Open Collections

UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Catch reconstruction for the Red Sea large marine ecosystem by countries (1950-2010) Tesfamichael, Dawit; Pauly, D. (Daniel) 2012

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

Item Metadata


52383-Tesfamichael_D_et_al_Catch_reconstruction_red_sea.pdf [ 8.24MB ]
JSON: 52383-1.0354237.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0354237-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0354237-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0354237-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0354237-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0354237-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0354237-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

ISSN 1198-6727Number2012 VolumeFisheries Centre Research ReportsCatCh reConstruCtion for the  red sea large marine eCosystem by Countries (1950-2010)20 1ISSN 1198-6727 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, CanadaFisheries Centre Research Reports2012 Volume  Number CatCh reConstruCtion for the  red sea large marine  eCosystem by Countries (1950-2010)Edited byFisheries Centre Research Reports 20(1)244 pages © published 2012 byThe Fisheries Centre,University of British Columbia2202 Main MallVancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4 ISSN 1198-6727 Dawit Tesfamichael and Daniel PaulyContentsA 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(1)244 pages © Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2012Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(1)2012Edited byDawit Tesfamichael and Daniel PaulyPreface iIntroduction to the Red Sea ecosystem and its fisheries 1Dawit Tesfamichael and Daniel PaulyReconstructing Red Sea fisheries of Egypt: Heavy investment and fisheries 23Dawit Tesfamichael and Sahar Fahmy MehannaReconstructing Red Sea fisheries of Sudan: foreign aid and fisheries 51Dawit Tesfamichael, Abdalla Nassir ElawadReconstructing Red Sea fisheries of Eritrea: a case study of the relationship between political  stability and fisheries development 71Dawit Tesfamichael, Sammy MohamudThe marine fisheries of Yemen with emphasis on the Red Sea and cooperatives 105Dawit Tesfamichael, Peter Rossing and Hesham SaeedReconstructing Red Sea fisheries catches of Saudi Arabia: National wealth and fisheries  transformation 153Dawit Tesfamichael and Peter RossingPreliminary reconstruction of fisheries catches of Jordan and Israel in the inner Gulf of Aqaba,  Red Sea, 1950-2010 179Dawit Tesfamichael, Rhona Govender and Daniel PaulyCommon names of exploited fish and invertebrates of the Red Sea 205Dawit Tesfamichael and Hesham SaeedAppendix - Reconstructing the fishing effort of Red Sea fisheries, 1950-2010 239Dawit TesfamichaeliWe are pleased to present herewith the first report ever on the history and catches of all fisheries of the Red Sea, including the commonly overlooked activities of various small-scale fisheries.The period covered here, 1950 to 2010, is long enough for detecting and illustrating major trends, such as the trend toward motorization of artisanal fisheries and industrial fisheries– notably the use of trawlers– that are radically transforming Red Sea fisheries.The fishery catches were ‘reconstructed’ for each Red Sea country, i.e., Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel and thus can be compared with the landings reported on their behalf by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), of which they are all members. These reconstructed catches are overall 1.5 times higher than reported by FAO, essentially because they cover mainly industrial landings while the reconstruction also include artisanal, subsistence and recreational catches, as well as trawlers’ discards.This catch was, as far as possible, disaggregated to species level, such that analysis of their different contribution to Red Sea catches can be conducted. To facilitate these further, this report includes a list of the common names of fishes and common marine invertebrates in Arabic, as spoken all along Red Sea coasts. A preliminary ‘reconstruction’ of the fishing effort exerted in the Red Sea by country and gear type is also presented.The national catch reconstructions underlying the core of this report were performed as part of a global project of the Sea Around Us, i.e., to re-estimate the catch of the world’s marine fisheries. However, these reconstructions should also be useful in each of the Red Sea countries as a starting point for ecosystem-based management of fisheries and of more detailed research or publication on various aspects of Red Sea fisheries.The contributions that constitute the body of this report were nearly completed by late 2012, and thus it was prematurely given a publication number and cited as such in various works. Thus, we decided to retain this date of publication number. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.All that is left to us is the pleasant task of acknowledging our co-authors in this endeavor, many of them from the Red Sea countries, and who contributed their local knowledge. The institutions and personnel who helped us with this work are acknowledged in each respective chapter. We also thank the Pew Charitable Trust for their support of the Sea Around Us.The EditorsJuly 2014prefaCeIntroduction - Tesfamichael and Pauly 1introduCtion to the red sea eCosystem and its fisheries1Dawit Tesfamichaela,b and Daniel PaulyaaSea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, CanadabDepartment of Marine Sciences, University of Asmara, Asmara, Eritrea.d.tesfamichael d.pauly  @fisheries.ubc.caabstraCtThe Red Sea, characterized by a number of unique oceanographic and biological features, provided for humans for millennia, from the earliest record of human consumption of seafood to its current state as an important fishing ground for the seven countries along its shores. Contemporary fisheries need monitoring and management, and catch data are crucial for both. However, reliable time-series of catch data are lacking for most Red Sea Fisheries. Here, the catches of Red Sea fisheries are ‘reconstructed’ from 1950 to 2010 by country (i.e., Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel) and sector (artisanal, subsistence, industrial and recreational), and in terms of their species composition. Historical documents, published and unpublished reports and other grey literature, databases, field surveys, anecdotal information, interviews, and information on processed seafood products were used as sources. When reliable data were available for a number of years, they were used as anchor points, and missing years were interpolated, based on assumptions of continuity, and given the best knowledge of the fisheries available. The reconstructed catches (which also include discards) were compared to the statistics submitted by the above-mentioned countries to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Overall, the total Red Sea catch was low (around 50,000 t·year-1) until 1960, increased to its peak (around 177,000 tonnes) in 1993, and is declining since. Overall, it was 1.5 times higher than the catch officially submitted to FAO by the countries bordering the Red Sea. Artisanal fisheries generally contributed about half of the total Red Sea catch, while the composition of the catch was extremely varied, with no single species or even family dominated. In addition to the national catch reconstructions, the local (Arabic) names of common commercial fishes and a brief reconstruction of the effort are also presented. The resulting catch trends provide crucial historical records and important guidance for the development of future fisheries management policies aiming at resource conservation and sustaining the livelihoods of the coastal communities.introduCtionThe Red Sea is an elongated narrow sea between Northeastern Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, ranging from 300N to 12030’N and from 320E to 430E with a length of 2,000 km and an average width of 208 km (Figure 1). The maximum width is 354 km in the southern part (Morcos 1970), and the total area is 4.51 x 105 km2. The Red Sea is connected to the Indian Ocean in the south through the narrow strait of Bab al Mandab, the door of fortune. Bal al Mandab, which is only 29 km wide, has a sill 137 m below sea level, which limits the circulation of water between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. The Red Sea is also connected to the Mediterranean Sea through the Suez Canal since its opening in 1869. The average depth of the Red Sea is 491 m, with a maximum of 2850 m. In the north, the Red Sea is divided into the Gulfs of Suez and Aqaba. The Gulf of Suez is generally wide, shallow and muddy, while the Gulf of Aqaba is narrow and deep.Geological evolutionThe Red Sea was formed by plate tectonics, i.e., by the African and Arabian plates drifting apart, and is part of a larger tear that includes the Dead Sea and the East African rift systems. Geologically, the Red Sea is a young ocean that is still growing or 1 Cite as: Tesfamichael, D. and Pauly, D. (2012) Introduction to the Red Sea ecosystem and its fisheries. pp. 1-22.  In: Tesfamichael, D. and Pauly, D. (eds.) Catch reconstruction for the Red Sea large marine ecosysytem by countries (1950-2010). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(1). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  The Red Sea and the surrounding countries, including their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and shelf areas. 2spreading (Braithwaite 1987). The zone was already structurally weak during the Pan-African orogeny 600 Ma. The separation of the Arabian and African plates is believed to have started in the Tertiary period, between the Eocene and Oligocene periods; it accelerated during the late Oligocene, with intense magmatic activity and the development of a continental rift (Makris and Rihm 1991). The Red Sea depression is believed to have been flooded by the Mediterranean as a result of extensive sinking in the early Miocene (Girdler and Southren 1987). Since its inception, the Red Sea went through a series of connections and disconnections with the Mediterranean in the North and the Indian Ocean in the south. At the end of Miocene, upheaval of land occurred and the Red Sea was disconnected from the Mediterranean to become a separated salty lake. At the beginning of the Pliocene, the Red Sea was reconnected with the Mediterranean, and for the first time, it was also connected with the Indian Ocean, but at the end of Pliocene, the northern connection with the Mediterranean was closed off due to crustal plate movement. The connection with the Indian Ocean was closed off during the Pleistocene, when the Red Sea again became an isolated sea. At the end of the Pleistocene, a glacial period, its connection with the Indian Ocean was re-established, whereas the connection with the Mediterranean remained closed until it was artificially opened via the Suez Canal in 1869 (Goren 1986; Getahun 1998). The Red Sea being young and still expanding is used as a case study to understand and explain plate tectonics, mid ocean ridges and formation of oceans.Physical oceanographyThe Red Sea area is generally arid, rainfall is very sparse with annual average ranging from 1 mm to 180 mm (Edwards 1987). Evaporation, with an annual average of 2 m (Morcos 1970), largely exceeds precipitation, and the deficiency is made up by the flow of water from the Indian Ocean through Bab al Mandab. In winter, warmer and less saline water flows into the Red Sea in the surface layer; while cooler and saltier water flows into the Gulf of Aden in the lower layer. In summer, there are three layers of water flow in the strait. In addition to the two flows of winter, warm water flows on the surface from the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden (Smeed 2004). Sea and air temperatures are high in the Red Sea with mean annual sea surface temperature of 28oC. Additionally, the Red Sea is undergoing an intense and rapid increase in temperature, which is attributed to climate change (Raitsos et al. 2011). Another remarkable characteristics of the Red Sea is its high salinity, about 35 psu on average at the surface; readings as high as 40.5 psu are also reported. The high salinity of the Red Sea is due to the combination of its geological history and its location in dry and hot environment. Though originally the Red Sea depression was flooded with Mediterranean water, it soon started to become more saline due to high evaporation. Later during the glacial period, the Red Sea was an isolated salty lake with salinity higher than the present by a value of 10 psu. The highly saline water was diluted by water from Indian Ocean when the Red Sea was reconnected with the Indian Ocean (Thunell et al. 1988). However, it is still more saline than the Indian Ocean water due to high evaporation (Morcos 1970).Biological oceanography and origin of the biotaThe Red Sea is not very productive, mainly due to lack of nutrient-rich terrestrial run off; also, there is almost no upwelling to lift nutrient-rich deep water to the surface where photosynthesis can occur. Moreover, the vertical mixing of water is prevented by a permanent thermocline as the temperature of the sub-surface water is always lower than the warm surface temperature. The depth of the thermocline is deeper in winter than summer (Edwards 1987). Generally, the southern part of the Red Sea is more productive than the northern part due to the flow of nutrient rich water from the Indian Ocean, the main nutrient input, and the re-suspension of nutrients from the bottom sediments by turbulent mixing over shelf areas (Sheppard et al. 1992). The shallow Gulf of Suez is also productive and supports many exploited fish populations.The high and relatively stable temperature of the Red Sea favours the formation of coral reefs, which are well developed in its northern part, starting from the tip of Sinai Peninsula. The longest continuous fringing reef in the Red Sea extends from Gubal, at the mouth of the Gulf of Suez, to Halaib, at the Egyptian border with Sudan (Pilcher and Alsuhaibany 2000). In the south, more patchy reefs are observed as the turbid waters of the shallow shelf prevent the formation of extensive reefs. Sanganeb Atoll, located in Sudan near the border with Egypt, is the only atoll in the Red Sea; it raises from 800 m depth to form a structure that has been recognized as regionally important conservation, and proposed to UNESCO as a World Heritage Site in the 1980s (Pilcher and Alsuhaibany 2000). Coral reefs recycle their nutrients, which enable them to maintain a high productivity, much like an oasis in a desert. They attract fisheries, mainly small-scale artisanal, and tourists.The connections of the Red Sea with the Mediterranean in the north and the Indian Ocean in the south account for the kind of species that colonized it at different times. Though the Red Sea was first populated by Mediterranean species, its current biota resembles that of the Indian Ocean. When the Red Sea was disconnected from Mediterranean and for the first time connected with the Indian Ocean in the beginning of the Pliocene period (about 5 – 6 million years ago), it was populated by Indian Ocean fauna. Later during the glacial period of the Pleistocene, the level of the world’s oceans was low. The Red Sea was isolated with high level of salinity (about 50 psu at the surface) and low temperature (about 20C lower than the present) (Thunell et al. 1988). This resulted in the extinction of many species. Later, when it was reconnected with the Indian Ocean at the end of the glacial period, 10 – 12 thousand years ago, an opportunity was created for Indian Ocean species to re-populate the Red Sea (Goren 1986).As a result of its connection to the speciose Indo-Pacific fauna, the Red Sea has a very high fish diversity, with more than 1,400 species of fishes are reported in FishBase ( It is also characterized by high degree of endemism, due to the closures alluded to above, with estimates of endemic fish species reaching 10–17% (Ormond and Edwards 1987). Because the Red Sea has very low nutrient input, as explained above, species that can survive Introduction - Tesfamichael and Pauly 3its extreme environments have very good chance to dominate, as there are fewer competitors. One example is the phytoplankton Trichodesmium erythraeum, a blue-green alga (cynobacterium) that can overcome nitrate depletion by fixing atmospheric nitrogen dissolved in the water. In calm waters, its filaments float to the sea surface of the Red Sea and form a rather reddish scum, the likely origin of the name ‘Red Sea’ (and incidentally, of Eritrea’s as well).On the shores of coastal lagoons and sheltered bays mangroves are common. The most common species is Avicennia marina. Bruguiera gymnorhiza and Ceriops tagal also occur, though they are less common. The shallow waters of the lagoons and bays are home to seagrass beds. About 500 species of algae are reported from the Red Sea. Most algae in the north and central part are macroscopic, non-calcareous, brown, green and red algae. In the south, large brown algae such as Sargassum dominate (Walker 1987).Five sea turtle species are reported from the Red Sea: hawksbill, green, olive ridley, loggerhead and leatherback. Hawksbill and green turtles are the most common, and are reported to nest along Red Sea beaches (Frazier et al. 1987). There is no active hunting for sea turtles in the Red Sea, but they are accidentally caught in fishing nets. The rich seagrass beds support dugongs, which are reported from Gulf of Suez in the north to Eritrea’s Dahlak Archipelago in the south (Preen 1989). The reports of cetaceans from the Red Sea are sparse. Seven species of dolphins are commonly reported, as well as occasional spotting of killer whale and false killer whale. Frazier et al. (1987) suggested that the narrow strait of Bab al Mandab and the low productivity in the Red Sea as reasons for the scarcity of cetaceans. As far as seabirds are concerned, the enclosed nature of the Red Sea acts as a barrier for pelagic fishes on which many seabirds feed. As a result pelagic seabirds, such as shearwaters and petrels, are poorly represented. Because of its elongated shape, the Red Sea has high coast to sea area ratio and its seabird fauna is dominated by coastal species (Evans 1987).Human settlementsAccording to archeological evidence, human settlement on the Red Sea coast started millennia ago (Horton 1987) and the Red Sea has the oldest records of human use of marine resources, in the form of giant clam and other shell middens (Walter et al. 2000). The Red Sea was also used as an important trade route between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean. However, in contrast with the rest of the world, where most of the population lives in a narrow strip of land along the coast (Edgren 1993), the population density on the Red Sea coast is still very low, except for very few major ports and cities. This is mainly due to the arid and hot climate, which resulted in most of the settlements being farther inland, in milder climate and where freshwater is less scarce. This has greatly limited the degree of coastal shoreline alteration, pollution and resource extraction. Thus, many Red Sea communities still depend on harvesting marine resources for subsistence using traditional methods of shell collection and fishing.However, in the last few decades, the wider availability of technology coupled with cheap oil, at least for the oil producing countries, is changing the demography of the Red Sea coast. The major port cities are metropolitan hubs, with diverse economic activities, and fishing has become marginal. Egypt has a strong recreational and tourism industry, and its coast is quite populated, creating pressure on the coastal ecosystems. Air conditioners and desalination plants are making life easier. A typical example is the Saudi Arabia coast where vibrant cities, such as Jeddah, have grown fast and new cities (e.g., Yanbu) are developing. In such cities, coastal reclamation and dredging are becoming common for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. Pollution is prevalent around urban areas and ports, and lack of sewage treatment is a serious problem throughout the Red Sea, as is the pollution from oil refineries. Overall the impact of human activities is growing (Frihy et al. 1996).Research expeditionsOne of the earliest scientific expeditions to the Red Sea is the Danish Arabia Felix of 1761 – 1767, which spent October 1762 – August 1763 in the Red Sea area. It included the Swedish naturalist Peter Forsskål, a student of Linnaeus, who made an extensive collection of plants and animals, and particularly fish. His report was published posthumously by Carsten Niebuhr, the sole survivor (Forsskål 1775). There were many fragmented accounts of expeditions, most of them unsuccessful, to the Red Sea in the 18th and 19th centuries. One important and outstanding work in describing the Red Sea ecosystem and its organisms is that of Carl Benjamin Klunzinger, a German medical doctor who worked as a quarantine inspector in the Egyptian Red Sea port of Qusier from 1863 to 1869 and 1872 to 1875. His descriptions include coral fauna, fish, crustacea, hemichordates and also meteorological (Klunzinger 1870, 1872), and cultural observations (Klunzinger 1878). An Austrian research vessel, the Pola, conducted an expedition in 1895 – 1896 to the northern Red Sea (Luksch 1898) and 1897 – 1898 to the south (Luksch 1900), including the first oceanographic studies and sampling of deep sea life up to 2000 m (Head 1987a). The specimens from the expedition are kept in the Natural History Museum in Vienna (Stagl et al. 1996).More recent expeditions include the John Murray expedition carried out using the Egyptian research vessel Mabahiss 1933 – 1934 (Tesfamichael 2005), which collected oceanographic and biological samples throughout the Red Sea and the Arabian Sea (Norman 1939). From 1959 to 1964, the International Indian Ocean Expedition brought some vessels to sample the Red Sea, whose oceanography was compiled by Morcos (1970). An Israeli expedition to the southern Red Sea in 1962 and 1965 (Ben-Tuvia 1968), and the Israeli Marine Biological Station at Eilat, which was opened in 1968, also contributed to the knowledge of the Red Sea. At present, a lot of initiatives are taken by the countries bordering the Red Sea and new information is collected. 4fisheriesThe Red Sea has multiple uses, the major one being as a route from the Indian Ocean to Europe. Recently, interest in the tourism industry has been increasing, notably in Egypt, which has a well-developed marine tourism industry, especially along its northern coast. As far as resource extraction is concerned, however, fishery is still the most important sector in Red Sea. The Red Sea has a long history (and prehistory) of resource exploitation by humans. Archaeological studies of middle stone age middens from the Eritrean Red Sea coast indicate that humans were eating giant clams and other molluscs about 125,000 years ago, possibly the most ancient such practice on record in the world (Walter et al. 2000). The artisanal fisheries have traditionally operated in harmony with the ecosystem because of low population; non-destructive traditional fishing technology; and poor communication and infrastructure. However, recently, more advanced and destructive methods are being used. Currently, fishing operations in the Red Sea range from foot fishers catching fish mainly for their own consumption, to very large trawlers with freezing facilities.The fisheries in the Red Sea are typical tropical fisheries, multi-gear and multi-species. Most fishing is performed from wooden boats ranging from 5 to 18 meters, locally called ‘Sambuk’ and ‘Houris’. Sambuks are larger, and have inboard engines; Houris are smaller and use outboard engines. Both Sambuks and Houris use similar fishing gears, mostly handlining and gillnet. The main difference in the operation of Sambuk and Houri are length of the fishing trip, crew size and capacity (Tesfamichael and Pitcher 2006).Total annual potential landings from the Red Sea were estimated once at 360,000 t·year-1 (Gulland 1971), but this value needs further scrutiny. Though the Red Sea accounts for 0.12% of the total world ocean area, its contribution to the world catch is only 0.07% (Head 1987b). Nevertheless, it is important to the countries in the region. Fishery produces a cheap source of animal protein and provides livelihood for the communities on the coast. Since the countries on the Red Sea coast are generally less industrialized, fisheries can provide multiple livelihoods.Of the seven countries that border the Red Sea, Jordan and Israel have too small coastlines to support any major fishery. Of the other countries, Egypt and Yemen have well established fisheries and have been utilizing their resource for a long time. Egyptian and Yemen fishermen also fish in other countries’ waters. Sudan is the country which utilize its fisheries resources the least, besides Jordan and Israel. Saudi Arabia has recently established an industrial fisheries, in addition to the artisanal fishery that has been active for many years. Eritrea had a strong small pelagic fishery in the past, then the fishery was dormant until it resumed after the country’s independence in 1991.Fishery data and assessmentA key part of documenting a fishery is reporting its catches. Given the catch level of a fishery, inferences can be drawn on the intensity of the pressure it exerts, and the approximate number of people involved in, and/or dependant on that fishery. Also, from additional information on the catch composition, inferences can be drawn on the technology that is deployed, the trade linkages that a fishing community has with its neighbours, its income from fishing, etc. In fact, reliable catch data are the most straightforward source of information for a variety of disciples, ranging from history and maritime anthropology to fisheries economics (Pauly 2006).For fisheries scientists, the value of catch data is even greater. Indeed, catch data are crucial to their main task, which is to perform fish stock assessments in support of fisheries management. Herein, the key feature of stock assessments is to evaluate the status or level of fishing activity in relation to the productivity of the ecosystem, so that fish from a given stock can be caught in such a manner that the various components of the ecosystem and its regeneration potential are not compromised. If these conditions are met, the ecosystem will sustain fishing for a long time. To accomplish this task, there are two different subtasks to be considered: first establishing the potential of the ecosystem and second establishing where the fishery is relative to that potential. Many assessment tools have been developed to estimate the biological potential of a fishery system and use them as benchmarks for the level of exploitation. Maximum sustainable yield (MSY), and the ratio between the estimated original (un-fished) biomass and the current biomass are two of the many metrics used globally to establish levels beyond which the catch is not advised to go (Beverton and Holt 1957; Hilborn and Walters 1992). Of course, there are criticisms of those approaches, the assumptions they use and their applicability to different ecosystems, and they even share part of the blame for the decline of many fisheries (Larkin 1977; Punt and Smith 2001). However, until better alternatives are available to replace the traditional stock assessment tools, they will be used, despite their limitations. Moreover, while new approaches are being developed, many fisheries in the world do not even have estimates of those metrics and/or are not managed at all.Overall, reliable catch data, jointly with the methods to estimate the biomass of fish and their productivity, are crucial components of effective assessment and management of fisheries. Time series of total catch, preferably by species, is thus the most basic and important information that can be gathered about a fishery (Caddy and Gulland 1983; Pauly and Zeller 2003). It is even more useful when coupled with fishing effort data. Notably, catch and effort data can help with preliminary assessment of the status of population upon which fisheries depend. However, this should be done with caution (Harley et al. 2001), because catch per unit of effort (CPUE), although an indicator of fish biomass, is not always proportional to abundance. CPUE can remain more or less stable while abundance is declining, a phenomenon called ‘hyperstability’, observed on schooling pelagic fish and spawning aggregations (Hilborn and Walters 1992; Pitcher 1995; Sadovy and Domeier 2005). On the other hand, CPUE can decline more than the actual decline of abundance called ‘hyperdepletion’ (Hilborn and Walters 1992). This can occur, for example, when only a portion of the population is vulnerable to the fishery (Walters and Bonfil 1999; Kleiber and Maunder 2008). However, for many fisheries, CPUE is the best type of information available for assessment, and not using it is short-sighted.Introduction - Tesfamichael and Pauly 5the rationale for CatCh reConstruCtionThere are many ways catch data can be collected. The most common are log books filled in by fishers, the records of observers onboard fishing vessels and data collection at the landing sites and on markets (e.g., auction and exports). For the Red Sea countries, many of these methods are very difficult to implement. Most of the local (artisanal) fishers are illiterate. The communities are predominantly based on oral traditions, thus logbooks are out of question. The majority of the boats are small, and on-board observers are impractical to deploy. Data recording at landing sites, although still arduous, is the most practical for routine catch and effort data collection. The challenge here is that the number of landing sites along the coast is quite large, and some of them are not even known to the fisheries administrations. Setting up proper data collection systems is thus not straightforward, given the complexity of fisheries and fish marketing.There are many fates of a fish following its encounter with fishing gear (Figure 2). The actual effect of fishery in an ecosystem should be measured by the amount of fish killed (rather than fish landed). The actual measure of fishing mortality can be concealed by lack of data on the mortality of the fish at the different parts of Figure (2). For example, for some Red Sea countries, more than half of the fish catch does not go through fish market, where official recording occurs (Chakraborty 1983). If only the data from landing sites is used to calculate the fishing mortality, this will underestimate its actual magnitude. Thus, proper planning and systematic collection procedures are needed (Gulland 1975; Sparre 2000) and for the Red Sea, it is urgent (Tesfamichael 2012). Systematic data collection requires resources, and thus developed countries usually have better catch and related statistics than developing countries (Alder et al. 2010), while the latter also have to contend with a generally higher biodiversity, which makes the catch highly diverse, and hence comprehensive catch statistics difficult to produce (Pauly and Watson 2008). Note, however that even in developed countries with better statistics, overfishing is rampant, e.g., in the North Atlantic (see e.g., Christensen et al. 2003).The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations assembles annual catch data submitted by member countries and harmonizes and disseminates them since 1950 (Garibaldi 2012; Pauly and Froese 2012), and Garibaldi (2012) gives a comprehensive description of the FAO database and its evolution. Because it consists of continuous, long time series and is easy to access, the FAO database is used extensively for research and policy at regional or international scales. Thus, 600 articles in peer-reviewed journals cited the FAO database in the last 15 years, notably because its standardized data makes comparisons straightforward (Garibaldi 2012).FAO’s mandate is very broad, and when it comes to fishery data, it can only compile what is submitted to it. This is the main bottleneck to the quality of the data. Countries do not necessarily have the incentive to submit reliable data, except as moral obligation to contribute to a global system. Thus, it is not uncommon for countries to send incorrect or incomplete fishery data (Pauly and Froese 2012), and FAO does not have a legal or procedural mandate to refuse such data. Even more problematic, the technical reports produced by FAO staff or consultants are not reflected in the database. Thus, the global estimates of discards documented in successive Technical Papers and other FAO documents were never included in the FAO statistics (Zeller and Pauly 2005).Figure 2.  Possible fates of fish following an encounter with a fishing gear, based on Mohammed (2003).  6Another example, applying specifically to the Red Sea, is that most of the early fishery data for the Red Sea comes from national or regional projects executed by FAO, especially the project ‘Development of fisheries in areas of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden’, which ran from the late 1970s to the mid-1980s under United Nations Development Programme (UNDP and FAO. Among other things, the projects surveyed the fisheries and estimated national catches (Chakraborty 1984), but they were not incorporated into the FAO catch database. Moreover, while the countries around the Red Sea are all members of FAO, and hence they send their fishery data to FAO, many suffer from political and institutional instability, which affects their fishery agencies, and thus there are gaps and inconsistencies in the data supplied to FAO.FAO’s mandate, while broad, does not include detailed analysis and review of the data supplied by member countries, which thus remain limited in their reliability and usefulness. It is assessed by FAO itself that the catch data it receives from over half of its developing country members, and one quarter of developed country members are unreliable (Garibaldi 2012). The following are the major constraints with the fishery statistics in the FAO database, and affect all countries, and not only those around the Red Sea:1. The FAO database reports global marine catches spatially only to the extent that they are allocated to 19 giant ‘statistical areas’. In the cases of Red Sea catches, this is area 51, the ‘Western Indian Ocean’, extending from the tip of the Gulf of Suez in the North to the Antarctic Convergence in the South, and from Sri Lanka in the East to South Africa in the West;2. The level of taxonomic aggregation of the catch is usually very high, and a large part of the catch is reported as ‘miscellaneous’ or ‘unidentified species’, which masks qualitative changes occurring within the ecosystem;3. FAO’s member countries often send in catch data (usually emanating from a Department of Fisheries or similar institution) through their Ministry of Trade, or some central statistics office or other government agency not directly connected with fisheries, where they are often over-aggregated and/or otherwise modified before being sent off;4. Some countries may have political reasons to misreport their catch, including over-reporting of catches as China did to FAO for at least two decades (Watson and Pauly 2001) and, gravest of all:5. When data for certain fisheries are not available (because the fisheries in question were not monitored), no estimate for the missing catch data are submitted. Subsequently, absent catch data for a given year become an annual catch of precisely ‘0’ tonne (Pitcher et al. 2002). Thus, the FAO database does not account for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) catch (Alverson et al. 1994; Kelleher 2004), nor does it suggest where gaps in its coverage may occur.FAO has taken initiatives to improve the content of its catch database, and indeed, it has improved over time. Also, there is a university-based research project, the Sea Around Us (, which aims to improve the quality of global marine fishery data. Being non-governmental, Sea Around Us is not limited by formal procedures. Hence, country catch reports can be critically examined, and when fisheries where omitted, their catch can be estimated using the best available knowledge. In effect, the major issues with the FAO database can be overcome through reconstructing historical catch time series (Pauly 1998; Pauly and Zeller 2003; Pauly and Froese 2012). Reconstructed time series of catch (and effort) data from the past are not merely useful for historical purposes. Rather, they provide a basis for overcoming the shifting baseline syndrome (Pauly 1995), i.e., for improved assessment of past and current impacts of fishing on marine ecosystems, and for ecological restoration (Scott Baker and Clapham 2004; Pitcher 2005). The lessons learned from catch reconstruction in different circumstances of the fisheries can be informative, similar to ‘scenarios’ in adaptive management of resources (Walters 1986).Catch reconstruction involves quantifying the catch of each fishery known to have existed, based either on ‘hard’ catch data, or when such data are not available, on the ‘shadow’ that the fishery – a social activity–throws on the society in which it is embedded. This shadow may consist of household fish consumption figures, number and income of fishers, export figures, etc… (Pauly 1998). Estimates from catch reconstruction, while approximate, will generally be closer to reality than the misreported catches, e.g., the precise estimate of zero in the official databases alluded to in the above (Pitcher et al. 2002; Zeller et al. 2007).The main objective of this report is to reconstruct catches of the Red Sea fisheries from 1950, the year FAO started to publish annual statistical reports on the fisheries of the world, up to 2010. . Included here are all the Red Sea countries: Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel and all the fishing sectors of these countries. The major outputs are a time series of standardized fishery catch for the Red Sea, by sector and species or other groupings. We do not claim these catch reconstructions data to be final. Rather, we see them as the start of an iteration, and as a basis to kick start the discussion on how to improve fishery data for the Red Sea, and ultimately, the management of its fisheries resources.sourCes and CatCh reConstruCtion proCeduresThe main procedure in catch reconstruction is digging into different sources reporting the catches of the countries, critically analyzing them, and organizing them to a common standard, which can be used for comparison and carrying out analysis for the assessment of the resources (Mohammed 2003; Tesfamichael and Pauly 2011). The sources used here include peer-reviewed published papers, grey literature (mainly government, consultant, and FAO reports), and national databases, complemented by field trips by the first author to Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, and Yemen from Introduction - Tesfamichael and Pauly 7December 2006 to September 2007. The information collected was enriched by the insights of local experts and colleagues who provided data through personal communications. The catch reconstruction for the whole Red Sea was first compiled in the form of individual country reports, co-authored by country experts: Egypt (Tesfamichael and Mehanna 2012), Sudan (Tesfamichael and Elawad 2012), Eritrea (Tesfamichael and Mohamud 2012), Yemen (Tesfamichael et al. 2012b), Saudi Arabia (Tesfamichael and Rossing 2012), and Jordan and Israel (Tesfamichael et al. 2012a), which give country-specific details (see also Here, a summary of the general methodology and the procedure to establish one coherent data set for the whole Red Sea are described.SourcesThe earliest data sources for the Red Sea countries were technical reports of the assessments of the fishery resources for planning the development of the fishing industry, starting in the decades following WWII. The 1950s was also a period where several of these countries became independent and started to run their national economies, and food security became a critical issue. These assessments/surveys were made by foreign experts (except for Egypt), usually recruited through the FAO. The earliest sources available were for Saudi Arabia (El-Saby and Farina 1954), Sudan (Kristjonsson 1956), Eritrea (Ben-Yami 1964), Egypt (Al-Khol and El-Hawary 1970) and Yemen (Lisac 1971; Losse 1973). Other early assessments were performed through bilateral arrangements or consultants hired directly by the countries (e.g. see Ben-Yami 1964; Atkins 1965; Grofit 1971 for Eritrea). In the 1970s and 1980s, in part because of the Cold War and ensuing East-West competition, development aid was pouring into the Red Sea countries. A fraction of these funds were assigned to fisheries development projects, which led to an improvement in documented knowledge about the fisheries (catches, catch composition, gear, etc). A regional project for the Red Sea area, ‘Development of fisheries in areas of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden’, was carried out from the end of the 1970s until the mid-1980s and led to an improvement of the quality (comprehensiveness and taxonomic resolution) of fishery catch data. Additional sources were also used, notably tax offices and export records. For example, the catch of the Eritrean beach seine small pelagic fishery was reconstructed from export figures for fish meal, which was the output of the fishery (Ben-Yami 1964).Organized databases and/or annual fishery statistical reports are a relatively new development for the Red Sea countries. The oldest database is that of Egypt, which starts in 1979, while Saudi Arabia started publishing its annual fishery statistics in the 1980s. Eritrea has had annual reports since its independence in 1991, but its fishery database started only in 1996. Sporadic annual reports are available for Yemen and a database system is being established. Sudan does not have any fishery data reporting system yet; however, daily catch data are collected at the main fishing market of Port Sudan, which are stored, but not issued as annual reports. All these sources were accessed for the catch reconstruction of the respective countries.Once the sources were accessed, their contents were analyzed for their spatial, temporal and sectoral coverage. Some reports were written only for a certain section of the countries or only a specific sector of the fisheries. Then, the sources were critically examined with regards to the method(s) and assumptions used in collecting their data. For some years, data were available from different sources, some simply regurgitating previously reported data. In such cases, an effort was made to locate the original reports. When there were multiple independent sources, the ones which have detailed explanations of the methodology and comprehensive coverage were selected. In a few cases, the information from one source was used to correct data from another.InterviewsField interviews were conducted by the first author with fishers ranging from 15 to 82 years of age, and with fishing village elders and the employees of fisheries administrations (Tesfamichael et al. in press). The main goal of the interviews was to assess long-term change in fisheries productivity by accessing fishers’ memories, which provided two major inputs to the catch reconstructions. First, the interviews were very useful in filling data gaps. For some periods there were no records at all, so interviewees were asked to explain what occurred during those periods, i.e., whether the catches were higher or lower than, or about equal, to the adjacent periods with records. The other type of information supplied by the interviews was the unreported catch, i.e., the catch missed by official records. For many artisanal fisheries in the Red Sea, this included the catch given freely to some members of the community and the catch landed at remote landing places, away from data collectors. Regarding the former, there is a strong tradition, shared by the maritime cultures of Red Sea countries, that part of the catch is expected to be given freely to family, friends and people who need assistance (e.g., the elderly, disabled, and widows). The amount given freely is called ‘kusar’ and is a form of food security social network. Not to give ‘kusar’ leads to loss of prestige, which may have serious consequences, e.g., with regards to market transactions and eventual marriages. The amount was about half of the total catch in the 1950s and 1960s; however, as the catches started to decrease and the fish accrued market value, the proportion of the catch devoted to kusar started to decrease.Another input from the interviews was explanations of discrepancies among reports. The insights from older fishers and people who have been involved in the management of fisheries helped resolve ambiguities in reports and/or records. Although they did not give specific quantitative values, their ability to give comparative qualitative information helped to base the assumptions used in quantifying the catch. In the absence of any other source, anecdotal information can be a good starting point (Pauly 1995) and quantitative data can be inferred from qualitative information, given some anchoring (Tesfamichael and Pitcher 2007). 8Missing dataFor the years data were missing, interpolations or extrapolations were made to fill in the data gaps. These were made on the basis of explicitly stated assumptions, given the best knowledge of the fisheries available at the time. Population size and per capita consumption were frequently used as a proxy for inferring catches. In a few instances, information from one country was used for another country with a similar fishery, particularly in the case of catch composition data.Comparison and compilationUsing the different sources and procedures, the catches of each country were reconstructed by sector, and the catch compositions were inferred. Then, the reconstructed catches were compared to the catch data reported to FAO by the respective country. The FAO data is used a reference for comparison because it is a good source of time series catch data for the Red Sea countries and is used by many organization (local and foreign) for analysis and planning. Thus, the part of the reconstructed catch of a given taxon that was accounted for in the FAO data was assigned as ‘reported’ catch in our analysis and results. When the reported catch of a taxon was higher than what is reported for that taxon in the FAO database, the difference was assigned to the ‘unreported’ catch; in contrast, when the FAO catch for a taxon was higher than the reconstructed catch, it was assigned as ‘over-reported’ catch. As will be seen in the country chapters, reported and unreported catches are identified separately in the catch reconstruction. Note that if there was a part of the catch that was not reported (e.g., catches were sold outside landing sites where catch data recordings are carried out and we managed to get an estimate of the amount), then that part of the catch is referred as ‘unreported’ catch in our computations. This should not be confused with the reported and unreported catches of the results as compared to the FAO data. Once the catches were reconstructed for each country, by sector and the catch composition calculated, they added up to represent the catches of the Red Sea as a whole, i.e., as a Large Marine Ecosystem (see also results and disCussionThe total reconstructed catch from the Red Sea from 1950 to 2010 was 6,333,000 tonnes, 1.5 times higher than what is reported to FAO by the surrounding countries for the same period. The total catch was low (around 50,000 t·year-1) until 1960, when it started its first increase until a decline in the early 1970s (Figure 3, Appendix Table A1), due to the war between Israel and the Arab countries in the region. The catch increased again from the mid-1970s, until it reached its peak of 177,000 tonnes in 1993. This phase is characterised by massive boat motorization and the introduction of industrial fishing by several Red Sea countries. This increased the effort and also allowed the expansion of the fisheries to areas they did not access previously. The total catch remained high, with some fluctuations, until the mid-2000s when it started to decline. This decline is here interpreted as a sign of resource depletion, especially in Yemen (Tesfamichael et al. 2012b).The reconstructed catch was higher than the FAO data, except for the last few years. An obvious reason why the reconstructed catch is generally higher is that we included discards, subsistence and recreational fisheries, which are not usually included in FAO data for the Red Sea. The higher FAO catch in the last few years of our analysis was caused by double counting of some fishery catches in the FAO database. This is due mainly to Egypt fishing outside its EEZ in the waters of Sudan, Eritrea and Yemen, and reporting all their catches as Egyptian, while Sudan, Eritrea and Yemen report some of these same catches to FAO as well, as they are taken within their EEZ. One can argue this catch should be reported by area, i.e., by the EEZ it was taken from, or by the country that has taken it. Here, in view of the current emphasis on ecosystem-based fisheries management, we focused on the area, i.e., the EEZ from which the catch originates, as it provides the spatial context for fisheries management. For completeness, we also indicate, in the database, the country fishing. Presently, there is no a regional fishery management agency for the Red Sea LME, and whatever management there is extends only to national schemes, pertaining to single EEZ. By country, Yemen has the highest percentages of the Red Sea catch (36%), followed by Egypt (28%), Saudi Arabia (23%), Eritrea (11%) and Sudan (2%), while Jordan and Israel contribute less than 0.2% each.The artisanal fisheries accounted for 49% of the total catch from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 4, Table A2). Their contribution was dominant throughout the whole period, unlike the industrial sector (22%), which is important only in the later part of the period covered here. This has major economic and social implications, as artisanal fisheries employ a higher number of fishers per tonne of catch (Pauly 2006), which translates to higher employment and livelihood in the communities. The discards (near exclusively from industrial fishing), which are usually ignored in official reports, represented 16% of the total catch. The subsistence catch was 12%, while the recreational fishery (1%), which started 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearCatch (10  t)3010050200150YemenEgyptSaudi ArabiaEritreaSudanIsraelJordanFAO Red Sea totalFigure 3.  Reconstructed catch of the countries bordering the Red Sea from 1950 to 2010 and its comparison to the data reported to FAO. Introduction - Tesfamichael and Pauly 9only recently, is still negligible. Egypt is the country with the most developed recreational fishery and even in that country, recreational catches are low.Comparing the reconstructed catch with the FAO data at taxonomic level, only 42% of the reconstructed catch was accounted in the FAO data, i.e., the reported catch (Figure 5, Table A3). The remaining 58% was not accounted at all, which included 43% unreported, but landed catch and 15% discarded catch, which is not landed and thus unreported as well.A total of 209 taxa or taxonomic group were identified as contributing to Red Sea catches, in addition to a group ‘others’ encompassing the minor taxa that were not represented separately. The taxa contributing most to the catch was Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta; 8%), Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson; 7%), and jacks (Carangidae; 7%). Emperors (Lethrinidae) and ponyfishes (Leiognathidae) each accounted for 5% of the total catch, the former prized fishes, the latter the dominant taxon in the discarded catch of industrial trawlers. These percentages suggest that there is no a single taxon that is overly dominant in the Red Sea fisheries, a reflection of their multi-species nature, and one of the main challenges in managing the Red Sea fisheries. The major taxonomic groups of the total catch composition are presented in (Figure 6). Only few taxa are included here for better visual effect of the figure. Appendix Table (A4) has a large list of the taxonomic composition.In the following, a brief per-country account is given, starting with Egypt and moving counter-clockwise along the Red Sea coast as the different chapters are introduced. For Egypt (Chapter 2), the reconstructed catch is higher than the fisheries catch statistics that Egypt submits to FAO from the beginning of 1960s until the beginning of 1990s, but the reverse occurs after the mid-1990s. This discrepancy is due to the fact that Egypt fishes outside its own waters (e.g., in Eritrean waters starting early 1990s (Tesfamichael and Mohamud 2012) and these catches are not included in the reconstruction (Tesfamichael and Mehanna 2012), as the focus of the reconstruction is to quantify the amount fished in the waters of various countries (also clearly identifying the fishing country) and not where they landed. The catch of Egyptian vessels from Eritrean waters is reported in the reconstruction of Eritrea.The Sudanese data (Chapter 3) submitted to FAO does not include the catches of shells (trochus and mother-of-pearl) fishery, which was very important before 1980s. Generally, there is no large difference between the reconstructed data and data submitted to FAO for Sudan. The sudden spike of Sudanese catch reported to FAO in 1983, on the other hand, is likely due to a reporting error, as there was no major change in the fisheries likely to cause such a sudden jump for only one year. The higher catches reported to FAO after the 1990s are also suspicious, as they contradict locally available data (Tesfamichael and Elawad 2012).For Eritrea (Chapter 4), Yemen (Chapter 5) and Saudi Arabia (Chapter 6), the reconstructed catches are higher than those reported to FAO, due to the latter not including various fisheries and omitting discards. The major discrepancies between the reconstructed data and data submitted to FAO for Eritrea are in the early decades (1950s and 1960s) and later, after 2000. Between those periods the fishery was largely inactive, hence catches were low (Tesfamichael and Mohamud 2012). For Yemen in the Red Sea, the reconstructed catch is higher than the reported catch, the difference being more consistent for Yemen than for any other country (Tesfamichael et al. 2012b). There Figure 6.   The major taxonomic composition of the total reconstructed catch of the Red Sea from 1950 to 2010.Figure 5.  Reconstructed catch of the Red Sea fisheries by components from 1950 to 2010.Figure 4.  Reconstructed catch of the Red Sea fisheries by sector from 1950 to 2010.  10is clear difference between the reconstructed and reported catch for Saudi Arabia in the Red Sea until the mid-1980s. After the mid-1980s, trawlers were introduced into the Saudi fishery, and hence the differences between the two data sets consist mainly of discard (Tesfamichael and Rossing 2012). The reconstructed catches of Israel and Jordan (Chapter 7) are negligible compared to those of the other countries (Tesfamichael et al. 2012a), which is understandable given their minuscule footholds in the inner Gulf of Aqaba. They also exhibited less fluctuation than the FAO data.In addition to the catch reconstruction for each country bordering the Red Sea, a list is provided of common commercial fishes caught by the fisheries in the Red Sea and their corresponding local names (Chapter 8). The names include valid scientific names, common English names, local (Arabic) names written in both Arabic script and Roman characters. We believe this will helps researchers, resource users and managers. A brief reconstruction of the effort of the Red Sea fisheries is provided as an appendix, by country and split between the artisanal and industrial sector. Jointly, the information presented here can help in better understanding the Red Sea and provide a basis for the management schemes that the future will require (Tesfamichael 2012).aCknowledgementsCompiling a long time series catch data involves many people. We are very grateful for the support and cooperation we received from the fisheries administration of the Red Sea countries. Without their involvement and sharing their information and data, this work would not have been possible. We have been helped by many fishers and managers who shared their knowledge and expertise during the interviews. We thank their time and insight. There were few individuals in each country that should be acknowledged individually. However, as their contributions were country-specific, we have opted to thank them in each country’s chapter. Here, we would like to mention and express our gratitude to the following people for their help overall: UBC librarian Sally Taylor for helping us locate old records, Dirk Zeller and Kyrstn Zylich for reviewing the database and the reports, and their insights, Evelyn Liu for drafting all our figures, Christopher Hoornaert for the GIS maps and Melanie Ang for formatting the report. This research was supported by Sea Around Us, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. Additional support was obtained from Eritrea’s Coastal, Marine & Island Biodiversity Conservation Project (ECMIB).referenCesAl-Khol AA and El-Hawary MM (1970) Some penaeids of the Red Sea. Bull. Inst. Oceanogr. Fish., Cairo 1: 339-377.Alder J, Cullis-Suzuki S, Karpouzi V, Kaschner K, Mondoux S, Swartz W, Trujillo P, Watson R and Pauly D (2010) Aggregate performance in managing marine ecosystems of 53 maritime countries. Marine Policy 34(3): 468-476.Alverson DL, Freeberg MH, Murawski SA and Pope JG (1994) A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO, Rome. 233 p.Atkins WSaP (1965) Development of fishing industry in Ethiopia. W. S. Atkins and Partners, Surrey and Addis Ababa. 282 p.Ben-Tuvia A (1968) Report on the fisheries investigation of the Israel South Red Sea expeditions, 1962. Sea Fish Res. Stn. Haifa, Bull. 52: 21–55.Ben-Yami M (1964) Report on the Fisheries in Ethiopia. Min. of Foreign Affairs, Dep. for International Cooperation, Jerusalem. 106 p.Beverton RJH and Holt SJ (1957) On the Dynamics of Exploited Fish Population. Chapman & Hall, London.Braithwaite CJR (1987) Geology and palaeogeography of the Red Sea region. pp. 22–44 In Edwards AJ and Head SM (eds.), Red Sea. Pergamon press, Oxford.Caddy JF and Gulland JA (1983) Historical patterns of fish stocks. Marine Policy 7(4): 267-278.Chakraborty D (1983) Marine fisheries statistics in Sudan–an expanded plan of development. FAO, Rome. 39 p.Chakraborty D (1984) Fish landings on the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden coast of the member countries: A preliminary estimate. Development of Fisheries in Areas of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Suez, Egypt. 29 p.Christensen V, Guénette S, Heymans JJ, Walters CJ, Watson R, Zeller D and Pauly D (2003) Hundred-year decline of North Atlantic predatory fishes. Fish and Fisheries 4(1): 1-24.Edgren G (1993) Expected economic and demographic developments in coastal zones world wide. In Beukenkamp P, Gunther R, Klein R, Misdorp D and Sadacharan LDV (eds.), World Coast ‘93, Noordwijk, The Netherlands. 367–370 p.Edwards FJ (1987) Climate and oceanography. pp. 45–69 In Edwards AJ and Head SM (eds.), Red Sea. Pergamon press, Oxford.El-Saby MK and Farina L (1954) Report to the government of Saudi Arabia on possibility for development of marine fisheries. FAO, Rome.Evans PGH (1987) Sea birds of the Red Sea. pp. 315–338 In Edwards AJ and Head SM (eds.), Red Sea. Pergamon press, Oxford.Forsskål P (1775) Descriptiones animalium, avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, vermium; quae in itinere orientali observavit. Hauniae, Copenhagen.Introduction - Tesfamichael and Pauly 11Frazier J, Bertram GC and Evans PGH (1987) Turtles and marine mammals. pp. 288–314 In Edwards AJ and Head SM (eds.), Red Sea. Pergamon press, Oxford.Frihy OE, Fanos AM, Khafagy AA and Abu Aesha KA (1996) Human impacts on the coastal zone of Hurghada, northern Red Sea, Egypt. Geo-Marine Letters 16(4): 324-329.Garibaldi L (2012) The FAO global capture production database: A six-decade effort to catch the trend. Marine Policy 36(3): 760-768.Getahun A (1998) The Red Sea as an extension of the Indian Ocean. pp. 277-281 In Sherman K, Okemwa EN and Ntiba MJ (eds.), Large marine ecosystems of the Indian Ocean: Assessment, sustainability, and management. Blackwell Science, Cambridge, MA.Girdler RW and Southren TC (1987) Structure and evolution of the northern Red Sea. Nature 330(6150): 716-721.Goren M (1986) A suggested model for the recolonization process of the Red Sea at the post glacial period. In Uyeno T, Arai R, Taniuchi T and Matsuura K (eds.), Int. Conf. on Indo-Pacific Fishes, 29 Jul-Aug 3 1985, 29 Jul-Aug 3 1985, Tokyo (Japan).Grofit E (1971) The Red-Sea fisheries of Ethiopia (1966–1969). Min. of Foreign Affairs, Dep. for International cooperation, Jerusalem. 82 p.Gulland JA, editor (1971) The fish resources of the ocean. Fishing News Books, Surrey, U.K.Gulland JA (1975) Manual of methods for fisheries resource survey and appraisal. Part 5. Objectives and basic methods.Harley SJ, Myers RA and Dunn A (2001) Is catch-per-unit-effort proportional to abundance? Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 1760-1772.Head SM (1987a) Introduction. pp. 1–21 In Edwards AJ and Head SM (eds.), Red Sea. Pergamon press, Oxford.Head SM (1987b) Red Sea fisheries. pp. 363-382 In Edwards AJ and Head SM (eds.), Red Sea: Key Environments. Pergamon press, Oxford.Hilborn R and Walters CJ (1992) Quantitative fisheries stock assessment. Choice, dynamics and uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New York.Horton M (1987) The human settlement of the Red Sea. pp. 339–362 In Edwards AJ and Head SM (eds.), Red Sea. Pergamon press, Oxford.Kelleher K (2004) Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: An update. FAO, Rome. 134 p.Kleiber P and Maunder MN (2008) Inherent bias in using aggregate CPUE to characterize abundance of fish species assemblages. Fisheries Research 93(1–2): 140-145.Klunzinger CB (1870) Eine zoologische Excursion auf ein Korallenriff des rothen Meeres. Verhandlungen der zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft Wien 20: 389-394.Klunzinger CB (1872) Zoologische Exkursionen auf ein Korallenriff des Rothen Meeres bei Kossér. Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 7: 20-55.Klunzinger CB (1878) Upper Egypt: its people and its products. A descriptive account of the manners, customs, superstitions, and occupations of the people of the Nile Valley, the desert, and the Red Sea coast, with sketches of the natural history and geology: ixv, 1-408, figs. Blackie and Son, London.Kristjonsson H (1956) A brief survey of the Sudanese red sea fisheries–Report to the government. FAO, Rome.Larkin PA (1977) An Epitaph for the Concept of Maximum Sustained Yield. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106(1): 1-11.Lisac H (1971) Report to travel to Yemen Arabic and the People’s Republic of Southern Yemen, (16 January–1 February 1972) FAO Fish. Travel Aide Mem., FAO, Rome.Losse G (1973) Marine resources of the Yemen Arabic Republic. A report prepared for the the UNEP/FAO Food and Nutrition programme 1973.Luksch J (1898) Expedition S. M. Schiff “Pola” in das Rothe Meer, Nördliche Hälfte (Oct. 1895-May 1896). Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse. VI. Physikalische Untersuchungen. Denkschrifte der Akademie der Wissenschaften (Mathematische-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse) 65: 351-422, Wien.Luksch J (1900) Expedition S. M. Schiff “Pola” in das Rothe Meer, Südliche Hälfte (September 1897-April 1898). Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse. XVIII. Physikalische Untersuchungen. Denkschrifte der Akademie der Wissenschaften (Mathematische-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse), Wien.Makris J and Rihm R (1991) Shear-controlled evolution of the Red Sea: pull apart model. Tectonophysics 198(2-4): 441-466.Mohammed E (2003) Reconstructing fisheries catches and fishing effort for the southeastern Caribbean (1940-2001): General methodology. University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC (Canada) Fish. Cent.Morcos SA (1970) Physical and chemical oceanography of the Red Sea. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol 8: 73-202.Norman J (1939) Fishes. pp. 1–116 In History) BMN (ed.), The John Murray expedition 1933–1934: Scientific reportsVII London.Ormond R and Edwards A (1987) Red Sea fishes. pp. 251–287 In Edwards AJ and Head SM (eds.), Red Sea. Pergamon press, Oxford.Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10(10): 430.Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. Bulletin. EC Fisheries Cooperation/Bulletin. CE Cooperation Peche. Brussels 11(2): 4-10.Pauly D (2006) Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with emphasis on developing countries, and some implications for the social sciences. Maritime Studies 4(2): 7-22.Pauly D and Froese R (2012) Comments on FAO’s State of Fisheries and Aquaculture, or ‘SOFIA 2010’. Marine Policy 36(3): 746-752. 12Pauly D and Watson R (2008) Adjusting for context in evaluating national fisheries statistics reporting systems. pp. 57-61 In Alder J and Pauly D (eds.), A comparative assessment of biodiversity, fisheries and aquaculture in 53 countries’ exclusive economic zones. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 16(7), Vancouver, Canada.Pauly D and Zeller D (2003) The global fisheries crisis as a rationale for improving the FAO’s database of fisheries statistics. pp. 1–9 In Zeller D, Booth S, Mohammed E and Pauly D (eds.), Western Central Atlantic and Brazil: fisheries catches and ecosystem models in the second half of the 20th century. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol. 11 (6), Vancouver, Canada.Pilcher N and Alsuhaibany A (2000) Regional status of coral reefs in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. pp. 35–64 In Wilknson C (ed.), Status of coral reefs of the world: 2000. Australian Institute of Marine Science, DampierPitcher TJ (1995) The impact of pelagic fish behaviour on fisheries. Scientia Marina 59(3-4): 295-306.Pitcher TJ (2005) Back-to-future: a fresh policy initiative for fisheries and a restoration ecology for ocean ecosystems. Philosophical transactions of the royal society 360(1453): 107-121.Pitcher TJ, Watson R, Forrest R, Valtysson HP and Guenette S (2002) Estimating illegal and unreported catches from marine ecosystems: a basis for change. Fish and Fisheries 3(4): 317-339.Preen A (1989) Dugongs Vol. 1. The status and conservation of Dugongs in the Arabian Region. MEPA Coastal and Marine Management Series, MEPA, Jeddah. 200 p.Punt AE and Smith ADM (2001) The gospel of maximum sustainable yield in fisheries management: birth, crucifixion and reincarnation. pp. 41-66 In Reynolds JD, Mace GM, Redford KR and Robinson JR (eds.), Conservation of Exploited Species Cambridge University Press, UK.Raitsos DE, Hoteit I, Prihartato PK, Chronis T, Triantafyllou G and Abualnaja Y (2011) Abrupt warming of the Red Sea. Geophysical Research Letters 38(14): L14601.Sadovy Y and Domeier M (2005) Are aggregation-fisheries sustainable? Reef fish fisheries as a case study. Coral Reefs 24(2): 254-262.Scott Baker C and Clapham PJ (2004) Modelling the past and future of whales and whaling. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19(7): 365-371.Sheppard C, Price A and Roberts C (1992) Marine ecology of the Arabian region: Patterns and Processes in Extreme Tropical Environments. Academic press, London.Smeed DA (2004) Exchange through the Bab el Mandab. Deep Sea Research (Part II, Topical Studies in Oceanography) 51(4-5): 455-474.Sparre PJ (2000) Manual on sample-based data collection for fisheries assessment: Examples from Viet Nam. FAO, Rome. 171 p.Stagl V, Sattmann H and Dworschak PC (1996) The material of the “Pola” Red Sea Expeditions (1895-1898) in the collections of the Natural History Museum in Vienna. In Uiblein F, Ott J and Stachowitsch M (eds.), Deep-sea and extreme shallow-water habitats: affinities and adaptations. Biosystematics and Ecology Series 11:29-41.Tesfamichael D (2005) Reconstructing the John Murray/Mabahiss expedition. The Sea Around Us Project Newletter (29): 4.Tesfamichael D (2012) Assessment of the Red Sea ecosystem with emphasis on fisheries. PhD, University of British Columbia, Resource Management and Environmental Studies, Vancouver. 241 p.Tesfamichael D and Elawad AN (2012) Reconstructing Red Sea fisheries of Sudan: Foreign aid and fisheries. In Tesfamichael D and Pauly D (eds.), Catch reconstruction for the Red Sea large marine ecosystem by countries (1950 – 2010). Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol. 20 (1), Vancouver.Tesfamichael D, Govender R and Pauly D (2012a) Preliminary reconstruction of fisheries catches of Jordan and Israel in the inner Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea, 1950-2010. In Tesfamichael D and Pauly D (eds.), Catch reconstruction for the Red Sea large marine ecosystem by countries (1950 – 2010). Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol. 20 (1), Vancouver.Tesfamichael D and Mehanna SF (2012) Reconstructing Red Sea fisheries of Egypt: Heavy investment and fisheries. In Tesfamichael D and Pauly D (eds.), Catch reconstruction for the Red Sea large marine ecosystem by countries (1950 – 2010). Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol. 20 (1), Vancouver.Tesfamichael D and Mohamud S (2012) Reconstructing Red Sea fisheries of Eritrea: A case study of the relationship between political stability and fisheries development. In Tesfamichael D and Pauly D (eds.), Catch reconstruction for the Red Sea large marine ecosystem by countries (1950 – 2010). Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol. 20 (1), Vancouver.Tesfamichael D and Pauly D (2011) Learning from the Past for Future Policy: Approaches to Time-series Catch Data Reconstruction. Western Indian Ocean J. Mar. Sci. 10(2): 99-106.Tesfamichael D and Pitcher TJ (2006) Multidisciplinary evaluation of the sustainability of Red Sea fisheries using Rapfish. Fisheries Research 78(2-3): 227-235.Tesfamichael D and Pitcher TJ (2007) Estimating the unreported catch of Eritrean Red Sea fisheries. African Journal of Marine Science 29(1): 55-63.Tesfamichael D, Pitcher TJ and Pauly D (in press) Assessing changes in fisheries using fishers’ knowledge to generate long time series of catch rates: a case study from the Red Sea. Ecology and society.Tesfamichael D and Rossing P (2012) Reconstructing Red Sea fisheries catches of Saudi Arabia: National wealth and fisheries transformation. In Tesfamichael D and Pauly D (eds.), Catch reconstruction for the Red Sea large marine ecosystem by countries (1950 – 2010). Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol. 20 (1), Vancouver.Tesfamichael D, Rossing P and Awadh H (2012b) The marine fisheries of Yemen with emphasis on the Red Sea and cooperatives. In Tesfamichael D and Pauly D (eds.), Catch reconstruction for the Red Sea large marine ecosystem by countries (1950 – 2010). Fisheries Centre Research Reports, Vol. 20 (1), Vancouver.Introduction - Tesfamichael and Pauly 13Thunell RC, Locke SM and Williams DF (1988) Glacio-eustatic sea-level control on Red Sea salinity. 334(6183): 601-604.Walker DI (1987) Benthic algae. pp. 152–168 In Edwards AJ and Head SM (eds.), Red Sea. Pergamon press, Oxford.Walter RC, Buffler RT, Bruggemann JH, Guillaume MMM, Berhe SM, Negassi B, Libsekal Y, Cheng H, Edwards RL, von Cosel R, Neraudeau D and Gagnon M (2000) Early human occupation of the Red Sea coast of Eritrea during the last interglacial. Nature 405(6782): 65-69.Walters C (1986) Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. McMillan Publisher Co., New York. 374 p.Walters CJ and Bonfil R (1999) Multispecies spatial assessment models for the British Columbia groundfish trawl fishery. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56(4): 601-628.Watson R and Pauly D (2001) Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature 414(6863): 534-536.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fisheries catches for U.S. flag island areas in the Western Pacific: The last 50 years. US Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266-277.Zeller D and Pauly D (2005) Good news, bad news: global fisheries discards are declining, so are total catches. Fish and Fisheries 6(2): 156-159. 14Appendix Table A1: Reconstructed catch (in tonnes) of the countries bordering the Red Sea from 1950 to 2010 and its comparison to the data reported to FAO. Year FAO landings Reconstructed total catch Yemen Egypt Saudi Arabia Eritrea Sudan Israel Jordan1950 12,194 55,071 11,458 5,535 7,326 28,599 1,946 66 1421951 13,218 55,166 11,631 5,683 7,326 28,599 1,721 66 1421952 18,771 55,937 11,841 5,831 7,326 28,599 2,133 66 1421953 18,962 56,153 12,069 5,980 7,326 28,599 1,972 66 1421954 20,427 56,509 12,316 6,129 7,509 28,599 1,749 66 1421955 23,736 56,383 11,933 6,277 7,692 28,599 1,663 77 1421956 24,467 52,402 12,239 5,247 7,875 25,051 1,761 88 1421957 25,639 55,495 12,544 11,839 8,058 21,503 1,311 98 1421958 25,583 53,105 12,852 12,397 8,241 18,054 1,309 109 1421959 29,273 49,897 13,171 12,569 8,424 13,848 1,622 120 1421960 30,129 48,235 13,500 11,270 8,608 13,166 1,418 131 1421961 32,139 60,342 13,842 18,417 8,791 17,684 1,324 142 1421962 42,712 69,555 14,201 30,454 8,974 14,157 1,475 153 1421963 41,084 76,642 14,554 37,841 9,157 13,159 1,626 163 1421964 37,392 81,296 14,899 41,475 8,167 14,661 1,777 174 1421965 39,282 91,316 15,225 41,750 9,428 22,657 1,928 185 1421966 38,426 83,324 15,525 29,647 10,039 25,695 2,080 196 1421967 36,809 80,393 15,810 29,328 10,805 22,325 1,783 206 1351968 36,041 77,079 16,086 29,087 11,803 18,365 1,393 217 1291969 38,671 79,475 16,362 28,904 13,265 18,888 1,713 222 1221970 40,010 87,412 20,510 28,776 13,293 22,406 2,085 227 1161971 46,233 89,365 20,363 30,224 13,322 23,797 1,319 231 1091972 41,963 82,974 19,679 33,699 13,699 13,886 1,672 236 1021973 27,277 59,395 19,535 16,728 14,075 7,162 1,580 241 751974 31,644 74,843 21,380 30,235 14,450 7,027 1,367 279 1051975 31,051 82,196 22,776 38,618 14,824 4,637 955 286 991976 34,349 91,687 24,410 46,756 15,196 3,393 1,562 292 781977 32,613 84,947 27,085 39,751 15,222 1,481 1,041 299 691978 36,728 88,218 28,647 37,422 19,160 1,258 1,355 305 701979 49,050 89,831 28,016 40,629 16,905 1,314 2,576 311 791980 44,233 83,142 27,530 36,123 15,516 1,758 1,781 346 881981 47,139 88,513 31,511 35,589 17,056 1,366 2,579 317 961982 47,100 95,047 34,218 35,868 20,950 1,455 2,328 122 1051983 50,018 95,561 27,847 42,473 20,685 2,223 2,106 113 1141984 50,104 98,079 27,068 43,490 22,916 2,036 2,262 151 1561985 62,333 100,831 29,651 35,339 31,376 1,699 2,364 204 1981986 62,597 105,332 32,528 35,118 33,141 1,724 2,420 206 1961987 83,220 114,395 33,863 35,659 40,138 1,452 2,892 196 1941988 90,283 124,165 37,033 38,649 44,163 980 2,959 187 1931989 106,386 138,613 42,429 48,012 43,304 759 3,764 155 1911990 101,623 133,641 42,859 46,970 40,401 533 2,567 122 1891991 114,136 148,208 59,018 41,520 44,500 535 2,354 90 1921992 118,048 152,994 63,539 43,715 41,921 1,058 2,408 158 1941993 135,085 176,943 79,390 49,255 44,525 1,005 2,431 141 1961994 137,648 171,632 81,409 33,231 49,503 5,017 2,080 175 2181995 131,708 162,695 78,507 34,120 40,353 6,913 2,342 214 2461996 119,382 141,913 65,977 30,834 37,766 4,346 2,457 296 2381997 133,088 167,935 88,038 33,507 42,108 1,501 2,312 240 2291998 131,384 163,244 89,499 28,347 39,500 2,714 2,758 206 2201999 155,244 171,199 89,922 24,983 40,500 12,598 2,764 166 2662000 139,742 164,542 69,768 33,454 37,485 20,626 2,762 190 2572001 134,293 157,725 69,699 28,684 39,431 16,703 2,738 190 2802002 142,696 168,085 78,402 32,044 38,497 15,570 3,189 95 2882003 136,406 169,269 80,393 31,586 37,820 15,565 3,575 94 2372004 138,811 159,861 76,315 31,993 29,180 16,545 5,410 168 2502005 124,519 139,738 64,934 24,249 34,396 10,442 5,310 141 2662006 128,752 137,630 58,872 22,783 34,329 18,769 2,486 140 2512007 118,105 117,813 48,884 23,247 38,206 4,634 2,469 113 2602008 117,069 122,244 49,752 26,002 38,406 3,853 3,864 112 2552009 126,212 121,131 46,728 26,662 38,601 5,683 2,993 132 3322010 124,397 116,368 44,358 24,279 38,796 6,721 1,873 99 242Introduction - Tesfamichael and Pauly 15Appendix Table A2: Reconstructed catch (in tonnes) of the Red Sea fisheries by sector from 1950 to 2010. Year Artisanal Industrial Discards Subsistence Recreational1950 44,191 557 1,848 8,475 01951 44,132 580 1,895 8,559 01952 44,737 604 1,939 8,658 01953 44,781 627 1,980 8,765 01954 44,920 650 2,019 8,920 01955 44,758 674 2,055 8,896 01956 41,722 429 1,177 9,074 01957 38,137 1,940 6,165 9,253 01958 35,002 2,140 6,529 9,434 01959 31,533 2,195 6,551 9,619 01960 30,470 4,110 3,818 9,837 01961 34,061 7,909 8,343 10,028 01962 30,687 14,056 14,618 10,194 01963 30,029 15,718 20,507 10,388 01964 32,193 13,490 25,797 9,815 01965 41,715 13,282 26,175 10,144 01966 45,494 10,676 16,675 10,479 01967 42,821 11,786 15,077 10,709 01968 39,437 13,017 13,642 10,966 161969 41,503 14,325 12,330 11,287 321970 45,903 16,295 13,729 11,387 1001971 46,799 18,667 12,309 11,422 1681972 37,957 18,661 14,551 11,568 2371973 32,847 6,485 7,853 11,903 3061974 35,171 18,311 8,434 12,494 4331975 35,474 17,527 17,036 11,654 5051976 36,365 26,368 16,393 11,983 5781977 37,008 21,520 13,596 12,172 6511978 41,502 20,396 12,767 12,829 7241979 41,372 25,207 9,855 12,600 7971980 39,693 19,299 10,936 12,345 8681981 44,670 17,901 11,713 13,290 9401982 46,869 21,713 11,852 13,601 1,0121983 40,683 29,898 11,279 12,616 1,0841984 41,040 33,072 10,255 12,553 1,1591985 50,073 25,793 9,883 13,848 1,2341986 53,181 24,295 12,196 14,350 1,3101987 60,350 27,211 10,191 15,257 1,3861988 64,902 30,468 11,526 15,806 1,4621989 70,480 40,661 9,580 16,354 1,5381990 67,598 39,785 8,763 15,882 1,6131991 80,908 35,848 11,792 17,969 1,6911992 85,044 37,411 10,311 18,460 1,7691993 98,486 44,686 11,931 19,994 1,8461994 96,826 34,243 19,133 19,517 1,9131995 78,686 37,507 27,580 16,940 1,9821996 64,910 34,496 25,706 14,744 2,0561997 83,682 36,776 28,343 17,005 2,1291998 81,832 33,943 28,718 16,549 2,2021999 80,120 37,625 35,097 16,108 2,2472000 57,707 54,083 37,532 12,916 2,3022001 55,678 46,683 40,219 12,775 2,3702002 61,497 49,829 41,422 12,889 2,4482003 58,511 49,622 46,478 12,128 2,5302004 57,826 49,523 38,402 11,443 2,6672005 55,588 36,492 33,241 11,619 2,7982006 57,413 36,089 29,558 11,646 2,9232007 58,976 26,884 17,140 11,769 3,0432008 55,985 30,859 20,851 11,387 3,1612009 53,946 32,144 20,771 10,994 3,2762010 49,370 31,242 22,033 10,335 3,388 16Appendix Table A3: Reconstructed catch (in tonnes) of the Red Sea fisheries by components from 1950 to 2010. Year Reported Unreported Discards1950 8,726 44,497 1,8481951 8,777 44,495 1,8951952 11,647 42,352 1,9391953 12,262 41,911 1,9801954 12,211 42,279 2,0191955 13,829 40,500 2,0551956 12,464 38,761 1,1771957 14,181 35,150 6,1651958 14,646 31,929 6,5291959 15,102 28,245 6,5511960 17,742 26,675 3,8181961 20,988 31,010 8,3431962 26,939 27,998 14,6181963 27,939 28,195 20,5071964 27,251 28,248 25,7971965 30,967 34,174 26,1751966 29,328 37,322 16,6751967 27,232 38,084 15,0771968 23,336 40,101 13,6421969 27,195 39,950 12,3301970 29,201 44,483 13,7291971 32,952 44,104 12,3091972 25,712 42,711 14,5511973 16,654 34,888 7,8531974 21,105 45,304 8,4341975 20,075 45,085 17,0361976 23,836 51,458 16,3931977 22,863 48,488 13,5961978 25,477 49,974 12,7671979 32,113 47,863 9,8551980 29,472 42,733 10,9361981 35,103 41,697 11,7131982 34,361 48,834 11,8521983 34,717 49,564 11,2791984 38,327 49,497 10,2551985 43,253 47,695 9,8831986 49,825 43,312 12,1961987 62,967 41,236 10,1911988 64,919 47,720 11,5261989 68,540 60,493 9,5801990 70,569 54,308 8,7631991 81,425 54,991 11,7921992 81,272 61,412 10,3111993 91,608 73,403 11,9311994 92,412 60,088 19,1331995 80,086 55,028 27,5801996 71,143 45,064 25,7061997 77,540 62,051 28,3431998 74,258 60,268 28,7181999 80,412 55,690 35,0972000 68,325 58,684 37,5322001 65,586 51,920 40,2192002 71,814 54,849 41,4222003 71,503 51,288 46,4782004 73,658 47,801 38,4022005 69,711 36,786 33,2412006 73,326 34,745 29,5582007 67,674 32,999 17,1402008 68,070 33,323 20,8512009 69,231 31,128 20,7712010 65,161 29,174 22,033Introduction - Tesfamichael and Pauly 17Appendix Table A4: The major taxonomic composition of the total reconstructed catch (in tonnes) of the Red Sea from 1950 to 2010. Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141950 4,975 3,616 2,203 1,376 84 17,500 9,663 1,556 795 190 0 8 414 6281951 5,048 3,647 2,215 1,395 84 17,500 9,677 1,565 795 201 0 9 427 6371952 5,136 3,684 2,228 1,416 84 17,500 9,693 1,574 795 212 0 9 438 6491953 5,232 3,725 2,242 1,438 84 17,500 9,711 1,584 795 224 0 10 449 6611954 5,339 3,809 2,285 1,475 84 17,500 9,731 1,617 812 235 0 11 459 6751955 5,183 3,784 2,319 1,487 84 17,500 9,701 1,646 830 246 0 11 468 6541956 5,315 3,877 2,354 1,502 84 15,173 8,562 1,652 848 128 0 6 238 6711957 5,447 3,971 2,430 1,539 84 12,846 7,422 1,877 866 856 0 38 1,547 6881958 5,581 4,066 2,474 1