirogues, which are propelled by oars or sails (Brethes and Rioux 1986 in Appledoorn and Meyers 1993). Presently, the sector comprises about 52,000 fishers from 400 villages, operating a total of 26,400 vessels (Damais et al. 2007). Despite technological advances elsewhere in the Caribbean, the Haitian fisheries sector remains predominantly unmechanized. Only 1,400 motorized vessels were enumerated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development (MARNDR) in a 2007 fisheries sector study.Traditionally, fishing is done by men, while women, often called Madam Sara, do the marketing of the catch (Zacks 1998). Overall, fishing is multi-species and multi-gear. Fish pots, nets, lines and spearguns are the primary gears used. Occasionally, those who can afford them may use lights attached to a battery for night fishing called pêch batri (Wiener 2006). Pieces of fish, lobster, marine turtle, sea star, bird, sea cucumber, crab, orange, and corn-based animal feed made into a ball are used as bait. Anything which may have value either for consumption or sale, or use as bait is taken (M. Karnauskaus, pers. comm., National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA).Marine organisms exploited in Haiti are consumed by the fishers and their families or marketed locally or, in the case of conch and spiny lobster, internationally (Zacks 1998). After basic processing, fish catches are classified into three groups: red or pink pwason rose, white pwason blanch and black pwason noir. The least desired black fish include butterfly fish and puffer fishes, white fish is mid-range and includes dolphin fish (Coryphaena hippurus) and barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) while “red” or “pink” fish such as snapper (Lutjanidae) and grouper (Serranidae) are the most desired (Wiener 2006). About 30% of the fish caught in Haiti is salted and dried before being marketed, the rest is consumed fresh (Damais et al. 2007). Post-harvest losses are reported to be common in Haiti’s fishing villages, since ice and refrigeration are scarce or completely lacking. Poor sanitation standards have also affected Haiti’s ability to trade internationally. Haitian seafood is banned from European and North American markets (Anon. 2003). However, some species are exported such as lobsters (Panulirus argus), conch (Strombus spp.), shrimp (Penaeus spp.), octopus (Octopodidae) and crabs (Menippe mercenaria) with a significant proportion of these catches informally entering the Dominican Republic (Anon. 2003). Overall, Haiti’s demand for seafood is higher than local catches can satisfy, and thus Haiti is a net importer of fish (MARNDR 2009).As in many Caribbean Islands, the fisheries sector has been neglected by the governments of Haiti. According to Mateo and Haughton (2003), the Haitian Fisheries Service initiated in 1952 has limited institutional capability and insufficient finances to operate satisfactorily. Fisheries legislations are outdated. The Fisheries Law of 1977 is still the main legal instrument by which fisheries activities are regulated (Mateo and Haughton 2003). Management regulations are generally neither respected by fishers nor enforced by the fisheries management authorities. Though data collection is one of the key functions of the Fisheries Service, limited human resources mean that statistical data for the sector are very poor.It is widely recognised that catch statistics are crucial to fisheries management (Pauly 1998). Fisheries data of any kind, including catch data, are virtually impossible to find for Haiti. For instance, when reviewing tables documenting fisheries data for the various islands of the Caribbean region (in FAO, Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism [CRFM], Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute [GCFI] documents), Haiti’s input is almost always left blank. This study aims to gather available information on fisheries catches and fishing practices to reconstruct Haiti and Navassa Island’s total fisheries catches for the period 1950-2010. The catch reconstruction method used here is based on the approach developed by Zeller et al. (2007). We aim to improve the catch data both quantitatively and taxonomically.methodsBaseline catch, trade and aquaculture data were extracted from the FAO FishStat database. A review of accessible Haitian historical, dietary and fisheries literature was undertaken to identify anchor points required for inferences on seafood demand, total artisanal catches, number of fishers and species caught. Commercial fisheries landings consist of fish marketed locally or exported abroad. Due to the small-scale nature of all commerce in Haiti, all commercial landings in Haiti are attributed to artisanal catches. Here we define subsistence catches as those used primarily for home consumption or those which are bartered locally. Though we realise that the boundary between artisanal and subsistence is less than clear cut.Haiti and Navassa Is. - Ramdeen et al. 39Human population and fisher populationPeople reside on Haiti and adjacent islands, except Navassa Island, which is uninhabited, but visited by Haitians fishers. Human population statistics for Haiti were taken from Populstat (www.populstat.info) for 1950 and from World Bank from 1960–2010. A linear interpolation was used to derive population values for years with missing data. The overall population of Haiti has increased steadily from 3 million in 1950 to nearly 10 million in 2010 (Figure 2a). Population data were used in the calculation of total seafood demand from 1950 to 2010 (which was utilised in reconstructing subsistence catches) and also in the estimation of the proportion of fishers in the total population.Data on the number of fishers in Haiti were available for six years from 1942 to 2006, from various sources (Table 1). We used a direct linear interpolation between anchor points to derive data for all years during the period 1942-2006. From the final anchor point (2006) we determined the proportion of fishers in the population and use this fixed figure to estimate number of fishers for 2007-2010. Using this approach suggests that nearly 55,000 fishers existed in Haiti in 2010 (Figure 2b).Artisanal landings of HaitiAnnually, national organizations such as the MARNDR in Haiti submit catch data and other fishery statistics to FAO. Ideally, catch statistics should be collected for all fisheries sectors: industrial, artisanal, subsistence and recreational. Unfortunately, only a limited number of countries collect this information (Garibaldi 2012). Thus commercial landings are typically what the FAO reports in their landings statistics on behalf of a country. Estimates of Haiti’s artisanal fisheries catches, used here as anchor points, are represented in Table 1. Dividing reported catches by the number of fishers reported for the corresponding year gave the catch per unit effort (CPUE) for artisanal fishers. We estimated four values of CPUE for 1942, 1957, 1976 and 2006. Linear interpolations were applied between these 4 anchor points to derive the CPUEs for 1950-2010. Multiplying CPUE by the number of fishers estimated for each year (Figure 2b.) we reconstructed an estimate of Haiti’s artisanal fisheries catches from 1950 to 2010.Subsistence catchesIt is reported that Haitian fisheries are primarily subsistence based (Moal 1977; FAO 1981). However, data regarding subsistence fisheries in Haiti were not readily available. To independently estimate the subsistence catches in Haiti, we relied on a national nutrition study by Table 1.   Data sources of fishers, artisanal catches and calculated CPUEs.Year No. of fishersArtisanalCatches (t)Source Artisanal CPUE(kg/fisher/year)1942 3,017 938 Fiedler et al. 1943 3111957 8,000 4,035 Beghin et al. 1970 5041976 - 7,650 France (1977) 76211985 11,000 - Laserre et al. (1985) in Mateo and Haughton (2003)-1989 12,000 - UNDP/FAO (1989) in Mateo and Haughton (2003)-2000 30,000 - Breuil (2000) in Mateo and Haughton 2003)-2006 52,000 15,850 MARDNR (2007) 3051This CPUE was calculated using our estimate of number of fishers for 1976 (10,036) as derived through linear interpolation.024681012Population (x 106)a)01020304050601950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Fishers (x 103)Yearb)Figure 2.  Basic statistics on Haiti: a) Total Haitian population and b) trend in the number of fishers.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III40Sebrell et al. (1959), which cited an average fish intake of 2.92 kg·person-1·year-1. To derive subsistence catch rates, we assumed the consumption reported in Sebrell et al. (1959) remained constant over time. Hence we estimated total seafood demand by multiplying annual population numbers by 2.92 kg·person-1·year-1. This generated total demand for seafood, from which available import and aquaculture data were subtracted to arrive at estimated domestic marine catch demand. As import data were highly variable and unreliable, we used this derived marine catch demand as a guide only. From this, we derived an assumed average per capita seafood subsistence rate of approximately 1.0 kg·person-1·year-1. However, we also assumed subsistence catch rates were 25% higher in the earlier time period and 25% lower in the later time period. Thus we applied a seafood subsistence rate of 1.25 kg∙person-1·year-1 in 1950 and 0.75 kg·person-1·year-1 in 2010. Interpolating linearly between these two per capita domestic marine subsistence rates, and subsequently multiplying by annual population figures, we estimated subsistence catches for Haiti from 1950-2010.Composition of Haiti’s catchCatches as reported by the FAO on behalf of Haiti are highly aggregated, with just five groups being presented: “Natantian decapods nei”, “Stromboid conchs nei”, “Caribbean spiny lobster”, “Marine crabs nei” and “Marine fishes nei”. As detailed quantitative catch data for Haiti and Navassa were not readily available, we used the FAO breakdown in years with the most taxonomic categories as a starting point. Thus we calculated the proportion of total catch by group from 1995 to 2010 (1995 is the first year when all groups have a non-zero value recorded) and applied these proportions throughout the period 1950 to 1995 to the total reconstructed catch. The proportions were as follows: “Natantian decapods nei” (6.5%), “Stromboid conch nei” (5.2%), “Caribbean spiny lobster” (9.3%), “Marine crabs nei” (2.5%) and “Marine fishes nei” (76.5%). For 1995 onwards, we used annual proportions from the FAO dataset and applied these to total reconstructed catches.For the artisanal sector we assumed 80% reef-demersal taxa, 10% pelagic taxa and 10% miscellaneous marine fishes in 1950. In 2010 we assumed 60% reef-demersal taxa, 30% pelagic taxa and 10% miscellaneous marine fishes, using direct linear interpolation in between. The reef-demersal component was further subdivided using Zacks (1998) while the pelagic taxa component was further subdivided using qualitative information from Prado et al. (1991, in Reynal et al. 2000) and Zacks (1998). For the subsistence sector, we assumed 20% miscellaneous marine fishes and 80% reef-demersal taxa for the period 1950-2010. Given the preference of Haitian people for delicate fish over “thick or greasy meat” (Zacks 1998) pelagic species are assumed not to form part of these catches. The reef-demersal component was further subdivided using Zacks (1998).To further disaggregate the “Marine fishes nei” category, we relied on quantitative and qualitative catch data from Zacks (1998) and Prado et al. (1991, in Reynal et al. 2000). Zacks’ (1998) study included an examination of three separate catches from each of ten fishers using multiple traditional gears (bamboo traps, gill nets, hook and line, and spearguns) from June to August 1995 in Luly, Haiti. Prado et al. (1991, in Reynal et al. 2000) provided details of a pelagic fish aggregating device (FAD) fishery being established in Haiti in the early 1990s, allowing fishers with the means (i.e., motors) to exploit larger coastal pelagic species such as dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) and sailfish (Xiphias gladius). Zacks (1998) also described that fishers targeting sailfish incidentally capture wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), dolphinfish, mackerel (Scomberemous spp.), barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) and tunas (Thunnus spp.). Hence, the following species breakdown was applied to the pelagic category: blue marlin (16.7%), sailfish (16.7%), dolphinfish (16.7%), wahoo (12.5%), mackerels (12.6), barracuda (12.5%) and tunas (12.5%). The complete species breakdowns for the artisanal and subsistence sectors are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.Navassa catch levels and compositionThree scenarios of annual landings for fish, lobster and queen conch at Navassa were estimated by Miller et al. (2008). Methods included extrapolations of landings observed in on-site visits and stated by fishers working in Navassa in semi-directed group and individual interviews in 2004 and 2005. Their extrapolations were based on number of boat Table 2.   Taxonomic breakdown for artisanal sector in Haiti. Taxa % in 1950 % in 2010Ablennes hians 0.32 0.24Acanthocybium solandri 1.25 3.75Acanthurus bahianus 0.20 0.15Caranx ruber 9.49 7.12Chaetodon capistratus 0.52 0.39Chaetodon sedentarius 0.20 0.15Clepticus parrae 27.17 20.38Conger triporiceps 0.28 0.21Coryphaena hippurus 1.67 5.00Decapterus macarellus 1.07 0.80Epinephelus cruentatus 0.64 0.48Gymnothorax moringa 0.32 0.24Haemulon aurolineatum 1.67 1.25Haemulon flavolineatum 0.52 0.39Haemulon plumieri 1.47 1.10Hemiramphus brasiliensis 0.48 0.36Holocentrus adscensionis 1.55 1.16Holocentrus rufus 1.51 1.13Inermia vittata 0.44 0.33Lactophrys spp. 0.20 0.15Lutjanus apodus 0.20 0.15Lutjanus campechanus 2.03 1.52Lutjanus griseus 0.36 0.27Makiara nigricans 1.67 5.00Mulloidichthys martinicus 2.98 2.23Myripristis jacobus 0.64 0.48Ocyurus chrysurus 0.52 0.39Priacanthus cruentatus 1.11 0.83Pseudopeneus maculatus 1.83 1.37Rhomboplites aurorubens 0.99 0.74Scombridae 1.25 3.75Selar crumenophthalmus 5.56 4.17Sparisoma aurofrenatum 6.95 5.21Sparisoma chrysopterum 0.52 0.39Sparisoma rubripinne 0.24 0.18Sparisoma viride 2.11 1.58Sphyraena barracuda 1.25 3.75Sphyraena picudilla 5.2 3.90Thunnus spp. 1.25 3.75Tylosurus crocodilus 0.75 0.57Xiphias gladius 1.67 5.00Misc. marine fishes 10.00 10.00Haiti and Navassa Is. - Ramdeen et al. 41trips to Navassa per year, mean daily boats observed in November 2004 and mean daily boats observed in 2002. Since fish caught in Navassa and landed in Haiti is already processed (head and guts removed), Miller et al. (2008) applied FAO conversion factors (2.0 and 2.5) to arrive at a max-min range of fresh whole catches landed annually under the following fishing scenarios: 150 trips, 99 trips and 45 trips. We took the minimum total catch landed and assumed a discard rate of zero (M. Karnauskaus, pers. comm., National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA), which provided a conservative mean estimate of 31 t∙year-1, which we applied each year, beginning in 1970 to reconstruct the minimum fish catches from Navassa Island.To disaggregate Navassan catches, we utilized Miller et al. (2002) enumeration of species caught in fishing boats observed at Navassa Island from October to November 2002 (Table 4). These were converted to weights using the species common weights in Fishbase (www.fishbase.org; accessed January, 2012) and a trap fishing survey of Pedro Bank (Hartsuijker 1982).resultsHaiti artisanal catchesReconstructed artisanal catches for Haiti totalled 492,273 t, which accounts for 58.1% of the total reconstructed catches for Haiti and Navassa Island (Figure 3a). In 1950, artisanal catches amounted to 2,350 t·year-1, increasing to 7,650 t·year-1 in 1976 before stabilizing until 1989. From 1990 onwards, catches increase substantially to a peak of 16,710 t·year-1 in 2010. Catches of large pelagic species prior to FAD fishery development (1950-1989) averaged approximately 370 t·year-1, and increased to an average of 1,758 t·year-1 from 1990 to 2010 due to FADs.Haiti subsistence catchesReconstructed subsistence catches for Haiti increased steadily from 3,871 t·year-1 in 1950 to 7,495 t·year-1 in 2010 (Figure 3a). Total reconstructed catches from this sector amounted to 353,355 t, which accounts for 41.7% of the total reconstructed catches for Haiti and Navassa Island.Catch compositionFisheries catches of Haiti were dominated by reef and demersal species (Figure 3b) such as wrasses (Labridae; 20%) and parrotfish (Scaridae; 7%). Also important were small coastal pelagics, such as jacks (Carangidae; 12%) and southern sennet (S. picudilla; 4%). Invertebrate species were also dominant, as is demonstrated by the importance of lobster (Panuliridae; 9%), miscellaneous decapods (6.5%), conch (Strombidae; 5%) and miscellaneous crabs (3%). Large pelagics account for approximately 7% of total catches but are increasing in significance. Pelagic species dominant in FAD catches were blue marlin, dolphinfish, swordfish, wahoo, barracuda and tunas. “Others” comprised 22 families of reef and demersal species including surgeonfish (Acanthuridae), butterflyfish (Chaetodontidae), squirrelfish (Holocentridae), trunkfish (Ostraciidae), eels (Congridae), stingrays (Dasyatidae and Urotrygonidae), sharks (Carcharhinidae), octopus, and sea cucumbers (Holothuroidea), as well as “Marine fishes nei”. Reconstructed catches from Navassa Island totalled 1,271 t for the 1970–2010 time period and are included in Figure 3. These catches were dominated by Sphyraena barracuda (32%).Total reconstructed catchTotal annual reconstructed landings linearly increased from an average of 6,800 t·year-1 in the early 1950s to 12,000 t·year-1 in the early 1970s, and then stabilized at an average of 13,100 t·year-1 from the mid-1970s to 1990 (Figure 3a). From there catches increased again up to their peak in 2010 of 24,236 t·year-1. This trend differs from the data presented by FAO on behalf of Haiti. Landings increased to a peak in the mid-1980s, where they then decreased in to the mid-1990s and increased again to a new high in 2004 and stayed constant until 2010 (Figure 3a). The reconstructed total catch for Haiti and Navassa for the period 1950-2010 was estimated at 846,900 t, which is approximately 3 times the catch supplied to the FAO by Haiti (Figure 3a).Table 4.   Taxonomic breakdown for Navassa Island catches. The breakdown was based on Miller et al. (2002).Taxa %Balistidae 6.73Urotrygonidae 3.05Monacanthidae 6.75Lutjanidae 5.60Malacanthidae 0.77Sphyraenidae 35.15Holocentridae 0.53Ostraciidae 25.99Acanthuridae 4.28Carangidae 9.00Scaridae 0.15Dasyatidae 0.31Carcharhinidae 1.43Serranidae 0.26Table 3.   Taxonomic breakdown for the subsistence sector in Haiti.Taxa %Ablennes hians 0.32Acanthurus bahianus 0.20Caranx ruber 9.49Chaetodon capistratus 0.52Chaetodon sedentarius 0.20Clepticus parrae 27.17Conger triporiceps 0.28Decapterus macarellus 1.07Epinephelus cruentatus 0.64Gymnothorax moringa 0.32Haemulon aurolineatum 1.67Haemulon flavolineatum 0.52Haemulon plumieri 1.47Hemiramphus brasiliensis 0.48Holocentrus adscensionis 1.55Holocentrus rufus 1.51Inermia vittata 0.44Lactophrys spp. 0.20Lutjanus apodus 0.20Lutjanus campechanus 2.03Lutjanus griseus 0.36Mulloidichthys martinicus 2.98Myripristis jacobus 0.64Ocyurus chrysurus 0.52Priacanthus cruentatus 1.11Pseudopeneus maculatus 1.83Rhomboplites aurorubens 0.99Selar crumenophthalmus 5.56Sparisoma aurofrenatum 6.95Sparisoma chrysopterum 0.52Sparisoma rubripinne 0.24Sparisoma viride 2.11Sphyraena picudilla 5.20Tylosurus crocodilus 0.75Misc. marine fishes 20.00Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III42discussionHaiti and Navassa Island’s total catches from 1950-2010, as estimated in our reconstruction, were approximately 846,900 t. Over the same period, FAO reported landings of 280,272 t on behalf of Haiti. The reconstructed catch is 3 times the total landings as supplied to the FAO. Our reconstruction does three things: it assesses fisheries sectors that have been overlooked, including Navassa Island fisheries and a sizeable subsistence fishery, it improves on what has been reported for the artisanal sector by filling in catches of invertebrates for a time period when catches were wrongly recorded as zero, and it improves the taxonomic resolution of the catch.Catches from the subsistence sector, contributing 41.7% to the overall fisheries reconstruction for Haiti, were the largest contributor to the difference in reported catches and reconstructed catches. Haitian fisheries are demonstrating some of the symptoms of Malthusian overfishing (Pauly 1994): the population of fishers increased by a factor of 2.5 in the decade 1990 to 2000, and CPUEs fell by 60% from 1976 to 2005. Uncontrolled population growth has placed considerable pressure on Haiti’s resources, and this pressure is rapidly being transferred to the sea. With several recommendations pointing to further investment in exploiting offshore FAD fisheries (Mateo and Haughton 2003; MARNDR 2009; Damais et al. 2007), the likely response will be larger and more powerful boats fishing further offshore as described by Pauly and Froese (2001). Due to high demand, Haiti relies heavily on imported seafood. However, a significant portion of seafood demand is still being satisfied by domestic catches. Of these catches, only those from the artisanal sector are partially being recorded and hence reported to the FAO. This is demonstrated by the similarity of FAO landings data in 1950 to our reconstructed catches from the artisanal sector. Given the high likelihood that Haiti, at least in recent times, is one the countries that fails to report their catches to FAO (Garibaldi 2012), it is likely that FAO utilises an expert estimate only. This is also reflected in the very limited taxonomic accounts in official data.While our approach requires assumption-based inferences and interpolations, we believe that our estimate reflects more correctly the likely scale of actual catches than does reported data (Zeller et al. 2007). The people of Haiti depend on fisheries, both as a vital source of protein and as a livelihood. As it stands, they are degrading the very system which supports them. Haiti reports about a third of what is being removed from its waters. Better accounting of fisheries extractions by the subsistence sector is urgently needed to better understand total resource use. Given the difficulties in fisheries monitoring, especially subsistence fisheries, this can be best achieved through regular, albeit non-annual, surveys (Zeller et al. 2007).acKnowledgementsWe thank Mr. Jean Robert Badio of the Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development of Haiti for his assistance in providing fisheries reports. We thank Ms. Mandy Karnauskaus for her assistance in understanding the fisheries of Navassa. This work was completed as part of the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.051015202530Catch (t x 103 )Submitted to FAOSubsistenceArtisanala)0510152025301950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Yearb)LabridaeCarangidaeDecapodaStrombidaeOthersSphyraenidaeMarine crabs neiLarge pelagicsScaridaePanuliridaeFigure 3.  a) Total reconstructed catches for Haiti and Navassa Island by sector, compared to data reported to the FAO from 1950 to 2010. b) Total reconstructed catches for Haiti and Navassa Island by main taxa caught. ‘Others’ category comprised 20 taxa of reef and demersal fish.Haiti and Navassa Is. - Ramdeen et al. 43reFerencesAnon. (2003) Report of the multidisciplinary survey of the fisheries of Haiti. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism Secretariat, Belize City (Belize). 39 p.Appledoorn R and Meyers S (1993) Puerto Rico and Hispaniola. pp. 99-158 In Mahon R, Appeldoorn R, Meyers S, Aiken K and Baisre J (eds.), Marine fishery resources of the Antilles: Lesser Antilles, Puerto Rico and Hispaniola, Jamaica, Cuba. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.Aube M and Caron L (2001) The mangroves of the north coast of Haiti. Wetlands Ecology and Management 9: 271-278.Beghin I, Fougere W and King KW (1970) L’Alimentation et la nutrition en Haiti. Institut d’etude du developpement economique et social, Universite de Paris, Paris. 248 p.Damais G, deVerdilhac P, Simon A and Celestin DS (2007) Etude de la filière pêche en Haïti et propositions de stratégie d’appui au secteur. Haiti. 133 p.FAO (1981) Aquaculture development and coordination programme. Aquaculture development in the Caribbean. Report of a mission to Antigua, Haiti, Jamaica, Montserrat and St. Lucia, June-July 1980. FAO, Rome. 95 p.Fiedler RH, Lobell MJ and Lucas CR (1943) The fisheries and fishery resources of Haiti: with recommendations for their expansion and development. U.S. Caribbean Fishery Mission, Washington. 16 p.France (1977) Ministère de la Coopération, Fonds d’Aide et de Coopération et développement des pêches traditionnelles en Haiti. République Haiti SCET International, Paris. 119-120 p.Garibaldi L (2012) The FAO global capture production database: A six-decade effort to catch the trend. Marine Policy 36: 760-768.Hartsuijker L (1982) Trapfishing survey of Pedro Bank (Jamaica). Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Jamaica. 124 p.MARNDR (2009) Programme national pour le developpement de la peche maritime en Haiti. Haiti. 71 p.Mateo J and Haughton M (2003) A Review of the fisheries sector of Haiti with recommendations for its strengthening. 54th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Proceedings, Belize City. Gulf Caribbean Fisheries Institute. 11 p.Miller MW, McClellan DB and Beghin C (2002) Observations on fisheries activities at Navassa Island. Marine Fisheries Review 3(65): 43-49.Miller MW, Wiener JW, McClellan DB and Stoffle B (2008) Preliminary effort and yield estimates from the Haitian Fishery at Navassa Island. 60th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute Proceedings, Punta Cana. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. 3 p.Moal RA (1977) Developpement des peches traditionnelles en Haiti. SCET International. 121 p.Pauly D (1994) On Malthusian overfishing. p. 255 In Pauly D (ed.) On the sex of fish and the gender of scientists: a collection of essays in fisheries science. Chapman and Hall, London.Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Corporation Bulletin 11(2): 4.Pauly D and Froese R (2001) Fish Stocks. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity 2: 14.Reynal L, van Buurt G and Taquet M (2000) Perspectives de développement des DCP ancrés dans les Petites Antilles. L’exemple de trois îles: Guadeloupe, Martinique et Curaçao. 19 p.Romain W (2005) National report–Haiti. pp. 209-212 In Report of the first annual CRFM Scientific meeting. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism, Belize City (Belize).Sebrell WH, Smith SC, Severinghaus EL, Delva H, Reid BL, Olcott HS, Benadotte J, Fougere W, Barron GP, Nicolas G, King KW, Brinkman GL and French CE (1959) Appraisal of Nutrition in Haiti. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 7: 538-534.Smucker GR (2001) Haiti: the society and its environment. pp. 311-361 In Chaplin Metz H (ed.) Dominican Republic and Haiti country studies, 3rd edition. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, Washington.UNEP (2010) GEO State of the Environment Report. United Nations Environment Program, Port-au-Prince (Haiti). 188 p.Wiener JW (2006) Oral history and contemporary assessment of Navassa Island fishermen. Report for the United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program. 35 p.Zacks MH (1998) No one owns the sea because it belongs to us all: a socioeconomic and biological study of the fishery of Luly, Haiti. Masters of Arts thesis, University of University of Florida. 197 p.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for U.S. flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 11.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III44Appendix Table A1.   FAO landings vs. total reconstructed catch (in tonnes), by sector, for Haiti and Navassa Island, 1950-2010.Year FAO landings Total reconstructed catch Subsistence Artisanal1950 2,000 6,220 3,870 2,3501951 2,100 6,510 3,940 2,5601952 2,200 6,800 4,010 2,7901953 2,200 7,100 4,080 3,0201954 2,500 7,400 4,140 3,2601955 2,500 7,720 4,210 3,5101956 2,500 8,040 4,270 3,7701957 2,700 8,370 4,330 4,0401958 2,700 8,590 4,390 4,2001959 2,700 8,820 4,450 4,3701960 2,900 9,050 4,510 4,5401961 2,900 9,280 4,570 4,7101962 2,900 9,510 4,630 4,8801963 3,000 9,750 4,690 5,0601964 3,100 9,990 4,750 5,2401965 3,200 10,240 4,810 5,4301966 3,200 10,480 4,870 5,6201967 3,300 10,740 4,930 5,8101968 3,300 10,990 4,990 6,0001969 3,300 11,240 5,050 6,2001970 3,700 11,530 5,100 6,4301971 3,700 11,780 5,150 6,6301972 3,700 12,040 5,200 6,8301973 3,700 12,290 5,250 7,0401974 3,700 12,550 5,300 7,2501975 3,700 12,820 5,360 7,4601976 3,700 13,090 5,410 7,6801977 3,850 13,080 5,470 7,6101978 4,000 13,070 5,540 7,5301979 4,200 13,060 5,610 7,4501980 4,700 13,060 5,690 7,3701981 5,200 13,050 5,770 7,2801982 5,700 13,050 5,860 7,1901983 6,200 13,050 5,950 7,1001984 6,600 13,050 6,040 7,0101985 6,100 13,040 6,130 6,9101986 5,700 13,100 6,210 6,8901987 5,450 13,160 6,300 6,8701988 5,200 13,210 6,380 6,8401989 5,200 13,250 6,450 6,8001990 4,800 14,050 6,530 7,5101991 4,800 14,790 6,610 8,1801992 4,500 15,480 6,680 8,7901993 4,550 16,110 6,750 9,3601994 5,000 16,700 6,820 9,8801995 5,017 17,230 6,890 10,3401996 4,745 17,720 6,960 10,7601997 4,801 18,150 7,030 11,1201998 4,759 18,530 7,090 11,4401999 5,300 18,850 7,150 11,7002000 5,800 19,120 7,200 11,9202001 6,400 20,110 7,250 12,8602002 7,000 20,980 7,300 13,6902003 7,600 21,740 7,340 14,4002004 8,000 22,380 7,370 15,0102005 8,000 22,900 7,400 15,5002006 8,000 23,310 7,430 15,8802007 8,000 23,540 7,450 16,1002008 8,000 23,780 7,460 16,3102009 8,000 24,010 7,480 16,5202010 8,000 24,240 7,490 16,740Haiti and Navassa Is. - Ramdeen et al. 45Appendix Table A2.   Total reconstructed catch (in tonnes) for Haiti and Navassa Island by major taxa, 1950-2010. Year Labridae Carangidae Panuliridae Scaridae Decapods Strombidae Sphyraenidae Brachyura Large Pelagics Others11950 1,290 767 580 467 405 322 248 156 180 1,8001951 1,350 802 607 488 424 337 259 163 196 1,8801952 1,410 839 634 510 443 352 271 170 213 1,9501953 1,470 875 662 533 462 367 282 178 231 2,0301954 1,540 913 691 556 482 383 295 185 249 2,1101955 1,600 952 720 579 503 400 307 193 269 2,1901956 1,670 992 750 603 523 416 320 201 288 2,2801957 1,740 1,032 780 628 545 433 333 210 309 2,3601958 1,790 1,060 801 645 560 445 342 215 321 2,4201959 1,830 1,088 823 662 574 457 351 221 334 2,4801960 1,880 1,116 844 679 589 468 360 227 347 2,5401961 1,930 1,144 865 696 604 480 369 232 360 2,6001962 1,980 1,173 887 714 619 492 379 238 374 2,6601963 2,030 1,203 909 732 635 505 388 244 387 2,7201964 2,080 1,232 932 750 651 517 398 250 401 2,7801965 2,130 1,263 955 768 666 530 407 256 415 2,8501966 2,180 1,293 978 787 683 543 417 263 430 2,9101967 2,230 1,324 1,001 806 699 556 427 269 444 2,9801968 2,280 1,355 1,025 825 716 569 437 275 459 3,0401969 2,340 1,387 1,049 844 732 582 447 282 474 3,1101970 2,390 1,421 1,074 863 749 596 458 288 499 3,1901971 2,440 1,452 1,097 882 765 610 468 294 514 3,2601972 2,490 1,483 1,121 901 782 623 478 301 530 3,3201973 2,550 1,515 1,145 920 798 636 488 307 546 3,3901974 2,600 1,547 1,169 940 815 649 498 314 562 3,4601975 2,660 1,580 1,194 960 833 663 509 320 578 3,5201976 2,710 1,614 1,220 980 851 678 520 327 595 3,6001977 2,710 1,612 1,219 979 850 677 519 327 589 3,6001978 2,710 1,611 1,218 979 849 676 519 327 584 3,6001979 2,710 1,610 1,217 978 849 676 519 326 578 3,6001980 2,710 1,609 1,216 978 848 676 518 326 571 3,6101981 2,710 1,609 1,216 977 848 675 518 326 565 3,6101982 2,710 1,609 1,216 977 848 675 518 326 558 3,6201983 2,710 1,608 1,216 977 848 675 518 326 551 3,6301984 2,700 1,608 1,215 977 847 675 518 326 543 3,6301985 2,700 1,607 1,214 976 847 674 518 326 536 3,6401986 2,720 1,615 1,221 981 851 678 520 327 535 3,6601987 2,730 1,622 1,226 986 855 681 523 329 533 3,6801988 2,740 1,629 1,231 989 858 684 525 330 531 3,7001989 2,750 1,633 1,235 992 861 686 526 331 528 3,7101990 2,890 1,720 1,308 1,045 913 727 554 351 640 3,9001991 3,020 1,797 1,377 1,092 961 765 579 369 758 4,0601992 3,140 1,867 1,442 1,134 1,006 801 602 387 881 4,2201993 3,240 1,929 1,501 1,172 1,047 834 621 403 1,009 4,3501994 3,340 1,983 1,556 1,205 1,085 864 639 417 1,139 4,4801995 3,200 1,904 3,087 1,157 514 1,201 613 58 1,194 4,3001996 3,840 2,279 710 1,385 559 1,492 735 19 1,547 5,1601997 3,850 2,288 756 1,390 566 1,435 737 268 1,673 5,1801998 3,930 2,336 779 1,420 583 1,362 753 229 1,832 5,3001999 3,960 2,354 960 1,430 710 1,067 759 284 1,970 5,3602000 3,880 2,308 1,187 1,403 922 989 744 362 2,055 5,2702001 3,930 2,336 1,508 1,420 1,161 943 753 471 2,259 5,3302002 3,890 2,312 1,887 1,405 1,407 1,049 745 599 2,411 5,2802003 3,880 2,304 2,287 1,400 1,714 858 742 714 2,574 5,2702004 3,780 2,248 2,655 1,366 2,095 839 724 838 2,678 5,1502005 3,830 2,275 2,717 1,382 2,144 859 733 858 2,876 5,2302006 3,850 2,290 2,765 1,392 2,182 874 738 873 3,059 5,2802007 3,850 2,289 2,794 1,391 2,204 883 738 882 3,215 5,3002008 3,850 2,287 2,821 1,390 2,226 892 737 890 3,374 5,3102009 3,840 2,284 2,848 1,388 2,248 900 736 899 3,536 5,3202010 3,880 2,304 2,876 1,400 2,269 909 743 908 3,582 5,3701 Others category includes 22 additional families.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III46Jamaica - Lingard et al. 47marine Fisheries oF jamaica: total reconstructed catch 1950-20101Stephanie Lingard1, Sarah Harper1, Karl Aiken2, Nakhle Hado3, Stephen Smikle4, and Dirk Zeller1s.lingard@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; kaaiken2002@yahoo.com; nakhlehado@gmail.com; ssmikle@gmail.com; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.ca1Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,  2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada2Department of Life Sciences, University of the West Indies3Food for the Poor, Jamaica4Jamaica Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture and FisheriesabstractJamaica, a single island country in the eastern Caribbean, has a long history of human settlement and overfishing. The country is considered one of the most overfished in the Caribbean region. Despite fish featuring heavily in the cuisine and culture of the island, non-commercial (subsistence and recreational sectors) catches have not previously been estimated comprehensively. These non-commercial catches, as well as discards, are missing from the data presented by the FAO on behalf of Jamaica. This study estimates total catches for all marine fisheries sectors for 1950-2010, including non-commercial catches and discards. Our total reconstructed catch equated to almost 3 million tonnes during the 1950-2010 time period. Our estimate is 4.3 times the data reported by the FAO on behalf of Jamaica. The discrepancy between our estimate and the reported data is attributable to large unmonitored non-commercial catches. Improved monitoring and public outreach to subsistence and recreational fishers is imperative if recent management initiatives to create marine protected areas are to succeed.introductionJamaica, a lush tropical island country in the Caribbean Sea, lies at 18° 15’ N and 77° 30’ W (Figure 1). The island has a land area of 10,991 km2 and an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 263,283 km2 (www.seaaroundus.org; accessed: August 16, 2012; Figure 1). Jamaica’s southern continental shelf extends 25 km from shore, while the northern coast has only a narrow shelf of 1.6 km before dropping to a depth of more than 300 m (Munro 1983). Seven off-shore banks (Pedro, Walton, Morant, Albatros, Henry Holmes, Grappler, and Formigas) are separated from the coastal shelf by deep oceanic waters (Figure 1). Coastal marine areas are characterised by sand or limestone bedrock overlaid with seagrass beds and coral reefs. Large rivers, which flow into the ocean in both the north and south, have for the past few decades brought increasing sediment and nutrients to the coastal environment. These additional inputs are having a negative impact on the health of Jamaica’s coral reefs (Goreau and Thacker 1994).Jamaica has endured a long history of political and social hardship including two colonisations (Spain [1517-1655] and the United Kingdom [1656-1960]), and played a major role in the slave trade (Beckwith 1929). The now-independent country continues to face immense economic challenges that hinder development; presently it is rated as the world’s fourth most severely indebted country (Hurley et al. 2010). In 2009/2010, more than half of the annual budget was committed to debt servicing (Planning Institute of Jamaica 2009). The economy of this small island is heavily reliant on bauxite, tourism and remittances which contribute over 85% of foreign exchange (Planning Institute of Jamaica 2009). The slow-growing economy of the country was negatively affected by the recent global recession (Planning Institute of Jamaica 2009). Additionally, Jamaica is annually threatened by hurricanes, as the country lies in the hurricane belt of the central Atlantic. Despite these hardships, Jamaica has made positive achievements towards the United Nations Millennium Development Goals with significant reductions in poverty, malnutrition, and hunger, as well as increased enrolment in primary education 1 Cite as: Lingard, S., Harper, S., Aiken, K., Hado, N., Smikle, S., and Zeller, D. (2012) Marine fisheries of Jamaica: total reconstructed catch 1950-2010. pp 47-59. In: Harper, S., Zylich, K., Boonzaier, L., Le Manach, F., Pauly, D., and Zeller D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].!78°W17°NPedro B.Walton B.Morant B.Albatros B.Grappler B. Formigas B.Kingston±0 200100 kmNew & Blossom B.Henry Holmes B.Figure 1.  Map of Jamaica and its exclusive economic zone. Outer fishing banks are shown with dashed lines.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III48(Planning Institute of Jamaica 2009). Tourism remains an important industry with 2.9 million visitors attracted to the stunning and culturally unique island in 2009 alone (Planning Institute of Jamaica 2009).Jamaica has a vibrant culture, which includes a spicy and flavourful cuisine. Local produce, fish, chicken, goat, and pork feature heavily in the island’s gastronomy. In addition to imported salt fish, a long time dietary staple in Caribbean nations dating back to the slave trade (Kurlansky 1997), local fresh fish is integral to the Jamaican diet and culture. Reef fish also feature in social gatherings, and holiday meals. Despite the importance of fish in the nation’s culture, and the popularity of beaches for recreation and social gatherings, Jamaicans are typically not seafaring people and marine environments beyond the high-water line receive little attention (S. Lingard, pers. obs.).This contrasts with Pacific island countries, such as Palau, which have traditionally focused heavily on managing the sea and its associated resources, which are integral to the local way of life and sense of self identity (Ota 2006). In Jamaica, marine resources have been undervalued by both the government and the public, leading to the marginalization of Jamaica’s small-scale fishers. For example, the joint Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries received 0.9% of the annual budget in 2008/2009 (Hurley et al. 2010). Marginalization of small-scale fisheries by governments, which contributes to the degradation of fisheries resources, is common in developing countries (Pauly 1997). In addition to marginalization of the fisheries sector, Jamaica has degraded the habitats necessary for the maintenance of fisheries resources on a large scale. Beginning in the 1960s, the majority of mangrove and wetland habitats were altered for construction of large resorts (Bacon 1987). Information available at the time suggested wetlands were important to fisheries, serving as nurseries to many species of Caribbean reef fish (Austin 1971). Despite a history of marginalization of fisheries and marine resources in Jamaica, recent attempts have been made to alter this misconception by highlighting the value of marine resources to tourism, and the total value of the artisanal fishery (Gustavson 2002; Sary et al. 2003; Kushner et al. 2011; Waite et al. 2011).In the past, Jamaica’s marine resources were overfished by indigenous Arawak communities (Hardt 2009). Recovery from early exploitation was possible due to reduced fishing pressure during colonization events (Hardt 2009). Prior to independence in 1960, the main activities fuelling Jamaica’s economy were agricultural exports of produce, such as banana and sugar cane (Dunn 1972). As a result of the restrictive nature of plantation life, which did not allow residents to capture fish, colonization activities reduced fishing pressure. Therefore, fisheries are thought to have been minor prior to emancipation in 1832 (Hardt 2009). In the post-emancipation period, there was rapid development of open-access, multi-gear fisheries in near-shore areas (Thompson 1945; Munro and Thompson 1973; Hardt 2009). By 1945, Jamaica’s near-shore areas had already been declared overfished (Thompson 1945). However, it was not until 1950 that a management body, the Fisheries Division, was established (Oswald 1963).Fishing activities have remained small in scale, even in recent times. The majority of fishing activities are multi-species and multi-gear, but the fisheries for Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) and queen conch (Strombus gigas) are monitored separately (Munro and Thompson 1973; Aiken 1985a, 1998; Aiken et al. 1999; Aiken and Kong 2000; Aiken et al. 2002; Aiken et al. 2006; Murray and Aiken 2006). The conch fishery operates solely on Pedro Bank with mother ships (typically 24 m in length) collecting the catch taken by divers (Aiken et al. 1999). Lobster is caught both by industrial2 fishers on Pedro Bank (there is a limit of 12 industrial licences per annum; Kong 2003), and by small-scale trap fishers on both Pedro Bank and in near-shore waters. Lobsters are often caught as valuable by-catch (i.e., catch of non-target species) in the Antillean Z trap (the most common gear type used in the Jamaican artisanal fishery; Aiken 1982). Industrial lobster fishers, which operate on Pedro Bank, use steel hull vessels 25-30 m in length (Kong 2003). The majority of conch and lobster captured by fishers with designated licences are destined for export (Aiken and Kong 2000).Jamaican fishing canoes range from a minimum of 4 m to more than 18 m in length (Aiken and Kong 2000). The larger canoes are used by fishers traveling to Pedro and other outer banks. While some smaller canoes are still wooden dugouts, the majority of fishing vessels are constructed of fibreglass (S. Lingard, pers. obs.). Prior to 1960, the majority of fishing canoes were powered by oar or sail (Oswald 1963). In 1956, however, government subsidies were offered to aid fishers in the mechanization of their vessels (Oswald 1963). During this period a marginal increase in production was seen as fishers were capable of exploiting new offshore banks; however, offshore resources were quickly exhausted (Koslow et al. 1988). The subsequent increase in landings in the early 1990s was due to the establishment of the Pedro Bank queen conch fishery (Aiken et al. 1999).While the Fisheries Division has traditionally been the sole governing body responsible for the management of Jamaica’s marine fisheries, several NGOs have been awarded funding to manage the newly designated fish sanctuaries.3 The most recently enacted legislation regarding fisheries management is the Fisheries Industry Act of 1976,4 with a new draft policy having been in the final stages of arbitration for almost 10 years. Enforcement of existing regulations has been insufficient due to limited financial and human resources within the department. In addition to overfishing, several environmental factors have combined to amplify degradation of fisheries resources, such as hurricanes, herbivore population crashes, marine pollution, coral diseases and bleaching events (Woodley et al. 1981; Liddell and Ohlhorst 1986; Hughes 1994; Lapointe 1997). There has been little development of the pelagic fishery due to the absence of a market for large fish (Aiken 1985b; Harvey et al. 1989; Aiken and Kong 2000).2 Industrial is used here as it is by defined by Kong (2003). However, we consider industrial lobster fishing activities in Jamaica to be small-scale commercial (artisanal) due to the use of traditional gear. 3 Caribbean Coastal Area Management Foundation, Blue Fields Bay Fishermen’s Friendly Society, St Mary Fishermen’s Cooperative, Oracabessa Foundation, Negril Coral Reef Preservation Society, Montego Bay Marine Park Trust, Fisheries Division, Alloa Fisherman’s Group and Business Community4 http://www.moa.gov.jm/fisheries.php; accessed June 13, 2011Jamaica - Lingard et al. 49To date, Jamaica’s official record-keeping has made no attempt to account for recreational catches, subsistence catches, or discarded by-catch. In other countries, these sectors have been shown to contribute significantly to the total catch (Zeller et al. 2006; Wieglus et al. 2010). Previous attempts to account for missing data include an assessment of the economic contribution of Jamaica’s artisanal fisheries (Gustavson 2002; Sary et al. 2003; Waite et al. 2011); however, these studies do not attempt to estimate all sectors. This report seeks to establish a comprehensive time series of Jamaican fisheries catches (1950-2010) including all fisheries catch components.methodsPopulationPopulation data were obtained in order to calculate subsistence catch rates for the 1950-2010 time period. Census data were only available for the years 1960, 1970, 1982, 1991, and 2001.5 We carried the 1960 estimate back to 1950 and the 2001 estimate forward to 2010. Linear interpolations were done between estimates to create a complete time series of population data (Figure 2).ArtisanalLandings presented by the FAO on behalf of Jamaica were found to be similar to those reported by the Fisheries Division, and were therefore assumed to be representative of the artisanal catches for the time period considered. Admittedly, there are problems with accurately estimating catches in many Caribbean artisanal fisheries due to highly dispersed landing sites, the large range of species caught, multiple gear types, and irregular fishing patterns as a result of socio-economic conditions within fishing communities (Munro 1980). Therefore a portion of the below described subsistence catch may be considered unreported artisanal catch, but was here referred to as subsistence catch as we were unable to further disaggregate the data.Total demandTo estimate subsistence catch, total seafood demand was calculated using population data combined with estimates of per capita fish consumption. Few sources of per capita fish consumption estimated independently of fisheries landings were available for the Caribbean region. Cole (1976 in Olsen et al. 1984) estimated a per capita consumption rate of 30 kg∙person-1∙year-1. We assumed this estimate referred to only fresh fish. Although other seafood products are consumed in Jamaica, we focused here on fresh fish consumption as it comprises the majority of the Jamaican seafood diet. We carried this estimate of 30 kg·person-1·year-1 back unaltered to 1950 and forward to 1980. Adams (1992) estimated that consumption of fresh fish averaged 1.7 times per week, or 20 kg·person-1·year-1, for the Caribbean region. We applied Adams (1992) estimate from 1990-2008. Between 1980 and 1990 linear interpolation was used to derive a complete time series of per capita fish consumption. We then combined the consumption estimates with population data to estimate total demand for fresh fish.To estimate imports of fresh fish, we used import data from Thompson (1945) to calculate the proportion of total imports that fresh fish products represented during the 1940s. From Thompson (1945) we calculated that 0.07% of fisheries imports were fresh fish. We applied this 0.07% figure to Thorne’s (1965) fisheries import figures for 1950-1959 to estimate imports of fresh fish. From the amount of fresh fish imported we also calculated per capita fresh fish import rates. Using FAO reported imports of fresh fish (1976-2010) and population data, we calculated per capita imports of fresh fish for 1976. Linear interpolation of per capita fresh fish imports was done for 1960-1975 using the calculated per capita import rates from Thorne (1965) for 1959 and the FAO for 1976. We combined these estimates of per capita imports with population estimates to calculate total imports of fresh fish. For the period of 1976-2008 we used the summed FAO fresh fish imports. We then multiplied our population by the per capita import rates to deduce total fresh fish imports. By combining demand for fresh fish with total fish imports, we were able to calculate total demand for fishery products from 1950-2010.5 http://statinja.gov.jm/Popcensus.aspx; accessed: August, 20110510152025301950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Population (x 105 )YearFigure 2.  Population of Jamaica, 1950-2010.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III50Subsistence catchTo convert our estimated total demand for fresh fish to an estimate of subsistence production we subtracted FAO reported aquaculture production, reconstructed estimates of fresh fish imports, and FAO reported landings (adjusted for fresh fish exports) from the total demand for fresh fish.DiscardsSeveral fishing techniques employed in Jamaica are non-selective and therefore likely to incur by-catch and result in discards. For example, trap and net fishing gears, which utilize fine mesh and wire, can cause substantial catch of non-target species. There is also an unmonitored bait fishery for penaeid shrimp (S. Lingard. pers. obs.), which are caught in fine nets that result in the capture of juvenile reef fish. Thus far, no attempts have been made to estimate bait shrimp and reef fish by-catch in Jamaica. To account for these missing catch components, we needed to disaggregate the FAO reported landings by gear type using the available literature. For the period 1950-1981, we applied Sahney’s (1983) breakdown of catch by gear type: 53% trap, 23% net, 17% line, and 7% other gears. For the period from 2000 to 2008 we applied estimates of catch by gear type from Sary et al. (2003): 49% trap, 10% line, 3% net, and 38% spear. For the period 1982-1999, we interpolated linearly between the two sets of percentages of catch by gear type. To calculate discards in the trap fishery, we applied the discard rate of 29% from Nicholson and Hartsuijker (1982) for the 1950-1981 period. For this early time period, when larger, more valuable species were more abundant, we assumed that the market was more selective and that a discard rate of 29% would be a conservative estimate. However, catches of large, valuable species such as large jacks, groupers, and snappers declined from 1950 to 1982 (Aiken and Haughton 1987). Therefore, these species have disappeared from catches during the recent time period (Murray and Aiken 2006), and species that were previously considered trash species and discarded, have become targeted catch (Aiken and Haughton 1987). Due to this shift in target catch, discard rates from 1990 to 2010 were much lower (estimated to be 2-5%; K. Aiken, University of the West Indies, pers. obs.). Thus, for the time period 1990-2010 we applied a conservative discard rate estimate of 2% for trap gears. Although a higher discard rate of 18% was reported for the Morant Cays trap fishery in 1996 (Pears and Sary 1996), this estimate was only for a single bank. We considered the estimated discard rate of 2% to be more representative of all trap fisheries for the recent time period, given the overfished state of the southern shelf and the increasing retention of non-targeted catch. For the years from 1981-1989, a complete time series of fisheries discards for trap catches was created using linear interpolation between 29% and 2%.To estimate discards from net gears, we applied the 4.4% discard rate estimated by Kelleher (2005) to the landings from nets over the entire time period. Discard rates were only applied to the artisanal catches from nets and traps as they are non-selective. Whereas discard rates were not applied to artisanal catches from hook-and-line, and spear gear types, due to their more selective nature. We also did not apply discard rates to subsistence catches due to the types of gears used in this sector. The gear most commonly used by non-commercial fishers (i.e., subsistence and recreational) in Jamaica is line and spear,6 which we assumed to have negligible discards.ShrimpThe FAO presents landings for penaeid shrimps, but only for some years. To obtain a complete time series estimate of shrimp catches, we combined information available from FAO with national data presented in Waite et al. (2011). Shrimp catches were set at zero for 1950 as no shrimp fishery is discussed in the early literature (Thompson 1945) and shrimp does not seem to feature heavily in the Jamaican diet (S. Lingard, pers. obs.). We then interpolated linearly between the 1950 anchor point and the first year of shrimp landings presented by the FAO (277 t in 1994). For the period 1994-2003, we used the FAO shrimp landings, and from 2004-2008, we used national data presented by Waite et al. (2011). Discard rates were not applied to catches for this fishery due to the small-scale, low-impact hand nets used by these fishers (Galbraith and Ehrhardt 2000).6 S. Lingard, 2011 unpublished data submitted in report to Fisheries DivisionTable 2.   Anchor points (% of catch) used in the taxonomic breakdown of Jamaica’s south coast artisanal fisheries catches. Linear interpolations were used between data points to establish a complete time series, 1950-2010. Family 1950-1971 1980 2001-2010Acanthuridae 6 7 6Balistidae 3 1 1Carangidae 9 5 1Clupeidae 15 16 13Coryphaenidae 0 0 0Haemulidae 8 8 5Holocentridae 1 3 6Lutjanidae 7 15 3Mugilidae 1 1 1Mullidae 1 4 12Palinuridae 6 4 0Scaridae 9 12 28Scombridae 0 3 2Serranidae 9 1 6Sparidae 0 1 1Sphyraenidae 1 1 1Others 23 17 13Sources: Munro (1974a, 1974b), Sahney (1983), Murray and Aiken (2006).Table 1.   Species composition (% of catch) of sport fishery catches, 2002-2010. Taxon name Common name Catch (%)Makaira nigricans Blue marlin 48.0Acanthocybium solandri Wahoo 23.0Coryphaenidae Dolphin fish 14.0Scombridae Tunas and mackerels 7.6Others All other species 7.6Adapted from Quinn (2005).Jamaica - Lingard et al. 51Sport fishery (recreational)A sport tournament fishery has been in operation in Jamaica since 1959 (Harvey et al. 1989). In its early years, the fishery targeted blue marlin (Makaira nigricans; Harvey et al. 1989). However, in recent years the catch has included a diversity of scombrids and other oceanic pelagic species (Quinn 2005). Tournament catches for the period of 1976-1986 were calculated using the number of fish caught and average weights taken from Ortiz and Farber (2001). Average weight per fish was calculated for the Ortiz and Farber (2001) length data using the FishBase Life History Tool (www.fishbase.org). The average weights were then multiplied by the total number of M. nigricans landed in each year of the tournament fishery as quoted by Harvey et al. (1989). This resulted in estimated landings (in tonnes) for the sport fishery from 1976-1986. We carried the 1976 estimate back unaltered to 1959 as a small tournament fishery has been in operation since this date (Harvey et al. 1989). Quinn (2005) estimated sport fishery landings from tournament records in 2002. Utilizing the taxonomic information from Quinn (2005), we have assigned catches from this sector to four taxa (M. nigricans, Acanthocybium solandri, Coryphaena spp., and Scombridae) plus an “Others” category of 7.6% (Table 1). We interpolated from a catch composed of 100% M. nigricans in 1986 (Harvey et al. 1989) to the taxonomic composition of tournament catches in Quinn (2005) in order to create a complete time series of tournament catches.Taxonomic breakdownThree geographically distinct areas are fished in Jamaica: the north coast (narrow shelf), south coast (wide shelf), and outer banks. The majority of the banks have been exposed to significant fishing pressure since the mechanization of boats began in 1956 (Koslow et al. 1988). Due to the different gear types, shelf widths, and historical fishing pressure in each area, we separated artisanal catches by area and applied separate taxonomic breakdowns. The only comprehensive species-level breakdowns available for trap and line fisheries were from Munro (1974a, 1974b). We weighted these two gear types according to estimates of catch by gear type in Sahney (1983) and created a single catch composition. Catch composition for other gear types were unavailable, except for Sahney (1981); therefore we recalibrated the estimated catch by gear type in Sahney (1983) to include only trap and line. Munro’s (1974a, 1974b) estimates of the taxonomic composition of catches were presented as the contribution to total catch. To make the breakdown applicable to all sources, we grouped the species by family. We combined the aggregated species data from Munro (1974a, 1974b) with the family composition data from the studies outlined below for each of the three fishing grounds. Although family composition varies by fishing ground, we assumed the species composition within families to be similar across fishing grounds.South coastFor catches from the south coast, we compared several sources of taxonomic information for different years: 1971 (1974a, 1974b), 1980 (Sahney 1983), and 2001 (Murray and Aiken 2006; Table 2). Using Sahney’s (1983) breakdown of south coast landings by gear type (66.6% trap and 33.4% line), we weighted the trap and line landings from Munro (1974a, 1974b) to create a comprehensive estimate of south coast catches by taxa. Munro (1974a, 1974b) assigned catches by species; therefore, we aggregated species into families to allow comparison with the other two sources. Families present in Munro (1974a, 1974b) but not present in other sources were grouped into an “Others” category. The combined estimate from Munro (1974a, 1974b) was carried back unaltered to 1950. Sahney’s (1983) catch composition was used as a mid-point between Munro (1974a, 1974b) and Murray and Aiken (2006). Several families were not estimated in Murray and Aiken (2006) and in Sahney (1983), but are known to be caught regularly. These families include Balistidae, Clupeidae, Coryphaenidae, Mugilidae, Scombridae and Sphyraenidae. To accommodate these additional taxa, catch compositions for Murray and Aiken (2006) and Sahney (1981) were adjusted by carrying forward estimates of these missing taxa. Also Murray and Aiken (2006) had no “Others” category in their estimates, so the “Others” estimate from Munro (1974a, 1974b) was also carried forward. Linear interpolation between estimates was then used to complete the times series. Murray and Aiken’s (2006) estimate, adjusted for missing taxa, was carried forward to 2010.Table 3.   Anchor points used (% of catch) in the taxonomic breakdown of Jamaica’s north coast artisanal fisheries catches. Linear interpolations were used between data points to establish a complete time series, 1950-2010. Family 1950-1968 1980 2001-2010Balistidae 1.4 1.5 1.4Carangidae 16.8 17.9 8.5Clupeidae 0.1 1.1 1.1Coryphaenidae 1.4 1.4 1.4Haemulidae 2.4 2.5 2.4Lutjanidae 12.4 19.6 10.9Mullidae 5.0 3.5 3.0Mugilidae 4.1 1.9 0.0Palinuridae 1.3 1.4 0.0Scaridae 18.9 11.1 17.0Serranidae 11.4 1.1 4.4Scombridae 1.9 9.4 1.0Others 23.1 27.5 49.0Sources: Sahney (1983) and Sary (2003).Table 4.   Anchor points (% of catch) used in the taxonomic breakdown of Jamaica’s outer banks artisanal fisheries catches. Linear interpolations were used between data points to establish a complete time series, 1950-2010. Family 1956-1980 2001-2010Acanthuridae 0 6Balistidae 7 0Carangidae 10 1Clupeidae 1 0Coryphaenidae 4 3Haemulidae 9 5Holocentridae 0 7Lutjanidae 6 4Mugilidae 0 0Mullidae 4 13Palinuridae 3 0Scaridae 10 30Scombridae 4 3Serranidae 14 6Sparidae 0 1Others 28 20Sources: Sahney (1983), Murray and Aiken (2006).Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III52North coastFor the north coast, taxonomic information was available for 1968 (Sary et al. 2003), 1980 (Sahney 1983), and 2001 (Sary et al. 2003; Table 3). We applied linear interpolation between estimates for these three years. Picou-Gill et al. (1996) also provided disaggregated Discovery Bay catches for 1990-1991 to the family level; however, as these estimates concerned a single bay, we consider them to be unrepresentative of the entire north coast area and chose not to incorporate them. Several important taxa (families Balistidae, Clupeidae, Coryphaenidae, and Haemulidae) were absent from the estimates put forth by Sary et al. (2003). To avoid recording the catch of these important taxa as zero, we have carried Sahney’s (1983) estimates for these taxa back to 1950 and forward to 2010. The taxonomic compositions for 1968 and 2001 in Sary et al. (2003) were then recalibrated to accommodate these additional taxa. The recalibrated estimate for 1968 was carried back to 1950, and the recalibrated estimate for 2001 carried forward to 2010. Linear interpolation of percentage breakdowns between years of known data was done to establish a complete time series of catch composition from 1950-2010.Outer banksThe only comprehensive study detailing taxonomic composition for Pedro Banks and the other outer banks was for 1980 (Sahney 1983). However, Murray and Aiken (2006) completed an extensive study in 2001-2002 of Whitehouse – one of the largest fishing villages on Jamaica’s south coast. A large portion of the fishers on the south coast target the outer banks (Pears and Sary 1996; Grant 1999; Murray and Aiken 2006). The absence of large predatory species is reported on the outer banks as well as the southern shelf (Koslow et al. 1988; Pears and Sary 1996; Murray and Aiken 2006). In light of these observations, we assumed landings from south coast fishing beaches were representative of those on the outer banks for the recent time period. We applied the breakdown from Sahney (1983) for the years 1956-1980, and interpolated linearly to the 2001 estimate from Murray and Aiken (2006; Table 4). We recalibrated Murray and Aiken’s (2006) estimate for 2001 to accommodate the addition of targeted taxa that were not included, but we know to contribute to catches (Coryphaenidae, Scombridae, and “Others;” described previously).SubsistenceSubsistence catches were assigned taxonomically to the family level. Recent data suggest the majority of subsistence fishers use lines and spears as their primary gear types.7 We have applied the taxonomic compositions for 1968 and 2001 from Sary (2003), with linear interpolation between intervening years, to subsistence catches, as they were most representative of observed catches by subsistence fishers in Jamaica (S. Lingard, pers. obs.; Table 5).resultsReported landingsLandings reported by the FAO on behalf of Jamaica for the period 1950-2010 amounted to just over 683,000 t (Figure 3a). Reported landings were presented for six taxonomic categories: miscellaneous marine fishes (505,527 t), spiny lobster (7,689 t), stromboid conch (168,916 t), penaeus shrimps (889 t), marine crabs (106 t), and tuna-like fishes (726 t). All reported landings are from the artisanal sector.South coastTotal estimated catches on the south coast amounted to approximately 284,000 t over the 1950-2010 time period. Reef fish catches totalled 283,100 t, and reported penaeus shrimp catches totalled 889 t. The most abundant families caught on the south coast were Clupeidae, Scaridae, Lutjanidae, and Haemulidae with total catches of approximately 44,700 t, 43,000, 21,500 t and 20,800 t respectively.North coastTotal catches from the north coast between 1950 and 2010 were approximately 93,200 t. The most abundant families were Scaridae (14,700 t), Carangidae (13,100 t), Lutjanidae (12,400 t), and Serranidae (6,000 t).7 S. Lingard, 2011 unpublished data submitted in report to the Fisheries DivisionTable 5.   Anchor points (%) used in the taxonomic breakdown of Jamaica’s subsistence fisheries catches. Linear interpolations were used between data points to establish a complete time series, 1950-2010. Family 1950-1968 2001-2010Carangidae 0.28 0.06Carcharhinidae 0.08 0.05Haemulidae 0.11 0.03Holocentridae 0.01 0.03Lutjanidae 0.20 0.05Muraenidae 0.00 0.01Scaridae 0.17 0.25Scombridae 0.00 0.01Serranidae 0.17 0.09Sphyraenidae 0.04 0.27Others 0.10 0.20Source: Sary (2003).Jamaica - Lingard et al. 53Outer banksCatches from the outer banks totalled 304,900 t from 1950-2010. The most abundant catches on the outer banks were for the taxa Lobatus gigas (168,900 t), Scaridae (31,700 t), Serranidae (15,400 t), and Mullidae (13,700 t).Reconstructed catch SubsistenceTotal subsistence catches over the 1950-2010 time period were estimated to be 2,186,633 t (Figure 3a). The most important families in the subsistence sector were Carangidae (380,700 t), Sphyraenidae (296,300 t), Scaridae (296,300 t) and Serranidae (279,000 t). In 1950, catches consisted mainly of Carangidae (11,700 t∙year-1), Lutjanidae (8,300 t∙year-1), and Serranidae (7,000 t∙year-1). In 2010, catches were dominated by Sphyraenidae (6,100 t∙year-1), Scaridae (5,700 t∙year-1), and Serranidae (2,000 t∙year-1).DiscardsDiscarded catches, which include shrimp caught as bait, and discarded fish from trap and net fisheries, were estimated to be 81,425 t from 1950-2010 (Figure 3a). Discards in 1950 amounted to 1,160 t∙year-1 and declined to 400 t∙year-1 in 2010. Peak discards occurred in 1962 with 2,800 t of discarded fish.ShrimpThe total reconstructed catch for penaeid shrimp was 8,725 t from 1950-2010, which included 889 t of reported landings. Shrimp landings started in 1951 and grew from 6 t∙year-1 to 277 t∙year-1 in 1994. Catches then proceeded to follow an oscillating trend of decrease followed by increase followed by decrease with a peak in 2005 of 875 t.Sport fisheryTournament landings were estimated to be 470 t over the 1950-2010 period. Total catches of M. nigricans and A. solandri (wahoo) were estimated to be 379 t and 40 t respectively over the entire time period (Figure 4).Total reconstructed catchTotal reconstructed catches of Jamaica for the 1950-2010 time period were estimated to be 2,960,000 t (Figure 3a). The total catches were 4.3 times larger than the FAO reported landings, which were considered to represent only artisanal landings.Catches of Carangidae, the most important taxon caught throughout the study period, decreased by 86% from 12,200 t∙year-1 in 1950 to 1,700 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 3b, Table 6). Similar trends were visible in Serranidae, Lutjanidae, and Haemulidae (Figure 3b, Table 6). Total catches of Carcharhinidae (requiem sharks) were 139,400 t over the 1950-2010 time period. The most abundant species of finfish in the artisanal sector 010203040506070Catch (t x 103 )ArtisanalDiscardsSubsistenceSupplied by FAO0102030405060701950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearMMFCarangidaeLutjanidaeShpyraenidaeSerranidaeScaridaeHaemulidaeLobatus gigasCarcharhinidae Othersb)a)Figure 3.  Total reconstructed catch of Jamaica, 1950-2010, a) by sector (recreational fishery not visible), with comparison to the FAO reported landings, and b) by major taxa. “MMF” equals miscellaneous marine fishes and the “others” category includes 29 additional taxonomic groups.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III54were Opisthonema oglinum, Sparisoma viride, Ocyurus chrysurus (yellowtail snapper), and Epinephelus guttatus (red hind) totalling 43,400 t, 27,700 t, 15,100t, and 13,200 t respectively. Catches from the targeted Caribbean spiny lobster (P. argus) and queen conch (L. gigas) fisheries equated to 19,500 t and 168,900 t, respectively. Significant is the shift over time from top predators (Serranidae, Carangidae, and Lutjanidae) to taxa lower in the food chain (e.g. Scaridae; Figure 3b).Appendix tables (A1 and A2) present total reconstructed catches by year, sector and taxa.discussionThe total reconstructed catch for Jamaica was estimated to be approximately 3 million tonnes over the 1950-2010 time period. This is 4.3 times the landings reported by the FAO on behalf of Jamaica (683,855 t). This considerable difference between the total reconstructed catch and landings presented by the FAO is attributable to the absence of subsistence catches, discards, and tournament landings from officially reported data. Detailed studies exist for various aspects of Jamaica’s fisheries for the period 1945-2010 (Thompson 1945; Oswald 1963; Munro and Thompson 1973; Munro 1983; Aiken 1985a, 1985b; Aiken and Haughton 1987; Koslow et al. 1988; Pears and Sary 1996; Picou-Gill et al. 1996; Aiken et al. 1999; Grant 1999; Aiken and Kong 2000; Aiken et al. 2002; Sary et al. 2003; Quinn 2005; Aiken et al. 2006; Murray and Aiken 2006; Passley et al. 2009); however, this is the first study to estimate all fisheries catch components as a complete time series from 1950 to present. Total catch, as estimated using the reconstruction approach (Zeller et al., 2007), increased from 49,400 t in 1950 to a peak of 62,300 t in 1978 where catches then declined and have only recently appeared to start to level out. In contrast, data reported to the FAO suggest that catches have been relatively stable over the entire time period considered (excluding the marked increase during the 1990s as a result of the Pedro Bank conch fishery).This study highlights the importance of fresh fish in the Jamaican diet. A substantial portion of this fresh fish demand is met through subsistence fisheries, a sector that has been largely ignored in the collection of Jamaican fisheries data. Similar contributions by the non-commercial sector have been seen in other regions of the world, such as Pacific island nations (Zeller et al. 2006; Zeller et al. 2007; Lingard et al. 2011), where the importance of this sector to the economy has also gone unrecognized.Catches from the growing spear fishing sector make up a considerable portion of the reconstructed subsistence catch. Trap, net and line fishing have traditionally been the most common gear types used in Jamaica (Munro and Thompson 1973; Sahney 1983), but the use of spears is increasing (Sary et al. 2003; Passley et al. 2009). Catch from spear fishers in 2009 was estimated to be 3,000 t per year (Passley et al. 2009). The landing sites used by these fishers are often outside the normally surveyed locations (N. Hado, pers. obs., Food for the Poor). Thus it is likely that a large portion of catches by this sector are not reported as they are consumed directly by fishers (i.e., for subsistence purposes).The use of non-selective gear types, such as traps and nets (e.g., seine nets, sprat nets, trawl nets, shove/push nets, trammel nets, lobster traps, china traps), can result in high levels of by-catch. In many cases this by-catch is discarded. To reduce by-catch, attempts have been made to encourage the use of larger mesh in traps (Sary et al. 1996). Additionally, a recent initiative has involved retraining fishers to use more selective fishing techniques, such as deep-water hand lining, instead of traps and nets (S. Lingard, pers. obs.).Fisheries in Jamaica provide a substantial source of employment. An estimated 20,000 licensed fishers are presently operating in Jamaica (CFRAMP 2000) out of an employable population of 1,255,000.8 Women are heavily employed in Jamaican fisheries, typically as vendors, although some women also go to sea as fishers (Gustavson 2002). The ratio of vendors to fishers in Jamaica is estimated at 3:1 (Gustavson 2002). Women control the income of fishers through the sale of fish and 8 http://statinja.gov.jm/labourforceAgeGroup.aspx; accessed October, 201105101520253035401950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearScombridaeCoryphaenidaeA. solandriM. nigricansOthersFigure 4.  Catch composition of Jamaican tournament sport fishery catches, 1950-2010. Table 6.   Change in catch of Jamaica’s most valuable fish taxa between 1950 and 2010.Taxon Catch (t) Decrease (%)1950 2010Carangidae 12,180 1,703 86Lutjanidae 8,688 1,713 80Serranidae 7,470 2,749 63Haemulidae 5,093 1,337 74Jamaica - Lingard et al. 55therefore also indirectly control fishing activities, as well as cooperation with management plans and government officials (Grant 2004).Potential profits for fishers in Jamaica are limited by a lack of adequate processing and marketing facilities (Bélisle 1984a). The majority of fisheries products, with the exception of those from the conch and lobster industries (the majority of products go to export markets; Aiken et al. 1999; Aiken and Kong 2000), are sold domestically, beach-side, and unprocessed (Bélisle 1984a; Grant 1998; Aiken et al. 1999; Waite et al. 2011). Improved distribution and marketing of fresh fish to hotels would be beneficial in reducing waste and improving revenues from dwindling fish resources (Bélisle 1984b), but must also be properly accounted for in official statistics.Fisheries development projects and government subsidies have traditionally focused on capacity-enhancing subsidies, which increase fishing effort (Sumaila et al. 2010). These include building rural market facilities, mechanization of boats, fuel, and gear exchange. In Jamaica, infrastructure such as gear sheds (built by international donors) sit empty and unused, due to lack of local management capabilities, while fishers continue to suffer great economic hardships (S. Lingard, pers. obs.). International donors and local government should instead focus on beneficial subsidies (enforcement of marine protected areas and alternate livelihood development), which work to increase natural capital and decrease fishing effort (Sumaila et al. 2010). Joint efforts by The Nature Conservancy, local NGOs and the Fisheries Division are currently under way to establish and enforce fish sanctuaries (i.e., no-take areas).Despite management efforts, Jamaica has long been considered overfished (Thompson 1945; Aiken and Haughton 1987; Haughton 1988; Koslow et al. 1989), and at present, Jamaica’s marine resources, appear to be in a state of Malthusian overfishing (Pauly et al. 1989). Few alternatives exist for employment, and fishers rarely make enough to recover operational costs, including subsidized fuel (Aiken and Haughton 1991; S. Lingard, pers. obs.). Schemes that aim to reduce fishing pressure, but provide no alternative employment, would further contribute to economic hardships for fishers and their families in the short term. These socio-economic challenges, as well as distrust of the government by members of fishing communities (Grant 2004), make management decisions difficult in Jamaica. Co-management was suggested in the 1980s as a possible solution to these management challenges (Aiken and Haughton 1987). Recently, the Improving Jamaica’s Agricultural Productivity Project has been launched to develop co-management within six south coast fishing villages (S. Lingard, pers. obs.).The magnitude of unreported catches estimated here suggests that improvements to Jamaica’s fisheries data collection system are urgently needed. More importantly, this study suggests that many people in Jamaica, previously overlooked in fisheries management and policy, are reliant on marine resources. From a policy perspective, in a country that has long been reliant on seafood, the destruction of natural marine capital (i.e., fish resources) has serious implications for national food security and livelihoods.acKnowledgementsThe authors would like to thank the fisheries division staff for the use of their data as well as their insights. This work was completed as part of the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.reFerencesAdams JE (1992) Fish lovers of the Caribbean. Caribbean Studies 25(1/2): 1-10.Aiken K (1982) Further investigation of the spiny lobster fishery of Jamaica. National reports and selected papers presented at the third session of the Working Party on Assessment of Marine Fishery Resources, Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission, Kingston, Jamaica. 15 p.Aiken K (1985a) Lobsters: their biology and conservation in Jamaica. Jamaica Journal 17(4): 44-47.Aiken K (1985b) A review of pelagic fishery resource assessments in Jamaican waters. National reports and selected papers presented at the fourth session of the Working Party on Assessment of Marine Fisheries Resources, Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission, Rome, Italy. 174-182 p.Aiken K (1998) Reproduction, diet and population structure of the mountain mullet, Agonostomus monticola, in Jamaica, West Indies. Environmental Biology of Fishes 53(3): 347-352.Aiken K and Haughton M (1987) Status of the Jamaica reef fishery and proposals for its management. Thirty-eight Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Miami, Florida. 469-484 p.Aiken K and Haughton MO (1991) Regulating the fishing effort: the Jamaican experience. Thirty-seventh Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Charleston, US. 139-152 p.Aiken K, Hay B and Montemuro S (2002) Preliminary assessment of nearshore fishable resources of Jamaica’s largest bay, Portland Bight. Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 53, Kingston, Jamaica. 157-176 p.Aiken K, Kong A, Smikle S, Appeldoorn R and Warner G (2006) Managing Jamaica’s queen conch resources. Ocean & Coastal Management 49(5-6): 332-341.Aiken K and Kong GA (2000) The marine fisheries of Jamaica. ICLARM Quarterly 23(1): 29-35.Aiken K, Kong GA, Smikle S, Mahon R and Appeldoorn R (1999) The queen conch fishery on Pedro Bank, Jamaica: discovery, development, management. Ocean & Coastal Management 42(12): 1069-1081.Austin HM (1971) A survey of the ichthyofauna of the mangroves of the Western Puerto Rico during December, 1967-August, 1968. Caribbean Journal of Science 11(1-2): 27-39.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III56Bacon P (1987) Use of wetlands for tourism in the insular Caribbean. Annals of Tourism Research 14: 104-117.Beckwith MW (1929) Black roadways: a study of Jamaican folk life. The University of North Carolina Press, Raleigh. xxvi+243 p.Bélisle FJ (1984a) Food production and tourism in Jamaica: obstacles to increasing local food supplies to hotels. Journal of Developing Areas 19(1): 1-20.Bélisle FJ (1984b) Tourism and food imports: the case of Jamaica. Economic Development and Cultural Change 32(4): 819-842.CFRAMP (2000) Jamaica national marine fisheries atlas. CARICOM Fishery Reports 4, CFRAMP, Belize City. 53 p.Dunn RS (1972) Sugar and slaves: the rise of the planter class in the English West Indies 1624-1713. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapple Hill, NC.Galbraith A and Ehrhardt NM (2000) Preliminary assessment of the Jamaican peneaid shrimp fisheries of Kingston harbour. Fourth Workshop on the Assessment and Management of Shrimp and Groundfish Fisheries on the Brazil-Guianas Shelf, Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission, Cumana. 149-153 p.Goreau TJ and Thacker K (1994) Coral reefs, sewage, and water quality standards. Caribbean Water and Wastewater Association Conference, Negril Coral Reef Preservations Society, Kingston. 7 p.Grant S (1998) National report of Jamaica. pp. 216-226 In Commission WCAF (ed.) Report on the FAO/ DANIDA/ CFRAMP/ WECAF Regional Workshops on the Assessment of the Caribbean Spiny Lobster (Panulirus argus). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Merida, Mexico.Grant S (1999) Species composition, abundance and catch rates of fish caught on the Formigas Bank, Jamaica. Fifty Second Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Key West. 26-33 p.Grant S (2004) Caribbean women in fishing economies. Fifty-fifth Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Xel Ha. 68-77 p.Gustavson K (2002) Economic production from the artisanal fisheries of Jamaica. Fisheries Research 57: 103-115.Hardt MJ (2009) Lessons from the past: the collapse of Jamaican coral reefs. Fish and Fisheries 10: 143-158.Harvey GCM, Aiken KA and Haughton M (1989) A general overview of the sportfishing and a summary of billfish data from Jamaican recreational fishery sources, 1976-1986. 39th Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Charleston, South Carolina. 86-99 p.Haughton M (1988) An analysis of statistical data from the Jamaican inshore fisheries. Tropical Fisheries Biology, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 443-454 p.Hughes TP (1994) Catastrophes, phase shifts, and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean Coral Reef. Science 265(5178): 1547-1551.Hurley G, Pham MH and Stewart M (2010) Jamaica’s debt exchange: a case study for heavily indebted middle-income countries. Poverty Reduction, New York, US. 25 p.Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: an update. Fisheries Technical Paper, FAO, Rome. 131 p.Kong A (2003) The Jamaican fishing industry: brief notes on its structure, socio-economic importance and some critical management issues. National Environmental Planning Agency Judicial Symposia 2003, Kingston, Jamaica. 10 p.Koslow JA, Hanley F and Wicklund R (1988) Effects of fishing on reef fish communities at Pedro Bank and Port Royal Cays, Jamaica. Marine Ecology–Progress Series 43: 201-212.Koslow JA, Hanley F and Wicklund RI (1989) The impact of fishing on the reef fish of Pedro Bank and Port Royal, Jamaica: a comparison of trap surveys 1969-73 and 1986. Thirty-Ninth Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Charleston, U.S.A. 340-360 p.Kurlansky M (1997) Cod: a biography of the fish that changed the world. A.A. Knopf Canada, Toronto, Canada. 294 p.Kushner B, Edwards P, Lauretta B and Cooper E (2011) Coastal capital: Jamaica. Coral reefs, beach erosion and impacts to tourism in Jamaica. Working Paper, Washington, DC. 56 p. Available at: http://www.wri.org/coastal-capital [Accessed: August, 2011].Lapointe BE (1997) Nutrient thresholds for bottom-up control of macroalgal blooms on coral reefs in Jamaica and southeast Florida. Limnology and Oceanography 42(5): 1119-1131.Liddell DW and Ohlhorst SL (1986) Changes in benthic community composition following the mass mortality of Diadema at Jamaica. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 95(3): 271-278.Lingard S, Harper S, Ota Y and Zeller D (2011) Marine fisheries of Palau, 1950-2008: total reconstructed catch. pp. 73-84 In Harper S and Zeller D (eds.), Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands part II. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia.Munro JL (1974a) The composition and magnitude of line catches in Jamaican waters. pp. 26-32 In Munro JL (ed.) Caribbean Coral Reef Fishery Resources. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines.Munro JL (1974b) The composition and magnitude of trap catches in Jamaican waters. pp. 33-49 In Munro JL (ed.) Caribbean coral reef fishery resources, 2nd edition. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines.Munro JL (1980) Stock assessment models: applicability and utility in tropical small-scale fisheries. pp. 35-47 In Roedel PM and Saila SB (eds.), Stock assessment for tropical small-scale fisheries. International Center for Marine Resource Development, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Jamaica.Munro JL (1983) Caribbean coral reef fishery resources. International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. 256 p.Jamaica - Lingard et al. 57Munro JL and Thompson R (1973) The Jamaican fishing industry. pp. 10-14 In L MJ (ed.) Caribbean coral reef fishery resources. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines.Murray A and Aiken K (2006) Artisanal fishing in Jamaica today: a study of a large fishing site. University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica. 20 p.Nicholson W and Hartsuijker L (1982) The state of the fisheries resources of the Pedro Bank and south Jamaica shelf. FAO Fisheries Reports, Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission, Kingston, Jamaica. 215-254 p.Olsen DA, W NN and Wood RS (1984) Ciguatera in the eastern Caribbean. Marine Fisheries Review 46(1): 13-18.Oritz M and Farber MI (2001) Standardized catch rates for blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) and white marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) from the US recreational tournaments fishery in the north-west Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. ICCAT collective volume of scientific papers 53: 216-230.Oswald EO (1963) Developing an offshore fishery in Jamaica. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Coral Gables, US. 134-139 p.Ota Y (2006) Custom and fishing: cultural meaning and social relations of Pacific fishing, Republic of Palau, Micronesia. Doctor of Anthropology thesis, University of University College of London, England, London, United Kingdom.Passley D, Aiken K and Perry GA (2009) Characterization of the Jamaican spearfishing sector. Sixty-Second Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Cumana, Venezuela. 235-240 p.Pauly D (1997) Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality, marginalization and some implication for fisheries management. pp. 40-49 In Pikitch EK, Huppert DD and Sissenwine MP (eds.), Global trends: fisheries management. American Fisheries Society Symposium 20, Bethesda, Maryland.Pauly D, Silvestre G and Smith R (1989) On development, fisheries, and dynamite: a brief review of tropical fisheries management. Natural Resource Modeling 3(3): 307-329.Pears RJ and Sary Z (1996) Status of the Morant Cays fishery, Jamaica’s second largest off-shore reef fishery. Proceedings of the Forty-Nine Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Christ Church, Barbados. 215-237 p.Picou-Gill M, Woodley J, Miller M, Sary Z, Van Barneveld W, Vatcher S and Brown M (1996) Catch analysis at Discovery Bay, Jamaica: the status of an artisanal reef fishery. Forty-four Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Charleston, South Carolina. 14 p.Planning Institute of Jamaica (2009) National report of Jamaica on Millennium Development Goals for the UN Economic and Social Council, annual ministerial review. Planning Institute of Jamaica in Collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, Geneva. 36 p.Quinn NJ (2005) Assessing pelagic fish stocks off Jamaica using game fishing tournament results. Fifty-Six Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Fort Pierce, Florida. 241-252 p.Sahney AK (1983) Sample survey of the fishing industry in Jamaica, 1981. FAO Fisheries Reports, Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission Kingston, Jamaica. 255-275 p.Sary Z, Miller M, Van Barneveld W, Picou-Gill M and Woodley JD (1996) Facilitating change in artisanal fishery practice: the two-for-one trap exchange program at Discovery Bay, Jamaica. Forty-Four Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Charleston, US. 283-293 p.Sary Z, Munro JL and Woodley JD (2003) Status report on a Jamaican reef fishery: current value and the costs of non-management. Fifty-fourth Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Providenciales, Turks and Caicos 98-111 p.Sumaila R, Khan A, Dyck AJ, Watson R, Munro G, Tydemers P and Pauly D (2010) A bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies. Journal of Bioeconomics 12: 201-225.Thompson EF (1945) The fisheries of Jamaica. Development and Welfare in the West Indies Bulletin 18, Bridgetown. 103 p.Thorne AP (1965) Critical analysis of the statistical and economic factors in the growth rates of Puerto Rico and Jamaica 1950-59. Review of Income and Wealth 11(1): 281-331.Waite R, Cooper E, Zenny N and Burke L (2011) Coastal capital: Jamaica, the economic value of Jamaica’s coral reef-related fisheries. Draft Working Paper, World Resources Institute and The Nature Conservancy, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.wri.org/coastal-capital [Accessed: July, 2011].Wieglus J, Zeller D, Caicedo-Herrera D and Sumalia R (2010) Estimation of fisheries removals and primary economic impact of the small-scale and industrial marine fisheries in Columbia. Marine Policy 34: 506-513.Woodley JD, Chornesky EA, Clifford PA, Jackson JBC, Kaufman LS, Knowlton N, Lang JC, Pearson MP, Porter JW, Rooney MC, Rylaarsdam KW, Tunnicliffe VJ, Wahle CM, Wulff JL, Curtis ASG, Dallmeyer MD, Jupp BP, Koehl MAR, Neigel J and Sides EM (1981) Hurricane Allen’s impact on Jamaican coral reefs. Science 214(4522): 749-755.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for U.S. flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fisheries Bulletin 105: 266-277.Zeller D, Booth S and Pauly D (2006) Fisheries contributions to GDP: underestimating small-scale fisheries in the Pacific. Marine Resource Economics 21: 355-374.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III58Appendix Table A1.  Total reconstructed catch (by sector) vs. FAO reported landings (in tonnes) for Jamaica, 1950-2010.Year FAO landings Total reconstructed catch Artisanal Subsistence Discards Recreational1950 5,000 49,400 6,160 43,300 1,160 1.621951 5,000 49,500 6,170 43,300 1,160 1.621952 5,500 49,600 6,790 42,800 1,276 1.621953 5,500 49,600 6,800 42,800 1,276 1.621954 5,900 49,700 7,290 42,400 1,369 1.621955 6,000 49,700 7,420 42,300 1,392 1.621956 6,500 49,800 8,050 41,800 1,508 1.621957 7,100 50,000 8,790 41,200 1,648 1.621958 7,800 50,100 9,660 40,500 1,810 1.621959 8,300 50,300 10,280 40,000 1,926 1.621960 8,500 50,100 10,540 39,600 1,973 1.621961 11,500 51,400 14,240 37,100 2,669 1.621962 11,900 52,000 14,740 37,200 2,762 1.621963 10,000 52,100 12,400 39,600 2,321 1.621964 10,000 52,600 12,410 40,200 2,321 1.621965 9,000 52,800 11,180 41,700 2,089 1.621966 9,000 53,300 11,190 42,200 2,089 1.621967 9,000 53,800 11,200 42,600 2,089 1.621968 8,500 54,200 10,590 43,600 1,973 1.621969 8,500 54,700 10,590 44,100 1,973 1.621970 8,500 55,200 10,600 44,600 1,973 1.621971 9,300 56,000 11,590 44,400 2,158 1.621972 9,500 56,600 11,840 44,800 2,205 1.621973 9,600 57,200 11,970 45,300 2,228 1.621974 10,100 57,900 12,600 45,300 2,344 1.621975 10,100 58,500 12,600 45,900 2,344 1.621976 10,130 59,100 12,640 46,400 2,351 1.621977 10,110 60,200 12,620 47,600 2,346 1.271978 9,600 62,300 12,010 50,300 2,228 0.501979 9,600 62,000 12,010 50,000 2,228 0.271980 9,000 58,300 11,280 47,000 2,089 0.201981 7,740 57,200 9,730 47,500 1,796 0.591982 7,750 55,800 9,570 46,200 1,621 4.841983 8,440 57,400 10,220 47,200 1,573 8.171984 9,200 55,800 10,920 44,900 1,505 8.091985 9,430 53,900 10,970 42,900 1,327 10.461986 9,360 51,900 10,690 41,200 1,105 34.281987 8,520 46,000 9,560 36,400 811 32.511988 11,430 43,600 12,500 31,100 827 30.751989 12,640 42,400 13,510 28,900 626 28.991990 13,200 40,900 13,800 27,000 353 27.231991 14,800 42,600 15,450 27,100 395 25.471992 18,650 42,600 19,410 23,200 498 23.711993 22,550 43,100 23,420 19,700 602 21.941994 24,830 40,700 25,490 15,200 663 20.181995 24,300 42,800 24,950 17,900 649 18.421996 23,810 42,800 24,440 18,400 636 16.661997 19,590 42,400 20,110 22,300 523 14.901998 17,100 40,300 17,550 22,700 457 13.141999 16,860 40,100 17,310 22,800 451 11.372000 5,140 38,900 5,280 33,600 137 9.612001 11,890 37,300 12,210 25,000 318 7.852002 7,400 34,400 7,590 26,800 198 6.092003 12,080 38,900 12,400 26,500 323 6.092004 13,070 39,200 13,840 25,400 349 6.092005 12,700 39,200 13,910 25,300 339 6.092006 17,510 31,800 17,970 13,800 468 6.092007 16,150 34,100 16,930 17,100 431 6.092008 12,780 36,800 13,350 23,400 341 6.092009 15,890 40,100 16,320 23,800 337 6.092010 15,040 39,200 15,440 23,800 5,326 6.09Jamaica - Lingard et al. 59Appendix Table A2.  Total reconstructed catch (in tonnes) for Jamaica by major taxa, 1950-2010. Year Miscellaneous marine fishCarangidae Lutjanidae Sphyraenidae Serranidae Scaridae Haemulidae Lobatus gigas Carcharhinidae Others11950 6,350 12,180 8,690 1,600 7,470 2,620 5,090 0 3,336 2,1201951 6,420 12,020 8,580 1,760 7,410 2,770 5,040 0 3,314 2,1401952 6,670 11,780 8,420 1,910 7,320 2,940 4,960 0 3,254 2,3201953 6,740 11,630 8,320 2,070 7,270 3,080 4,900 0 3,233 2,3401954 6,950 11,410 8,170 2,220 7,180 3,250 4,830 0 3,181 2,4901955 7,060 11,240 8,050 2,370 7,120 3,390 4,770 0 3,152 2,5401956 7,310 11,020 7,900 2,510 7,040 3,560 4,700 0 3,093 2,7101957 7,590 10,780 7,740 2,630 6,950 3,720 4,630 0 3,028 2,9001958 7,900 10,540 7,580 2,750 6,860 3,890 4,560 0 2,956 3,1201959 8,150 10,320 7,430 2,870 6,790 4,040 4,490 0 2,899 3,2701960 8,270 10,110 7,280 3,000 6,700 4,170 4,410 0 2,851 3,3401961 9,420 9,710 7,030 2,980 6,580 4,430 4,350 0 2,654 4,2201962 9,690 9,640 6,980 3,130 6,590 4,610 4,340 0 2,643 4,3501963 9,170 9,850 7,120 3,460 6,720 4,740 4,370 0 2,794 3,8301964 9,310 9,820 7,100 3,650 6,750 4,920 4,360 0 2,810 3,8501965 9,110 9,890 7,140 3,940 6,820 5,090 4,370 0 2,893 3,5901966 9,240 9,850 7,110 4,140 6,840 5,280 4,360 0 2,906 3,6101967 9,380 9,800 7,080 4,350 6,860 5,480 4,340 0 2,918 3,6301968 9,350 9,790 7,080 4,610 6,900 5,670 4,330 0 2,964 3,5101969 9,500 9,730 7,040 4,830 6,900 5,860 4,320 0 2,974 3,5401970 9,650 9,660 7,010 5,050 6,900 6,050 4,300 0 2,983 3,5801971 10,080 9,550 6,940 5,200 6,890 6,250 4,280 0 2,947 3,8301972 10,260 9,460 6,940 5,410 6,850 6,460 4,260 0 2,950 4,0201973 10,410 9,370 6,950 5,640 6,810 6,680 4,240 0 2,959 4,1801974 10,680 9,250 6,930 5,820 6,750 6,890 4,220 0 2,941 4,4501975 10,810 9,160 6,930 6,070 6,720 7,110 4,190 0 2,955 4,5701976 10,930 9,070 6,910 6,310 6,680 7,330 4,170 0 2,966 4,7101977 11,140 9,070 6,970 6,640 6,720 7,630 4,180 0 3,013 4,8101978 11,360 9,300 7,150 7,210 6,930 8,120 4,270 0 3,160 4,7901979 11,380 9,050 7,020 7,350 6,800 8,240 4,180 0 3,117 4,8701980 10,870 8,370 6,600 7,100 6,310 7,980 3,920 0 2,909 4,2701981 10,500 8,150 6,370 7,340 6,250 8,130 3,800 0 2,912 3,7501982 10,180 7,750 6,080 7,320 6,040 8,180 3,640 0 2,811 3,7801983 10,470 7,760 6,110 7,660 6,140 8,670 3,680 0 2,845 4,0601984 10,250 7,290 5,800 7,470 5,860 8,670 3,520 0 2,686 4,3001985 9,810 6,820 5,450 7,300 5,580 8,600 3,320 0 2,546 4,5001986 9,310 6,370 5,110 7,160 5,310 8,520 3,130 0 2,419 4,5501987 8,170 5,500 4,430 6,470 4,670 7,810 2,740 0 2,122 4,0901988 7,010 4,540 3,650 5,650 3,930 6,780 2,260 4,500 1,798 3,5301989 6,540 4,140 3,370 5,350 3,670 6,650 2,120 5,250 1,653 3,6601990 5,920 3,770 3,080 5,110 3,410 6,420 1,950 6,000 1,534 3,6601991 5,990 3,660 3,000 5,230 3,390 6,610 1,910 7,500 1,524 3,7501992 5,420 3,090 2,580 4,570 2,940 6,060 1,660 11,250 1,291 3,7401993 4,930 2,590 2,210 3,960 2,550 5,570 1,450 15,000 1,088 3,8001994 4,150 1,990 1,750 3,130 2,030 4,760 1,180 17,250 834 3,6701995 4,710 2,230 1,940 3,740 2,330 5,580 1,320 16,000 970 4,0401996 5,510 2,370 2,210 3,930 2,640 7,060 1,560 10,740 987 5,8201997 5,020 2,390 1,990 4,820 2,570 6,080 1,320 13,660 1,188 3,4101998 4,890 2,290 1,880 4,980 2,510 5,950 1,240 12,750 1,197 2,5901999 5,230 2,270 1,930 5,090 2,620 6,720 1,320 10,250 1,188 3,4902000 6,740 3,060 2,480 7,610 3,520 8,630 1,650 0 1,736 3,4502001 5,320 2,220 1,840 5,770 2,650 6,810 1,240 7,100 1,281 3,0202002 6,000 2,340 2,020 6,290 2,940 8,110 1,420 0 1,357 3,9102003 6,210 2,250 1,990 6,330 2,950 8,450 1,420 3,780 1,330 4,2102004 6,150 2,090 1,900 6,160 2,850 8,490 1,380 4,130 1,260 4,8102005 5,960 1,950 1,750 6,220 2,710 8,090 1,260 4,800 1,242 5,1902006 4,650 1,250 1,370 3,500 1,990 7,090 1,110 4,880 673 5,3102007 5,100 1,370 1,430 4,370 2,180 7,520 1,130 4,800 824 5,3302008 6,060 1,630 1,600 6,050 2,600 8,610 1,230 3,000 1,115 4,8802009 6,370 1,730 1,770 6,150 2,820 9,650 1,400 3,000 1,131 6,0502010 6,210 1,700 1,710 6,140 2,750 9,290 1,340 3,300 1,131 5,6301 Others category represents 29 additional taxonomic groups.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III60Kermadec Is. - Zylich et al. 61reconstruction oF marine Fisheries catches For the Kermadec islands  (1950–2010)1Kyrstn Zylich, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,  2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canadak.zylich@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstractThe Kermadec Islands are an isolated and uninhabited cluster of islands which have been the site of relatively little fishing. The total domestic (New Zealand) catch from the Kermadec Islands’ Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters for the 1950-2010 time period was approximately 971 t. Foreign fishing was also estimated, as these fisheries had a greater impact on the area. The foreign fishery catch was estimated at 14,475 t over the time period. Approximately 80% of this was caught by South Korean vessels, with the other 20% caught by Japanese vessels. At present, there is very little fishing occurring in the Kermadec Region (only 28 t domestic and zero foreign catch in 2010).introductionThe Kermadec Islands are the northernmost point of New Zealand (Figure 1). The group consists of four island groups which are (with the major islands listed) as follows: 1) Raoul Island, Meyer Island, and the Herald Islets; 2) Macauley Island and Haszard Islet; 3) Curtis and Cheeseman Islands; and 4) L’Esperance and Havre Rocks (Francis et al. 1987). The Kermadec Islands are peaks of volcanic formations rising from the Kermadec Ridge (Francis et al. 1987). Although the Kermadecs are part of New Zealand, the EEZ surrounding the islands is nearly separated from the EEZ of the main New Zealand EEZ (surrounding North and South Island), and thus we can refer specifically to the Kermadec Islands’ EEZ (612,047 km2; A. Connell, pers. comm., New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries). The Kermadec region is formed by the subduction of the Pacific Plate under the Australian Plate. This not only creates an area of frequent earthquakes and active volcanoes but also forms the Kermadec trench which is over 10,000 m deep (Wright 2010). The Kermadec Islands are an important locale of unique and diverse terrestrial flora and fauna, and marine life due to their isolation and subtropical location which features a mixture of tropical, subtropical, and temperate species (Gardner et al. 2006). In 1934, the islands were declared a Flora and Fauna Reserve and then a Nature Reserve in 1977.2 Starting in 1987, the New Zealand Department of Conservation has managed the islands and now have permanent staff and volunteers on Raoul Island who are responsible for monitoring meteorological and volcanic activity, weed and pest control, and enforcing regulations of the nature and marine reserves.2 The islands are uninhabited except for the conservation staff on Raoul Island.3 The territorial seas (12-mile limit surrounding the coastal edge) around each island and rock were declared marine reserves in 1990 (Eddy 2011). This reserve protects 748,000 ha (7,480 km2) of ocean (Gardner et al. 2006).Due to the fact that the Kermadec Islands are part of New Zealand, they are not typically evaluated on their own. The purpose of this report is to assess how much fishing actually occurs in the isolated region of New Zealand’s EEZ which surrounds the Kermadec Islands.methodsTo estimate the total fisheries catch within the Kermadec Island EEZ, both domestic and foreign fleets were assessed. For the Kermadecs, only large-scale commercial fleets need to be considered. The islands are uninhabited and thus there is no localized small-scale fishing occurring. New Zealand’s EEZ is divided into ten Fisheries Management Areas 1 Cite as: Zylich, K., Harper, S., and Zeller, D. (2012) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Kermadec Islands (1950-2010). pp. 61-67. In: Harper, S., Zylich, K., Boonzaier, L., Le Manach, F., Pauly, D., and Zeller D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].2 http://www.thekermadecs.org/islands [accessed January 10, 2012]3 http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/marine-and-coastal/marine-protected-areas/marine-reserves-a-z/kermadec/facts/ [accessed January 10, 2012]Colville ridge176°W34°SNorfolk ridge3 Kings ridge±0 500250 kmRaoul Is.Figure 1.  Map of the Kermadec Islands and its EEZ. Raoul Island is shown as well as the connection of the Kermadec Islands EEZ to the New Zealand EEZ surrounding North and South Island.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III62(FMAs). The Kermadec Island’s EEZ is categorized as its own management area, FMA10, and therefore, the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries (known hereafter as the Ministry of Fisheries) collects data which are specific to the Kermadec Region. However, these data are only available starting in 1990. Prior to this, data relating to foreign fishing were available through various South Pacific Commission4 (SPC) reports. As for domestic fishing, New Zealand did not have a deep-water fleet prior to 1990, and thus did not fish Kermadec waters at that time (G. Simmons, pers. comm., New Zealand Asia Institute). The Ministry of Fisheries website was also consulted to fit scientific names to the common names presented in the reported data.5Domestic fisheriesDomestic large-scale commercial catches for the 1990-2010 time period were obtained from the Ministry of Fisheries and were accepted as reported data. There were only a few changes made to the data; this affected taxonomic classification of the data, but not the tonnage value. Three categories provided combined data for two species. In these cases the catch was divided between the species. The alfonsino and long-finned beryx (Beryx slendens and B. decadactylus, respectively) formed a combined category and were each assigned 50% of the combined catch. The same rule was applied to black and yellowfoot paua (Haliotis iris and H. australis, respectively). Hapuku and bass (Polyprion oxygeneois and P. americanus, respectively) were treated slightly differently, as they were also present in the data as individual categories. Therefore, the proportion of hapuku to bass in the individual categories was used to divide up the combined category. The only amendment to the actual value of the data was to the “shark fins (unspecified)” category which needed to be converted to the equivalent whole shark weight. After contacting the Ministry of Fisheries, it was found that a conversion factor of 30 was used (C. Loveridge, pers. comm., Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture). This conversion factor was used to calculate the whole wet weight of shark from (what is assumed to be) the wet fin weight. The amount reported as fins was kept separate, labelled as shark (“Selachimorpha”), and was treated as landed catch which was added on to the other miscellaneous shark category. The difference between the whole weight and the fin weight was also labelled as shark (“Selachimorpha”), but was treated as discarded catch (i.e., discarded carcasses). Annual catches were set to zero prior to 1990, as there were no domestic vessels fishing in the Kermadec region of the EEZ at that time.Foreign fisheriesForeign large-scale commercial catches for the 1990-2010 time period were obtained from the Ministry of Fisheries. This included catch by foreign licensed and foreign chartered vessel fleets. Foreign licensed vessels stopped fishing in New Zealand at the end of the 1994-95 fishing year (Francis et al. 2001). Records of foreign licensed vessels only appear for 1991 and 1992 in the Kermadec region. The official data only list five years in which foreign chartered vessels were present in Kermadec waters, the first year being 1997. Foreign licensed and foreign charter are different ways of managing foreign fleets, and therefore this gap in foreign fishing is assumed to be due to the changes in the management of foreign vessels. In this report, foreign licensed and foreign chartered vessels are treated the same. The official data for foreign vessels (licensed and chartered) were assumed to be representative of foreign catches and were not altered apart from proportioning the catches to the different foreign fleets.Prior to 1990, there are many references to foreign vessels fishing in New Zealand’s EEZ. Taiwanese, Chinese, and Soviet vessels have been identified as fishing in New Zealand’s waters. However, these references referred to squid (Nototodarus sloanii), hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae), or southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis) fisheries which did not take place in the geographic location of Kermadec (Smith et al. 1981; Clark 1985; Chen et al. 2008). Only South Korean and Japanese vessels were able to be clearly identified as fishing in the Kermadec EEZ. In the 1980s, there were two foreign licensed longline tuna fisheries operating in New Zealand’s EEZ. The southern fishery which was mainly comprised of Japanese vessels was restricted to the waters surrounding North and South Island and targeted southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii; Murray et al. 1984). The northern fishery, which consisted mainly of Korean vessels (with a few Japanese vessels), was much smaller than the southern fishery and operated north of 34°S latitude targeting albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga; Murray et al. 1984). This northern fishery was known to focus its effort around Kermadec as well as the Colville Ridge, Norfolk Ridge and the Three Kings Rise system (Figure 1; Murray et al. 1984).SPC Country Statement reports on tuna fishing and resources in New Zealand, provided grids of 1° longitude by 1° latitude cells, showing catch data around New Zealand, which confirmed that the northern fishery did fish inside the Kermadec EEZ (Murray et al. 1984; Murray and Ross 1985). Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) were also present in the catch, along with swordfish (Xiphias gladius), known to be a by-catch item (Murray et al. 1984). The grids provided spatially allocated catch information in the form of number of sets and fish caught per set for albacore, bigeye tuna, and yellowfin tuna. Grids for the northern and southern fisheries were provided, and showed that both fleets obtained catches within the Kermadec EEZ. As the grids were labelled as “northern fishery” and “Japanese fishery”, and were not explicit in differentiating the northern Japanese vessels, it was assumed that the northern fishery represented South Korean catches, and the Japanese fishery catches which fell into the Kermadec EEZ were part of the northern Japanese fisheries catches. These grids provided data from 1981-1984 for the South Korean fleet and 1980-1984 for the Japanese fleet. Additional reports provided average weights of fish for each fishing year (Murray et al. 1989).4 Now the Secretariat of the Pacific Community.5 http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/International/High+Seas+Fishing/MFish+Approved+Species+Codes/MFish+Approved+Species+Codes+01.htm, [accessed January 5, 2012]Kermadec Is. - Zylich et al. 63Information regarding the fleets’ total catch (without spatial distribution graphs) was available from 1980 to 1988 (Murray et al. 1989). Unfortunately, these data included catches made outside of the Kermadec EEZ. Proportions and averages were used to extrapolate the data from the known catches in order to estimate catches from 1985 to 1988. Catches for the years 1989-1990 were estimated by interpolating between the 1988 estimates and the 1991 catches from the Ministry of Fisheries data. The target tuna (albacore, bigeye, and yellowfin) data for 1991-1992, 1997, 1999-2000, 2003, and 2007 for foreign vessels (from the Ministry of Fisheries data) were divided proportionally into South Korean and Japanese catches based on proportions from the 1988 tuna estimates (Table 1). Non-target data were divided using the average proportion of South Korean to Japanese catches in 1988 (Table 1). The Ministry of Fisheries data were assumed to be accurate and thus in years of zero data (excluding 1990), it was assumed that there were no foreign vessels fishing in Kermadec waters.According to Francis et al. (1987), foreign vessels (Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese) started longline fisheries in New Zealand in the early 1950s. It was assumed that these countries began re-building their fleets after World War II. Therefore, a starting point of zero in 1945 was used as an anchor point. Estimates were interpolated between zero in 1945 and the first data points in either 1980 or 1981, to give a complete time series of target tuna data. The data on non-target species from the Ministry of Fisheries for the foreign licensed vessels only, were used to estimate the non-target catch for the foreign fishery from 1950-1990. Foreign licensed catch data from 1991 and 1992 were averaged to obtain the proportion of target tuna to the non-target species (Table 2).Finally, there has been one documented case of illegal fishing by a foreign vessel in the Kermadec Islands’ EEZ. In late 2009, a Vanuatu flagged longline vessel (Taiwanese owned), as well as a Taiwanese flagged longline vessel, were spotted (12 miles apart) on the same day, just north of the Kermadec Islands.6 The owners of these vessels have acknowledged that they were fishing illegally and have both paid fines to the New Zealand Government. Although this is the only documented case of illegal fishing, it is assumed that other instances of illegal fishing have also taken place within the Kermadec EEZ, due to the remoteness of the area. However, without further evidence we cannot estimate the impact that illegal fishing has on the marine resources within the Kermadec Islands’ EEZ.resultsThe total domestic catch for Kermadec, for the time period of 1950-2010, was 971 t (Figure 2). This catch only spans the time period of 1990-2010 as there was no domestic fishing in the Kermadec EEZ prior to this time period. The average annual catch over the 1990-2010 time period equalled approximately 46 t·year-1. The species composition for the domestic catch was extremely diverse. The data obtained from the Ministry of Fisheries contained 100 taxonomic groups, with only a few miscellaneous categories. Out of this large mix of species, it was seen that the domestic catch was dominated by swordfish (Xiphias gladius) which represented 26.9% of the total catch (261 t). Bass (Polyprion americanus), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), and bluenose (Hyperoglyphe antarctica) were the other major species present in the catch, with approximately 95 t (9.8%), 91 t (9.4%), and 85 t (8.7%), respectively, of the total 6 http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Press/Press+Releases+2010/November10/Foreign+vessel+admits+fishing+illegally+in+New+Zealand+waters.htm [accessed April 13, 2012]Table 2.   Species composition of foreign vessel catches, within the Kermadec EEZ, for 1950-1990.Taxa Catch (%)Target Tunaa 69.07Xiphias gladius 7.73Isurus oxyrinchus 6.36Alopias vulpinus 2.91Tetrapturus audax 2.79Thunnus maccoyii 1.54Gasterochisma melampus 0.53Prionace glauca 0.13Thunnus thynnus 0.11Miscellaneous marine fish 5.88Miscellaneous sharks 2.95a Target tuna consists of Thunnus alalunga, Thunnus obesus, and Thunnus albacares.Table 1.   Percentage of tuna catch within the Kermadec EEZ, by fishing country, in 1988.Species Percentage (%)South Korea JapanThunnus alalunga 86.33 13.67Thunnus obesus 8.96 91.04Thunnus albacares 83.01 16.99Average 59.43 40.570204060801001201401950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearXiphias gladiusPolyprion americanusThunnus obesusHyperoglyphe antarcticaOther taxaFigure 2.  Domestic fisheries catch in the Kermadec Islands EEZ, separated by species. The grouping “other taxa” contains 98 taxonomic groups, and includes both marine fish and invertebrates.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III64domestic catch (Figure 2). There was a small amount of discarded shark (Selachimorpha) calculated from the shark fin catch, totalling 22 t over the time period and representing 2.3% of the total domestic catch.The total foreign catch for 1950-2010 is estimated at 14,475 t (Figure 3). The average annual catches peaked in the 1980s with approximately 580 t·year-1 and have declined dramatically since. From the information available, it is assumed that only Japanese and South Korean vessels were fishing in the Kermadec EEZ. South Korean vessels represented approximately 80% (11,600 t) of the total foreign catch, with Japanese vessels catching the remaining 20% (2,900 t; Figure 3a). Within the Kermadec EEZ, foreign vessels were mainly targeting tuna and billfish. The overall foreign catch was dominated by albacore with 45.4% (6,576 t) of the catch. Other major species included bigeye tuna, swordfish, shortfin mako shark, and yellowfin tuna, with 2,657 t (18.4%), 1,113 t (7.7%), 909 t (6.3%), and 810 t (5.6%), respectively, of the total foreign catch (Figure 3b). In terms of individual fleets, the only major difference was that South Korea’s major species was albacore with 53% (6,149 t) of the total catch, whereas Japan’s largest contributor was bigeye tuna with 47% (1,369 t) of the total catch.Overall, foreign catches far outweighed domestic catches (Figure 4).discussionThe total reconstructed domestic catch for the Kermadec Islands equalled 971 t, with an additional 14,475 t of foreign vessel catch, for the time period of 1950-2010. Catch data from 1990 onward was provided by the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries upon request. It should be noted that there appears to be some discrepancy in the Ministry of Fisheries reporting. There is catch data, by region, for the last six years available on the Ministry of Fisheries website. For Kermadec (FMA10), the website reports that there is no customary or recreational fishing as the islands are uninhabited, and also states that the Kermadecs are not open to commercial fishing, except for research purposes. The website reports only 52 kg of commercial catch in 2007 and zero catch in 2008-2010.7 This is not the same 7 http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=41&tk=99&ey=2007, accessed February 3, 201201002003004005006007008009001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearForeignDomesticFigure 4.  Total estimated catch within the waters of the Kermadec Islands’ EEZ, divided by foreign and domestic (New Zealand) catch, 1950-2010.0100200300400500600700800900South KoreaJapana)01002003004005006007008009001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearXiphias gladiusThunnus alalungaIsurus oxyrinchus Thunnus obesusOther taxaThunnus albacaresb)Figure 3.  Total estimated foreign catch for the Kermadec Islands’ EEZ, 1950-2010, (a) divided by country; and (b) by species. The grouping “other taxa” contains 24 taxonomic groups, including both marine fish and invertebrates.Kermadec Is. - Zylich et al. 65as the data which were provided by the Ministry of Fisheries upon request, which stated that the domestic catch for 2007 was 122 t. Catches provided by the Ministry of Fisheries for the years 2008-2010 averaged 22 t·year-1 which does not equal the zero reported catch value on the Ministry’s website either. Currently, only the 12-mile territorial seas around Kermadec are protected/designated as marine reserves. The Kermadec EEZ is named as a Benthic Protection Area which protects the area from bottom trawling. This makes it illegal to trawl within 100 meters of the bottom. With these protection measures in mind, as well as the consideration by conservation organizations to create an ocean sanctuary around the Kermadecs, accurate and transparent reporting of fishing activities in the region is crucial. Consistent and effective patrols are also required to deter and capture illegal fishing vessels which threaten the area.acKnowledgementsWe thank Ms. Amelia Connell (Pew Environment Group) for her comments on the first version of this paper. We would also like to thank Glenn Simmons (New Zealand Asia Institute) and the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries for the key information which they provided. This work was completed as part of the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.reFerencesChen X, Liu B and Chen Y (2008) A review of the development of Chinese distant-water squid jigging fisheries. Fisheries Research 89: 211-221.Clark MR (1985) The food and feeding of seven fish species from the Campbell Plateau, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 19(3): 339-363.Eddy TD (2011) Recent observations of reef fishes at the Kermadec Islands Marine Reserve, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 45(1): 153-159.Francis MP, Grace RV and Paulin CD (1987) Coastal fishes of the Kermadec Islands. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 21(1): 1-13.Francis MP, Griggs LH and Baird SJ (2001) Pelagic shark bycatch in the New Zealand tuna longline fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 52: 165-178.Gardner JPA, Curwen MJ, Long J, Williamson RJ and Wood AR (2006) Benthic community structure and water column characteristics at two sites in the Kermadec Islands Marine Reserve, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40(1): 179-194.Murray T, Burgess D, Jones B, Taylor P and Bailey K (1989) Tuna resources and research in New Zealand–1989 status report. Twenty First Regional Technical Meeting On Fisheries, 7-11 August 1989, Noumea (New Caledonia). 14 p.Murray T and Ross A (1985) Status of tuna resources and tuna research in New Zealand–1985. Seventeenth Regional Technical Meeting on Fisheries, 5-9 August 1985, Noumea (New Caledonia). 19 p.Murray T, Swanson P and Carey C (1984) Tuna resources and tuna research in New Zealand. Sixteenth Regional Technical Meeting on Fisheries, 13-17 August 1984, Noumea (New Caledonia). 31 p.Smith PJ, Roberts PE and Hurst RJ (1981) Evidence for two species of arrow squid in the New Zealand fishery. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 15(3): 247-253.Wright I (2010) The Kermadec volcanic region: an overview of geological discoveries from the last decade. DEEP: Talks and thoughts celebrating diversity in New Zealand’s untouched Kermadecs, August 30-31, 2010, Wellington (New Zealand). 5-9 p.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III66Appendix Table A1.   Total reconstructed catch (t) for the Kermadec Islands, 1950-2010, by fishing country (domestic vs. foreign catches).Year Reconstructed domestic catch Reconstructed foreign catchNew Zealand Japan South Korea1950 - 3.6 65.31951 - 4.3 78.41952 - 5.0 91.41953 - 5.7 104.51954 - 6.5 117.61955 - 7.2 130.61956 - 7.9 143.71957 - 8.6 156.81958 - 9.3 169.81959 - 10.0 182.91960 - 10.8 196.01961 - 11.5 209.01962 - 12.2 222.11963 - 12.9 235.11964 - 13.6 248.21965 - 14.3 261.31966 - 15.1 274.31967 - 15.8 287.41968 - 16.5 300.51969 - 17.2 313.51970 - 17.9 326.61971 - 18.6 339.61972 - 19.4 352.71973 - 20.1 365.81974 - 20.8 378.81975 - 21.5 391.91976 - 22.2 405.01977 - 22.9 418.01978 - 23.7 431.11979 - 24.4 444.21980 - 25.1 457.21981 - 192.8 470.31982 - 325.6 223.31983 - 226.4 166.41984 - 235.3 129.31985 - 262.5 485.81986 - 262.5 308.21987 - 262.5 549.01988 - 262.5 441.41989 - 191.5 309.51990 3.7 120.6 177.61991 25.1 40.9 41.11992 80.4 3.1 4.51993 57.2 - -1994 33.9 - -1995 88.6 - -1996 33.4 - -1997 6.7 1.2 1.71998 69.2 - -1999 34.6 7.5 3.72000 27.6 3.0 4.02001 91.9 - -2002 44.8 - -2003 38.1 38.6 169.22004 8.4 - -2005 17.8 - -2006 122.7 - -2007 121.9 4.2 6.02008 18.6 - -2009 18.6 - -2010 27.8 - -Kermadec Is. - Zylich et al. 67Appendix Table A2.   Total reconstructed domestic catches (t) for the Kermadec Islands, 1950-2010, by taxonomic category.Year Xiphias gladius Polyprion americanus Thunnus obesus Hyperoglyphe antarctica Other taxa11950 - - - - -1951 - - - - -1952 - - - - -1953 - - - - -1954 - - - - -1955 - - - - -1956 - - - - -1957 - - - - -1958 - - - - -1959 - - - - -1960 - - - - -1961 - - - - -1962 - - - - -1963 - - - - -1964 - - - - -1965 - - - - -1966 - - - - -1967 - - - - -1968 - - - - -1969 - - - - -1970 - - - - -1971 - - - - -1972 - - - - -1973 - - - - -1974 - - - - -1975 - - - - -1976 - - - - -1977 - - - - -1978 - - - - -1979 - - - - -1980 - - - - -1981 - - - - -1982 - - - - -1983 - - - - -1984 - - - - -1985 - - - - -1986 - - - - -1987 - - - - -1988 - - - - -1989 - - - - -1990 - - - 0.005 3.71991 0.03 11.447 0.008 2.068 11.51992 0.93 33.026 1.300 21.414 23.81993 0.10 19.358 0.035 21.789 15.91994 6.29 - 5.812 - 21.81995 1.24 2.819 2.051 3.706 78.71996 1.61 3.677 1.198 0.235 26.71997 0.10 0.430 0.110 0.610 5.51998 0.06 21.854 0.050 31.280 15.91999 11.68 2.772 0.130 3.654 16.42000 9.05 - 3.416 - 15.12001 26.42 0.002 19.532 - 45.92002 9.28 - 7.141 - 28.42003 18.50 - 4.581 0.035 14.92004 3.69 - 0.350 - 4.42005 4.48 - 2.600 - 10.72006 87.69 - 12.277 0.010 22.72007 46.15 0.012 17.364 0.030 58.32008 14.22 - 0.134 - 4.22009 8.63 - 3.863 - 6.22010 10.69 0.078 9.145 0.070 7.81 Other taxa category includes 97 additional taxonomic groups. Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III68Montserrat - Ramdeen et al. 69reconstruction oF total marine Fisheries catches For montserrat (1950–2010)1Robin Ramdeen1, Alwyn Ponteen2, Sarah Harper1, and Dirk Zeller11Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,  2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada2Montserrat Fisheries Divisionr.ramdeen@fisheries.ubc.ca; aprohan@hotmail.com; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstractConsistent and reliable island-wide fisheries data collection is a challenge for many Caribbean countries. This report presents the reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches by Montserrat for the 1950-2010 time period, which includes officially reported landings and an estimate for unreported catch from the small-scale fisheries sector. Total domestic fisheries catches for the period 1950-2010, were estimated to be approximately 13,300 tonnes, which is 3 times the official landings of 4,288 t reported to FAO on behalf of Montserrat. Small-scale fisheries play an important role in meeting the dietary demands of locals and visitors alike. More complete time series data on total marine landings will enable fisheries managers to make critical evaluations of fisheries and their supporting resources.introductionMontserrat is a little known island in the Lesser Antilles group in the eastern Caribbean, located between Antigua and Guadeloupe at 16° 45’ N 62° 12’ W (Figure 1). Montserrat has a land area of 138 km2 and an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of nearly 7,600 km2 (www.seaaroundus.org). Montserrat was originally populated by Carib Indians, but by the time Christopher Columbus visited in 1493, the island was uninhabited (Kozleski 2004). Over a century later, in 1632, Montserrat came under British control, when anti-Catholic violence in neighbouring Nevis forced a group of Irish slaves to seek refuge (Kravtchenko and Fergus 2005). African slaves were then shipped in to work the sugar plantations from around the mid 1600s. The island was fought over by the French and the British during the 1700s, but today Montserrat remains a British Overseas Territory in the Caribbean and has a rare mix of Anglo-Irish and African cultures (Kravtchenko and Fergus 2005).On September 17, 1989, Hurricane Hugo struck, damaging most of the island and its infrastructure (Berke and Wenger 1991). Hurricanes are not the only major environmental disaster impacting the island. Due to volcanic eruptions at the Soufriere Hills Volcano from 1995 until 2010, Montserrat’s environment and population have undergone profound transformations (Blouet 2007; Ponteen 2010). In 1995, the Soufriere Hills volcano erupted, causing widespread damage. Half of the residents had to be evacuated to either England, USA, or a neighbouring island such as Antigua and Barbados. The coastline has been re-shaped by the volcano’s path and several pyroclastic flows have extended the eastern coastline by approximately 1.6 km (Ponteen 2010). About two-thirds of the island, including the former capital of Plymouth, is uninhabitable. A 2011 census (www.gov.ms) revealed that 4,922 people reside on Montserrat in the remaining habitable land space.Montserrat has a small economy that is based mainly on agriculture, construction and tourism (Vidaeus 1970). Fisheries (often administered under the Department of Agriculture) are essential to island communities of the Caribbean, and Montserrat is no exception. Montserrat’s small-scale, open-access fisheries target primarily reef and pelagic species. The sector is mainly artisanal, with some subsistence practices and a small sports-fishing sector. In the mid-1980s, a total of 200 artisanal fishers 1 Cite as: Ramdeen, R., Ponteen, A., Harper, S., and Zeller, D. (2012) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Montserrat (1950-2010). pp. 69-76. In: Harper, S., Zylich, K., Boonzaier, L., Le Manach, F., Pauly, D., and Zeller D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].62°W16°N0 5025 km±Figure 1.  Map of Montserrat and its Exclusive Economic Zone.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III70(Goodwin et al. 1985) were operating 80 fishing boats (motorised, wooden dories 4-8 m in length; Jeffers 1984). Today, there are 150 fishers operating 38 motorised fishing boats. None of these vessels are registered, although efforts are presently underway to establish a boat registry for the island (Ponteen 2010). Furthermore, foreign fishers, from Guadeloupe and Martinique, are known to be active in the waters of Montserrat (Mahon et al. 1988).Montserrat fishers typically operate on a part-time basis and have alternative livelihoods in sectors such as tourism, agriculture and construction (Vidaeus 1970). Fishers target demersal, reef and pelagic species using a variety of gears including fish pots, beach seines, lines and gillnets (Ponteen 2010). Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus) and queen triggerfish (Balistes vetula) are two commercially important species landed in Montserrat (CRFM 2010). Needlefish (Belonidae), known locally as “gar”, are also important coastal pelagics targeted, along with wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), dolphin fish (Coryphaena hippurus), bonito (Sarda sarda) and various tunas such as albacore (Thunnus alalunga; Ponteen 2010).As is the case in many Caribbean islands, demand for seafood often exceeds supply on the island, thus Montserrat is heavily reliant on imported seafood products (Vidaeus 1970; Jeffers 1984; Ponteen 2010). Dried salted smoked fish, in particular cod, make up the bulk of historical imports with around 61 t∙year-1 imported in 1967 and 1968 (Vidaeus 1970). At present, imported frozen fish, crustaceans (i.e., shrimp) and molluscs (i.e., conch), average 46 t∙year-1 (product weight; Ponteen 2010). Still, despite a heavy reliance on imported seafood, catches from Montserrat’s EEZ are an important food source for the island’s population of locals and visiting tourists.Local catches are processed and sold directly by the fishers themselves either on the beach, in the villages (Jeffers 1984), or direct to the hotels and restaurants (Alwyn Ponteen, pers. obs.). There is no middleman and there is no formal fishmarket in Montserrat (the 1995 volcanic eruption destroyed several landing sites and the market in Plymouth). Fishers presently have an informal arrangement with the Port Authority to use their commercial jetty in Carr’s Bay for landing their catches (Ponteen 2010). There is no export market for fish caught in Montserrat.Fisheries data collection in Montserrat began sometime before 1976 (Jeffers 1984). More recently, Montserrat joined the Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM) and has been submitting catch and effort data to the CRFM’s electronic database, Carafis, since 1997. Collectors monitor the main landing site on weekdays until 4 PM (Alwyn Ponteen, pers. obs.). Due to the inconsistencies in data collection, catch statistics in Montserrat are deficient. These discrepancies have been acknowledged by the Fisheries Division of Montserrat, which is working with CRFM to make improvements to their data collection system. Montserrat did not report any fishery statistics to the FAO for the years between 2003 and 2009 (Luca Garibaldi, pers. comm., FAO), which highlights the need for improved capacity and communication.A review of all available fisheries literature on Montserrat was undertaken, along with data accessed from the Fisheries Division in order to (1) provide an improved estimate of total marine fisheries catches for Montserrat for the time period 1950-2010, and (2) improve the taxonomic breakdown of the catch.methodsThe fishing activities in the Montserratian EEZ have been reported by Vidaeus (1970), Giudicelli (1978), Jeffers (1984), Goodwin et al. (1985), Mahon et al. (1988), Luckhurst and Marshalleck (1995) and Ponteen (2010). Using details on data collection methods from these sources, we estimated unreported catches from the small-scale sector by applying a raising factor to the FAO reported landings data from 1950-2010. Carafis data allowed us to improve on the taxonomic resolution of the reconstructed catches. We also reconstructed the tourist seafood demand, using data on stop-over arrivals combined with seafood consumption rates. Due to a lack of data, no estimate of sport-fishing or foreign fishing was undertaken at the time of this study.Local and tourist populationLocal population data were taken from Populstat (www.populstat.info), which were available for the majority of the 1950-2010 time period of the study. Linear interpolation was used in years where population data were missing (Figure 2a). Data on the number of stop-over tourists (i.e., travelers who stay on island for more than a day) were available from the Caribbean Tourism Organisation (http://www.onecaribbean.org/). Data were available from 1980-2008, although it was assumed that tourism began in 1950. Using linear interpolation we derived an entire time series of the number of stop-over tourists visiting Montserrat from 1950-2010 (Figure 2b).Table 1.   Fisheries data collection methods in Montserrat.Source Data collection methodsVidaeus (1970) Landings recorded daily at 9 sites: Isles Bay, Carr’s Bay, Little Bay, Bunkum Bay, Wapping Bay, Plymouth, Kinsale, North Bay, Trant’s Bay, South Bay and Old RoadMahon et al. (1988) Information on catch per trip by species or group is collected at PlymouthPonteen (2010) Data collection is only carried out at the main fishing area (Carr’s Bay) and only on weekdays until 4 PMMontserrat - Ramdeen et al. 71Small-scale catchesFisheries data collection in Montserrat has fluctuated over the study period 1950-2010 (Table 1). Prior to 1995, Plymouth was the main landing site. However, this area was destroyed by the volcanic eruptions and presently Carr’s Bay-Little Bay is the main landing site and the only one monitored routinely (Ponteen 2010). Thus, unreported fisheries catches are expected throughout the time period of the study. Using information on the number of boats at landing sites in Montserrat as surveyed by Mahon et al. (1988; Table 2), we derived a ratio of total boats to monitored boats (i.e., 67/24). As the data utilized were collected prior to 1995, Plymouth was still the main landing site at that time and we took it to be the only monitored site. We assumed that the ratio of total boats to monitored boats would be an appropriate representation of the ratio of total catches to reported catches prior to 1989. Reported landings for Montserrat were obtained for 1950-2010 from the FAO FishStatJ database (FAO 2012) and for 1997-2011 from the national fisheries division. The two sources of catch data were not comparable in any years, with national data being significantly lower than the FAO reported landings. We had to assume that the FAO had additional information about catches and thus we used the FAO data as our baseline. FAO catch data for Montserrat are essentially flat-lining from 1950-1972 (Figure 3). Thus we considered the more variable data from 1974-1982 as more reliable; and we applied a raising factor of 2.8 (or 67/24, Table 2) to the FAO reported catches for 1974-1982. Combining catch estimates with annual population figures from the corresponding period, we obtained an average per capita catch rate of 21 kg∙person-1∙year-1. Applying this rate constantly to local population data, we derived a complete time series of small-scale catches destined for local consumption in Montserrat for the period 1950-1989.According to the Montserrat Fisheries Division, catches submitted to CRFM by Montserrat refer only to those landed in Carr’s Bay-Little Bay. Meanwhile, two other well-established landing sites exist on the west coast of the island, namely Old Road and Bunkum Bay. It is estimated that around 25% of catches are not recorded since data collectors do not work on the weekends or on weekdays after 4 PM and collectors do not visit Old Road Bay or Bunkum Bay (A. Ponteen, pers. obs.). Thus, for the time period of 1990-2010, we added 25% to FAO reported catches, and estimated total small-scale catches.We assumed that catches consist of a combination of artisanal and subsistence catches. To assign catches to artisanal and subsistence sectors, it was assumed that in 1950, 80% of catches were from the subsistence sector and 20% were from the artisanal sector. In 2010, 20% of catches were attributed to the subsistence sector and 80% to the artisanal sector. A linear interpolation was done between these two years to derive a complete time-series for the period 1950-2010.Table 2.   Number of boats at landing points in Montserrat, based on Mahon et al. (1988).Landing Area Total boatsPlymouth 24Old Road Bay 13Bunkum Bay 6Carr’s Bay 12Little Bay 3German Bay 2Kinsale 7Sugar Bay 0Total 670246810121416Population (x 103 )a)05101520251950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Yearb)Volcanic eruptionin 1995Figure 2.  Population statistics of Montserrat, 1950-2010, for (a) total local Montserratian population and (b) stop-over tourist population.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III72Catches satisfying tourist demandIn many parts of the world fishers have regular customers, such as hoteliers and restaurateurs, whom they supply directly with fresh seafood catches. In Montserrat, these catches are often taken directly to the customer without ever passing through a monitored landing site (Alwyn Ponteen, pers. obs.). Therefore, seafood supplying the tourist market was reconstructed separately. Annual tourist population data were combined with data on the average length of stay, which was approximately 7 days according to the Ministry of Tourism. This was taken together with inferences about the frequency of seafood consumption (i.e., one serving of seafood per day), and typical serving proportion size (250 g). It was thus determined that tourist seafood demand equals the number of tourists weeks, times the average serving size, times the number of servings per week. In this way, we were able to reconstruct small-scale catches provided directly to the tourist market from 1950 to 2010.Taxonomic composition of catchesElectronic Carafis catch data for Montserrat from 1997-2011 were retrieved and analyzed. Data submitted by Montserrat to the FAO were presented in one taxonomic category, “marine fishes nei”, whereas national catch data submitted to CRFM from 1997-2011 provided a breakdown for 160 species from 45 different families. Taking the average proportion of each species from the total catch over the period 1997-2000, we applied this breakdown to the reconstructed catches from 1950-1996. For the 1997-2010 time period, we accepted the annual breakdowns as presented in the Carafis dataset.resultsReconstructed catch estimates suggest that landing data submitted to the FAO on behalf of Montserrat are incomplete and lack taxonomic detail. Overall, the 1950-2010 total catch for Montserrat was estimated at 13,263 t, which is 3 times the reported landings supplied to the FAO for the same time period of 4,288 t (Figure 3). Total unreported catches from 1950-2010 were 8,975 t and were on average 147 t∙year-1. The drastic decline in catches in 1989 was due to the damage caused by Hurricane Hugo, and again in 1995, when a violent volcanic eruption occurred at Mt. Soufriere Hills. Thus, no obvious unreported catches occurred during these disasters and FAO landings data were accepted for these two years. Catches supplying tourists were estimated at 1,092 t for the period 1950-2010. Average annual catch of 18 t∙year-1 have supplied this “foreign” sector for the past 6 decades.Montserrat’s catches were dominated by pelagic species (Figure 4). Needlefishes (Belonidae; 45%), various scombrids (Scombridae; 7%) as well as flyingfish (Exocotidae; 5%) were important. Reef fish and 0501001502002503003504001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearBelonidaeSerranidaeScombridaeExocotidaeAcanthuridaeLutjanidaeHolocentridaeBalistidaeCarangidaeOthersFigure 4.  Taxonomic composition of catches for Montserrat, 1950-2010. “Others” contains 36 families of marine species including sharks, lobsters, conch and a miscellaneous marine fishes category. 0501001502002503003504001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)YearArtisanalSubsistenceSubmitted to FAOTourist consumptionHurricane Hugo 1989Volcaniceruption 1995Figure 3.  Reconstructed total fisheries catches for Montserrat, 1950-2010, delineating catches for tourist and domestic markets, compared to reported landings submitted to FAO.Montserrat - Ramdeen et al. 73demersal species targeted included groupers and hinds (Serranidae; 8%), as well as surgeonfish (Acanthuridae; 5%), such as blue tang (Acanthurus coeruleus) and doctorfish (Acanthurus chirurgus). Other reef families targeted include snappers (Lutjanidae; 4%), squirrelfishes (Holocentridae; 4%), triggerfishes (Balistidae; 4%) and jacks (Carangidae; 3%). The ‘others’ category, presented here for simplicity, made up the remaining 14% of catches and consisted of 36 families of marine species, including grunts (Haemulidae), parrotfish (Scaridae), sharks (Carcharhinidae), as well as a miscellaneous marine fish category.discussionNational catch data reported by the Montserrat fisheries division (1997-2011) were significantly lower than the data submitted to the FAO on behalf of Montserrat. Given that national catch data are collected only at 1 of 3 main landing sites on the island and that Montserrat had not reported landings to the FAO for the majority of the last decade (2003-2009), we used FAO catch data as a baseline for this study.Fishing is essential to island communities of the Caribbean, and Montserrat is no exception. Like many Caribbean islands, Montserrat is heavily reliant on imported fish, predominantly salted cod from Canada. Even so, the importance of locally caught marine species has been understated (Vidaeus 1970). Local catches are substantially higher than what is being reported to international agencies, and contribute significantly to the food security of local Montserratians. Our total reconstructed catch for Montserrat’s marine fisheries for the period 1950-2010 was estimated to be approximately 15,307 tonnes, which is 3.6 times the official reported landings of 4,288 t as presented by FAO on behalf of Montserrat. The difference can be attributed to underreporting of small-scale fisheries, from the subsistence and artisanal fishing sectors, which is due to the method of data collection that presently only monitors one out of three major landing sites. Island-wide data collection is necessary, and historical data are important for fisheries managers to have a complete picture of the status of fisheries and their supporting resources, and to evaluate whether increases in effort will be counterproductive (Pauly 1998).Furthermore, the tourism sector generates considerable demand for fresh seafood at hotels and restaurants. This is evident as small-scale catches supplying stop-over tourists totaled 1,092 t for the period 1950-2010. This may seem insignificant; however, it represents 8% of the total reconstructed small-scale catches for the island. Thus, the impact of tourists on small islands with limited local food sources should be something that resource managers consider carefully.Catches submitted to the FAO on behalf of Montserrat were presented in one highly aggregated category, “marine fishes nei”. Reconstructed catches were disaggregated into 45 families, which is a major improvement over the reported data. Whilst Montserrat did submit annual catch data to the FAO in 2010, no taxonomic detail was provided. This may be due to the lack of incentive fisheries managers have to change the method in which they fill out the FAO questionnaires annually.Both Vidaeus (1970) and Mahon et al. (1988) have made reference to some un-quantified element of foreign fishing. However, data on their effort and landings were not available. Therefore, this study focused on domestic catches within the waters of Montserrat. Due to limited catch and effort data, a reconstruction of the sports fishing sector was also not undertaken here. Therefore, total marine extractions from Montserrat waters, are likely higher than the total reconstructed estimates suggested in this study.acKnowledgementsThis work was completed as part of the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. reFerencesBerke P and Wenger D (1991) Montserrat: emergency planning response and recovery related to Hurricane Hugo. Hazard Reduction and Recovery Centre and the Texas A&M University, Texas. 104 p.Blouet O (2007) The contemporary Caribbean: history, life and culture since 1945. Reaktion Bokks Ltd., London. 159 p.CRFM (2010) Fishery management advisory summaries–report of sixth annual scientific meeting. CRFM annual scientific meeting, Kingstown (St. Vincent and the Grenadines). 47 p.FAO (2012) Fishstat J V2.0.0. United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation, Rome.Giudicelli M (1978) Purse seining demonstration and training in Montserrat and study of adequate technologies for fisheries development in the country. Inter-regional project for the development of fisheries in the Western Central Atlantic 15, UNDP/FAO, Panama. 44 p.Goodwin M, Orbach M, Sandifer P and Towle E (1985) Fishery sector assessment for the eastern Caribbean: Antigua/Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Christopher/Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines. Island Resource Foundation, St. Thomas (US Virgin Islands). 161 p.Kozleski L (2004) Leeward Islands. Mason Crest Publishers, Philadelphia. 63 p.Kravtchenko I and Fergus H (2005) Montserrat & Montserratians: photo exploration. Commemorating ten years living with the volcano, 1995-2005. KiMAGIC, Canada. 96 p.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III74Mahon R, Rosenberg A and Jeffers J (1988) A fishery data collection system for Montserrat. Fishery data collection systems for eastern Caribbean islands: proceedings of an OECS/ICOD workshop, Holetown (Barbados). 121-128 p.Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Corporation Bulletin 11(2): 4-7.Ponteen A (2010) Montserrat National Fisheries Report 2009/2010. The Department of Agriculture of the Ministry of Agriculture, Trade, Lands and Housing, Montserrat. 7 p.Vidaeus L (1970) An inventory of the Montserrat fishing industry. UNDP/FAO Caribbean fishery development project, FAO, Rome. 18 p.Montserrat - Ramdeen et al. 75Appendix Table A1.   FAO landings vs. total reconstructed catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector, for Montserrat, 1950-2010.Year FAO landings Total reconstructed catch Subsistence Artisanal11950 50 303 242.8 611951 50 304 239.7 651952 50 305 236.7 691953 50 306 233.7 731954 50 307 230.6 761955 50 308 227.6 801956 50 309 224.6 841957 50 310 221.5 881958 50 311 218.5 921959 50 333 230.8 1021960 100 273 185.1 881961 100 292 194.4 971962 100 293 191.6 1011963 100 294 188.8 1051964 100 316 200.3 1161965 100 317 197.2 1201966 100 329 201.1 1281967 100 330 198.0 1321968 100 341 201.6 1401969 100 313 180.5 1331970 100 285 160.0 1251971 100 279 153.5 1261972 100 297 160.9 1361973 100 300 159.4 1411974 77 303 157.8 1461975 89 311 158.6 1521976 95 305 152.2 1531977 98 306 149.3 1571978 100 264 124.0 1401979 102 277 127.7 1491980 109 289 131.1 1581981 104 289 128.1 1611982 111 287 125.1 1621983 110 285 122.0 1631984 110 287 119.0 1681985 110 287 116.1 1711986 110 281 111.8 1701987 117 280 107.6 1721988 58 278 103.4 1741989 28 58 11.5 461990 15 52 7.8 441991 32 75 16.2 591992 23 60 11.4 491993 58 112 27.9 841994 62 118 29.0 891995 48 79 16.8 621996 38 65 16.8 481997 45 69 19.3 491998 46 73 19.1 541999 50 82 20.2 622000 50 83 19.5 642001 50 82 18.9 632002 46 77 16.7 602003 40 67 14.0 532004 31 58 10.5 482005 50 82 16.3 662006 49 78 15.3 622007 35 59 10.5 492008 31 53 8.9 442009 37 59 10.1 492010 24 38 6.2 321 Artisanal includes those catches caught artisanally for local consumption as well as tourist consumption.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III76Appendix Table A2.   Total reconstructed catch (in tonnes) for Montserrat by major taxa, 1950-2010. Year Belonidae Serranidae Scombridae Exocotidae Acanthuridae Lutjanidae Holocentridae Balistidae Carangidae Others11950 151 26.13 3.7 18.21 17.22 14.22 13.05 11.56 10.05 38.01951 151 26.13 4.4 18.21 17.22 14.22 13.05 11.56 10.05 38.31952 151 26.13 5.1 18.21 17.22 14.22 13.05 11.56 10.05 38.51953 151 26.13 5.8 18.21 17.22 14.22 13.05 11.56 10.05 38.71954 151 26.13 6.5 18.21 17.22 14.22 13.05 11.56 10.05 39.01955 151 26.13 7.1 18.21 17.22 14.22 13.05 11.56 10.05 39.21956 151 26.13 7.8 18.21 17.22 14.22 13.05 11.56 10.05 39.41957 151 26.13 8.5 18.21 17.22 14.22 13.05 11.56 10.05 39.61958 151 26.13 9.2 18.21 17.22 14.22 13.05 11.56 10.05 39.91959 162 27.99 10.1 19.51 18.45 15.24 13.98 12.39 10.77 42.81960 132 22.77 10.0 15.87 15.01 12.39 11.37 10.07 8.76 35.41961 140 24.26 10.9 16.91 15.99 13.20 12.12 10.73 9.34 37.81962 140 24.26 11.6 16.91 15.99 13.20 12.12 10.73 9.34 38.01963 140 24.26 12.3 16.91 15.99 13.20 12.12 10.73 9.34 38.31964 151 26.13 13.2 18.21 17.22 14.22 13.05 11.56 10.05 41.21965 151 26.13 13.9 18.21 17.22 14.22 13.05 11.56 10.05 41.41966 157 27.06 14.7 18.86 17.83 14.73 13.51 11.97 10.41 43.01967 157 27.06 15.4 18.86 17.83 14.73 13.51 11.97 10.41 43.21968 162 27.99 16.2 19.51 18.45 15.24 13.98 12.39 10.77 44.81969 147 25.47 16.5 17.76 16.79 13.86 12.72 11.27 9.80 41.41970 133 22.95 16.8 16.00 15.13 12.49 11.46 10.16 8.83 37.91971 130 22.39 17.4 15.61 14.76 12.19 11.18 9.91 8.62 37.41972 138 23.89 18.3 16.65 15.74 13.00 11.93 10.57 9.19 39.81973 139 24.07 19.0 16.78 15.87 13.10 12.02 10.65 9.26 40.31974 140 24.26 19.7 16.91 15.99 13.20 12.12 10.73 9.34 40.81975 144 24.82 20.5 17.30 16.36 13.51 12.40 10.98 9.55 41.81976 140 24.26 21.1 16.91 15.99 13.20 12.12 10.73 9.34 41.21977 140 24.26 21.8 16.91 15.99 13.20 12.12 10.73 9.34 41.41978 119 20.53 21.9 14.31 13.53 11.17 10.25 9.08 7.90 36.21979 125 21.55 22.7 15.03 14.21 11.73 10.77 9.54 8.29 37.91980 131 22.58 23.6 15.74 14.88 12.29 11.28 9.99 8.69 39.71981 130 22.51 23.7 15.69 14.83 12.25 11.24 9.96 8.66 39.61982 130 22.43 22.9 15.64 14.78 12.21 11.20 9.93 8.63 39.21983 129 22.36 22.0 15.59 14.73 12.17 11.17 9.89 8.60 38.81984 129 22.28 24.1 15.53 14.69 12.13 11.13 9.86 8.57 39.41985 129 22.21 24.8 15.48 14.64 12.09 11.09 9.83 8.55 39.61986 127 21.87 23.6 15.25 14.42 11.90 10.92 9.68 8.42 38.71987 125 21.54 25.4 15.01 14.19 11.72 10.76 9.53 8.29 38.81988 123 21.20 26.5 14.78 13.97 11.54 10.59 9.38 8.16 38.71989 14 2.41 22.7 1.68 1.59 1.31 1.20 1.07 0.93 10.91990 10 1.68 24.8 1.17 1.11 0.91 0.84 0.74 0.65 10.61991 21 3.58 25.8 2.50 2.36 1.95 1.79 1.58 1.38 13.61992 15 2.57 23.1 1.79 1.70 1.40 1.29 1.14 0.99 11.31993 38 6.49 28.5 4.53 4.28 3.53 3.24 2.87 2.50 18.61994 40 6.94 28.9 4.84 4.57 3.78 3.47 3.07 2.67 19.41995 24 4.13 23.8 2.88 2.72 2.25 2.06 1.83 1.59 13.81996 25 4.25 12.0 2.97 2.80 2.31 2.12 1.88 1.64 10.01997 48 0.82 8.4 3.14 0.71 1.09 0.16 0.00 0.28 6.21998 27 6.88 11.2 3.67 2.99 3.16 2.83 1.93 1.58 12.41999 25 7.44 14.0 2.17 6.12 4.62 4.41 3.94 0.47 14.52000 23 6.55 13.8 5.95 4.60 2.92 3.52 3.87 6.11 13.12001 25 7.87 13.6 5.47 5.67 2.17 4.08 3.34 3.22 12.02002 25 6.73 13.4 3.72 5.22 0.96 3.17 2.94 2.96 12.72003 20 6.81 13.3 0.14 3.90 1.12 2.18 3.08 4.53 11.92004 14 5.87 13.8 2.77 3.89 1.26 1.96 2.55 1.01 11.22005 18 9.46 15.2 2.19 9.80 0.19 3.00 0.22 7.28 16.82006 25 6.53 11.0 0.10 7.87 4.93 2.31 4.09 3.78 11.72007 15 4.00 10.7 3.77 5.53 5.47 1.46 2.55 1.68 8.62008 10 3.67 10.6 0.93 3.32 5.30 0.97 1.69 6.79 9.62009 16 3.92 11.8 0.31 3.12 4.70 1.53 0.05 8.96 8.92010 12 2.88 6.5 0.09 1.80 3.94 1.34 1.70 1.42 6.71 Others category includes 36 other taxa.Niue - Zylich et al. 77reconstruction oF marine Fisheries catches For niue (1950–2010)1Kyrstn Zylich, Sarah Harper, Nicolas Winkler, and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canadak.zylich@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; nicwinkler@gmail.com; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstractEstimates for the subsistence, artisanal, and large-scale commercial sectors of Niue’s fishery were obtained for the time period of 1950-2010. Throughout this time period we found that subsistence catches, as well as the large-scale commercial catches, were underestimated in the data reported to the FAO. Our reconstruction of Niue’s total marine fisheries catches for 1950-2010 equalled 24,158 t, which was 4.9 times the FAO total catches. This translates to 19,231 tonnes of unreported catches. Subsistence estimates were obtained using per capita consumption rates and commercial fisheries estimates were based on catch information from independent reports. The combination of environmental pressures such as severe cyclones and anthropogenic pressures such as fishing, threaten the sustainable use of resources from the marine environment. This report illustrates the importance of collecting catch time series data for sustainable management of Niue’s marine fisheries resources.introductionNiue is a single, uplifted atoll island which, in 1974, became a self-governing nation in free association with New Zealand (Quentin-Baxter 2008). Being in free association means that Niue has the power to make its own laws and enter into agreements with other nations as if it was an independent nation, and New Zealand cannot interfere without Niue’s consent (Quentin-Baxter 2008). However, Niue still receives essential financial aid, when needed, from New Zealand, and Niueans retain their New Zealand citizenship (Quentin-Baxter 2008). The island is located at 19°S and 169°W, with a land area of 259 km2 (Figure 1). It has an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 316,629 km2 (www.seaaroundus.org), which borders the waters of American Samoa, Tonga, and the Cook Islands, while international waters lie directly south. Niue is surrounded by a narrow, wave-cut, shelf platform covered in coral, which drops off quickly to extreme depths within 3-5 km of shore (Dalzell et al. 1993; Kronen et al. 2008). Coral cliffs surround the island, which rise between 20 and 30 m above sea level (Kronen et al. 2008). Niue only possesses one wharf, located at Alofi Bay (Alofi being the capital). The wharf is only partially sheltered and is vulnerable to sea conditions, which requires that fishing boats be lifted in and out of the water each day (Gillett 2011). Although government agencies realize that a lack of marine infrastructure has severely hindered Niue’s fishing opportunities, there is hesitation to invest due to the frequency of severe weather patterns (Gillett 2011). Over the years, Niue has suffered extensive reef damage, particularly from Cyclone Ofa (February 1990) and Cyclone Heta (January 2004; Kronen et al. 2008). Niue’s economy is heavily dependent on aid it receives from New Zealand. The majority of Niueans work in the public sector, with their wages also provided by New Zealand (Kronen et al. 2008). Although local agricultural crops have failed to produce any profitable export opportunities (Bertram and Watters 1984) they are successful enough for subsistence purposes. Taro, tapioca, yams, kumara, bananas, breadfruit, papaya, watermelon, and citrus fruits are sold at the market twice a week along with coconut crabs, seafood, and imported products (Tuara 2000). Fishing in Niue has very traditional roots, which are still present today. Niueans continue to use the one- or three-person wooden dug-out canoes that their ancestors have perfected, although these are used less frequently (Powell 1968; Kronen et al. 2008). In the late 1970s and early 1980s, several government funded programs were implemented to help increase fishing effort and productivity in Niue. Nick Dryden from the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, as well as South Pacific Commission2 (SPC) “Master Fishermen” Tevita Fusimalohi and Paul Mead made visits to Niue and worked with local fishers to teach them more effective 1 Cite as: Zylich, K., Harper, S., Winkler, N., and Zeller, D. (2012) Reconstruction of marine figheries catches for Niue (1950-2010). pp. 77-86. In: Harper, S., Zylich, K., Boonzaier, L., Le Manach, F., Pauly, D., and Zeller D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].2 Now the Secretariat of the Pacific Community.168°W20°S±0 300150 kmFigure 1.  Map of Niue and its EEZ. Niue’s closest neighbouring country, Tonga, which lies to the west of Niue, is also shown.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III78fishing techniques (Crossland 1979; Mead 1980). In 1977, Nick Dryden brought with him new fishing gear as well as an 8.3 m diesel powered boat, Nukulafalafa (Crossland 1979). After surveying the area and finding that trolling was the most effective technique, he trained four local fishers in all aspects of trolling (including operation and maintenance of the vessel; Crossland 1979). In 1978, SPC “Master Fisherman”, Tevita Fusimalohi of the SPC Deep Sea Fisheries Development Project (DSFDP) came to train the fishers in bottom fishing techniques as an alternative to trolling (Fusimalohi 1978; Crossland 1979). In 1979, SPC “Master Fisherman” Paul Mead took over operation of the DSFDP and continued working with the Niueans. Unfortunately, Niue was hit by a cyclone at the end of 1979 resulting in the loss of the boat and much of the fishing equipment (Mead 1980; Anon. 1981). However, fishing operations did resume in February 1980 with the arrival of an alia catamaran (Anon. 1981). In 1982, the SPC provided Niue with its first two fish aggregating devices (FADs; Farman and Dashwood 1989). That same year, “Master Fisherman” Paul Mead performed vertical longline trials in the vicinity of the FADs (Mead 1989). In the late 1980s, many organizations, including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), provided the Niue fisheries sector with some support (Anon. 1990). This aid was used for improving infrastructure and obtaining equipment. Unfortunately, in January 2004, Niue was hit by Cyclone Heta, one of the most damaging cyclones to date. Although repaired, Niue’s only wharf, as well as the infrastructure and machinery needed for fishing boats to access the water, remain vulnerable (Barnett and Ellemor 2007). The marine environment itself is vulnerable to the severe weather conditions it endures and proper analysis and management is needed to ensure the survival and sustainability of Niue’s marine resources (Fisk 2007).Currently, the FAO FishStatJ database, which provides time series data on marine fisheries landings from 1950 to present, is the only publicly available source of national fisheries catch data over time. FAO data are provided by its member countries. Therefore, the FAO relies on countries to report their figures accurately. The FAO data have been the basis of many influential global fisheries studies (i.e. Pauly et al. 1998) but they are known to be incomplete (Zeller et al. 2006; 2007).The objective of this study is to provide a complete time series of estimated total marine fisheries catch of Niue from 1950-2010. Although there have been many studies which have estimated the impact of Niue’s fisheries, there has been no comprehensive study showing catch trends over time.methodsEstimates of marine catches were made for three sectors: subsistence, artisanal, and large-scale commercial. The subsistence sector was estimated by combining available information on catches and human population data to estimate per capita consumption rates. For the artisanal and large-scale commercial sectors, several reports containing yearly catch data were used to make estimates. For the artisanal and subsistence sectors, interpolations between data anchor points were performed in order to obtain catch data for the entire study period of 1950-2010.Large-scale commercial fisheriesNiue only recently developed a domestic, large-scale fishing operation. In 2005, Niue entered into a joint venture fishing agreement with a New Zealand company, Reef Group, to start a longline fishing sector in their EEZ (Tafatu 2006; Gillett 2011). Under this agreement, all fish caught in the Niue EEZ would be processed at the newly built fish processing facility, Niue Fish Processors Ltd. (Gillett 2011). Prior to 2005, there was no domestic large-scale commercial fishing in Niue’s EEZ and therefore catches for this sector were set to zero from 1950-2004. Data from the FAO, Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) all match in tonnage for the large-scale commercial species. FAO reported catches for albacore (Thunnus alalunga), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), black marlin (Makaira indica), blue marlin (Makaira mazara), striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax), and swordfish (Xiphias gladius) are accepted as the reported data for the longline fishery with one exception. The FFA data reports small amounts of skipjack and yellowfin tuna as being caught by an “other gear type” in 2004-2006. The large-scale tuna fishery did not begin until 2005 and so these amounts are allocated as reported small-scale tuna catch. It was determined that a small amount of by-catch from wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) and dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) was missing from the data in some years. Tafatu (2006) gives a complete breakdown of the 2005 longline catch which includes tonnages for these two species. The ratio of the tonnages of wahoo and dolphinfish to the total reported longline catch was found for 2005 and then applied to 2006-2008 and 2010. For 2009, there was 6 t of reported “tuna-like fishes nei” and this was assigned proportionally to wahoo and dolphinfish. Although all reports provide consistent accounts of the tonnages caught by the longline fishery, Gillett (2009) notes that there may be some under-reporting occurring. Tafatu (2007) reported 320.3 tonnes of tuna and tuna-like fish caught in 2006 by the longline fleet in Niue’s EEZ. However, Gillett (2009) points out that this was only the catch for six vessels, while Tafatu (2007) had stated that there were actually 12 vessels licensed to fish in Niue’s EEZ. This led Gillett to double the figure resulting in an estimate of 640 t. Gillett (2009) backs up his assumption by stating that unpublished fishery export figures for 2007 equated to 602.2 t, and if local tuna consumption was added this would be close to 640 t. However, since we have estimated local consumption separately, we accept the export value of 600 t as the total catch (tuna plus by-catch) in the years 2006 and 2007. The FAO data for 2005 and 2008-2010 were accepted as correct. At the end of 2007, Niue Fish Processors Ltd. closed (Kronen et al. 2008), leaving Niue with fewer vessels fishing their waters in 2008 and resulting in decreased catches (Anon. 2010). This explains why catches drop down to 18.75 t in 2008. In 2009, Niue resumed its joint venture agreement causing catches to start rising again (Anon. 2010). Niue - Zylich et al. 79Large-scale tuna fishing operations can occur outside of a country’s EEZ as tuna and other large pelagics are migratory species. The FFA data contained information on catches which could be utilized to determine how much of the catch is taken from inside the country’s EEZ, in other countries’ EEZs, and in the high seas. Therefore, these data were utilized directly to spatially allocate tonnages of tuna, and proportions were used to also allocate all of the associated by-catch species. Artisanal fisheriesNiue’s artisanal sector is made up of 4-5 full-time and 2-3 part-time commercial fishers who sell their catch at the market (Dalzell et al. 1993). In the literature, this sector is referred to as either artisanal, small-scale commercial, or coastal commercial. Gillett (2009) estimated this sector at 10 tonnes per year and Dalzell (1993) also estimated 10-14 tonnes per year. To remain conservative, we accepted the estimate of 10 tonnes per year and assigned this as the artisanal catch starting in 1993 (as Dalzell was the first to report this estimate) and carried it forward until 2010. The earliest mention of the sale of fish in Niue is in a SPC report (Devambez 1962) and therefore we set artisanal catches at zero from 1950-1960. We then linearly interpolated from zero in 1960 to 10 tonnes in 1993.Subsistence fisheriesEstimating subsistence catches required a complete time series of Niue human population data for 1950-2010. This was needed to convert per capita seafood consumption rates into an estimate of total demand, which was then used in calculating missing catch amounts. Population data for Niue were obtained from the Pacific Regional Information System (PRISM) website.3 PRISM is a website produced by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) to compile statistical data on all countries within the Pacific Community. Linear interpolations between known data points were employed to produce population data for the entire 1950-2010 time period (Figure 2).Gillett (2009) estimated the total subsistence catch in 2007 to be 140 tonnes. This estimate was based on the compilation of several different sources, containing both consumption and catch data (Gillett 2009). Using this figure and the 2007 population estimate, a catch-derived subsistence consumption rate of 87.9 kg∙person-1∙year-1 was obtained. This was used as the 2007 anchor point and was carried forward, unaltered, to 2010 (Table 1).For the early time period, it was assumed that Niue was receiving less imported canned meats and fish than it is today. With fewer canned alternatives available, it was assumed that more fresh seafood was eaten. This trend can be observed by direct comparison of villages on the island in current times. Kronen et al. (2008) found that the amount of canned fish consumed is inversely related to the amount of fresh fish consumed. Therefore, in order to account for this increased consumption, Gillett and Lightfoot’s (2001) estimate of 118.9 kg∙person-1∙year-1 was used as an approximation for the consumption rate in 1950 (Table 1). We then linearly interpolated between the 1950 and 2007 consumption rates. These consumption rates, in combination with the population data gave a total subsistence demand for the 1950-2010 time period.In Niue, subsistence fishing also consists of collecting fish to take overseas to friends and relatives living in New Zealand (Dalzell et al. 1993). These informal exports, estimated by Dalzell et al. (1993), depend on frequent and direct air service. There was direct air service between Auckland and Niue between 1982 and 1988, limited service for 1989 and 1990 (Dalzell et al. 1993), and an increase again in 1992 (Eur. 2002). Therefore, informal exports were set to zero from 1950 to 1981. We then linearly interpolated from zero in 1981 to 4.9 tonnes (Dalzell et al. 1993) in 1987 and carried this amount forward to 1988. In 1989 and 1990, exports decreased to 95 kg·year-1 (Dalzell et al. 1993). With air service increasing again in 1992, we assumed that exports reached their previous height by 1995 and thus set informal exports to 4.9 t·year-1 from 1995 onwards. A linear interpolation was performed between the 3 http://www.spc.int/prism/country/nu/stats/Social/Population/Popstats.htm01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010PopulationYearFigure 2.  Estimated human population of Niue, 1950-2010.Table 1.   Per capita seafood consumption rates used to estimate total subsistence demand.Years Consumption rate (kg/person/year) Source1950 118.9 Gillett and Lightfoot (2001)a1951-2006 - Linear interpolation2007 89.7 Gillett (2009)2008-2010 89.7 Carried forward from 2007a Gillett and Lightfoot’s (2001) estimate of consumption was assumed to be representative for 1950.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III80anchor points of 95 kg in 1990 and 4.9 tonnes in 1995. Adding the informal exports to the calculated subsistence demand gave the total subsistence catch.For the years 1999 to 2004, our estimated total reconstructed catch was slightly lower than the FAO data. It was therefore assumed that the FAO had additional information and we accepted their reported total catch for those years. In order to account for this discrepancy, we increased our estimated subsistence catch for those years, thus resulting in our total catch being equal to that of the FAO.Foreign vesselsDue to the development of the local joint venture fleet, no foreign vessels (with one exception) had authorized access to Niue’s EEZ after 2002 (Tafatu 2006). US purse seiners have access under a multilateral treaty, however they have not fished Niue’s EEZ for years (Gillett 2009). Japanese and Taiwanese longliners operated in Niue waters in the 1960s and 1970s (Dalzell et al. 1993). Dalzell (1993) and Klawe (1978) provide some limited data for these years. There are several reports (e.g. Pasisi 2003; Kronen et al. 2008) indicating that from about the mid-1990s to the early 2000s, there were Taiwanese and American Samoan vessels fishing in the Niue EEZ, operating under access agreements. However, these reports do not have enough information to determine the exact dates of these agreements or how much fish was caught.Catch compositionThe joint venture commercial longline fishery occurs offshore and targets large pelagic fish (i.e. tunas and tuna-like fish). The FAO data present landings for the four main species of tuna (albacore, bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna) and associated by-catch (black marlin, blue marlin, striped marlin, and swordfish). These reported values are accepted for 2005 and 2008-2010 with the aforementioned exemption of small amounts of skipjack and yellowfin tuna in 2005. An unreported component of wahoo amounting to 3.3% of the total reported large-scale catch and 1.4% of the catch for unreported dolphinfish were also added on in 2005-2008 and 2010. In 2009, the 6 t of reported “tuna-like fishes nei” was broken down into wahoo (71%) and dolphinfish (29%; Tafatu 2006). In 2006 and 2007, the proportions of the reported catches plus the unreported wahoo and dolphinfish, were used to determine the composition of the 600 t of longline catch. The complete percentage breakdown for the longline fishery is shown in Table 2.The species compositions for both the subsistence and artisanal sectors were assumed to be the same. Kronen et al. (2008) assessed the status of Niue’s fisheries using several different methods, which included a household survey (to gather information about seafood consumption), as well as a survey of fishers to collect data concerning the actual catch. At the broader level, these data provided total annual estimates by weight of catches from trolling and mid-water fishing (tuna and tuna-like species), reef and canoe fishery (reef finfish), and the invertebrate fishery. These data were Table 2.   Estimated catch composition for the large-scale commercial fisheries of Niue. Species Catch (%)2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010Acanthocybium solandri 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 2.23 3.13Coryphaena hippurus 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 0.93 1.30Katsuwonus pelamis 1.74 1.28 1.35 5.10 0.13 0.21Makaira indica 2.61 0.96 2.70 1.27 0.13 0.21Makaira mazara 3.48 2.56 3.16 5.10 3.16 0.85Tetrapturus audax 0.87 1.60 4.06 1.27 0.13 0.85Thunnus alalunga 47.78 68.08 61.76 35.68 77.37 82.40Thunnus albacares 29.54 13.42 13.52 40.78 10.53 6.80Thunnus obesus 8.69 7.03 8.11 5.10 5.26 3.40Xiphias gladius 0.87 0.64 0.90 1.27 0.13 0.85Source: FAO FishStatJ [accessed November 1, 2012] and Tafatu (2006).Table 3.   Estimated species composition of both the subsistence and artisanal sector in Niue.Taxa Catch (%) Taxa Catch (%)Acanthocybium solandri 27.90 Parupeneus multifasciatus 0.39Turbo setosus 13.93 Priacanthus hamrur 0.31Thunnus albacares 7.77 Bivalvia 0.28Decapterus macarellus 4.49 Chlorurus microrhinos 0.28Katsuwonus pelamis 3.75 Octopus spp. 0.26Myripristis berndti 3.45 Acanthurus guttatus 0.25Myripristis violacea 3.45 Aphareus rutilans 0.24Other large pelagics 3.29 Lutjanus bohar 0.24Kyphosus bigibbus 2.72 Sargocentron cornutum 0.23Kyphosus cinerascens 2.72 Epinephelus fasciatus 0.23Kyphosus vaigiensis 2.72 Parribacus caledonicus 0.19Gastropoda 1.98 Polymixia japonica 0.18Panulirus spp. 1.63 Xiphias gladius 0.14Paracirrhites hemistictus 1.50 Holothuria atra 0.13Cirrhitus pinnulatus 1.41 Acanthurus achilles 0.13Istiophoridae 1.22 Monotaxis grandoculis 0.10Thalassoma quinquevittatum 1.20 Misc. marine fishes 0.09Seriola rivoliana 1.11 Cephalopholis urodeta 0.09Caranx melampygus 1.10 Variola louti 0.07Coryphaena hippurus 1.00 Scomberoides lysan 0.05Epinephelus merra 0.95 Cephalopholis aurantia 0.05Cephalopholis miniata 0.87 Cephalopholis sonnerati 0.05Caranx lugubris 0.80 Sphyraena barracuda 0.04Scylla serrata 0.76 Echinoidea 0.04Crenimugil crenilabis 0.66 Mulloidichthys flavolineatus 0.03Tridacna maxima 0.56 Misc. aquatic invertebrates 0.03Tridacna squamosa 0.56 Belonidae 0.02Decapoda 0.51 Acanthurus triostegus 0.02Scarus spp. 0.51 Sargocentron spiniferum 0.01Acanthurus xanthopterus 0.45 Sphyraena forsteri 0.01Rhinecanthus rectangulus 0.43 Sphyraena qenie 0.01Thalassoma purpureum 0.40 Exocoetidae 0.01Source: Kronen et al. (2008).Niue - Zylich et al. 81used to calculate the proportions of the different sectors within the small-scale fishery. Each sector could then be broken down to individual species. Kronen et al. (2008) used the catch data to provide a complete species breakdown of reef finfish and invertebrates caught annually by weight. This was used as the basis for the reef fish and invertebrate species catch composition. As the survey did not include species information on the large pelagic fish caught by trolling and mid-water fishing, Dalzell’s (1993) estimates were used for that sector. Dalzell (1993) provides catch data by weight for vessels targeting tuna and tuna-like species. The complete species breakdown for both the subsistence and artisanal sectors is provided in Table 3.women in FisheriesFishing participation in Niue appears to be almost evenly split between men and women. According to the survey by Kronen et al. (2008), almost even numbers of males and females participate in both finfish and invertebrate fishing. In terms of fishers who only fish in one sector, there are more males who exclusively fish for finfish, and more females who are exclusive to invertebrate fishing (Kronen et al. 2008). Kronen et al. (2008) found that female fishers were responsible for 53% of the annual invertebrate catch. On average, per person, female fishers catch 75 kg·person-1·year-1, compared to the 133 kg·person-1·year-1 that men catch on average (Kronen et al. 2008). Using the number of male and female fishers quoted by Kronen et al. (2008) who fish for finfish (either exclusive or in addition to invertebrates) and the annual catch rates, it can be estimated that female fishers are responsible for 24% of the finfish catch. This difference in contribution can be attributed to the types of fishing women generally participate in. One of the main fishing activities which women participate in is reef gleaning. They harvest invertebrates, using their hands and small tools, from the reef flat when the tide is low and collect octopus, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, shellfish, tube worms, snails, and clams (Tuara 2000). This is done during the day, and at night they go out with knives or long spears and hunt crabs, lobsters, and reef fish. They also use a simple wooden or bamboo rod and line with a small piece of bait to catch reef fish from rock pools and over cliff edges in both the day and night (Tuara 2000). While fishing out on a boat is no longer exclusive to men, there are still not many women found fishing on boats (Tuara 2000; Lambeth et al. 2002). Post-harvest duties of fish processing are completed by both men and women (Tuara 2000).resultsFor the period 1950-2010, the reconstructed total catch for Niue was estimated to be 24,158 t. This estimate is 4.9 times the total catch reported by the FAO on behalf of Niue over the same time period (Figure 3a). Overall, large-scale commercial catches represented 6.8% of the total catch, artisanal catches represented 1.4%, and subsistence catches made up the largest portion with 91.8% of the total catch (Figure 3a). Informal exports (which are included in the subsistence catch) are estimated at a total of 111 t, representing only 0.46% of the total catch but are unaccounted for in both the official catch and trade data. Annual catches have peaked in the last five years due to the joint venture agreement that Niue signed with Reef Group. The average annual catch for the recent time period (2005-2010) is estimated at 628 t·year-1. However, there was an earlier peak in catch totals in the 1960s with average annual catches of 560 t·year-1, which only consisted of small-scale catches. Small-scale catches then proceeded to decreased to a low of 175 t·year-1 in the 2000s.The total reconstructed catch was dominated by wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) with 6,329 t caught from 1950-2010. Other species representing large portions of the catch include Turbo setosus, Thunnus albacares, 0100200300400500600700800Catch (t)Large-scale commercialSubsistenceArtisanala)Supplied to FAO01002003004005006007008001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearAcanthocybium solandriHolocentridaeOther taxaKyphosidaeTurbo setosusDecapterus macarellusThunnus albacaresThunnus alalungab)Figure 3.  a) Total reconstructed fisheries catches for Niue, by sector, compared to the total catch data supplied to the FAO, 1950-2010; b) total reconstructed catch for Niue by major taxa. The grouping “other taxa” represents 52 taxa (as listed in Appendix Table A2). The families Kyphosidae and Holocentridae represent 3 and 4 species, respectively.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III82T. alalunga, and Decapterus macarellus with 3,436 t, 1,982 t, 1,085 t, and 1,011 t, respectively (Figure 3b). Two families also worth mentioning (which are not already represented) are Kyphosidae (three species) and Holocentridae (four species), with catches of 1,837 t and 1,609 t, respectively, over the 1950-2010 time period (Figure 3b). The remaining 52 taxa, which individually represent minor portions of the total catch, were grouped for presentation into the category “other taxa” (Figure 3b).The large-scale commercial longline catch was dominated by albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) with an average of 180 t·year-1 caught from 2005-2010. The other species caught by the longliners were Thunnus albacares, T. obesus, Acanthocybium solandri, Katsuwonus pelamis, Makaira mazara, Tetrapturus audax, Coryphaena hippurus, M. indica, and Xiphias gladius with approximately 38.6 t·year-1, 19.3 t·year-1, 8.3 t·year-1, 7.7 t·year-1, 6.1 t·year-1, 4.3 t·year-1, 3.4 t·year-1, 3.2 t·year-1, and 2.0 t·year-1, respectively, in the 2005-2010 time period.The subsistence and artisanal sectors are dominated by almost the same species and families as the total catch with the exception of albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga), not present in the small-scale sector catches. In the subsistence sector, Acanthocybium solandri, Turbo setosus, Kyphosidae, Thunnus albacares, Holocentridae, and Decapterus macarellus have average annual catches of approximately 101 t·year-1, 51 t·year-1, 30 t·year-1, 28 t·year-1, 26 t·year-1, and 16 t·year-1, respectively. Since the assumed start of the artisanal sector in 1961, the average annual catches for A. solandri, T. setosus, Kyphosidae, T. albacares, Holocentridae, and D. macarellus have been approximately 1.90 t·year-1, 0.95 t·year-1, 0.55 t·year-1, 0.53 t·year-1, 0.49 t·year-1, and 0.31 t·year-1, respectively.As part of the allocation process, it was estimated that approximately 14% of the large-scale catches were taken from outside of the EEZ. These catches represent only 0.9% of the total reconstructed catch.discussionThe reconstructed total catch for Niue for 1950-2010 was estimated to be approximately five times the landings presented by the FAO on behalf of Niue. This discrepancy is the result of two main issues: a lack of documentation of subsistence catches and an underestimation of the longline catches of Niue’s recent commercial joint venture operation. The subsistence sector was estimated to be over 90% of the entire reconstructed catch. Not only was there poor subsistence reporting in the early part of the time period, but it continues to be neglected in the recent period. Since 2005, the data reported to FAO have a greater species disaggregation. However, this disaggregation is a product of the start of the joint venture operation and the species only correspond to those caught by the industrial sector. Prior to 2005, only broad categories of “marine fishes not elsewhere included (nei)” and “tuna-like fishes nei” were used. Once the large-scale commercial longline tuna species began to be reported all other categories declined rapidly in amount, suggesting that large-scale commercial catches are the only catches being recorded. Although it is apparent that there has been an effort to report large-scale commercial catches, they are largely underestimated in some years (Gillett 2009). The total reconstructed large-scale commercial catch is almost 75% larger than the total industrial landings reported from 2005-2010.From 1950-2004, the reconstructed catch is almost entirely dependent on the population size since the subsistence portion greatly overwhelms the very small artisanal and informal export portions. Therefore, the peak in this section of the timeline corresponds to the peak population in the 1960s (average population of 5,034). The Niuean population then decreases rapidly, with a large number of people migrating to New Zealand. Total fisheries catches decreased as demand declined. This is followed by a dramatic spike in 2006, which corresponds to the rapid increase in catch of the joint venture longline operation. There is another drop in 2008 which corresponds to the closure of the fish processing plant (Kronen et al. 2008). Catches begin to increase again in 2009 as Niue negotiated alternative arrangements for their joint venture agreement (Anon. 2010).Overharvesting is a concern on the island of Niue. Invertebrates are particularly at risk, including lobsters, giant clams, turban shell molluscs, urchins, sea cucumbers, octopus, and some crabs (Tuara 2000). The stocks of giant clams have been decimated and Kronen et al. (2008) recommend a total ban. There has been some recognition of this decline by the Niueans. Nets were widely used in the past but are (for the most part) no longer used due to their effectiveness, and the subsequent depletion of associated resources (Tuara 2000). Past areas of concern include use of poisons and use of spear guns with the aid of scuba. In 1965, regulations were put in place to ban the use of poisons or stupefying agents (Wilson 1967). Unfortunately, due to the rugged topography of the coastline it is difficult to police the area (Wilson 1967). Poisons of known use have been the root of a New Guinea creeper (Derris elliptica), the seeds of kieto (Diospyrus samoenis), and the root of Tephrosia purpurea, locally known as kohuhu (Wilson 1967). Information was not available on whether the use of poisons has ceased or is at least less common. It is clear though, that there have been detrimental effects on the marine environment from the use of these poisons (Fisk 2007).Niue’s exposed coastline has been repeatedly damaged by cyclones, which have negatively affected the marine life. The added effects of a large subsistence sector, continued use of FADs, and increasing large-scale commercial longline effort, further threaten an already vulnerable resource. In an attempt to mitigate these pressures, the Government of Niue, in 1998, created the Namoui Fisheries Reserve (Labrosse et al. 1999). However, stronger measures are needed to manage the increasing strain of the more recently established large-scale commercial venture to ensure the sustainability of this fishery. This study highlights the need for and importance of comprehensive fisheries catch records, to monitor changes in fisheries resources caused by natural and anthropogenic stresses.Niue - Zylich et al. 83acKnowledgementsThis work was completed as part of the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.reFerencesAnon. (1981) Country Statement–Niue. South Pacific Commission, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 1 p.Anon. (1990) Country statement–Niue: FADs in Niue. South Pacific Commission, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 3 p.Anon. (2009) Annual report to the commission–Part 1, Information on fisheries, research and statistics: Niue. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Port Vila (Vanuatu). 10 p.Anon. (2010) Annual report to the commission–Part 1, Information on fisheries, research and statistics: Niue. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Nuku’alofa (Tonga). 11 p.Barnett J and Ellemor H (2007) Niue after Cyclone Heta. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management 22(1): 1324-1540.Bertram IG and Watters RF (1984) New Zealand and its small island neighbours: A review of New Zealand policy toward the Cook Islands, Niue, Tokelau, Kiribati and Tuvalu. Institute of Policy Studies, Wellington (New Zealand). 574 p.Crossland J (1979) Fisheries at Niue. South Pacific Commission, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 8-11 p.Dalzell P, Lindsay SR and Patiale H (1993) Fishery resources survey of the island of Niue. South Pacific Commission, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 68 p.Devambez LC (1962) Niue: Report on the organisation of fishing trials. South Pacific Commission, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 5 p.Eur. (2002) Far East and Australasia 2003, 34 edition. Routeledge. 1538 p.Farman R and Dashwood J (1989) Proposal for a regional small-scale purse seine test fishing project: Report of stage two study mission. South Pacific Commission, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 28 p.Fisk D (2007) Niue sustainable coastal fisheries pilot project: Literature review and pilot baseline survey. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia (Samoa). 59 p.Fusimalohi T (1978) Report on the South Pacific Commission Deep Sea Fisheries Development Project in Niue South Pacific Commission, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 8 p.Gillett R (2009) Fisheries in the economies of the Pacific Island countries and territories. Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong City (Philippines). 521 p.Gillett R (2011) Fisheries of the Pacific Islands: Regional and national information. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok. 279 p.Gillett R and Lightfoot C (2001) The contributions of fisheries to the economies of the Pacific Island countries. Asian Development Bank, Manila (Philippines). 218 p.Klawe WL (1978) Estimates of catches of tunas and billfishes by the Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese Longliners from within the 200 mile economic zone of the member countries of the South Pacific Commission. South Pacific Commission, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 43 p.Kronen M, Fisk D, Pinca S, Magron F, Friedman K, Boblin P, Awira R and Chapman L (2008) Niue country report: Profile and results from in-country survey work (May to June 2005). Pacific Regional Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries Development Programme (PROCFish/C/Cofish), Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 189 p.Labrosse P, Yeeting B and Pasisi B (1999) Survey of the Namoui Fisheries Reserve in Niue. SPC Fisheries Newsletter 90(July/September): 29-36.Lambeth L, Hanchard B, Aslin H, Fay-Sauni L, Tuara P, Rochers KD and Vunisea A (2002) An Overview of the involvement of women in fisheries activities in Oceania. pp. 127-142 In Williams MJ, Chao NH, Choo PS, Matics K, Nandeesha MC, Shariff M, Siason I, Tech E and Wong JMC (eds.), Global symposium on women in fisheries: Sixth Asian Fisheries Forum, 29 November 2001, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. The WorldFish Center.Mead P (1980) Report on the second visit of the South Pacific Commission Deep Sea Fisheries Development Project to Niue. South Pacific Commission, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 28 p.Mead P (1989) Vertical longlining: The concept, trials, and present state of development. South Pacific Commission, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 8 p.Pasisi P (2003) National fisheries report for Niue. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 5 p.Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard J, Froese R and Torres F (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279: 860-863.Powell R (1968) Canoes of the Pacific Islands. South Pacific Commission, Koror (Palau). 7 p.Quentin-Baxter A (2008) The New Zealand model of free association: What does it mean for New Zealand? Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 39: 607-634.Tafatu J (2006) Country fisheries report–Niue. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Manila (Philippines). 6 p.Tafatu J (2007) Country fisheries report–Niue. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 6 p.Tuara P (2000) An assessment of the role of women in fisheries in Niue. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nouméa (New Caledonia). 37 p.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III84Wilson JW (1967) Faka kona ika: (a note on the use of fish poisons in Niue). South Pacific Bulletin 17(2): 35-36.Zeller D, Booth S, Craig P and Pauly D (2006) Reconstruction of coral reef fisheries catches in American Samoa, 1950-2002. Coral Reefs 25: 144-152.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for U.S. flag associated island areas in the Western Pacific: The last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105: 266-277.Niue - Zylich et al. 85Appendix Table A1.   FAO landings vs. total reconstructed catch (in tonnes) for Niue, 1950-2010, as well as catch by sector.Year FAO landings Total reconstructed catch Subsistence Artisanal Large-scale commercial1950 0.25 535 535 - -1951 0.25 539 539 - -1952 0.25 540 540 - -1953 0.25 541 541 - -1954 0.25 542 542 - -1955 0.25 543 543 - -1956 0.25 544 544 - -1957 0.25 545 545 - -1958 0.25 546 546 - -1959 0.25 547 547 - -1960 0.25 548 548 - -1961 0.25 550 549 0.30 -1962 0.25 555 554 0.61 -1963 0.25 560 559 0.91 -1964 0.25 565 563 1.21 -1965 0.25 569 568 1.52 -1966 0.25 574 572 1.82 -1967 0.25 567 565 2.12 -1968 0.25 560 558 2.42 -1969 0.25 553 551 2.73 -1970 0.25 546 543 3.03 -1971 0.25 540 536 3.33 -1972 0.25 502 498 3.64 -1973 0.25 464 460 3.94 -1974 20.00 427 423 4.24 -1975 20.00 417 413 4.55 -1976 30.00 407 403 4.85 -1977 40.00 396 391 5.15 -1978 60.00 386 380 5.45 -1979 30.00 375 369 5.76 -1980 45.00 358 352 6.06 -1981 45.00 341 335 6.36 -1982 54.00 327 320 6.67 -1983 60.00 313 306 6.97 -1984 72.00 300 292 7.27 -1985 90.00 281 274 7.58 -1986 105.00 263 255 7.88 -1987 115.00 254 246 8.18 -1988 115.00 245 236 8.48 -1989 115.00 230 222 8.79 -1990 115.00 228 219 9.09 -1991 120.00 227 217 9.39 -1992 120.00 229 219 9.70 -1993 120.00 231 221 10.00 -1994 150.00 232 222 10.00 -1995 150.00 222 212 10.00 -1996 200.00 211 201 10.00 -1997 200.00 210 200 10.00 -1998 200.00 201 191 10.00 -1999 200.00 200 190 10.00 -2000 200.00 200 190 10.00 -2001 200.00 200 190 10.00 -2002 200.00 200 190 10.00 -2003 200.00 200 190 10.00 -2004 200.00 200 190 10.00 -2005 212.00 281 156 10.00 1152006 400.00 759 149 10.00 6002007 302.00 755 145 10.00 6002008 108.75 172 142 10.00 202009 193.00 339 139 10.00 1902010 113.50 264 136 10.00 118Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III86Appendix Table A2.   Total reconstructed catch (in tonnes) for Niue by major taxa, 1950-2010. Year Acanthocybium solandriTurbo setosus Thunnus albacaresKyphosidae Holocentridae Thunnus alalunga Decapterus macarellusOthers11950 149 75 42 44 38 0 24.0 1641951 150 75 42 44 39 0 24.2 1651952 151 75 42 44 39 0 24.2 1651953 151 75 42 44 39 0 24.3 1661954 151 76 42 44 39 0 24.3 1661955 152 76 42 44 39 0 24.4 1661956 152 76 42 44 39 0 24.4 1671957 152 76 42 44 39 0 24.5 1671958 152 76 42 45 39 0 24.5 1671959 153 76 43 45 39 0 24.6 1681960 153 76 43 45 39 0 24.6 1681961 153 77 43 45 39 0 24.7 1681962 155 77 43 45 40 0 24.9 1701963 156 78 43 46 40 0 25.1 1711964 157 79 44 46 40 0 25.3 1731965 159 79 44 46 41 0 25.6 1741966 160 80 45 47 41 0 25.8 1761967 158 79 44 46 41 0 25.5 1741968 156 78 44 46 40 0 25.2 1721969 154 77 43 45 40 0 24.8 1691970 152 76 42 45 39 0 24.5 1671971 151 75 42 44 39 0 24.2 1651972 140 70 39 41 36 0 22.5 1541973 129 65 36 38 33 0 20.8 1421974 119 59 33 35 31 0 19.2 1311975 116 58 32 34 30 0 18.7 1281976 114 57 32 33 29 0 18.3 1251977 111 55 31 32 28 0 17.8 1211978 108 54 30 31 28 0 17.3 1181979 105 52 29 31 27 0 16.8 1151980 100 50 28 29 26 0 16.1 1101981 95 48 27 28 24 0 15.3 1041982 91 46 25 27 23 0 14.7 1001983 87 44 24 26 22 0 14.1 961984 84 42 23 24 21 0 13.5 921985 78 39 22 23 20 0 12.6 861986 73 37 20 21 19 0 11.8 811987 71 35 20 21 18 0 11.4 781988 68 34 19 20 17 0 11.0 751989 64 32 18 19 16 0 10.3 711990 64 32 18 19 16 0 10.2 701991 63 32 18 18 16 0 10.2 691992 64 32 18 19 16 0 10.3 701993 64 32 18 19 16 0 10.4 711994 65 32 18 19 17 0 10.4 711995 62 31 17 18 16 0 10.0 681996 59 29 16 17 15 0 9.5 651997 59 29 16 17 15 0 9.4 641998 56 28 16 16 14 0 9.0 611999 56 28 16 16 14 0 9.0 612000 56 28 16 16 14 0 9.0 612001 56 28 16 16 14 0 9.0 612002 56 28 16 16 14 0 9.0 612003 56 28 16 16 14 0 9.0 612004 56 28 16 16 14 0 9.0 612005 50 23 47 14 12 55 7.4 732006 63 22 93 13 11 408 7.1 1412007 62 22 93 13 11 371 7.0 1772008 43 21 20 12 11 7 6.8 512009 46 21 32 12 11 147 6.7 642010 45 20 19 12 10 97 6.6 541 Others category includes 52 additional taxonomic groups.Pitcairn Is. - Chaitanya et al. 87reconstruction oF total marine Fisheries catches For the Pitcairn islands (1950–2009)1Devraj Chaitanya, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada devraj.c@gmail.com; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstractTotal marine catches were estimated for the Pitcairn Islands for 1950-2009. A catch reconstruction method was used to estimate both subsistence (non-commercial) and artisanal (commercial) catches. Our reconstruction indicates that from 1950-2009,2 Pitcairn Islands’ marine catches were more than six times greater than the data reported by the FAO on behalf of the Pitcairn Islands would suggest. This is likely due to artisanal catches and changes in human population levels that were not accounted for by the data provided to the FAO. Overall, our results determined that the reconstructed catches for the Pitcairn Islands, which include subsistence and artisanal sector catches, totalled 1,016 tonnes for the period 1950-2009, with 28 t∙year-1 in 1950, declining to 13 t∙year-1 by 2009.introductionPitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno are the four small islands which comprise the Pitcairn Island group (Figure 1). The islands are located in the central South Pacific roughly 5,300 km from New Zealand and 6,400 km from Chile (Steinberg and McDowell 2003). The closest country to the Pitcairn Island group is French Polynesia, which is approximately 2,000 km to the north-west (Adams and Langley 2005). Due to remoteness and erratic weather conditions, the most accessible route to the Pitcairn’s is from the nearest inhabited island of Mangareva (over 483 km away) in French Polynesia. Pitcairn Island is only accessible by boat though there is no good harbor or beach, and steep cliffs and tumultuous waters make landings difficult (Johnson 2007). There is no air strip on the island and air transportation is not possible due to the island’s position at the intersection of two major wind fronts (Steinberg and McDowell 2003). The Pitcairn Island group is the last remaining British Overseas Territory in the Pacific. Pitcairn Island became a British dependency on November 29, 1838 (Nicolson 1965). Henderson Island, Oeno Atoll, and Ducie Atoll were included in the dependency in 1938 (Chapman 2004) but are uninhabited. Presently, the Pitcairn Island group is administered by the British High Commissioner to New Zealand with the assistance of an Island Council which is locally elected on Pitcairn Island (Steinberg and McDowell 2003).The Pitcairn Islands are located between 23º and 26º S and 124º and 131º W. The four islands combined have a total land area of about 47 km2 and a total EEZ area of approximately 836,000 km2 of subtropical ocean.3,4 International waters encircle most of the Pitcairn Islands EEZ with the exception of a shared western EEZ border with French Polynesia (Adams and Langley 2005).Topographically, Pitcairn is the only volcanic island of the island group, rising approximately 300 m above sea level (Sharples 1994). The island experiences a subtropical climate with mean monthly temperatures ranging from 24°C in January 1 Cite as: Chaitanya, D., Haper, S., and Zeller, D. (2012) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for the Pitcairn Islands (1950-2009). pp. 87-94. In: Harper, S., Zylich, K., Boonzaier, L., Le Manach, F., Pauly, D., and Zeller D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].2 See addendum for updating dataset to 2010. 3 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pc.html; accessed August, 20114 http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/612.aspx; accessed August, 2011130°W25°S±0 300150 kmPitcairnDucieHendersonFigure 1.  Location of Pitcairn Islands. The solid line represents the EEZ.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III88to 19°C in July, and an average annual rainfall of about 2,000 mm (Sharples 1994). Natural hazards such as cyclones generally occur between November and March.3Henderson is a raised coralline limestone atoll situated approximately 169 km from Pitcairn (Sharples 1994). In 1989, Henderson Island was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site as a bird sanctuary. Four species of birds are unique to the Island, namely, the Henderson fruit dove (Ptilinopus insularis), Henderson rail (Porzana atra), Henderson warbler (Acrocephalus taiti), and Henderson lorikeet (Vini stepheni).5 Henderson Island is uninhabited, arid, only has one known freshwater source and is considered the only pristine, forested atoll in the world. Brooke et al. (2004) note that the island has been estimated to have existed for about 380,000 years and it is presumed that the caves on the island were occupied by ancient Polynesian inhabitants of Henderson. Presently, Henderson serves the people of Pitcairn as an economic resource supply centre for the harvesting of miro and tou trees. These miro and tou trees are mainly used for the carving of curios, which are eventually sold to visitors and cruise ship passengers. The curios are considered essential to the economic well-being of the islanders (Brooke et al. 2004). Oeno and Ducie are the other two uninhabited atolls that are seldom visited and they generally remain undisturbed.Of the four islands, only Pitcairn is presently inhabited. Historically, archaeological evidence indicates the occupation of the island by Polynesian people from about 1000–1300 A.D. (Johnson 2007). Currently, the island is inhabited by mostly seventh generation descendants of Fletcher Christian, eight other HMS Bounty mutineers, twelve Tahitian women and six Tahitian men.6 The population of Pitcairn is almost entirely concentrated in the capital of Adamstown, named after the iconic leader John Adams, the sole male survivor of the original 1790 settlement. The Island itself is named after Major Pitcairn of the British Marines.6Historically, Pitcairn’s economy was based on subsistence agriculture (including crops such as coffee, bananas, sweet potatoes, taro, oranges and sugar cane), philately, and sale of handicrafts and fish.5 Most products were sold to passing ships traveling between New Zealand and Panama (Adams and Langley 2005). For decades, Pitcairn’s economic strategy has emphasized the marketable image of Pitcairn being a “postage stamp republic”, or a market for stamp collectors (Steinberg and McDowell 2003). The sale of stamps has been and still is a major source of the country’s revenue. However, with the advent of the digital revolution and the development of internet and email, the Pitcairn philately based economy has proven to be no longer sufficient to sustain the economic independence of the tiny island of forty-eight people.5 The use of postage stamps has died out mainly due to email services (Pitcairn Miscellany, 2006). Leslie Jaques, the former New Zealand based Commissioner of Pitcairn Island has reported that the financial situation on Pitcairn Island is severe. He states that, “Pitcairn is now officially under Budgetary Aid to maintain the island [which has] lost approximately NZ$1.6 million over the last four years” (Maple 2004). With an annual budget of approximately NZ$1 million, Pitcairn continues to generate revenue from the sale of postage stamps and a recent phenomenon has been the sale of internet domain addresses particularly the issuing of its ccTLD (country code Top Level Domain) .PN. However, lack of easy accessibility, entrepreneurship, infrastructure, distance from foreign markets, small domestic market, and inadequate policies towards business make Pitcairn’s economic outlook less encouraging (Hannesson 2008). Moreover, a perceived lack of facilities, activities and attractions on the island, in addition to tumultuous waters and unpredictable weather stigmatize and hinder Pitcairn’s tourism image (Amoamo 2011). Therefore, the island council has taken action and initiated Keynesian economic projects on the island, which address infrastructure issues for the purposes of stimulating the tourism sector. Upgrades of Bounty Bay (the only landing site for visitors), reconstruction of the Hill of Difficulty, the jetty and the slipway are examples of such projects (Maple 2004). Moreover, recent free trade and tourism agreements between Pitcairn and French Polynesia are expected to stimulate the economy (Maple 2004). In addition, news of a Japanese company interested in purchasing an order of 1,000 units of Pitcairn Island honey as well as other Pitcairn produce may encourage the agricultural sector to consider increasing commercial production for purposes of increasing revenue (Maple 2004). Overall, Pitcairners are expecting that future projects including fishing, honey production and eco-tourism will improve the island’s current fiscal condition to a state of “self-sufficiency” (Maple 2004).Pitcairn’s economic potential is great. For example, minerals including manganese, iron, copper, gold, silver and zinc, have been discovered within the exclusive economic zone. However, the labor force to exploit this ocean region is insufficient and the monetary resources required to produce a domestic mining industry are far greater than the Pitcairn budget. Contracting foreign companies and charging access fees may be a possible avenue for revenue generation and industrial development of ocean resources.In this paper, we focus on Pitcairn’s fisheries sector. Pitcairn, like many of the other Pacific Island countries, has a tradition of eating fish. As a result of remoteness and limited opportunities for earning income this has led to almost all fishing to be subsistence fishing (Gillett 2009). More importantly, Pitcairn still depends on fresh fish to provide the majority of the animal protein required for good nutrition (Bell et al. 2009). The expansion of Pitcairn’s fisheries sector for economic development is a topic of great interest, especially since future forecasts do not expect food security issues for the island (Gillett 2009).In a region defined by an abundance of tuna, a pelagic fishery would seem to be the most applicable industry for economic stimulation. However, Adams and Langley (2005) argue that tuna fisheries or coastal fisheries in general will not be sufficient for Pitcairn Island to sustain economic independence. Moreover, it is not a sustainable approach to economic independence (Adams and Langley 2005). Due to subtropical waters, weather, and ocean hydrology, pelagic fish catches are not common, specifically because of markets being difficult to access, and the fact that Pitcairn “has a small area of fishable shelf” (Adams and Langley 2005). Moreover, the likelihood of a substantial 5 http://www.thecommonwealth.org/YearbookInternal/140416/140428/pitcairn_islands__pitcairn__henderson__ducie_and_o/; accessed August, 20116 http://library.puc.edu/pitcairn/pitcairn/index.shtml; accessed August, 2011Pitcairn Is. - Chaitanya et al. 89catch of skipjack and yellowfin is low (Adams and Langley 2005). Therefore, Adams and Langley (2005) conclude that the Pitcairn zone cannot support any significant pole-and-line or purse-seine fisheries. In addition, they state that it will not be profitable for the Pitcairn government to invest in commercial fisheries since it entails large investment and maintenance costs that will more likely harm than stimulate the economy. Moreover, Hannesson (2008) argues that fishing is only a part of a fishery’s processes. The other major part is the transformation of the fish into a “saleable product,” in addition to the careful handling and transportation of the product to foreign markets (Hannesson 2008).Overall, the general purpose of this study is for the identification of information gaps in the FAO reported fisheries catches for the Pitcairn Islands. The specific purpose of this study is to estimate the total fisheries catches for Pitcairn Islands from 1950-2009, including all fisheries sectors (i.e., subsistence and artisanal catches). As previously mentioned, almost all catches on Pitcairn Island are subsistence catches (Gillett 2009). The resources available to provide estimates of subsistence catches are limited, and our approach is an assumption based approach using information found in the academic and grey literature. This report presents the best estimate of all small-scale catches and artisanal landings for the Pitcairn Islands from 1950-2009.methodsHuman population dataHuman population data were derived from the Pitcairn Study Centre census database. Years between census points were interpolated linearly to estimate population time series (Figure 2). Pitcairn Island is the only inhabited island in the Pitcairn Island Group,6 and fluctuations in the population are explained through historical analysis. The main driver of island population fluctuations is determined by environmental factors including: unsustainable resource exploitation, limited land area, resource depletion, insufficient governance practices, and inability to sustain subsistence level of food security.5 Demographics, including an aging population base, declining population, and emigration also play a substantial role in population fluctuations (Amoamo 2011).Presently, 29% of the island population is over 60 years of age with Mr. Len Carlyle Brown being the oldest Pitcairn resident at age 85.6 The aging population base has resulted in the Pitcairn Island labour force being limited to “8 or 9 hard core fishers” in addition to 3 or 4 regular fishers (Gillett 2009). Moreover, “women and men fished regularly from the rocks, mainly for a fish locally called nanwi [Kyphosus bigibbus], for the evening meal” (Gillett 2009). As of 2011, only 48 inhabitants reside on Pitcairn Island, mostly seventh generation descendants of the Bounty mutineers.3 Depopulation as a result of outmigration, predominantly to New Zealand, has led to the population declining from a peak of 233 in 1937 to 60 residents in 2009, to its present population of 48 (Figure 2).Subsistence FisheriesBoth the academic and grey literature was thoroughly reviewed for data pertaining to subsistence fisheries in Pitcairn Island. Per capita catch data referring to subsistence and artisanal fishing were found for Pitcairn Island. Most information on fisheries and subsistence and artisanal catches, was derived from Gillett (2009), Sharples (1994), Adams and Langley (2005) and Dalzell et al. (1996). According to Gillett (2009), subsistence fishing produces the majority of all the fish consumed. Consumption is estimated at 140 kg∙person-1∙year-1 (Gillett 2009). Gillett (2009) estimates that if the population of Pitcairn was 50 inhabitants, the 140 kg per capita annual consumption would result in a subsistence catch of seven tonnes per year. Dalzell et al. (1996) notes that Pitcairn’s annual subsistence fisheries production was 8 metric tonnes in the early 1990s.Our methodology, consisting of using the consumption information derived from Gillett (2009) for Pitcairn Island, was used to estimate the total subsistence catch for the island. The consumption rate of 140 kg∙person-1∙year-1 was held fixed back to 1950. Once the total subsistence catch for the island was derived, we estimated the taxonomic composition with information from Gillett (2009), Sharples (1994), Adams and Langley (2005) and Dalzell et al. (1996).0204060801001201401601801950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000PopulationYearFigure 2.  Population estimates for the Pitcairn Islands, 1950-2009.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III90Adams and Langley (2005), Dalzell et al. (1996) and Sharples (1994) present counts of individual taxa on the Pitcairn Islands, which provides general information pertaining to subsistence fishing. This aided the formulation of our assumptions and provided detailed information on taxa found in and around the Pitcairn Islands. These data were used to create an assumed taxonomic composition of reconstructed subsistence catches (Table 1).Artisanal FisheriesMost information from the literature pertaining to artisanal fisheries catches is derived from Gillett (2009) who estimates that the catch taken for commercial purposes is approximately five tonnes. Many artisanal fishers sell catches to the occasional passing cruise ships and private yachts. Sharples (1994) reports that the standard price of all fish was NZ$5/kg. According to Gillett (2009), in the year 2007, the commercial catch of five tonnes was worth NZ$51,000. We assumed this catch volume was constant over the time period. An assumed taxonomic composition was also created for the artisanal setor (Table 1).resultsSubsistence catchesOverall subsistence catches totalled 716 tonnes for the period of 1950-2009 (Figure 3a). Subsistence catches declined throughout this period due to a declining population. Fluctuations in estimated catches over this time period are entirely due to population fluctuations, with average catch declining from 22 t∙year-1 to approximately 8 t∙year-1 by 2009 (Figure 3a). Subsistence catches were dominated by the fish species Epinephelus fasciatus and Kyphosus bigibbus. Lutjanidae, other Serranidae, Miscellaneous marine fishes (MMF), other Kyphosidae, and Miscellaneous Invertebrates (MI) also provided substantial amounts of catch (Figure 3b). Other species caught include Scyllarides spp., and Panulirus penicillatus (Figure 3b).Artisanal catchesArtisanal catches totalled 300 tonnes over the 1950-2009 period (Figure 3a). Transportation issues, erratic weather patterns, rough seas and a lack of tourist accessibility to the island have contributed to the absence of substantial artisanal catches over this period; however, such inter-annual variability are not represented in our data. Amoamo (2011) estimates that about 40 cruise ships pass the Pitcairn Islands, however, only eight to ten ships stop at Pitcairn. Consequently, this produces a total of 2,500 to 3,000 visitors during the October to March cruise season 051015202530Supplied by FAOArtisanalSubsistencea)0510152025301950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Catch (t)YearEpinephelusfasciatusKyphosusbigibbusother SerranidaeLutjanidaeb)other KyphosidaeOthersFigure 3.  a) Total reconstructed catch by sector for the Pitcairn Islands compared to landings as presented by the FAO, 1950-2009, and b) Total reconstructed catch by major taxa.Table 1.  Taxonomic composition of subsistence and artisanal catches on Pitcairn Island as informed by Adams and Langley (2005), Dalzell et al. (1996) and Sharples (1994).Taxon name Percentage of total subsistence catch (%)Percentage of total artisanal catch (%)Etelis carbunculus - 20Pristipomoides spp. - 20other Lutjanidae 10 10Kyphosus bigibbus 20 -other Kyphosidae 10 -Epinephelus fasciatus 20 -Variola louti - 20other Serranidae 10 10Panulirus penicillatus 5 5Scyllarides spp. 5 5Miscellaneous invertebrates 10 -Miscellaneous marine fishes 10 10Pitcairn Is. - Chaitanya et al. 91(Amoamo 2011). The immediate result of this lack of transportation infrastructure is its negative impact on tourism, which has further restrained the development of Pitcairn Island artisanal fisheries (Amoamo 2011). Artisanal catches were dominated taxonomically by Variola louti, Etelis carbunculus, and Pristipomoides spp. Other Serranidae, other Lutjanidae, Panulirus penicillatus, and Scyllarides spp. also contributed to catch (Figure 3b).Total reconstructed catchesOverall reconstructed catches for Pitcairn Island, which included subsistence and artisanal sector catches, totalled 1,016 tonnes for the period 1950-2009 (Figure 3a). This catch total was more than six times the 158 t reported to FAO on behalf of Pitcairn Island for the same time period. Subsistence catches dominated with approximately 70% of total catches being subsistence and 30% being commercial over the 1950-2009 time period. Subsistence catches dominated during the 1950s when the population was around 160 people, representing approximately 82% of the total reconstructed catch compared to 18% commercial catch for that decade.Foreign fleets in the Pitcairn Islands EEZAdams and Langley (2005) note that Taiwan, China, Japan, Republic of Korea and French Polynesia have been long-line fishing in the area of the Pitcairn Islands EEZ. Gillett (2009) informs us that there is only one accessible document noting the allowance of foreign vessels in the Pitcairn Islands EEZ. The agreement identifies 20 Japanese tuna long-line vessels as legal foreign based fleets within the Pitcairn Islands EEZ (Gillett 2009). Presently, according to Gillett (2009) based on personal communication with a Mr. D. Evans, a contract between Pitcairn Island and an unspecified agent led to the issuing of a license for a long-liner to fish in Pitcairn waters for a fee of NZ$1000 (Gillett 2009).discussionOur estimate of total catches for Pitcairn Island was 1,016 tonnes for the period 1950-2009. This reconstructed catch total was more than six times the amount presented by FAO on behalf of Pitcairn Island for the same time period. In our reconstruction, approximately 300 tonnes of commercial catches and approximately 558 tonnes of subsistence catches were added to the FAO data.Overall, Pitcairn faces as its major challenges the fundamental survival of its population. With a continuing ageing of the population base and associated out-migration of young people, the likelihood of long-term habitation of Pitcairn is put into question. Thus, it is likely that total catches may continue to remain low or further decline.addendumSince completing this reconstruction, the data has been carried-forward to 2010. We assumed the same total in 2010 as in 2009 and that both the sectoral and taxonomic breakdowns were the same.acKnowledgementsWe thank the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.reFerencesAdams T and Langley A (2005) The Potential for Development of Fisheries in the Pitcairn EEZ. Secretariat of the Pacific Community Marine Resources Division, Noumea. 1-79 p.Amoamo M (2011) Remoteness and Myth Making: Tourism Development on Pitcairn Island. Tourism Planning & Development 8(1): 1-19.Bell JD, Kronen M, Vunisea A, Nash WJ, Keeble G, Demmke A, Pontifex S and Andrefouet S (2009) Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific. Marine Policy 33: 64-76.Brooke MdL, Hepburn I and Trevelyan RJ (2004) Henderson Island World Heritage Site: Management Plan 2004–2009. Foreign and Commonwealth Office London. ii + 42 p.Chapman L (2004) Nearshore Domestic Fisheries Development in Pacific Island Countries and Territories. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea. 161-164 p. Gillett R (2009) Fisheries in the Economies of the Pacific Island Countries and Territories. Asia Development Bank, Manila. 263-268 p.Hannesson R (2008) The exclusive economic zone and economic development in the Pacific island countries. Marine Policy 32: 886-897.Johnson CK (2007) Success and Struggles of Small Island Museums in Polynesia with Special Reference to Pitcairn Island. Master of Arts in Anthropology thesis, University of University of Nevada, Reno. ix + 110 p.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III92Maple M (2004) Special Council Meeting. The Pitcairn Miscellany 47: 1–4.Nicolson R (1965) The Pitcairners. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. 222 p.Sharples P (1994) Pitcairn Island Fisheries Resource Survey—1994 Observer Trip Report. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea. 50 p.Steinberg EP and McDowell SD (2003) Mutiny on the bandwidth: the semiotics of statehood in the internet domain name registries of Pitcairn Island and Niue. New Media &Society 5(1): 47-67.Pitcairn Is. - Chaitanya et al. 93Appendix Table A1.  FAO landings vs. total reconstructed catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector, for the Pitcairn Islands, 1950-2009.Year FAO landings Total reconstructed catch Subsistence Artisanal1950 0.25 28 22.7 51951 0.25 28 22.6 51952 0.25 28 22.6 51953 0.25 28 22.6 51954 0.25 28 22.6 51955 0.25 28 22.6 51956 0.25 28 22.5 51957 0.25 27 21.7 51958 0.25 26 20.9 51959 0.25 25 20.0 51960 0.25 24 18.8 51961 0.25 23 17.6 51962 0.25 22 16.8 51963 0.25 21 16.0 51964 0.25 20 15.1 51965 0.25 19 14.3 51966 0.25 18 13.4 51967 0.25 18 13.1 51968 0.25 18 12.8 51969 0.25 18 12.5 51970 0.25 17 12.2 51971 0.25 17 11.9 51972 0.25 17 11.6 51973 0.25 16 11.3 51974 2.00 16 11.0 51975 2.00 16 10.7 51976 2.00 15 10.4 51977 2.00 15 9.8 51978 2.00 14 9.1 51979 2.00 14 8.5 51980 3.00 13 8.3 51981 3.00 13 8.0 51982 3.00 13 7.7 51983 3.00 13 7.8 51984 3.00 13 8.0 51985 3.00 13 8.1 51986 3.00 15 9.5 51987 3.00 13 8.3 51988 4.00 13 7.7 51989 4.00 13 7.7 51990 4.00 13 8.3 51991 5.00 14 9.2 51992 8.00 13 7.6 51993 8.00 13 8.0 51994 8.00 13 7.6 51995 8.00 13 7.7 51996 8.00 11 6.0 51997 8.00 11 5.6 51998 8.00 14 9.2 51999 5.00 11 6.4 52000 5.00 12 7.1 52001 5.00 11 6.2 52002 5.00 12 6.7 52003 5.00 13 8.3 52004 3.00 14 8.5 52005 3.00 14 8.8 52006 3.00 14 9.1 52007 3.00 14 9.0 52008 3.00 14 9.2 52009 3.00 13 8.4 5Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III94Appendix Table A2.  Total reconstructed catch (in tonnes) by major taxa for the Pitcairn Islands, 1950-2009. Year Epinephelus fasciatus Kyphosus bigibbus Other Serranidae Lutjanidae Other Kyphosidae Others11950 4.5 4.5 2.8 2.8 2.3 10.81951 4.5 4.5 2.8 2.8 2.3 10.81952 4.5 4.5 2.8 2.8 2.3 10.81953 4.5 4.5 2.8 2.8 2.3 10.81954 4.5 4.5 2.8 2.8 2.3 10.81955 4.5 4.5 2.8 2.8 2.3 10.81956 4.5 4.5 2.8 2.8 2.3 10.81957 4.3 4.3 2.7 2.7 2.2 10.51958 4.2 4.2 2.6 2.6 2.1 10.31959 4.0 4.0 2.5 2.5 2.0 10.01960 3.8 3.8 2.4 2.4 1.9 9.61961 3.5 3.5 2.3 2.3 1.8 9.31962 3.4 3.4 2.2 2.2 1.7 9.01963 3.2 3.2 2.1 2.1 1.6 8.81964 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 8.51965 2.9 2.9 1.9 1.9 1.4 8.31966 2.7 2.7 1.8 1.8 1.3 8.01967 2.6 2.6 1.8 1.8 1.3 7.91968 2.6 2.6 1.8 1.8 1.3 7.81969 2.5 2.5 1.8 1.8 1.3 7.81970 2.4 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.2 7.71971 2.4 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.2 7.61972 2.3 2.3 1.7 1.7 1.2 7.51973 2.3 2.3 1.6 1.6 1.1 7.41974 2.2 2.2 1.6 1.6 1.1 7.31975 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.1 7.21976 2.1 2.1 1.5 1.5 1.0 7.11977 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 6.91978 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.4 0.9 6.71979 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.4 0.9 6.61980 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.51981 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.41982 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.31983 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.41984 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.41985 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.41986 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.0 6.91987 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.51988 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.31989 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.31990 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.51991 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.4 0.9 6.81992 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.31993 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.41994 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.31995 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.31996 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.6 5.81997 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.6 5.71998 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.4 0.9 6.81999 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.6 5.92000 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.7 6.12001 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.6 5.82002 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.7 6.02003 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.52004 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.4 0.9 6.62005 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.4 0.9 6.62006 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.4 0.9 6.72007 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.4 0.9 6.72008 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.4 0.9 6.82009 1.7 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.8 6.51 Others category includes Variola louti, Etelis carbunculus, Pristipomoides spp., Panulirus penicillatus, Scyllarides spp., ‘miscellaneous marine fishes’, and ‘miscellaneous invertebrates’.Prince Edward Is (South Africa) - Boonzaier et al. 95a brieF history oF Fishing in the Prince edward islands, south aFrica,  1950–20101Lisa Boonzaier, Sarah Harper, Dirk Zeller, and Daniel PaulySea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,  2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canadal.boonzaier@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.caabstractTo reconstruct the catch history in the waters of the Prince Edward Islands (South Africa) from 1950 to 2010, catch data were obtained from the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) Statistical Bulletin (subareas 58.6 and 58.7), CCAMLR stock assessment reports, as well as South African national commercial and observer datasets. These were used to estimate removals (both landed and discarded) in each of the statistical areas 51, 58.6 and 58.7. Catches of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides), the only target species around the islands, show a sharp increase from 1994, peaking at 22,949 tonnes in 1997, most of which (93%) was taken by vessels operating illegally in the area. These large removals during the first years of the fishery had the effect of unsustainable “mining” of the stock, and thereafter catches fell sharply. At present, a small legal fishery remains operational in the area.introductionThe Prince Edward IslandsLocated in the south-western Indian Ocean, the Prince Edward archipelago (46°45’ S, 37°45’ E) comprises two volcanic islands, Marion and Prince Edward (Figure 1). Covering 270 km2, Marion Island is the larger of the two, while Prince Edward, lying 22 km northeast, is 45 km2 in extent. The archipelago and its 473,380 km2 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; www.seaaroundus.org; accessed: July, 2012) are part of the sovereign territory of South Africa, some 2,000 km to the north-west. The oceanographic position of the islands is within the main path of the eastward-flowing Antarctic Circumpolar Current. The islands are managed as a Special Nature Reserve and are not occupied permanently, although there is a scientific base on Marion Island.Most of the Prince Edward Islands’ EEZ falls within subareas 58.7 and 58.6 of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), of which South Africa is a signatory (Figure 1). A small portion of the EEZ extends into CCAMLR subarea 58.4.4 to the south. In the north, part of the EEZ lies beyond CCAMLR’s jurisdiction in an area designated as the Western Indian Ocean (area 51; Figure 1) by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Fisheries and their resource speciesKock (1992) provides a detailed description of the historical development of fishing in the Southern Ocean and is the basis for the brief outline presented here. Exploratory fishing in other parts of the southern Indian Ocean began in the late 1960s after several fish surveys by Soviet Union vessels around Kerguelen Islands between 1958 and 1961. French, Japanese, Polish and Soviet vessels investigated and exploited fish populations in the shelf waters of the region, including around the Kerguelen-Heard Ridge, Crozet Islands, and Ob and Lena Banks. Commercial fishing, however, proved largely unprofitable and was subsequently abandoned by most vessels. It is likely that similar exploratory fishing occurred in Prince Edward Islands’ waters at this time (M. Purves, pers. comm., Marine Stewardship 1 Cite as: Boonzaier, L., Harper, S., Zeller, D., and Pauly, D. (2012) A brief history of fishing in the Prince Edward Islands, South Africa, 1950-2010. pp. 95-101. In: Harper, S., Zylich, K., Boonzaier, L., Le Manach, F., Pauly, D., and Zeller D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].58.458.7 58.651.8 51.738°E48°S0 300150 km± Ob Bank Lena BankPrince Edward Is.Marion Is.Figure 1.  Map of the Prince Edward Islands, its EEZ, and the boundaries of CCAMLR statistical subareas 58.6, 58.7 and 58.4. FAO statistical area 51 lies to the north. Dashed lines, representing ~100 m isobaths, indicate the position of Ob and Lena banks.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III96Council, Southern Africa Office) and there are reports of catches from exploratory Soviet Union vessels operating around the Prince Edward Islands during the 1970s and 1980s; however these catches would have been very small – no more than 5-10 tonnes per year (E. Pakhomov, pers. comm., University of British Columbia). Kock (1994) estimates that of the 924,000 tonnes of finfish that had been taken from the Indian Ocean sector of the Southern Ocean by the 1992/93 season, 94.4% was fished from around Kerguelen Islands.Early in 1996, reports that large catches of Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) were being taken in the vicinity of the Prince Edward Islands began surfacing, and unregulated vessels flocked to the area (Purves 1997). Motivated by declining toothfish catches around South America during the mid-1990s, vessels were moving eastward in search of new fishing grounds (Agnew 2000). From as early as 1995, and possibly 1994, there are unconfirmed reports of toothfish vessels operating around the Prince Edward Islands (Appendix R in CCAMLR 2010). In October 1996, a licensed longline fishery for Patagonian toothfish was initiated (Appendix R in CCAMLR 2010). This was the first commercially viable finfish fishery around the archipelago (Japp et al. 2008) and it has been the only legal target species. All fishing vessels were equipped with scientific observers, in accordance with the CCAMLR Scheme of International Scientific Observation, which requires observers on all member-countries’ vessels operating in CCAMLR waters (Tilney and Purves 1999). However, South Africa lacked the capacity to manage a distant water fishery and protect the islands’ resources. As a result, the legal fishery developed in parallel with high levels of illegal fishing in the EEZ, as well as unregulated fishing in the adjacent high seas (Brandão et al. 2002). Within three years, the Patagonian toothfish stocks had been decimated (Nel 2008). Improved enforcement of neighboring EEZs, such as those around Crozet and Keurguelen Islands (France) and Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia), exacerbated the situation for South Africa by displacing illegal activity into the unprotected waters of the Prince Edward Islands (Japp et al. 2008). Inter-governmental cooperation between Australia, France and South Africa has since improved and led to arrests of illegal vessels (Japp et al. 2008). There has been no evidence of illegal fishing for toothfish in the Prince Edward Islands since 2006 (Appendix L in CCAMLR 2011).Catch per unit effort (CPUE) data showed a steep decline from 0.35-0.50 kg/hook in 1995/96 and 1996/97 to less than 0.1 kg/hook in the early 2000s (Appendix R in CCAMLR 2010). Stock assessment results derived from CPUE and catch-at-length data are inconsistent, however (Brandão and Butterworth 2009). Recently, toothfish catches have been lost to depredation by cetaceans, mainly killer whales (Orcinus orca), but also sperm whales (Physeter catodon). On some lines, observers have estimated losses as high as 80-90% (Kock et al. 2006). Pot fishing was introduced in the 2003/2004 season to alleviate the problem (Watkins 2006; Brandão and Butterworth 2007), but with limited success. The method has not been employed since April 2005 (Brandão and Butterworth 2009).Up to seven operators have been licensed by South Africa to fish around the islands in any one year, but since the 2001/02 season, only two vessels have fished each season. One vessel has been active since the 2005/06 season, although a second vessel entered the fishery in late 2010 (Appendix R in CCAMLR 2010).Incidental mortality in both legal and illegal toothfish fishing operations has resulted in the deaths of between 8,500 and 18,500 seabirds, mainly white-chinned petrel (Procellaria aequinoctialis; 6,500 to 14,000 individuals), breeding on the Prince Edward Islands during the period from 1996-2000 (Nel et al. 2002). In order to reduce this mortality, fishing activities have been prohibited within 12 nm of the islands since December 2004 (Lombard et al. 2008). South Africa has also declared its intention to establish a zoned marine protected area around the islands. The proposal is currently under review by the South African Department of Environmental Affairs (CCAMLR 2011).methodsCCAMLR catch statistics for statistical subareas 58.7 and 58.6 were used as the basis of this catch reconstruction. These data were extracted from the database version of the CCAMLR 2011 Statistical Bulletin, Vol. 23 (available at www.ccamlr.org >). Comparison of CCAMLR data with national commercial data and observer data acquired from South Africa’s Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (both of which are reported to CCAMLR), revealed that the information from CCAMLR’s Statistical Bulletin was more comprehensive. While trips are likely not all monitored by observers, and commercial reporting has tailed off over time, we assume that CCAMLR has accounted for this in its reporting of catch data in the Statistical Bulletin. According to Tilney and Purves (1999), observers monitored 28 of 30 fishing trips in the EEZ from October 1996 to January 1999.Subarea 58.6 includes part of both the Prince Edward Islands EEZ and the Crozet Islands (France) EEZ. Three countries have reported catches in this area: France, South Africa and Japan. For the purposes of this reconstruction, only catches taken by South Africa were considered, as South Africa has not issued any access agreements allowing foreign vessels to fish in the Prince Edward Island EEZ specifically (R. Leslie, pers. comm., Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, South Africa), whereas Japan has had agreements with France. The CCAMLR Statistical Bulletin reports catches only from South Africa in subarea 58.7, most of which (65%) lies within the Prince Edward Islands EEZ, therefore all these catches were considered as taken within the EEZ.Catches presented by CCAMLR according to “season,” which runs from December 1st of a given year to November 30th of the next year, were converted to calendar years by assigning catch entirely to the second year of the season. For example, catches in the 2002/03 season were considered as taken in 2003. This was done to facilitate catch mapping (Watson et al. 2004) and does not affect cumulative catches.As part of the Prince Edward Islands EEZ lies beyond CCAMLR’s jurisdiction (in FAO area 51), catches taken in this region are not reported in the Statistical Bulletin. However, catches of Patagonian toothfish (only) taken in the area 51 portion of the EEZ are reported in CCAMLR’s Fishery Report: Dissostichus eleginoides Prince Edward Prince Edward Is (South Africa) - Boonzaier et al. 97Islands South African EEZ (Subareas 58.6 and 58.7, CCAMLR 2011). Given the three datasets available for area 51 (CCAMLR Fishery Report and the two national datasets), we chose to amalgamate the three and work with the highest catches reported for each taxon group for a given year. Careful considerations were given to ensure there was no double counting of taxa as a result of the amalgamation. Where reported species were found not to occur at the Prince Edward Islands according to distributions on FishBase (www.fishbase.org; accessed: June, 2012) and in Fischer and Hureau (1985), the catches were included in the next highest taxon grouping. This applied generally to very small catches (1 t) and usually for a single year only.Although a small portion of the Prince Edward Islands EEZ extends into subarea 58.4.4, the CCAMLR Statistical Bulletin does not report catches for South Africa in this region. This was confirmed by mapping of effort data contained in the national datasets, which revealed that no gear has been set in this part of the EEZ.While a pot fishery was conducted from one vessel from 2003 to 2005 (Brandão and Butterworth 2009), there are no records of this gear in the CCAMLR Statistical Bulletin. Catches for this gear were taken from Brandão and Butterworth (2007): 73 tonnes in 2004 and 104 tonnes in 2005. To apportion the catch by statistical area, estimates of the spread of the pot fishing catch were made based on information contained in Lombard (2008). The proportions were estimated to be 80% within area 58.7, and 10% each within area 58.6 and area 51.Illegal catchesEstimates of the illegal catch of Patagonian toothfish from 1997 to 2010 were taken from a stock assessment report of the CCAMLR Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment (Brandão and Butterworth 2007). It is assumed that vessels operating illegally were using longline gear. Linear interpolation was used to estimate catches for 1994, 1995 and 1996, as there are records of illegal vessels likely operating in the area starting from 1994. This catch was then allocated to the subareas 58.6 and 58.7, and area 51 based on the proportion of legal catch taken each year from each statistical area. Thus, we assumed proportionality between the spatial distribution of legal and illegal fishing. During the years for which there was no legal catch (1994 and 1995) the proportions as calculated for the first year of the legal fishery (1996) were applied.By-catchCatches of non-target species (anything other than Patagonian toothfish) as reported in the CCAMLR Statistical Bulletin were considered by-catch. By calculating the proportion of by-catch as a fraction of the total catch for each taxon per year in each area, this ratio could be applied to the illegal catch in order to estimate the likely by-catch of non-target species. Thus, it is assumed that illegal fishing resulted in similar removals of by-catch as the legal fishery. No by-catch information was available for the first years of the legal fishery (1996 in areas 51, 58.6 and 58.7, and 1997 in areas 51 and 58.6). We assume that by-catch was taken at this time, therefore by-catch (and discard, see below) ratios calculated in each statistical area for the first year for which such information is available were applied to the earlier years.For the two years that pots were in use (2004 and 2005), it was assumed that by-catch rates were the same as those reported by Watkins (2006), which resulted from a detailed analysis of two fishing trips where by-catch constituted 19% of total catch, with crab species (family Lithodidae) accounting for 58% of this.DiscardsDiscarding is monitored by observers and included in national statistics, however the CCAMLR Statistical Bulletin includes only aggregated catch information. Records of catches for which there was information on discarding in the two national datasets supplied by South Africa’s Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries were used to calculate a discard rate for each taxon group per year in areas 51, 58.6 and 58.7. For the years in which there was no discard information, linear interpolation was employed to estimate discarding. When there was no information for a particular taxon in one area, the average discard rate calculated for the same taxon in the other area was used.It is assumed that discarding is as prevalent (or more prevalent) in the illegal fishery as it is in the legal fishery. Therefore, to calculate conservative estimates of discarding in the illegal fishery, discard rates per taxon per year per statistical area derived from the legal fishery were applied to estimates of illegal catch.To quantify discarding in the pot fishery, a discard rate of 60% was applied, a figure reported by Kelleher (2005) for a Chilean experimental pot fishery for toothfish.There are no recreational or artisanal fisheries operating in the Antarctic Ocean, and unreported catches in the legal fishery are not a problem due to the high level of observer coverage (Pramod et al. 2008).results and discussionThe results of this work are intended to provide a comprehensive reconstruction of historic catches from the Prince Edward Islands of South Africa from 1950 to 2010. This information will contribute to refining the global catch mapping procedure developed by Watson et al. (2004).Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III98In the Southern Ocean, Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba) makes up the majority of fisheries catches with around 200,000 tonnes taken from the CCAMLR area during 2010 (CCAMLR 2010). While krill is not caught around the Prince Edward Islands, removals of Patagonian toothfish, the only legal target species in the islands, are comparatively small with catches peaking around 23,000 tonnes in 1997 (Figure 2a). These removals were dominated by illegal catches, which are estimated to have exceeded the legal catch during every year prior to 2000 – by as much as 14 times in 1996. Despite the significant levels of illegal catch presented here, it is possible that these estimates are conservative as they are based on CCAMLR estimates of illegal fishing, which reports of trade-based assessments of the illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) toothfish catch suggest are underestimates (Lack and Sant 2001; Lack 2008). In its 1997 Report of the Working Group on Fish Stock Assessment, CCAMLR also notes the discrepancy between illegal catches estimated using catch and effort data, and those estimated using landings (CCAMLR 1997).Catches of Patagonian toothfish – a long-lived, unproductive species with low fecundity – declined sharply after 1997 as a result of the unsustainable illegal catch taken during the preceding years, which had the effect of “mining” the species (Agnew 2000). The decrease in CPUE resulted in most illegal vessels abandoning the area (Agnew 2000) as well as an expansion of legal fishing effort from an initial concentration around the islands’ shelf area and the closest seamounts to dispersed exploitation of the plateau and all seamounts in the northern portion of the EEZ (Lombard et al. 2008). A small legal fishery remains operational in the area despite the depleted state of the Patagonian toothfish stock.CCAMLR was the first international convention to adopt an ecosystem approach to fisheries management (Constable et al. 2000; Miller 2011), an approach that aims to take into account the relationship between species and oceanographic processes that together form the marine Antarctic ecosystem (Miller 2011). Information on fishery activity and catches, including by-catch and discards, are reported to CCAMLR by both observers and member countries. This information is then aggregated and reported in the CCAMLR Statistical Bulletins. Therefore, although information on by-catch and discarding are collected and included in catch statistics, these removals are not identified as such.Using information on catches of non-target species and averaging the yearly proportions, by-catch was calculated to account for 11% of the total catch. Rattails (family Macrouridae), mostly Whitson’s grenadier (Macrourus whitsoni), made up the largest part of the by-catch (79%), with the morid cod family (Moridae) making up the second highest proportion (11%; Figure 2b). These proportions are in line with those reported by Tilney and Purves (1999): macrourids contributing 86% of the by-catch and morids 9%. However, our results show that by-catch contributed a larger proportion of the total catch (11% rather than 5.3%).While most of the by-catch is discarded (85%, yearly average), the absolute volume of discards in the Antarctic generally (Pramod et al. 2008), and around the Prince Edward Islands specifically, is small, with an estimated maximum of 270 tonnes discarded during 2000 by the legal fishery (17% of the total legal catch for that year). When one considers discarding by vessels operating illegally around the islands, this maximum jumps to 3,238 tonnes in 1997. This equates to 9.4% (yearly average) of the total catch of both fisheries. Only small proportions of Patagonian toothfish were discarded, with an average yearly discard rate of 3% since the illegal fishery commenced in 1994.Although we acknowledge that there are uncertainties associated with this approach for estimating catch histories (for example, using linear interpolation to approximate illegal catches and discard rates) and that the results are 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Catch (t x 103 )Legal (discards)Illegal (discards)Legal (landings)Illegal (landings)a)00.511.522.533.541992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010YearMacrourus whitsoniMoridaeOther Macrouridaeb)Other taxaFigure 2.  Fisheries catches (in metric tonnes) for the Prince Edward Islands (South Africa) drawn from the CCAMLR 2011 Statistical Bulletin, Vol. 23 (subareas 58.6 and 58.7), supplemented with information from the South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and SC-CCAMLR (2011), as well as illegal catch information acquired from Brandão and Butterworth (2007) presented for (a) total catch disaggregated according to catch type and (b) by-catch species only.Prince Edward Is (South Africa) - Boonzaier et al. 99not statistically rigorous, they offer a more useful estimation than the alternative – that a lack of data should be interpreted as zero catch (Pauly 1998; Zeller et al. 2007).acKnowledgementsMany thanks to Robert Leslie of South Africa’s Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for assisting with accessing and interpreting the national datasets, and to Evgeny Pakhomov, Associate Professor of Biological & Fisheries Oceanography at the University of British Columbia, for his valuable advice. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Sea Around Us Project, a collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.reFerencesAgnew DJ (2000) The illegal and unregulated fishery for toothfish in the Southern Ocean, and the CCAMLR catch documentation scheme. Marine Policy 24: 361-374.Brandão A and Butterworth DS (2007) 2007 assessment of the toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) resource in the Prince Edward Islands vicinity. CCAMLR WG-FSA. 25 p.Brandão A and Butterworth DS (2009) A proposed management procedure for the toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) resource in the Prince Edward Islands vicinity. CCAMLR Science 16: 33–69.Brandão A, Butterworth DS, Watkins BP and Miller DGM (2002) A first attempt at an assessment of the Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) resource in the Prince Edward Islands EEZ. CCAMLR Science 9: 11-32.CCAMLR (1997) Report of the sixteenth meeting of the Scientific Committee. SC-CAMLR-XVI, CCAMLR, Hobart. 442 p.CCAMLR (2010) Report of the twenty-ninth meeting of the Scientific Committee. SC-CAMLR-XXIX, CCAMLR, Hobart. 420 p.CCAMLR (2011) Report of the thirtieth meeting of the Scientific Committee. SC-CAMLR-XXX, CCAMLR, Hobart. 454 p.Constable AJ, de la Mare WK, Agnew DJ, Everson I and Miller D (2000) Managing fisheries to conserve the Antarctic marine ecosystem: practical implementation of the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: 778–791.Fischer W and Hureau JC, editors (1985) FAO species identification sheets for fishery purposes: Southern Ocean. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 470 p.Japp D, Purves M and Nel DC (2008) Draft management plan for the Prince Edward Islands marine protected area. pp. 101-136 In Nel D and Omardien A (eds.), Towards the development of a marine protected area at the Prince Edwards Islands. WWF-South Africa.Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 131 p.Kock K-H (1992) Antarctic fish and fisheries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 359 p.Kock K-H (1994) Fishing and conservation in southern waters. Polar Record 30(172): 3-22.Kock K-H, Purves MG and Duhamel G (2006) Interactions between cetacean and fisheries in the Southern Ocean. Polar Biology 29: 379–388.Lack M (2008) Continuing CCAMLR’s fight against IUU fishing for toothfish. WWF-Australia, TRAFFIC International. 50 p.Lack M and Sant G (2001) Patagonian toothfish: are conservation and trade measures working? TRAFFIC Bulletin 19(1): 15-32.Lombard A, Reyers B, Schonegevel L, Cooper J, Smith-Adao L, Nel D, Froneman W, Ansorge I, Bester M, Tosh CA, Strauss T, Akkers T, Gon O, Leslie RW and Chown SL (2008) Conserving pattern and process in the Southern Ocean: designing a marine protected area for the Prince Edward Islands. pp. 1-35 In Nel D and Omardien A (eds.), Towards the development of a marine protected area at the Prince Edwards Islands. WWF-South Africa.Lombard AT (2008) Updated maps and statistics of the legal patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) fishery in South Africa’s exclusive economic zone at the Prince Edward Islands. pp. 36-49 In Nel D and Omardien A (eds.), Towards the development of a marine protected area at the Prince Edwards Islands. WWF-South Africa.Miller DGM (2011) Sustainable management in the Southern Ocean: CCAMLR science. Science diplomacy: Antarctica, science, and the governance of international spaces, Smithsonian Institute Washington. 103-121 p.Nel D (2008) South Africa’s proposed marine protected area at the Prince Edward Islands: an analysis of legal obligations, options and opportunities. pp. 50-100 In Nel D and Omardien A (eds.), Towards the development of a marine protected area at the Prince Edwards Islands. WWF-South Africa.Nel DC, Ryan PG and Watkins BP (2002) Seabird mortality in the Patagonian toothfish longline fishery around the Prince Edward Islands, 1996-2000. Antarctic Science 14(2): 151-161.Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 11(2): 4-7.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III100Pramod G, Pitcher TJ, Pearce J and Agnew D (2008) CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources): Antarctic (high seas and areas under national jurisdiction). pp. 6-7 In Sources of information supporting estimates of unreported fishery catches (IUU) for 59 countries and the high seas. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 16(4). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Purves MG (1997) Catch rates and length composition data of the longline fishery for Dissostichus eleginoides at the Prince Edward Islands: 1996/97. SC-CCAMLR-XVI/BG/28. 20 p.Tilney R and Purves MG (1999) The status of integrated fisheries monitoring in South Africa. pp. 343-356 In Nolan CP (ed.) Proceedings of the International Conference on Integrated Fisheries Monitoring. Sydney, Australia, 1-5 February 1999. FAO, Rome.Watkins BP (2006) No seabird mortality with pot fishing. Fishing Industry News South Africa August: 18-20.Watson R, Kitchingman A, Gelchu A and Pauly D (2004) Mapping global fisheries: sharpening our focus. Fish and Fisheries 5: 168-177.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for U.S. flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266-277. Prince Edward Is (South Africa) - Boonzaier et al. 101Appendix Table A1.  Prince Edward Islands’ (South Africa) fisheries catch statistics (in tonnes) by catch type, drawn from the CCAMLR 2011 Statistical Bulletin, Vol. 23 (subareas 58.6 and 58.7), supplemented with information from the South African Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and SC-CCAMLR (2011), as well as illegal catch information acquired from Brandão and Butterworth (2007). (See text and Figure 2a.)Year Legal IllegalDiscards Landings Discards  Landings1992 - - - -1993 - - - -1994 - -  588  5,355 1995 - -  1,176  10,709 1996 122 1,121  1,764  16,064 1997 241 1,605  3,238  21,420 1998 66 907  132  1,808 1999 103 665  161  1,035 2000 270 1,284  261  1,239 2001 48 341  52  367 2002 11 227  16  329 2003 11 316  10  265 2004 74 276  16  158 2005 122 325  30  156 2006 14 172  12  156 2007 28 239  26  154 2008 17  144  26  148 2009 4  73  42  124 2010 9  224  41  122 Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III102Samoa - Lingard et al. 103reconstructed catches oF samoa 1950–20101Stephanie Lingard, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia,  2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canadas.lingard@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstractSamoa has a long history of marine resource use, and today maintains a strong connection to the marine environment. Despite the acknowledged importance of marine resources for food security, Samoan fisheries landings have been under-reported since the FAO started reporting fisheries catch data on behalf of Samoa in 1950. Catches are particularly under-represented in the early years, but reporting has improved somewhat since the 1990s. Using a consumption-based approach, we linked historical information with current patterns of marine resource use to create a complete time series of total marine fisheries catches over the 1950 to 2010 time period. Estimated total marine fisheries catches were 627,700 t for the 1950-2010 period, which is 2.8 times the reported landings submitted to the FAO of almost 220,900 t. In recent years, total reconstructed catches included estimates of under-reported subsistence and artisanal catches, by-catch and discards. This study illustrates the importance of small-scale fishing in Samoa, as well as a need for better monitoring of all fisheries sub-sectors to prevent further declines in fisheries resources vital to food security.introductionSamoa, a small Pacific island country, is comprised of two large islands (Savai’i and Upolu), and seven small islets (two of which, Manono and Apolima, are inhabited). Geographically, Samoa lies between 13° and 15° S, and 168° and 173° W, and is situated in the Western South Pacific. Samoa has a land area of 2,935 km2 and an oceanic shelf of 4,500 km2 (www.seaaroundus.org; Figure 1). Due to the close proximity of neighbouring countries (American Samoa, Tonga, and Wallis and Futuna), Samoa’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) does not extend 200 nautical miles offshore, which results in Samoa having the smallest EEZ (131,812 km2) in the Pacific region. Barrier reefs encircle most of the islands except on the north coast of Upolu, the main inhabited island, where the shelf extends 14 miles offshore (Gillett 2002).Samoa is thought to have first been settled by Polynesians 3,000 years ago (Meleisea 1987). In 1830, missionaries from the United Kingdom, the first in a series of three colonial powers, landed in Samoa (Thornton et al. 2010). The country was then turned over to Germany from 1914 to 1943 (Meleisea 1987). New Zealand took over as colonial ruler from 1944 until 1962, when Samoa, then known as Western Samoa, gained independence (Meleisea 1987). Western Samoa changed its name to Samoa in 1997. Today the country is one of the poorest in the Pacific region with a per capita GDP in 2009 of $2,926 USD.2 For decades the economy of Samoa has relied on agricultural exports such as coconuts, cocoa and bananas (Beaglehole 1947; Zann et al. 1985). More recently, since the establishment of a locally based tuna fishery, marine exports have become a major commodity valued at 10.4 million USD, or 63% of the country’s total exports in 2002 (Read 2006). Tourism has also become a major industry, and has expanded substantially since its infancy in the 1980s to over 100,000 visitors annually in 2009 (Tagomoa-Isara 2010).1 Cite as: Lingard, S., Harper, S., and Zeller, D. (2012) Reconstructed catches of Samoa 1950-2010. pp. 103-118. In: Harper, S., Zylich, K., Boonzaier, L., Le Manach, F., Pauly, D., and Zeller D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].2 http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Samoa [accessed January 2012]!!ApiaPago Pago173°W13°S±0 15075 kmSavai'iUpoluFigure 1.  Map of the Samoan EEZ, showing the islands of Savai’i and Upolu as well as the capital city Apia. American Samoa with its capital, Pago Pago, is also shown.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III104Samoa has maintained a strong link to its traditional way of life (termed fa’asamoa). Fa’asamoa encompasses the entire fabric of Samoan life, which has had major impacts on the economic and political development of the country (Lati 2000). Organizational aspects of fa’asamoa (which have resulted in sustainable marine resource use over millennia) include extended kinship groups (agia), as well as a chieftain system termed fa’amatai. Rather than an individual or nuclear family being the unit of social organization, the agia encompasses a large extended family group amongst which resources are shared. Land has customarily been distributed based on a tenure system given to agias rather than individuals. Similar to the tenured distribution of land, marine resources are tenured and under the jurisdiction of the village chiefs (Faasili and Kelekolio 1999; King and Faasili 1999; Mollica 1999; Zann 1999). The marine tenure system includes many management strategies to prevent overfishing. These strategies include restrictions or specifications on species and/or sizes of fish taken, gear types, harvest seasons, and fishing grounds (Johannes 1978; Mollica 1999). Any excess harvested resources are distributed within the wider community to prevent waste. Each agia is headed by a chief (matai) who grants permission for the harvesting of marine resources, and whose responsibility it is to distribute resources fairly amongst the community. The details of this system are described in Cahn (2006), Lati (2000), Macpherson (1999), and Meleisea (1987).Although Samoa has retained a strong link to the matai system and other aspects of fa’asamoa, (Fitzgerald and Howard 1990), the fa’amatai system lost some of its power to sustainably manage marine resources due to pressures from western political systems (Macpherson 1999; Cahn 2006). Additionally, shifts in social organization and an increasing population have resulted in overfishing on Samoa’s reefs since the 1960s (Van Pel 1960; Horsman and Mulipola 1995; Mulipola 1998; Faasili and Kelekolio 1999). An example of how the move to a westernized political system impacted the fa’amatai system’s ability to manage marine resources is that although the fa’amatai system contained many village bylaws and customs to combat overfishing, federal legislation and regulations often made enforcement of village bylaws and penalties illegal (Faasili and Kelekolio 1999). Recognizing the opportunity for successful management at the village level, the Fisheries Division added provisions to the 1988 Fisheries Act giving village fonos (council of matais) the power to enact village by-laws that were legally binding (Faasili and Kelekolio 1999; Johannes 2002).Traditionally, fish supplied the majority of protein to the Samoan diet (Van Pel 1960; Horsman and Mulipola 1995; Mulipola 1998; Zann 1999; Passfield 2001). Marine resources continue to be important to domestic food security, supplying approximately 74% of the animal protein to the Samoan diet (Bell et al. 2009). Two separate types of fishing activities occur in Samoa: fishing for the domestic market and tuna fishing for export markets. The export fishery targets tuna species almost exclusively, while the domestic fishery is for domestic consumption and includes inshore and offshore species (Horsman and Mulipola 1995; Passfield 2001). Although lagoon species provide the majority of food requirements (Horsman and Mulipola 1995; Passfield 2001), pelagic species are also targeted and consumed locally (Van Pel 1960; Anon. 1984). Lagoon fisheries employ a wide variety of gear types. While diving and spear fishing are most common, gillnets, hook and line, and gleaning activities are also important (Zann 1991, 1999; Passfield 2001). Women and children contribute significantly to the household protein supply through the gleaning of invertebrates and seaweeds, and the collection of nearshore fish (Horsman and Mulipola 1995; Passfield 2001; Lambeth et al. 2002).Fisheries are important for both subsistence and economic purposes. Subsistence and artisanal catches were estimated to be 13,800 t with a value of 34.2 million USD over the 2006/2007 financial year (Samuelu and Sapatu 2007). An additional 6.6 million USD was generated from tuna exports for the same year (Hang 2008). Fisheries also employ a substantial portion of the Samoan population, often in an informal manner. Gillett (2009) estimated only 900 people (out of an employable population of nearly 200,000)3 would be considered commercial fishers, which sell at least 50% of their catch, while 9,200 engage in fishing primarily for subsistence purposes.The Fisheries Division, originally part of the Department of Economic Development and now part of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, was established in 197o (Anon. 1984). In the late 1960s, prior to the establishment of the Fisheries Division, a fishery subsidy program began providing assistance for the mechanization of canoes (Philipp 1977). Mechanization of the fleet was rapid and by 1977 the majority of fishers were using outboard motors (Philipp 1977). In the late 1970s, shortly after mechanization and the development of the Fisheries Division, a formal offshore tuna fishery was established (Philipp 1977).Fishing by foreign fleets (Japan, Taiwan and Korea) for tuna occurred in Samoan waters from the late 1940s to 1979 (Anon. 1984). Catches by these fleets, mainly longliners, were estimated to be 159.8 t in 1976 (Anon. 1984). While foreign access fishing for tuna is common in many Pacific Island countries, foreign catches in Samoan waters have remained minimal (25 t·year-1) in the 2000s (Gillett 2009).Development of a locally based offshore tuna fishery in Samoa commenced in 1975, using modified traditional catamarans called alias (Mulipola 1998). However, prior to the development of the formal offshore fishery, customary pole and line fishing for tuna and shark species had occurred for centuries, just outside the barrier reef when weather permitted (Anon. 1984). Reported tuna catches from the locally based offshore fishery in the early period were dominated by skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares; Mulipola 1998). Development of a small-scale longline fishery began in 1991 (Mulipola 1998); however, the commercial offshore longline fishery for tuna officially commenced in 1996 (Su’a et al. 2002). Since the start of the fishery in 1996, catches have grown from 2,092 t to 6,200 t in 2002 (Su’a et al. 2002), with the majority of fish caught by this sector being exported (Anon. 2007a). As there is no cannery in Samoa, a large portion of catches are exported to American Samoa for processing (Chapman 1998). Alias were the dominant fishing craft used by fishers of this sector (Faasili and Time 2006) until 2002, when large commercial vessels (greater than 15 m) came into service.3 http://www.sbs.gov.ws/Statistics/Social/DemographicIndicators/tabid/3345/language/en-US/Default.aspx [accessed January 2012]Samoa - Lingard et al. 105Under-reporting of fisheries catches is a problem globally, which undermines the importance of fisheries in economics and food security (Zeller et al. 2007; Jacquet et al. 2010; Garibaldi 2012). Additionally, fisheries have not been acknowledged for their contributions to informal employment (Teh and Sumaila 2011), as well as indirect economic benefits (such as boat building, gear purchases, processing, shipping; Dyck and Sumaila 2010). In Samoa, fisheries are important for domestic food security, livelihoods, and export earnings. However, reporting of national fisheries landings to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO) does not adequately reflect their importance. The present study aims to improve the accounting of marine resource use by estimating all fisheries catch components and improving the taxonomic resolution of catches for the period 1950-2010.methodsFor the 1950-2010 period, FAO landings data were obtained in addition to annual reports by the Fisheries Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests for comparison. National reports divide fisheries into two sectors: inshore and pelagic resources destined for domestic sale, and tuna destined for export (Faasili et al. 1997; Faasili et al. 1999; Anon. 2000b, 2001, 2002, 2003). In the early period, FAO landings were approximately 300 t·year-1. Fisheries Division data for the same period were not available to make a comparison. However, in recent years national reporting has included better estimates of subsistence and artisanal catches (Faasili et al. 1997; Faasili et al. 1999; Anon. 2000a, 2001, 2002). Due to a long history of reliance on marine resources in Samoa, we assumed per capita subsistence catch rates in the early period would be greater than those experienced today. To estimate unreported catch components, we used seafood consumption rates to estimate total domestic demand for seafood. We considered total domestic demand to represent the total domestic catch, only a portion of which is represented in the reported landings data. Additionally, a comparison between FAO tuna landings and national export records indicated that the majority of tuna were exported. However, some tuna is consumed domestically and this was accounted for in our domestic consumption estimate. The export oriented tuna were treated as a distinct category in our reconstruction, separate from the subsistence and artisanal catches for domestic consumption.Total domestic catchPopulationHuman population data were obtained from the statistic division of the government of Samoa (www.sbs.gov.ws), the World Bank (data.worldbank.org) and The World Resource Institute.4 World Bank data were available from 1960-2010, and national census data were available for 2001 and 2006 from the government of Samoa. World Bank data for both 2001 and 2006 were similar to national census estimates; therefore, we used the World Bank data for this study. The World Resource Institute estimated a population of 82,000 for the islands of Samoa in 1950. We interpolated between the 1950 estimate and the first year of World Bank data (1960), to derive a complete time series of population for Samoa from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 2).Seafood consumptionIn recent years, attempts have been made to estimate the magnitude of Samoan subsistence catches (Zann 1991; Passfield 2001; Samuelu and Sapatu 2007; Bell et al. 2009). Prior to the 1990s, there is little recorded information on subsistence consumption. Some recent information does exist on seafood consumption rates, which includes consumption of seafood derived from subsistence and artisanal fisheries as well as imported products. Passfield (2001) used village surveys on both Savai’i and Upolu to calculate per capita consumption rates of 57 kg·person-1·year-1 for local seafood, and 14 kg·person-1·year-1 for imported seafood (71 kg total).Prior to 1975, estimates of per capita consumption, as well as import data were not available. Although there were reports of imports of milk, butter, and tinned meat into Samoa in the 1950s, these commodities were 4 http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/country_profiles/pop_cou_882.pdf0204060801001201401601802001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Population (x 103 )YearFigure 2.  Population of Samoa 1950-2010.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part III106mostly consumed by the small urban population of Apia, while rural areas had minimal access to imported goods (Johnston 1953). Additionally, the subsistence economies of Samoa in the late 1940s were reported to have met the dietary needs of the Samoan people (Beaglehole 1947), which suggests there was no need for imported fish in 1950. With negligible fish imports in the early period, we assumed a fish consumption rate in 1950 of 71 kg·person-1·year-1 based on Passfield (2001), consisting entirely of domestically sourced fish. Between 1990 and 1991, two major cyclones (Ofa and Val) hit Samoa, reducing coral cover to nearly zero in many places, and causing major damage to the offshore alia fleet (Zann, 1991). Due to these events, fishing capacity was greatly reduced (Zann 1991; Anon. 2000b), thereby reducing consumption in these two years. A household survey between 1990 and 1991 revealed a national average consumption rate of 36 kg·person-1·year-1 (Zann 1991). We interpolated linearly from the 71 kg·person-1·year-1 in 1950 to 57 kg·person-1·year-1 in 2000 (Passfield 2001); however, to reflect the decrease in consumption due to the cyclones, we replaced the interpolated rate in 1990 and 1991 with a rate of 36 kg·person-1·year-1 (Zann 1991). From 1992 to 2000, we interpolated linearly between the 36 kg·person-1·year-1 estimate and the 57 kg·person-1·year-1. In 2006, a survey undertaken by the fisheries division provided a consumption rate of 59.4 kg·person-1·year-1. We interpolated linearly from the 57 kg·person-1·year-1 in 2000 to 59.4 kg·person-1·year-1 in 2006 (Samuelu and Sapatu 2007), and carried the 2006 consumption rate forward, unaltered to 2010 (Table 1).Total demand for seafoodThe time series of per capita consumption rates was combined with annual population estimates to give total domestic demand for seafood from 1950 to 2010. Previous studies in other Pacific island countries have, in the absence of catch data, utilized seafood consumption as a proxy for estimating annual catches (Leopold et al. 2004). This total domestic demand is considered to be the total domestically retained catch (hereafter referred to as domestic catch) from the artisanal and subsistence sectors. This estimate includes both reported and unreported components.Artisanal vs. subsistence sectorsOur estimated total domestic demand was used to determine the magnitude of Samoa’s domestic catch. This was disaggregated into catches taken by the subsistence and artisanal sectors. In the early period, officially reported landings were considered an under-representation of the true catch and no information was available to disaggregate non-export catches into subsistence and artisanal components. Utilizing national data for the mid to late 1990s (Faasili et al. 1997; Faasili et al. 1999), we estimated 93% of domestic catches were from the subsistence sector, and 7% from the artisanal sector. We used this breakdown to assign sectors for the reported and unreported components of the domestic catch for the entire time period (Figure 3). In 2008, reported domestic landings were higher than our estimated domestic catch by 260 t. We assumed the FAO estimate was correct and set unreported catches to zero in that year.Export FisheryTuna landingsWe compared national tuna data (Su’a et al. 2002; Imo et al. 2005; Faasili and Time 2006; Anon. 2010a) with FAO landings for targeted tuna export species and found these data to be similar. Therefore, we accepted FAO landings data as the best representation of the 0246810121950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearUnreported artisanalUnreported subsistenceReported subsistence Reported artisanalFigure 3.  Total domestic demand (tuna and pelagics excluded) for Samoa, 1950-2010, divided into reported and unreported components of the subsistence and artisanal sectors. The catch decline in 1990/91 was due to cyclones (see text).Table 1.   Consumption rates used to estimate total domestic demand for seafood in Samoa.Years Consumption rate (kg/person/year)Source1950 71.0 Passfield (2001)1951-1988 - Interpolateda1989 60.1 Interpolateda1990-1991 36.0 Zann (1991)1992-1999 - Interpolatedb2000 57.0 Passfield (2001)2000-2005 - Interpolatedc2006 59.4 Samuelu & Sapatu (2007)2007-2010 59.4 Carried forwardda 1951-1989 consumption rate estimated using a linear interpolation from 71 kg·person-1·year-1 in 1950 to 57 kg·person-1·year-1 in 2000b 1992-1999 consumption rates estimated using linear interpolation from 36 kg·person-1·year-1 in 1991 to 57 kg·person-1·year-1 in 2000c 2000-2005 consumption rates estimated using linear interpolation from 57 kg·person-1·year-1 in 2000 to 59.4 kg·person-1·year-1 in 2006d 2007-2010 consumption rates estimated by carrying forward the 2006 estimate unalteredSamoa - Lingard et al. 107tuna species (albacore [Thunnus alalunga], yellowfin [T. albacares], skipjack [Katsuwonus pelamis] and bigeye tuna [T. obesus]) caught for the export market. Tunas appear in the FAO data beginning in 1978, and in the national data in 1994. From 2002-2010 Samoa’s tuna fishery has been well documented, but the data reported to FAO have had poor taxonomic resolution, and were considered slightly underestimated for several years. FAO landings of billfish (black marlin, blue marlin, striped marlin, and swordfish) and the non-specific categories, “tuna-like fishes nei” and “sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei”, only appear in some years. National reports (Imo et al. 2005; Faasili and Time 2006; Anon. 2007a, 2010a) present landings of billfish, sharks and other pelagic species as by-catch. We assumed the FAO categories “tuna-like fishes nei” and “sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei” also represented by-catch for Samoa. Additionally, due to the use of longliners and the export nature of the fishery, which requires high quality products, the discarding of undersized or low-quality tuna is likely (Kelleher 2005). Using detailed data from national reports, we have improved/estimated by-catch and discards associated with the tuna fishery.By-catchThe Samoan tuna fishery, between 1975 and 1996, utilized small-scale trolling gear, which incurs minimal by-catch (Bailey et al. 1996). However, we assumed that some by-catch occurred during this time and was reported as “tuna like nei” or “sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei” in the FAO data. Longliners came into widespread use in 1996 in Samoa (Su’a et al. 2002), and are reported to have significant by-catch rates (13.05% of total catch in the Western South Pacific; Bailey et al. 1996). However, Samoa’s average by-catch of non-target species from 2002-2009 was 7% (Anon. 2009). Species specific information on longline by-catch was available for the period of 2002-2009 from Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) reports (Anon. 2007a, 2010a). These data were compared to FAO data and it was determined that only part of the data from the WCFPC report was reported in the FAO data. Therefore, unreported by-catch amounts were calculated for the period of 2002-2009. Average proportions from the data were also used to disaggregate the “tuna-like fishes nei” and “sharks, rays, skates, etc. nei” categories in the FAO data. No additional unreported amount of by-catch was calculated for 1978-2001. However, the ratio of unreported by-catch to reported landings of the export fishery for 2009 was used to estimate an unreported amount of by-catch in 2010, with the 2009 species composition being applied as well.DiscardsLongline fishing for tuna and highly migratory species is non-selective and known to incur by-catch of non-targeted species and discards both of targeted and non-targeted species (Bailey et al. 1996; Kelleher 2005). Targeted species of inferior quality or individuals caught once quotas have been filled are frequently discarded (Alverson et al. 1994; Kelleher 2005). Early on, Samoan tuna fishing was carried out by the domestic alias fleet using pole and line, which incurred minimal by-catch and discards (Kelleher 2005). Prior to 1996, we did not apply a discard rate to the pole and line fishery catches. From 1996 onwards, when use of longlines became the dominant gear type, we applied distinct discard rates for catches of bigeye tuna (9.8%), yellowfin tuna (3.6%) and albacore tuna (4.6%) (Anon. 2007b). Globally, (Kelleher 2005) advises a discard rate of 15% for longliners, but Samoa has been reputed to have negligible discard rates (Kelleher 2005; Gillett 2011). Therefore, we applied the lower individual discard rates to estimate discards of the three main target species from 1996-2010.BaitfishBaitfish is required to catch tuna using pole and line, however due to limited baitfish supplies in Samoa’s EEZ (Anon. 1984), baitfish is imported (Trade and Investment Promotion Unit 2000, in Fitzgerald 2004). Therefore, estimate