UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Marine Fisheries Catches in West Africa, 1950-2010 : Part 1 Belhabib, Dyhia; Zeller, Dirk, 1961-; Harper, Susan; Pauly, D. (Daniel) 2012

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Belhabib_D_et_al_Marine_fisheries_catches.pdf [ 4.21MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0354243.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0354243-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0354243-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0354243-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0354243-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0354243-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0354243-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0354243-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0354243.ris

Full Text

ISSN 1198-6727Number2012 VolumeFisheries Centre Research Reports MARINE FISHERIES CATCHES IN WEST AFRICA, 1950-2010, PART I20 3ISSN 1198-6727 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, CanadaFisheries Centre Research Reports MARINE FISHERIES CATCHES INWEST AFRICA, 1950-2010, PART I2012 Volume 20 Number 3Marine fisheries catches in West Africa, 1950-2010, part iEdited byFisheries Centre Research Reports 20(3)104 pages © published 2012 byThe Fisheries Centre,University of British Columbia2202 Main MallVancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4 ISSN 1198-6727 Dyhia Belhabib, Dirk Zeller, Sarah Harper and Daniel PaulyContentA 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(3)104 pages © Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2012Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(3)2012Marine fisheries catches in West africa, 1950-2010, Part iEdited byDyhia Belhabib, Dirk Zeller, Sarah Harper and Daniel PaulyDirector’s Foreword iReconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria, 1950-2010 1Dyhia Belhabib, Daniel Pauly, Sarah Harper and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Morocco, 1950-2010 23Dyhia Belhabib,Sarah Harper, Dirk Zeller and Daniel PaulyAn overview of fish removals from Morocco by Distant Water Fleets 41Dyhia Belhabib, Sarah Harper and Dirk ZellerPreliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals from Mauritania: 1950-2010 61Dyhia Belhabib, Didier Gascuel, Elimane Abou Kane, Sarah Harper, Dirk Zeller and Daniel PaulyReconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Cape Verde, 1950-2010 79Isaac Trindade Santos, Carlos Alberto Monteiro, Sarah Harper, Dirk Zeller and Dyhia BelhabibGuinean fisheries, past, present and...future? 91Dyhia Belhabib, Alkaly Doumbouya, Duncan Copeland, Beatrice Gorez, Sarah Harper, Dirk Zeller and Daniel PaulyiFisheries provide food for a large number of people all over the world. In West Africa, fish is a major source of animal protein and millions of people depend on it, being the cheapest and more accessible animal protein resource for local populations. The contribution of West African fisheries to food security is often undermined. Moreover, the low official fish consumption rate presented by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (14.7 kg per capita, 1999-2006) does not reflect a reality where significant catches are unreported and therefore under-estimated in official statistics. More comprehensive catch data reported herein reveal that annual fish consumption can be as high as 88 kg per capita in some coastal communities of West Africa, which demonstrates the importance of fish to their food security. Fisheries also provide jobs and incomes, further increasing food security and allowing people to purchase high calorie staples. This report presents a historical perspective of fisheries and a more realistic estimate of fisheries removals from the exclusive economic zones of six Northwest African countries (Algeria, Morocco, Western Sahara, Mauritania, Cape Verde and Guinea). The rationale behind this work negates zero as a valid estimate for existing large-scale and small-scale fishing sector catches. The reconstructed catches include both domestic and foreign fisheries extractions, providing higher resolution catch data for six decades. Through a comprehensive review of the literature and local expert knowledge, the authors have reduced the level of uncertainty related to the catch reconstruction methods. As such, the results in this contribution provide a more realistic baseline, not only for determining future trends of fisheries but for estimating the sustainable surplus that can be accessed by distant-waters fleets in these waters. I therefore commend the authors for this important contribution.U.R. SumailaDirector, Fisheries Centre, UBCDirector’s foreWorDReconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria-Belhabib et al. 1ReconstRuction of maRine fisheRies catches foR algeRia, 1950-20101Dyhia Belhabib, Daniel Pauly, Sarah Harper and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canadad.belhabib@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstRactTotal marine fisheries catches by Algeria were estimated from 1950 to 2010, including commercial landings, subsistence and recreational catches, as well as illegal and unreported catches. Commercial landings were obtained from FAO fisheries statistics database and from other sources. Non-commercial catch estimates were obtained from field survey data converted to per capita rates and catch per unit of effort estimates using Algerian population and effort data. Illegal catches and discards were estimated using recent at-sea observer data, expanded to cover the 1950-2010 time period. Total reconstructed catches were estimated to be 7.14 million tonnes over the study period, which is almost twice as high as the official landings of 3.9 million tonnes supplied to the FAO. In addition, we noted that the strong decline in catch per unit of effort is probably exacerbated by government subsidies to the fisheries sector.intRoductionLocated in the south of the Western Mediterranean basin, Algeria claimed an Exclusive Fishing Zone (EFZ) of 95,000 km2 in 1994 (Cacaud 2002a) (Figure 1). The narrow continental shelf is a constraint to the development of the Algerian fisheries (Maurin 1962; Chaussade and Corlay 1989); thus, in Algeria, fisheries are mainly coastal (Coppola 2001) and target mainly small pelagic fish (Oliver 1983; Zeghdoudi 2006; www.mpeche.gov.dz [2001]), but also large pelagic fish and other species depending on the season (Coppola 2001; Sahi and Bouaicha 2003). The rocky bottoms hinder large-scale bottom trawling, which is mainly performed with small boats (Ordines et al. 2009). This fleet targets mainly high value species, e.g., red shrimp (Aristeus antennatus) (Belhabib 2007). The fisheries on the eastern and western coasts are the most productive, because of the strength of the Atlantic current (Furnestin 1961; Gulland 1971; Millot 1985, 1987) in the West and a relatively large continental shelf in the East (Oliver 1983). From 1830 to 1962, Algeria was a French colony; the war for liberation started in 1954 and ended with independence in 1962, when many fishers left the country (Boude 1987). Afterwards, Algeria had a period of large investments in the agricultural and oil and gas sectors, and political stability during the 1970s and early 1980s (CIHEAM 2005). However, the fishing industry, privatized in the mid-1970s (Ministerial Decree of September 29, 1979) has been relatively neglected (FAO 2011).These events have certainly impacted the fishing industry. From the late 1970s to the 2000s, unequal development and insecurity in rural areas accelerated the migration towards coastal cities, which led to an increasing demand for fish products. Yet, Algeria is still the country where the consumption of seafood is stated to be the lowest in the south-western Mediterranean (faostat.fao.org [2011]). Despite an overall increasing trend (71% increase in GDP since independence; www.worldbank.org [2011]), the fishing industry represents only around 1.3% of the GDP (Breuil 1997). Consequently, investment and financing programs targeting fisheries have been implemented in 1988, 1994, 2000-2003 and 2004-2007 (MPRH 2008), which led to increasing pressure on fish stocks (MATE 2006). Catch data reported to FAO often excludes important components such as by-catch, discards and recreational catches (Garibaldi 2012). Besides, fisheries lack a reliable landings data collection system to provide a better understanding 1 Cite as: Belhabib, D., Pauly, D., Harper, S. and Zeller, D. (2012) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria, 1950-2010. pp 1-22. In: Belhabib, D., Zeller, D., Harper, S. and Pauly, D. (eds.),  Marine fisheries catches in West Africa, 1950-2010, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (3). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  Map of the Exclusive Fishing Zone of Algeria. 2of the fisheries dynamics in the country, which is a requirement for effective fisheries policy (MATE 2006; F. Hemida, pers. comm., Université de la Technologie et des Sciences Houari Boumedienne (UTSHB), 2011). With a fishing fleet of nearly 5,000 boats, including newly introduced industrial purse-seiners, and more than thirty seaports and 34 other landing sites in 14 coastal wilayas (districts), fishing in Algeria is important. Therefore, the trends in Algerian fisheries catches must be studied and analyzed to provide a solid basis for fisheries management and development policies.methodsElectronic time series of landings data from 1950 to 2010 were available through the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) FishstatJ database and used in this paper. In addition, we used data available from scientific and socio-economic reports (Furnestin 1961; Simonnet 1961; Vidal Junemann 1976; Oliver 1983) and statistical bulletins covering the period 1990 to 2007 of the Ministry of Fisheries and Fish Resources of Algeria (www.mpeche.gouv.dz [2011]). Reported landings are distinguished by species or higher taxonomic grouping and `miscellaneous groups´. Since the main goal of this study is to estimate total catches per species or higher taxonomic group, we compared the data supplied by Algeria to FAO to the above-cited national reports and used them as a reported baseline, to which we added: (1) illegal, unreported, and unregulated catches; (2) discards; (3) recreational and subsistence fisheries; (4) commercial catch adjustment including underreported catches of commercialized species; and (5) foreign flag catches.Illegal, unreported and unregulated commercial catchesThis category includes the unreported portion of the artisanal catches since these are not properly covered by the official statistics. Illegal unreported catches also reported to as marine living resource crime by the United Nations and INTERPOL (INTERPOL 2010; UNODC 2011) include mainly undersized fishes.Artisanal commercial landingsThis paper highlights the under-reported portion of catches, with a particular emphasis on grouper catches, due to their overexploited status in the Mediterranean (Kara and Derbal 1999). Artisanal fisheries catches in Algeria are underestimated (MPRH 2011)2, with about 80% of the catches being unreported (MATE 2005b; 2006; F. Hemida, pers. comm., UTSHB). From the 1950s to the late 1960s, only a few authors mentioned the artisanal fishing effort (Furnestin 1961; Simonnet 1961; Oliver 1983). From 1970 to 1980, development programs targeted some of the artisanal fleets (Boukhalfa and Rambeau 1993). Since then, fisheries subsidies to increase fishing effort have been provided through successive government programs (www.mpeche.gov.dz [2011]). Consequently, the interest in recording the artisanal fishing effort increased, but without focusing on concomitant catch. Since no national artisanal catch datasets are 2  This information was provided by sources in local branches of the Ministry of Fisheries and Fisheries Resources who indicated that the real catch data were not reported to the Ministry. The individual sources preferred to remain anonymous.Table 1. Taxonomic composition of the artisanal fisheries in Algeria, based on MPRH (2011) and Griffiths et al. (2007).Common name Taxona Catch (%)Surmullets Mullus spp. 2.59European hake Merluccius merluccius 3.97Common pandora Pagellus erythrinus 6.12Gilthead seabream Sparus aurata 10.70Sole Soleidae 0.06Groupers Epinephelidae; Polyprionidae 7.39Pargo breams Pagrus spp. 6.44Axillary seabream Pagellus acarne 0.12Blackspot seabream Pagellus bogaraveo 0.66Sparidae Sparidae 0.12Moronidae Moronidae 0.10Red gurnard Aspitrigla cuculus 0.01Salema Sarpa salpa 1.66Rockfishes Sebastinae and Scorpaeninae 7.31Electric rays Torpedinidae 0.19Rays Rajidae 0.27Miscellaneous demersal fish - 0.39Sardinellas Sardinella spp. 0.08European anchovy Engraulis encrasicholus 0.01European pilchard Sardina pilchardus 27.60Horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus 3.71Atlantic mackerel Scomber japonicus; S. scombrus 0.43Bogue Boops boops 0.34Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili 0.02Barracudas nei Sphyraena sphyraena; S. virdensis 0.18Grey mullets Mugilidae (Liza spp.) 0.97Miscellaneous small pelagic - 0.41Yellowfin tuna Thunnus spp. 1.36Little tunny Euthynus alleteratus 10.39Swordfish Xiphias gladius 1.56Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis and Sarda sarda 2.75Blue and red shrimp Aristeus antennatus 0.01Deep-water rose shrimp Parapenaeus longirostris 0.01Palinurid spiny lobsters Palinurus 1.81Palinuridae Palinuridae 0.08Scyllaridae Scyllarus spp. 0.03Smooth-hound Mustelus mustelus 0.08Gulper shark Centrophorus granulosus 0.01Nursehound Scyliorhinus spp.  0.01Common cuttlefish Sepia officinalis 0.09Common octopus Octopus vulgaris 0.02European squid Loligo vulgaris 0.01a) Djabali et al. (1993)Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria-Belhabib et al. 3available, we used local catch and artisanal effort data from two local branches of the Ministry of Fisheries and Fisheries Resources (MPRH 2011). The total small-scale landings reported are 176 t·year-1 for the first district and 341 t·boat-1·year-1 for the second (MPRH 2011), and a catch per unit of effort (CPUE) of 84 t·year-1 for a third district (Bouazouni 2004). We adjusted the landings by +70% instead of +80% to allow for a conservative estimate. We then divided the estimated catch by the fishing effort, where all active boats are reported to both local branches. We averaged these estimates and obtained a CPUE of 38.15 t·boat-1·year-1 for the active fleet in 2010 and generalized it over the other districts. Then, we assumed the CPUE was 50% higher in 1980 and 70% higher in 1950 because of the over-exploitation pattern of the coastal resources (Simonnet 1961; Oliver 1983). Thereafter, we interpolated linearly to estimate the annual CPUE. Based on the survey of Sahi and Bouaicha (2003), 89% of the artisanal fleet is active. We applied this to the available total effort data (1957, 1958, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1987-2009). We then estimated total catches using the derived CPUE and active effort time series, under the assumption that the fleet efficiency as well as the fishing grounds remained largely unchanged (PNUE 1996). Then, we interpolated linearly to complete the estimates for the missing years. During the period 2003-2004, a decrease in active artisanal fishing boats and landings was observed (MATE 2006). We applied an arbitrary correction rate of -15% to the effort, as a conservative approach to better represent the trend of the data.Species disaggregation: Coppola (2001) described the species composition of artisanal catches in the western Mediterranean Sea including Algeria. Griffiths et al. (2007) described the the gear type, i.e., gillnets, trammel nets and longlines (80% of the artisanal gears). Based on these sources, we estimated the percentage of catches for each species (taxonomic group) and applied this breakdown to the total reconstructed artisanal catches (Table 1).Artisanal grouper catches: When artisanal catches were reported, they generally excluded groupers which accounted for 7.4% of the landings (DPRH 2011). Therefore, we assumed that a simple breakdown of the reconstructed artisanal catches would not reflect the development of this fishery, and thus we estimated these separately. Three species of serranids are caught in Algeria: the dusky grouper (Epinephelus marginatus), the white grouper (Epinephelus aeneus) and the dogtooth grouper (Epinephelus caninus) (Ouyahia 2004), while the red grouper (Epinephelus morio) was caught along the Algerian coast up to the late 1970s (Brualé 1985). Data provided to FAO by Algeria covered the `grouper nei´ and `groupers and seabasses´ for the years 1999-2003 and 2006-2009, respectively, but from 1950 until 1998, no commercial catches for this group were reported to the FAO. Here, we derived the percentage of boats targeting serranids (62.7%) by dividing the number of boats targeting groupers (among other fish) by the total artisanal active effort from Sahi and Bouaicha (2003) to estimate total catch per year. We used a CPUE of 0.53 t·year-1·boat-1 in 20103, then applied the same adjustments assumed for small-scale CPUE described above. Then, we interpolated linearly assuming the CPUE in 1950 was the same as in 2010. Effort data were available for the years 1957 to 1958, 1969 to 1971 and 1990 to 2009. We interpolated linearly to complete the effort time series. In 1988 and 1989, only a few dozens of the artisanal boats were really active (Griffiths 1991). Consequently, we reduced the active effort by 80% for the years 1988 and 1989 (Table 2). We multiplied the effort by the CPUE to estimate total grouper catches for the 1950 to 2010 time period. For 2003 and 2004, we applied the same adjustment as for the artisanal catch estimation, i.e., -15%. Here, to remain conservative, we averaged grouper catches estimated above with grouper catches obtained using a species breakdown of total artisanal catches assuming a percentage of 7.4% (MPRH 2011). This better represents catch variations and captures the impact of increasing technological efficiency in targeting.Illegal catches of small fishFish size regulations have been officially legislated since 1994 (Cacaud 2002b; Belala 2004). Since then, high value demersal species of sub-legal size, mainly surmulets (Mullus barbatus and M. surmuletus) and hake, (Merluccius merluccius) targeted by trawlers are often sold illegally in the market during October and November4. Local active effort data (381 trawlers), the quantity of illegal fish landed (0.2 t∙day-1∙trawler-1) for 60 days, and the species caught were available for 2010 (MPRH 2011). We first estimated the total illegal landings for the active segment of the Algerian trawling fleet for 2010 at 4,570 t·year-1, and then assumed that in 1994 landings of small fish were reported, thus being 0% of the 2010 illegal catch, 80% in 2000 while in 2010 the catch estimated represented 30%.3  The source of this information preferred to remain anonymous.4  This information was passed on to us on condition of anonymity.Table 2. Anchor points for annual total catches of serranids in Algeria and the  corresponding effort.Yeara Catches (t·year-1) Effort (Boats) Data source1950 26.00 - Assumed1957 182.64 296 Simonnet (1961); Oliver (1983)1958 168.39 269 Simonnet (1961); Oliver (1983)1969 159.77 221 www.fao.org [2011]b1971 125.10 169 Oliver (1983)1987 326.15 456 Griffiths (1991)a) the catch estimate is divided by 2 in 1962 (Meuriot and Dremiere 1986; Boude 1987).b)www.fao.org/docrep/005/D8317F/D8317F03.htm (accessed on June 1, 2011). 4Commercial catch adjustmentMiscellaneous fish disaggregationFAO data contains the category ‘marine fishes nei’. To disaggregate the data taxonomically, we used detailed local catches by species or higher taxonomic level.Small pelagic fishCaddy et al. (1995) suggested that small pelagic fish catches were underreported in national data. To account for the unreported portion, we first combined the officially reported small pelagic catch with the amount of small pelagics estimated from the ‘marine fishes nei’ disaggregation. Thereafter, we adjusted the reported catch by a conservative rate of +10% per year from 1950 to 1962 during the French settlement, +20% from 1963 to 1994 after independence and during the black decade, when fishers failed to report their catches for security reasons, and +10% per year from 1994 to 2010, when new regulations were increasingly enforced.CephalopodsSix species of cephalopods are caught in Algerian waters: the horned octopus (Eledone cirrhosa), the musky octopus (Eledone moschata), the common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) (listed by FAO under `Octopuses´), the broadtail shortfin squid (Illex coindetii), the European squid (Loligo vulgaris) (listed under `Common squids´) and the common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis) (Chavance 1987; MATE 2005b; Zeghdoudi 2006). FAO also reported miscellaneous cephalopod species under the category `Cephalopods nei´. Cephalopod catches have only been reported since 1989. In the 2000s, cephalopod catches represented 1% of the total landings (Zeghdoudi 2006). To adjust cephalopod catches, we first estimated the total cephalopod catch by applying the previous rate (1%) to the total reported landings to complete the time series from 1950 to 1988; then we used estimates from various sources (Table 3) as a proportion of the total cephalopod landings reported by FAO in order to disaggregate cephalopod catches.Sharks and raysElasmobranch catches for Algeria are reported by the FAO under four categories: `Sharks, rays, skates, etc.´, `Rays, stingrays, mantas nei´, `Dogfish sharks nei´and`Catsharks, nursehounds nei´. The last two categories are reported only for the period 2007 to 2009. Shark and ray catches were reported as zero in 1963 and from 1986 to 1989. Shark catches were not reported from 1950 to 1953 due in part to species being confused as other pelagic fish (S. Hemida, pers. comm., UTSHB). We estimated rays to be 2.11% of the group ‘sharks, rays and skates’ (Hemida 2005) and thus disaggregated FAO data into two major categories: sharks and rays. To estimate shark catches for the period from Table 3. Composition of the cephalopod catches of Algeria (in %).Reference Sepia spp. Octopus & Eledone Loligo vulgarisDPRH (2011) 55 43 5DPRHA (2011) 18 18 63MATE (2005b) 34 63 0Chavance (1987)a 83 17 0Mean 48 35 17a) Estimated using the percentage of the cephalopod catches (3.88% of the demersal fishery catches) by the trawling fleet (20%) of the total catches.Table 4. Composition of the sharks and rays catches of Algeria for the period 1950-2010 (in %).Ray species Catches(%)Source numberShark species Catches(%)Source numberDipturus batis 0.47 1 Cetorhinus maximus 84.89 1Dipturus oxyrinchus 31.68 1 Hexanchus griseus 8.50 1Leucoraja melitensis 0.15 1 Heptranchias perlo 0.20 1 ; 2Raja africana 0.24 1 Isurus oxyrhincus 1.70 1Raja asterias 13.32 1 Alopias vulpinus 1.70 1 ; 3 ; 4Raja brachyura 12.49 1 Carcharhinus brachyurus 0.19 5 ; 6Raja clavata 19.79 1 Carcharhinus plumbeus 0.16 5 ; 6Raja miraletus 2.48 1 Carcharhinus altimus 0.39 5 ; 6Raja montagui 6.58 1 Carcharhinus obscurus 0.10 5Raja polystigma 0.59 1 Carcharhinus brevipinna 0.02 5Raja radula 7.74 1 Galeus melastomus 0.01 1Raja undulata 1.46 1 Scyliorhinus canicula 0.01 1Rostroraja alba 0.02 1 Scyliorhinus stellaris 0.03 1Leucoraja naevus 1.77 1 Triakidaea 0.30 1Leucoraja circularis 1.11 1 Squalidaeb 0.14 1Oxynotus centrina 0.01 1Echinorhinus brucus 1.70 11) Hemida (2005); 2) Canapé et al. (2003) ; 3) Fowler et al. (2005) ; 4) Pillans et al. (2008) ; 5) Hemida et al. (2002b) ; 6) Dieuzeide et al. (1953).a) Mustelus mediterraneus, M. mustelus ; Centrophorus granulosu ; C. uyato.b) Dalatias licha, Etmopterus spinax, Squalus acanthias, S. blainvillei, Somniosus rostratus.Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria-Belhabib et al. 51950 to 1953, we carried the catch trend from 1954 to 1957 using FAO landing data. For the periods from 1986 to 1989 and from 2003 to 2006, we performed simple linear interpolations based on FAO landings data and commercial catches (Hemida 1998). A literature review allowed for the estimation of shark and ray catches by species (Table 4). For the devil fish (Mobula mobular), Hemida et al. (2002a) reported a total catch of 3.3 tonnes for 1996, 1999 and 2001. We estimated an average catch of 1.1 t·year-1 for the years 1996 to 2009. This species was rare in 1953 (Dieuzeide et al. 1953; Notarbartolo-Di-Sciara 1987), but incurs high mortality from accidental catch in pelagic (Cavanagh and Guibson 2007) and drift-net fisheries (Cornax et al. 2006), which appeared in Algeria in 1989 (Abdelguerfi 2003). In this study, we assumed that catches started in 1976 (see Hemida et al. 2002a) and increased steadily until 1996, afterwhich catches remained stable.FAO data for sharks and rays are considered to be underestimates (Kroese and Sauer 1998). We assumed that 37% of sharks were caught by the small-scale fishery (Canapé et al. 2003), with 40% of the catch being unreported (i.e., 37% x 40% =15%). Therefore, we applied this percentage (15%) to each of the shark and ray species caught by artisanal gears. For the remaining 63% of the reported shark and ray catch taken by trawlers, purse-seiners and drift-nets used largely in Algeria, we assumed 20% of the catch was unreported (i.e., 63% x 20%=12.6%) (Cornax et al. 2006; Cavanagh and Guibson 2007; EJF 2007). We applied the resulting rate (12.6%) to non-artisanal shark and ray catches from 1950 to 2010, excluding devil fish which has already been estimated separately (see above).CrustaceansThe main crustacean species caught along the Algerian coast are the blue and red shrimp (Aristeus antennatus) and the deep water rose shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris) (Maurin 1962; MATE 2005b; Zeghdoudi 2006). The `marine crustaceans nei´ group reported by FAO includes other crustacean species, mainly caught by the artisanal fleet: spider crab (Maia squinado), common spiny lobster (Palinurus elephas), pink spiny lobster (Palinurus mauritanicus), caramote prawn (Penaeus kerathurus), Mediterranean slipper lobster (Scyllarides latus) and small European locust lobster (Scyllarus arctus) (MATE 2005b). In Algeria, shrimp catches are also underreported due to trans-shipments to foreign vessels; thus, a portion of the real catch is not reported to the FAO (Boukhalfa and Rambeau 1993; Mediouni 1997). CPUEs based on at-sea observations are higher (Sardà 2000; Bouaicha 2011). Algeria supplied a catch of zero tonnes to FAO for the blue and red shrimp from 1950 to 1953; however, Anon. (1955) and Maurin (1962) reported large amounts of catch by the trawl fishery during the same period. Here, we first estimated the number of active trawlers (Table 5) based on the number of operating trawlers per year and the total number of registered trawlers, i.e., 75.8% in 2010, which we assumed constant (MPRH 2011). Then, we estimated the total effort as the total number of hours per year Table 5. Active trawl fleet and number of hours.Year Number of trawlers Active trawlers Number of hours1950 146 110 110,8691951 136 102 103,2751952 135 101 102,5161953 138 104 104,7941954 137 103 104,0341955 146 110 110,8691956 152 114 115,4251957 147 110 111,6281958 153 115 116,1841959 152 114 115,4251960 156 117 118,4631961 158 119 119,9811962 75 56 56,9531963 75 56 56,9531964 76 57 57,7131965 76 57 57,7131966 103 77 78,2161967 100 75 75,9381968 100 75 75,9381969 99 74 75,1781970 101 76 76,6971971 110 83 83,5311972 115 86 87,3281973 130 98 98,7191974 140 105 106,3131975 149 112 113,2421976 158 119 120,1711977 167 126 127,1001978 177 132 134,0301979 186 139 140,9591980 195 146 147,8881981 204 153 154,8181982 213 160 161,7471983 222 167 168,6761984 231 173 175,6051985 240 180 182,5351986 250 187 189,4641987 259 194 196,3931988 268 201 203,3231989 277 208 210,2521990 286 215 217,1811991 285 214 216,4221992 284 213 215,6631993 285 214 216,4221994 289 217 219,4591995 293 220 222,4971996 295 221 224,0161997 294 221 223,2561998 299 224 227,0531999 305 229 231,6092000 318 239 241,4812001 338 254 256,6692002 352 264 267,3002003 354 266 268,8192004 358 269 271,8562005 403 302 306,0282006 435 326 330,3282007 476 357 361,4632008 487 365 369,8162009 494 371 375,1312010 494 371 375,131  6(1,017 hours per trawler), expressed in the total number of hour for the active trawl fleet based on the average operating time per day, i.e., 9 hours (Nouar 2007) and the number of days at sea, which were averaged between 32 and 193 days, i.e., 113 days at sea (FAO 1973; Nouar 2007), and then by the number of trawlers (Table 5) from 1950 to 2010 collected from Belouahem (2009), MPRH (2001), MPRH (2010) and Oliver (1983). Catches are then obtained by multiplying this effort by per species CPUEs based on at-sea observations for 2010 (Table 6) (Bouaicha 2011). We thus completed the estimate for the years when data were not reported to FAO, or reported as zero for the taxa mentioned above and we replaced the catch data provided to FAO whenever our approach provided higher estimates. We then completed the estimate with catch data for the species that were never reported (landed by-catch) to obtain a more complete estimate with a higher resolution.Bluefin tuna catches of AlgeriaFAO bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) landings have been increasing since the 1950s. However, a dramatic increase in catches was reported after Algeria became a member of ICCAT in 2000 (ICCAT 2003). From the early 1990s, Table 6. Demersal and shrimp trawl catch per unit of effort.Taxon name English name CPUE (kg·h-1) Taxon name English name CPUE (kg·h-1)Abralia veranyi Eye-flash squid 4.959 Parapenaeus longirostris Deep-water rose shrimp 11.252Aristaeomorpha foliacea Giant red shrimp 2.588 Pasiphaea multidentata Pink glass shrimp 0.020Aristeus antennatus Blue and red shrimp 12.333 Phycis blennoides Greater forkbeard 3.976Arnoglossus laterna Mediterranean scaldfish 0.072 Phycis phycis Forkbeard 1.583Arnoglossus rueppelli Rüppell’s scaldback 0.035 Plesionika acanthonotus lesser striped shrimp 0.213Chelidonichthys cuculus Red gurnard 0.053 Plesionika antigai Catalonian striped shrimp 0.057Bathysolea profundicola Deepwater sole 0.002 Plesionika edwardsii Soldier striped shrimp 0.069Boops boops Bogue 1.374 Plesionika giglioli Shrimp 1.004Centrolophus niger Rudderfish 0.462 Plesionika heterocarpus Shrimp 1.095Chlorotocus crassicornis Green shrimp 0.313 Plesionika martia Golden shrimp 0.128Citharus linguatula Spotted flounder 0.024 Plesionika martia Golden shrimp 0.391Conger conger European conger 1.035 Processa canaliculata Shrimp 1.621Diplodus annularis Annular seabream 0.308 Pteroctopus tetracirrhus Fourhorn octopus 0.003Echelus myrus Painted eel 0.016 Raja clavata Thornback ray 0.068Eledone cirrhosa Horned octopus 2.512 Raja polystigma Speckled ray 0.058Eledone moschata Musky octopus 0.134 Rondeletiola minor Lentil bobtail squid 0.096Engraulis encrasicholus European anchovy 0.892 Sardina pilchardus European pilchard 0.246Gadella maraldi Gadella 0.242 Scaergus unicirrhus Cephalopod 0.201Galeorhinus galeus Tope shark 0.648 Scomber scombrus Atlantic mackerel 0.019Galeus melastomus Blackmouth catshark 3.864 Scomberesox saurus Atlantic saury 0.227Gnathophis mystax Thinlip conger 0.078 Scorpaena elongata Slender rockfish 0.245Helicolenus dactylopterus Blackbelly rosefish 1.505 Scorpaena scrofa Red scorpionfish 0.010Illex coindetii Shortfin squid 0.905 Scyliorhinus canicula Small-spotted catshark 0.454Lepidorhombus boscii Four-spot megrim 1.330 Sepia elegans Elegant cuttlefish 1.156Lepidotrigla cavillone Large-scaled gurnard 0.452 Sepia officinalis Common cuttlefish 0.078Lepidotrigla dieuzeidei Spiny gurnard 0.064 Sepia orbignyana Pink cuttlefish 0.971Loligo vulgaris European squid 1.023 Sepietta oweniana Common bobtail squid 1.574Lophius budegassa Blackbellied angler 0.680 Sepiola spp. Bobtails 0.077Lophius piscatorius Angler 0.123 Serranus cabrilla Comber 0.366Merluccius merluccius European hake 6.040 Serranus hepatus Brown comber 0.522Micromesistius poutassou Blue whiting 2.913 Solea solea Common sole 0.026Molva dypterygia Blue ling 0.236 Spicara flexuosa Blotched picarel 0.600Mullus barbatus Red mullet 3.516 Spicara smaris Picarel 1.506Mullus surmuletus Surmullet 0.862 Symphurus nigrescens Tonguesole 0.345Neorossia caroli Carol bobtail 0.023 Synodus saurus Atlantic lizardfish 0.041Nephrops norvegicus Norway lobster 2.380 Todarodes sagittatus European flying squid 0.520Octopus salutii Long-armed octopus 0.344 Todaropsis eblanae Lesser flying squid 1.137Octopus vulgaris Common octopus 0.385 Torpedo marmorata Marbled electric ray 0.345Oxynotus centrina Angular roughshark 0.097 Torpedo nobiliana Electric ray 0.050Pagellus acarne Axillary seabream 2.293 Trachurus mediterraneus Mediterranean horse mackerel 0.073Pagellus bogaraveo Blackspot seabream 4.044 Trachurus picturatus Blue jack mackerel 1.217Pagellus erythrinus Common pandora 1.906 Trigla lucerna Tub gurnard 0.064Pagurus excavatus Hermit crab 0.284 Trigla lyra Piper gurnard 0.160Paralepis coregonoides Sharpchin barracudina 0.037 Zeus faber John dory 0.760Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria-Belhabib et al. 7when Algeria signed its first agreement for foreign longliners, to 2002, a large portion of Algerian bluefin tuna catch was attributed to foreign-flagged vessels (Abdelguerfi 2002; WWF 2006, 2008b). From 1991 to 1994, we believe Algeria over-reported its bluefin tuna catch, where the over-reported portion is allocated to foreign vessels operating under or without agreement. Thus, we assumed Algerian domestic bluefin tuna catch is the difference between the estimated foreign catch (see foreign flag catch section) and bluefin tuna catches reported by Algeria to FAO. From 1995 to 1997, we accepted bluefin tuna catches as reported by Algeria since there was no evidence to suggest over-reporting. It is only in 2004 that Algeria acquired its first purse-seiner, and evidence suggests that Algeria over-reported its bluefin tuna catch to maintain a high quota with ICCAT as a high portion of the reported catch was being allocated to foreign vessels for the period from 1998 to 2006. Consequently, from 1998 to 2003, we adjusted bluefin tuna landings by applying a CPUE estimate obtained from local catch data of aggregated tuna species (i.e., 0.5 t·year-1·boat-1) to the small-scale fleet (MPRH 2010, 2011). Thereafter, we added the estimated catch for the purse seine fleet of 600 t·year-1 from 2004 to 2006 and 1740 t·year-1 from 2006 to 2010 (WWF 2008a). Although considerable uncertainty exists in our catch estimate due the use of aggregated tuna CPUE, Abdelguerfi (2002) suggested that Bluefin tuna catches were underestimates, therefore our estimates are likely conservative.Subsistence and recreational fisheriesSubsistence fisheriesLocal estimates for subsistence catches per species, gear type and the number of fishers in Bouzadjar, Western Algeria were available for 19605, one of the 5 main maritime areas identified by the French administration (Oliver 1983) leading to a local catch of 68 t·year-1 for 1960. We assumed an equivalent catch over the 4 other maritime areas and estimated a total catch of 340 t·year-1 in 1960 (based on 68 t·year-1 x 5=340 t·year-1). Given a local population of 1,020,000 in 1960 (www.populstat.com [2011]), this translates to an annual per capita catch of 0.33 kg·person-1·year-1. We applied this catch rate to the population data available for the years 1954, 1958, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1970, assuming that the consumption rate was constant (which is likely to underestimate catches). After 1970, development plans targeting fisheries (CIHEAM 2005) were issued and the first fisheries regulations were promulgated and gradually enforced (Belala 2004), thus reducing subsistence fishing. Consequently, we assumed that by 2000, subsistence catches were 1% of subsistence catch of 1970 and remained stable thereafter, and completed the time series by applying a series of linear interpolations for the missing years. We used the local estimate in 1960 to disaggregate the catches to the species/taxon level.5  G. Padilla, a subsistence fisher now living in France (pers. comm.).Table 7. Catch per recreational fisher (kg∙fisher-1)  the corresponding catch composition of recreational fishing. 1998 2002Taxon name English name Weight (kg)Frequency Catch/ tripCatch/ year% Frequency Catch/trip catch/year%Epinephelus marginatus Dusky grouper 7.0 1.00 7.0 266.0 17.9 0.20 1.4 53.2 4.4Epinephelus caninus Dogtooth grouper 2.5 0.50 1.3 47.5 3.2 0.20 0.5 19.0 1.6Epinephelus fasciatus Blacktip grouper 2.5 0.50 1.3 47.5 3.2 0.20 0.5 19.0 1.6Sphyraena sphyraena European barracuda 4.0 0.33 1.3 50.7 3.4 0.33 1.3 50.7 4.2Lichia Amia Leerfish 18.8 1.00 18.8 714.8 48.0 1.00 18.8 714.8 58.8Seriola Dumerili Greater amberjack 3.0 0.10 0.3 11.4 0.8 0.10 0.3 11.4 0.9Conger conger European conger 5.0 0.10 0.5 19.0 1.3 0.10 0.5 19.0 1.6Muraena helena Mediterranean moray 5.0 0.10 0.5 19.0 1.3 0.10 0.5 19.0 1.6Sphyraena spp. Barracudas 1.0 0.67 0.7 25.3 1.7 0.67 0.7 25.3 2.1Octopus vulgaris Common octopus 1.0 0.07 0.1 2.5 0.2 0.07 0.1 2.5 0.2Sepia spp. Cuttlefish 0.5 0.07 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.07 0.0 1.3 0.1Sciaena umbra Brown meagre 0.5 0.33 0.2 6.3 0.4 0.10 0.1 1.9 0.2Spondyliosoma cantharus Black seabream 1.5 0.67 1.0 38.0 2.6 0.67 1.0 38.0 3.1Diplodus puntazzo Sharpsnout seabream 1.0 0.33 0.3 12.7 0.9 0.33 0.3 12.7 1.0Dentex dentex Common dentex 5.0 0.33 1.7 63.3 4.3 0.33 1.7 63.3 5.2Sarpa salpa Salema 1.0 0.33 0.3 12.7 0.9 0.33 0.3 12.7 1.0Sparus aurata Gilthead seabream 2.5 0.33 0.8 31.7 2.1 0.33 0.8 31.7 2.6Diplodus sargus sargus White seabream 1.5 0.25 0.4 14.3 0.9 0.25 0.4 14.3 1.2Pagellus erythrinus Common pandora 1.0 0.25 0.3 9.5 0.6 0.25 0.3 9.5 0.8Pagrus auriga Redbanded seabream 1.0 1.00 1.0 38.0 2.6 1.00 1.0 38.0 3.1Balistes capriscus Grey triggerfish 2.0 0.25 0.5 19.0 1.3 0.25 0.5 19.0 1.6Umbrina cirrosa Shi drum 2.3 0.33 0.8 29.1 1.9 0.33 0.8 29.1 2.4Palinurus elephas Common spiny lobster 2.5 0.10 0.3 9.5 0.6 0.10 0.3 9.5 0.8Total CPUE - - - 1.49 - - - 1.2 - 8Recreational fisheriesRecreational fishing in Algeria includes mainly boat-based line fishing (longline fishing, 80%), handline fishing, and spearfishing using boats of 5 to 7 meters (Boukhalfa and Rambeau 1993).Spearfishing: Spearfishing was rarely practiced until the 1980s6 and started increasing thereafter. We relied on a field survey targeting spearfishers, electronic qualitative data7 and literature review (see MATE 2005b; Grau et al. 2009) to estimate catches by this gear type. We assumed an average number of 381 spearfishers (from 2002 to 2010) based on 28 scuba diving clubs (www.corbusmilchasse.com [2011]), the estimated number of divers practicing spearfishing per club (14) and a nominal effort of 38 days per year (M. Kharfellah, pers. comm., Institut des Sciences de la Mer et de l’Aménagement du Littoral, 2011). We assembled a catch frequency per species per day expressed as a probability of catch ranked from 0 to 1 from the field survey and www.corbusmilchasse.com [2011] (Table 7), we multiplied each frequency by the average weight of each species and the number of fishing days per spearfisher (38), then estimated the total catch per year for 1998 (567.32 t·year-1) when the total recreational catch per fisher is the product of the number of fishing days by the sum of each species catch per day (1.49 t·year-1·fisher-1). We obtained the percentage of each species by dividing the weight of each species by the annual recreational catch per fisher for 1998 (Table 7). We reduced the catch frequency (given for 1998) by 80% for groupers (Epinephelus marginatus, E. caninus and E. fasciatus) and 25% for brown meagre (Sciaena umbra) for the last decade, beginning from 2002, to represent their decreasing trend (Kara and Derbal 1999; Grau et al. 2009), which led to a total catch of 462.84 t·year-1 for 2002. From 2003 onwards, we assumed a decreasing rate of recreational catches of 10% per year, then applied it year by year until 2010 to represent the decreasing trend of catches (i.e., recreational catch (2003) = recreational catch 2002 x (100%-10%)). Here, we assumed recreational spearfishing begun in 1970 (10 years after the independence), thus interpolated linearly from zero in 1970 to 567.32 t·year-1 in 1998, to 462.84 t·year-1 in 2002, and then completed the time series with a 10% decrease of recreational catches per year.Boat-based fishing: In Algeria, recreational fishing boats are about 5 to 7 meters of length, using hook and line (80%) or other gears. Here, we assumed boat-based recreational fishing started in 1970 , corresponding to the implementation of the first fisheries development program (CIHEAM 2005). Until 2002, recreational fishers had no legal restrictions (Abdelguerfi 2002). Based on local effort and catch data (MPRH 2011; www.Algeria.com [2011]) we estimated a catch of 0.5 t·boat-1·year-1 for a total of 1,680 recreational fishing boats per year over the period 2002-2010, resulting in a total 6  www.bainsromains.com> (accessed on June 13th, 2011). 7  www.corbusmilchasse.com/corbusmil1/poisson%20miniature.htm> (accessed on June 13th, 2011). Table 8. Species composition of recreational boat-based catch. Scientific name Common name Mean weight (kg)Source Catches (%)Boats using hooks Xiphias gladius Swordfish 26.7 Chalabi et al. (1995) 56.5Thunnus spp. Tunas 142.0 ICCAT (2007) ; Bachet et al. (2007); estimateda  0.8Prionace glauca Blue shark 41.3 Hemida (2005) 14.6Isurus oxyrinchus Shortfin mako 63.0 OCEANA (2010); Megalofonou et al. (2005) 4.1Galeorhinus galeus Tope shark 19.1 OCEANA (2010) 0.1Coryphaena hippurus Common dolphinfish 3.31 Djabali et al. (1993); Bas Peired (2006); estimateda 0.6Dasyatis pastinaca Common stingray 44.0 Serena et al. (2003)b; www.fishbase.org [2011] 21.4Alopias vulpinus Thresher shark 104.9 Hemida (2005) 1.9Other boat-basedcMullus spp. Goatfish 29.0Helicolenus dactylopterus; Scorpena porcus; S. scrofa; S. notate; S. elongataScorpionfishes 8.8Sepia sp. Common cuttlefish 2.9Pagrus pagrus Red porgy 5.9Pagellus bogaraveo; P. erythrinus Seabreams 14.7Phycis spp. Forkbeard 2.9Sparidae Porgies 5.9Solea solea Common sole 2.9Merluccius merluccius European hake 2.8Raja spp. Rays 2.9Mustelus mustelus Smooth-hound 2.9Pagellus acarne Axillary seabream 8.8Epinephelus spp. Groupers 2.9 a) Derived from length-weight relationship.b) www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/161453/0 (accessed on June 1, 2011).c) Sahi and Bouaicha (2003) and Anon. (2005).Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria-Belhabib et al. 9catch of 840 t·year-1 for 2010. To estimate recreational boat-based line catches and allow for species disaggregation, we combined data on the number of fishes per hook per fishing trip (Báez et al. 2009) with weight data per species (obtained from literature or derived from length-weight relationships (Table 8). We adjusted the estimated catch per species per hook by -50%, to account for the difference in boat efficiency since Báez et al. (2009) described these Table 9. Demersal and shrimp trawl discard per effort.Taxon name CPUE (kg·trawl-1·h-1)Taxon name CPUE (kg·trawl-1·h-1)Taxon name CPUE (kg·trawl-1·h-1)Abralia veranyi 31.2 Hoplostethus mediterraneus 55.3 Plesionika antigai 14.0Acanthocardia echinata 45.4 Illex coindetii    70.0 Plesionika edwardsii 4.1Alpheus glaber 27.3 Lampanyctus crocodilus 39.7 Plesionika giglioli 64.7Antonogadus megalokynodon 40.7 Lepidopus caudatus 70.4 Plesionika heterocarpus 71.0Argentina sphyraena 62.8 Lepidorhombus boscii 81.8 Plesionika martia 23.4Argyropelecus hemigymnus 12.2 Lepidotrigla cavillone 27.2 Plesionika spp. 14.7Aristaeomorpha foliacea 118.1 Lepidotrigla dieuzeidei 8.3 Policheles typhlops 24.5Aristeus antennatus 290.7 Lesueurigobius friesii 34.4 Pontophilus spinosus 28.8Arnoglossus laterna 5.6 Lesueurigobius spp. 5.1 Processa canaliculata 31.0Arnoglossus rueppelli 1.9 Liocarcinus depurator 18.7 Pteroctopus tetracirrhus 0.9Chelidonichthys cuculus 8.7 Loligo vulgaris 56.4 Raja clavata 3.4Bathysolea profundicola 0.6 Lophius budegassa 32.6 Raja polystigma 3.4Benthocometes robustus 4.4 Lophius piscatorius 9.7 Rondeletiola minor 7.9Benthosema glaciale 3.3 Macropipus tuberculatus 30.4 Rossia macrosoma 6.8Blennius ocellaris 2.4 Macropodia longipes 0.2 Sardina pilchardus 28.9Boops boops 88.5 Macropodia spp. 0.0 Sardinella aurita 0.4Callionymus maculatus 8.1 Macroramphosus scolopax 76.3 Scaergus unicirrhus 12.7Capros aper 24.1 Maurolicus muelleri 4.5 Scaphander lignarius 5.8Centrolophus niger 12.9 Merluccius merluccius 263.5 Scomber scombrus 1.6Centrophorus granulosus 27.7 Micromesistius poutassou 159.7 Scomberesox saurus 15.0Cepola rubescens 13.9 Molva dypterygia 23.5 Scorpaena elongata 15.4Ceratoscopelus maderensis 4.9 Monodaeus couchi 5.2 Scorpaena notata 4.8Chimaera monstrosa 10.8 Mullus barbatus 154.6 Scorpaena porcus 0.5Chlorophthalmus agassizi 56.1 Mullus surmuletus 22.8 Scorpaena scrofa 0.9Chlorotocus crassicornis 23.7 Munida iris 0.1 Scyliorhinus canicula 26.4Citharus linguatula 2.6 Munida perarmata 25.0 Sepia elegans 45.9Coelorinchus caelorhincus 60.0 Munida rugosa 14.9 Sepia officinalis 3.5Conger conger 36.0 Myctophum punctatum 10.6 Sepia orbignyana 37.9Dalatias licha 39.3 Nemichthys scolopaceus 0.2 Sepietta oweniana 98.3Dalophis imberbis 1.3 Neorossia caroli 3.4 Sepiola spp. 4.4Dardanus arrosor 3.7 Nephrops norvegicus 131.7 Sergestes arcticus 4.0Diplodus annularis 14.0 Nettastoma melanurum 3.6 Sergia robusta 12.7Echelus myrus 0.2 Nezumia aequalis 50.4 Serranus cabrilla 11.6Eledone cirrhosa 91.7 Nezumia sclerorhynchus 33.7 Serranus hepatus 18.6Eledone moschata 3.4 Notacanthus bonapartei 8.3 Solea solea 3.7Engraulis encrasicholus 48.6 Octopus salutii 26.8 Solenocera membranacea 61.0Epigonus constanciae 0.8 Octopus vulgaris 11.9 Spicara flexuosa 19.0Epigonus denticulatus 25.2 Oxynotus centrina 18.0 Spicara smaris 34.6Epigonus telescopus 2.7 Pagellus acarne 85.4 Sequilla mantis 2.3Etmopterus spinax 164.2 Pagellus bogaraveo 168.8 Stomias boa 15.7Gadella maraldi 6.1 Pagellus erythrinus 83.0 Symphurus nigrescens 46.7Gadiculus argenteus 57.2 Pagurus excavatus 11.4 Synchiropus phaeton 15.0Galeorhinus galeus 51.0 Paralepis coregonoides 12.0 Synodus saurus 7.2Galeus melastomus 164.5 Parapenaeus longirostris 528.0 Todarodes sagittatus 26.0Geryon longipes 10.9 Paromola cuvieri 17.9 Todaropsis eblanae 63.2Glossanodon leioglossus 35.9 Parthenope macrochelos 6.0 Torpedo marmorata 14.4Gnathophis mystax 3.5 Pasiphaea multidentata 25.2 Torpedo nobiliana 3.2Goneplax rhomboides 54.2 Pasiphaea sivado 11.6 Trachurus mediterraneus 2.2Helicolenus dactylopterus 69.3 Peristedion cataphractum 20.5 Trachurus picturatus 59.4Heteroteuthis dispar 7.0 Phycis blennoides 249.0 Trigla lucerna 2.5Histioteuthis bonnellii 8.1 Phycis phycis 70.6 Trigla lyra 9.1Histioteuthis reversa 24.3 Plesionika acanthonotus 17.9 Zeus faber 41.9Homola barbata 4.2 - - - - 10catches for recreational boats ranging from 5 meters to 12.5 meters of length. By multiplying the sum of recreational catches per species (8.49 t·hook-1·year-1) by the total number of hooks, we obtained a total catch of 481.31 t·year-1 for 2010 which we assumed to be constant from 2002 to 2010 (M. Kharfellah, pers. comm., Institut des Sciences de la Mer et de l’Aménagement du Littoral, 2011) then we interpolated backwards to zero in 1970. The difference in total recreational catches (i.e., 840 t·year-1–481.31 t·year-1 =358.68 t·year-1) represents recreational catches by other boat based gear types in 2010 which we interpolated backwards to zero in 1970.DiscardsDiscards include non-commercial species, damaged fish and illegal-size fish (GFCM 2011). Discards in the Western Mediterranean are not negligible (Carbonell et al. 1998; Kelleher 2005), and among all fishing gears, trawls have been recognized as the most problematic gear (Lleonart et al. 1999), besides the use of dynamite, which while not considered here, generates high rates of underwater gear mortality (Tudela and Sacchi 2003). We consider two types of discards: from the pelagic trawl fishery and the shrimp trawl fishery.Pelagic trawl discardsMulti-purpose boats (trawler - seiner) introduced in the 1970s (Oliver 1983) started to generate increasing discards. Pelagic trawl fishery discards thus were about 20% of the pelagic trawl landings in 2010 (MPRH 2011). We first estimated the portion of pelagic fish landed by pelagic trawlers using catch per gear data (23% of the small pelagic fish landings), then applied the 20% discard rate to the reported landings from 1971 to 2010.Shrimp fishery discardsShrimp fishery discards in Algeria were as high as 49% of the total retained catches (FAO 1973; Carbonell et al. 1998; Bouaicha 2011). Here, we used a survey based on at-sea observations of discards, by-catch and targeted species catches for a commercial trawler of 368 kW and a length of 20 m (Bouaicha 2011). We multiplied the discard per hour per species (expressed in kg·h-1) Bouaicha (2011) (Table 9) by the number of operating hours per trawler per year (1,017 hours) to estimate the discard per boat per hour, i.e., 48 kg·h-1. Then, we applied this discard estimate to the total number of operating shrimp trawl hours (Table 5). Prior to 1994, when Algeria began regulating size limits (Belala 2004), we assumed that fishers were discarding commercially valuable catch only based on storage capacity constraints. Thus, we adjusted discards as a function of the storage capacity. Storage capacity expressed in GRT in the 1950s was 43% of what it is today (Simonnet 1961; Oliver 1983; Zeghdoudi 2006; Belhabib 2007). From the 1970s to late 1980s, it was 61% of the 2010 level (Belhabib 2007). Consequently, we adjusted the total discard, where from 1950 to 1960, 43% of the high value species discard where size restriction apply were retained, and from 1970 to 1994, 61% of the same discards were retained. As for the period from 1994 to 2010, no adjustment is applied, since discarding of valuable species was due to size limits.Foreign flag catchesMany authors have described foreign fleets operating in Algerian waters since 1950 (Furnestin 1961; Simonnet 1961; Oliver 1983; Tudela and Sacchi 2003; Varela and Ojeda 2010). Here, we focused on bluefin tuna catches and other pelagic fish species.Foreign bluefin tuna catchesSince the 1950s, Italian and Spanish fishing vessels, 20 times more efficient than Algerian vessels (Simonnet 1961), were known to target large pelagic species along the Algerian coast (Tudela and Sacchi 2003). However, no data were recorded. In 1992, the first foreign access fishing agreement for longliners was signed by Algeria (Abdelguerfi 2002). From 2000 to 2009, several cases of illegal bluefin tuna fishing have been recorded (Anon. 2004; WWF 2006; Bregazzi 2007; WWF 2008a), which allowed us to identify bluefin tuna catch anchor points (Table 10). Assuming that catches were zero in 1950, we interpolated linearly to the first anchor point in 2004. Also, we assumed catches remained unchanged in 2009 and 2010, which provides a conservative estimate, since illegal catches were likely increasing (WWF 2008b).Foreign flag large pelagic fishery by-catchTable 10. Anchor points for the foreign bluefin tuna catches in Algeria.Year Catches (t·year-1) Reference1950 0 assumed2004 960 WWF (2006)2005 666 WWF (2006); Anon. (2004)2006 1,682 Bregazzi (2007); www.illegal-fishing.com [2011]2008 2,260 WWF (2008a); www.illegal-fishing.info [2011]Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria-Belhabib et al. 11Two important species are reported as by-catch in the purse-seine and longline fisheries: bluntnose sixgill shark (Hexanchus criseus) and blue shark (Prionace glauca) from 1996 to 2002 (Canapé et al. 2003; Hemida 2005). To estimate the bluntnose sixgill shark by-catch, we used the weight-frequency data in Canapé et al. (2003). A total of 15.86 tonnes was calculated over the period 2000-2002 for a total unreported catch of bluefin tuna of 2,728 tonnes. Based on this estimate, a percentage of 0.58% was calculated and applied to the unreported bluefin tuna catch from 1950 to 2010. We used the same method for the blue shark using data from Hemida (2005). We only considered the non-reported catch of bluefin tuna assuming that the by-catch of the declared bluefin tuna was reported to the FAO. To estimate by-catch of other species, we used at-sea observer data provided by Burgess et al. (2010) for longliners from Malta and applied it to the blufin tuna reconstructed catch.Foreign flag catches (excluding bluefin tuna)In the 1950s, 50% of the fishers operating in Algerian territorial waters (i.e., inshore) were Italian and Spanish targeting pelagic fish (Furnestin 1961; Simonnet 1961). This number does not include fishers in the Algerian waters equivalent to the subsequent FEZ. In 1976, all foreign fishing in Algerian territorial waters was prohibited (Ordinance No 76-84, 1976, act. 6). As a conservative approach, we estimated the foreign-flag catches as being 20% of the Algerian reported landings of small pelagic species in the FEZ equivalent waters in 1950. Then, we interpolated to zero in 1994 when Algeria declared its FEZ, assuming the catches were zero afterwards. To disaggregate catches, we identified two gear-types or vessel types: pelagic driftneters and pelagic seiners. We used data from Di Natale et al. (1995) to disaggregate the catches to species or higher taxonomic level.ResultsAlgerian catches by sectorThe investigation of local names and scientific names revealed some confusions in species catch classifications (e.g., dogfishes are sometimes not considered to be sharks). Herein, in many cases different local names refer to the same species (Table 11).Artisanal catchesSmall-scale commercial catches, mainly of European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus), gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) and little tunny (Euthynus alleteratus), increased from 26,819 t·year-1 in 1950 to 96,973 t·year-1 in 2010. However, a slower rate of increase was observed since 2005. The artisanal portion of the catch data supplied to FAO represented only 30% of the artisanal commercial reconstructed catch (Figure 2a). Reconstructed artisanal grouper catches, as estimated separately, increased steadily from about 807 t·year-1 in 1950 to 3,316 t·year-1 in 2007 and have declined since. Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) represented 1% of artisanal catches and followed a similar trend as total artisanal catches, with peak of 1,158 t·year-1 in 2007 compared to a total catch of 602 t·year-1 supplied to FAO (including all the other vessels, i.e., trawlers and seiners) (Figure 2b).01020304050607080aFAOReconstructed0123451950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearbGroupersSwordfish1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearbCatches (t x 10³)0204060801001201401601801950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearFAOUnreportedDiscardsFigure 2.  a) Estimated total artisanal marine fisheries catches by Algeria as compared to the artisanal portion of the data supplied to the FAO; and b) Estimated grouper catches (Epinephelus spp.) and swordfish catches (Xiphias gladius), 1950-2010. Figure 3.  Total estimated small pelagic fishery removals by Algeria, 1950-2010.  12Table 11. Arabic names of some species caught in Algeria. Assembled from Djabali et al. (1993) and Hemida (2005).English name Taxon name Arabic name African ray Raja africana RayaAtlantic mackerel Scomber japonicus; S. scombrus Bacoreta; cavaya; kaballa; kavalAxillary seabream Pagellus acarne Bazougue; boumchita; bizigo; chpigarel; mafrouneBarracudas nei Sphyraena sphyraena and S. virdensis Sirèn; la-alazBasking shark Cetorhinus maximus ChkaraBignose shark Carcharhinus altimus BoudmagheBlackspot seabream Pagellus bogaraveo Mafroum; patchanoBlackspotted smooth-hound Mustelus mediterraneus Paloum; msolaBlonde ray Raja brachyura RayaBlue shark Prionace glauca ZrikaBluntnose sixgill shark Hexanchus griseus ChkaraBluntnose sixgill shark Alopias vulpinus Zerdi; taousBogue Boops boops Bouga; vope; vopaBrown ray Raja miraletus RayaCommon pandora Pagellus erythrinus El bejjijCopper shark Carcharhinus brachyurus BoudmagheDusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus BoudmagheEuropean anchovy Engraulis encrasicholus Antchouva; bocorone; mentchoubaEuropean hake Merluccius merluccius / Micromesistius poutassou Mernouze; pacalowEuropean pilchard Sardina pilchardus SardineGilthead seabream Sparus aurata QuadjoudjGreater amberjack Seriola dumerili Lichola; linchola, pech-limonGroupers Epinephelidae / Polyprionidae Badecha; bayajo; merot; al- maraGulper shark Centrophorus granulosus Gagould; zaarour; gagaoulHorse mackerel Trachurus spp. Saorel-lezreg; Saourine; Tcherel; ToninoLittle gulper shark Centrophorus uyato Zaarour; gagaoulLongnose spurdog Squalus blainvillei BouchoukaLongnosed skate Dipturus oxyrinchus Raya kahlaMediterranean starry ray Raja asterias RayaMoronidae Moronidae Gonfar; gonfran; kaross; liobarroGrey mullets Mugilidae (Liza and Mugil spp.) Bouri; bousefra; bouri- mdehhebNursehound Scyliorhinus spp.  GatPargo breams Sparidae (Pagrus pagrus; P. auriga) El bedhar; pagri; prayRed gurnard Aspitrigla cuculus BorracoRough ray Raja radula RayaSalema Sarpa salpa Chelba; techelbine; tchelbaSandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus BoudmagheSardinellas Sardinella spp. Bouir; latcha; latchoum; salaga; sarakinRockfishes Sebastinae and Scorpaeninae ScorpaSkipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis / Sarda sarda BoniteSmooth-hound Mustelus mustelus Paloum; msolaSole Soleidae / Bothidae / Symphurinae Pivola; sola; palayaSparidae Sparidae SarSpeckled ray Raja polystigma RayaSpinner shark Carcharhinus brevipinna Boudmaghe Spotted ray Raja montagui Raya Sharks Squalidae BouchoukaSurmullets Mullus surmuletus / M. barbatus RougiSwordfish Xiphias gladius Boussif et-ouil; boussif; space; spadonThornback ray Raja clavata Raya Tope shark Galeorhinus galeus Faux-paloumTriakidae Triakidae Paloum; msolaUndulate ray Raja undulata Raya Velvet belly Etmopterus spinax FarReconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria-Belhabib et al. 13Illegal small fish catchIllegal small fish catch totaled about 118,043 tonnes over the period from 1950 to 2010. The illegal small fish catch trend followed governmental regulations and law enforcement incentives, increasing from zero in 1994 to a maximum of 12,200 t·year-1 in 2000. Illegal catches decreased thereafter to a plateau of around 4,600 t·year-1 from 2007 to 2010.Small pelagic fisheriesSmall pelagic species catches were about 3.6 million tonnes for the period 1950 to 2010 compared to 3.16 million tonnes reported to FAO. Catches were on average 11,600 – 17,000 t·year-1 from 1950 to 1968. After injection of subsidies, small pelagic catches increased dramatically to around 139,000 t·year-1 in 1994, then decreased by 71% in the late 1990s. Afterwards, catches increased to a maximum of 147,000 t·year-1 in 2006, and decreased thereafter (Figure 3).Cephalopod catchesReconstructed cephalopod (targeted) catches were approximately twice (40,500 tonnes) the catches reported the FAO (23,000 tonnes) over the period 1950 to 2010. Overall, the catches remained low from 1950 to the mid-1970s at approximately 250 t·year-1, and increased thereafter, reaching a maximum of 2,300 t·year-1 in 2007. Since then, total reconstructed catches of cephalopods have been decreasing (Figure 4).Shark and ray fisheriesShark and ray catches were estimated to be about 46,900 tonnes for the period 1950 to 2010, of which slightly over 29,600 tonnes were sharks (63%), compared to a total of 28,719 tonnes reported to the FAO. Overall, the catches were decreasing from around 920 t·year-1 in 1950 to a minimum of 260 t·year-1 in 1976. Thereafter, catches increased to 1,700 t·year-1 in 1994, and then gradually decreased to around 640 t·year-1 in 2010 (Figure 5).Crustacean/shrimp fisheriesReconstructed crustacean catches in Algeria totalled over 382,900 tonnes for the period 1950 to 2010, compared to 129,077 tonnes reported to the FAO. Shrimp catches (mainly blue and red shrimp, and deep water rose shrimp) were estimated to be 271,000 tonnes for the same period. The unreported component includes 1,700 tonnes of trans-shipped catches over the 1994-2010 time period. Reconstructed shrimp catches increased three fold (11,000 t·year-1 in 2010) since the 1950s (3,600 t·year-1 compared to 1,700 t·year-1 reported to the FAO). Shrimp catches were smallest (1,800 t·year-1) in 1962 due to the departure of many fishers to France when Algeria gained its independence. Thereafter, catches increased to a maximum of 10,900 t·year-1 in 2009 compared to 1,200 t·year-1 reported to FAO (Figure 6).0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.51950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearFAOReconstructed0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.81950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearFAOReconstructed051015202530351950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearFAOUnreportedTargetedNon-valuableValuableDiscardsFigure 4.  Total domestic cephalopod catch in Algeria, 1950-2010.Figure 5.  Total reconstructed sharks and rays catches compared to the total shark and ray catch data supplied to the FAO by Algeria, 1950-2010. Figure 6.  Reconstructed shrimp catches and discarded by-catch, 1950-2010. 14Algerian bluefin tuna catchesAlgerian bluefin tuna catches increased from 100 t·year-1 in 1950 to over 2,372 t·year-1 in 2010. Reconstructed commercial bluefin tuna catches were similar to those reported to the FAO for the 1950-1992 time period, when the first foreign longline fishing agreement was signed by Algeria. From 1992 to 1994, Algeria over-reported its bluefin tuna catches by over 2,300 tonnes. Thereafter, catches were similar to those reported to FAO until 1998 just before Algeria joined ICCAT. From 1998 to 2004, 73% (9,000 tonnes of a total of around 12,400 tonnes) of bluefin catches reported to FAO were considered to be from foreign vessels. Thereafter, Algerian catches increased to reach a total of 8,200 tonnes over the period 2005-2009, when Algeria started investing in industrial purse-seiners, compared to 4,000 tonnes reported to the FAO. Here, we assumed the 2009 catch to be the same for 2010 (Figure 7).Subsistence fisheriesCatch data submitted to FAO by Algeria do not account for subsistence sector catches. Total reconstructed subsistence catches, consisting of swordfish (dominant in weight and caught using small-scale boats), seabreams (sparids), sharks, octopuses, groupers and tuna species, were estimated to be 65,340 tonnes from 1950 to 2010. Catches increased from around 1,300 t·year-1 in 1950 to reach their maximum of over 1,900 t·year-1 in 1970. During this period, subsistence fisheries catches were the equivalent of 20% of small-scale commercial fisheries catches. Since then, catches have been decreasing, estimated at about 200 t·year-1 in 2010 (Figure 8).Recreational fisheriesRecreational catches totalled approximately 31,750 tonnes for the period from 1970 (when recreational fishing began) to 2010. Recreational catches peaked at 1,200 t·year-1 in 2002, declining thereafter to about 1,000 t·year-1 in 2010 (Figure 8). Reconstructed recreational catches included leerfish (Lichia amia) which represented 25% of the catch, and which increased from zero in 1970 to 320 t·year-1 in the late 1990s, and decreased dramatically afterwards. Swordfish catches (18% of the reconstructed recreational catches) totalled 4,800 tonnes over the period 1970 to 2010, steadily increasing at first until a plateau was reached at about 300 t·year-1 during the 2000s. Stingrays and blue sharks (7% and 5% of the catches, respectively) amounted to 3,000 tonnes and were caught as by-catch by the swordfish fishery during the period 1970 to 2010, following the same trend as the swordfish fishery.Grouper catches represented 10% of the reconstructed recreational catch, with a total of 2,500 tonnes for the period 1970 to 2010, and included three species: dusky grouper (7%), 00.511.522.51950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 10³)YearSubsistenceSpearHandline / longlineBoatRecreational0.1.02.01950 1960 1970Catches (t x 103 )SubsistenceRecreational0123456ItalySpainFranceKorea Japana01234561950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearDiscardsTuna and billfishesThunnus thynnusDemersals and small pelagicsSharksbCatches (t x 103 )0.00.51.01.52.02.51950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearFAOReconstructedFigure 8.  Estimated subsistence and recreational catches (spear, land-based handline, boat-based) for Algeria, 1950-2010. Figure 9.  Estimated foreign flag catches for the 1950-2010 time period, a) by country; and b) by taxon. Discards include rays and other species.Figure 7.  Reconstructed commercial Algerian bluefin tuna catches compared to the bluefin tuna catch data supplied to FAO, 1950-2010. Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria-Belhabib et al. 15dogtooth grouper and goldblotch grouper with together 3% of the total recreational catch. Grouper catches were increasing overall from zero in 1970 to a maximum of 150 t·year-1 in the mid-1990s, and then decreased to 26 t·year-1 by 2010.Pelagic trawl discardsPelagic trawl discards started in 1971 with the introduction of the multi-purpose trawls and have been increasing since, following the same trend as the small pelagic catches. Total pelagic trawl discards are estimated to be around 149,200 tonnes for the period 1950 to 2010 (Figure 3).Shrimp fishery discardsShrimp fishery discards (Figure 6) were estimated to be 24% higher than the total shrimp catch from 1950 to the early 1970, with an average discard of 4,555 t·year-1, then decreased to 3,379 t·year-1 on average due to the increasing storage capacity of vessels after Algeria launched the first investment plans in the fisheries sector in the early 1970s. With the introduction in 1994 of new regulations on fish size limits, shrimp discards increased dramatically to 18,000 t·year-1 in 2010 (Figure 6), which included 5,300 t·year-1 of high value, targeted species (30%), 8,000 t·year-1 of other commercial species (45%) and 4,700 t·year-1 of non-marketable species (25%). Observer’s presence on board could have resulted in overestimating targeted species discards as they are often kept and sold at the market illegally (F. Hemida, pers. comm., 2011).Foreign flag catchesForeign flag catches decreased from around 5,000 t·year-1 in 1950 to 1,300 t·year-1 in 2010, dominated by Italian catches (Figure 9a). Tuna and billfishes catches (60% of foreign fleet catches) followed the same trend, decreasing from around 1,850 t·year-1 in 1950 to a minimum of 1,030 t·year-1 in 1991 (Figure 9b). With the introduction of fishing agreements, catches started increasing and reached 3,160 t·year-1 in 2001 (Figure 9b). Thereafter, foreign flag catches of tuna and billfishes have been steadily decreasing (Figure 9b). By-catch of sharks and rays remained low from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 9b). Catches totalled 6,600 tonnes, of which 4,000 tonnes were discarded. However, in the 1950s, by-catch was much greater (200 t·year-1) than in the recent period (70 t·year-1 in 2000s).Total catchesTotal reconstructed domestic catches for Algeria were more than 7.1 million tonnes for the period 1950 to 2010, almost twice as high as the data submitted by the government of Algeria to FAO (3.9 million tonnes, Figure 10). Although the unreported component appears to decrease over time from 131% in the 1950s to 89% in the 2000s, the minimum average recorded was at around 70% in the 1980s, which actually shows increasing 0501001502002503001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearSardina pilchardusOtherpelagicsScombroidsEngraulis encrasicolusSparidsEpinephelus spp.DemersalsCrustaceansCephalopods050100150200250300FAOReconstructedCatches (t x 10³)ab0501001502002503001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010ArtisanalIndustrialDiscardsRecreational and SubsistenceFAOa0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch/ effort (t x kW-1)YearFigure 10.  Reconstructed total marine fisheries catches by Algeria by a) fishing sector plus discards with data supplied to the FAO overlaid as line graph; and b) Major taxa caught by the domestic fisheries of Algeria, 1950-2010. Figure 11.  Estimated catch per unit of effort expressed in t·kW-1.  16unreported catches. Overall, total domestic catches increased steadily from around 57,500 t·year-1 in 1950 to 215,480 t·year-1 in 2010 (Figure 10). However, the most dramatic increase was observed from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s, after which the rate of increase was lower. Additionally, the CPUE has decreased overall from 1.02 t·KW-1 in 1950 to 0.44 t·KW-1 in 2010 (Figure 11).Overall, the bulk of catches in Algeria were taken by the artisanal and industrial sectors. catches included mostly small-pelagics, particularly sardines, and demersal species at a lesser extent (Figure 10b). discussionHere, we reconstructed Algeria’s marine fisheries catches by accounting for all fisheries sectors and components, including unreported artisanal fisheries, inshore recreational and subsistence fisheries (Figure 10a). We also considered by-catch, which has been neither represented in FAO data nor documented in detail in the literature. Algerian catches increased dramatically over the 1950-2010 study period, though at a lower rate during the recent decades. More recently, catches seem to have experienced a decline. In contrast, CPUE has been decreasing continuously since the early 2000s.Total marine fisheries catches by Algeria (excluding foreign flag catches) were almost twice the amount supplied to the FAO. Although some Algerian landings were presented in FAO fisheries statistics between 1950 and 20108, these data under-estimated actual catches. Demersal fisheries resources are not readily accessible because the narrowness of the continental shelf (Maurin 1962), which is likely why the pelagic fishery sector is the most developed, representing 35% of the total reconstructed catches and defining the general trend of Algerian catches. The small-scale fishery sector is also important and represented 14% of the total catches, a high portion of which is not accounted for in the official reports. This highlights the importance of domestic small-scale catches to food security. The decreasing catch trends and increasing prices are negatively affecting local fish consumption rates (Rahmouni 2010); as a result, per capita fish consumption in Algeria is one of the lowest in North Africa (Bouyacoub 2011). In contrast, increasing subsidized effort will lead to higher pressure on an already over-exploited coastal resource (Simonnet 1961; Maurin 1962; Kara and Derbal 1999; Ainouche and Nouar 2010). The narrow continental shelf along the Algerian coast (Leclaire 1972) and the nature of the effort subsidies programs offered, has increased fisher’s debts and encouraged the use of illegal fishing methods (Cacaud 2002b; Chalabi et al. 2002).Consequently, fish habitat loss (Chalabi et al. 2002) and high rates of by-catch and discards (Bouaicha 2011) have re-duced the availability of fish in Algerian coastal waters (PNUE 1996)9. Moreover, demersal stock abundance has been declining since the early 1950s (Simonnet 1961; Oliver 1983; Laouar Stahi and Samar 1990; Belkessam and Issolah 1991; Nait Saidi and Taghanemt 1991; Kennouche 2003; Belhabib 2007). Small pelagic species and grouper abundance has also decreased due to a high exploitation rate (Kara and Derbal 1999; Bennoui et al. 2010; Bouaziz et al. 2010). Following this pattern, catches are likely to decrease substantially within the next 20-25 years. Nevertheless, the Alge-rian government, experiencing political and social turmoil related to unemployment and social crisis (Rarrbo 2009) has responded to concerns over decreasing catches (i.e., after 2006) by increasing fishing effort through financing programs (MPRH 2001; Zerrouki and Taftichte 2010; MPRH 2001), thus creating more pressure and conflicts among artisanal and other subsidized fishers (Boukhalfa and Rambeau 1993). Both of these factors are increasing the pres-sure on the ecosystem with a direct impact on fish stocks. This has serious implications for the national economy and domestic food security.Furthermore, large pelagic fisheries, being heavily targeted both by illegal foreign fleets (WWF 2008a) and foreign fleets operating under fishing access agreements, account for more than 80% of estimated Algerian large pelagic catch-es. Without enhancing enforcement and monitoring, it is likely that illegal fishing by foreign countries will increase over time, as international markets (particularly fuelled by demand in Asia) become even more lucrative (WWF 2006). Algerian large pelagic catches also increased along with the unreported by-catch of sharks and rays, which include in-ternationally protected species. This is mainly due to the increase in fishing capacity, the introduction of non-selective gears and increasing large pelagic fish prices (Chalabi et al. 1995).A question which may be asked is whether there are persons in Algeria who benefit from the overall increase in illegal foreign fisheries. This situation raises serious issues regarding the Algerian policy of financial support for declining fisheries on one hand, and a poor to non-existent monitoring, a lack of fisheries data which leads to unreliable sta-tistics (Chakour et al. 2010) and inefficient enforcement of fishing agreements (Bregazzi 2007) on the other hand. Indeed, monitoring and enforcement systems in Algeria rely on officially designated land-based observers, mostly non-qualified (in 50% of the areas) for coastal fisheries and a few at-sea observers on a few licensed foreign vessels operating under fishing agreements. Here, the importance of at sea-observations versus a system that hardly produces reliable data (MATE 2005a; Chakour et al. 2010) is highlighted by the difference between estimated catches based on direct observations and data supplied to the FAO. Fisheries data collection in Algeria seriously lacks necessary human resources with landing sites coverage of less than 2% (Anon. pers. comm.)10.In Algeria, fisheries catches have increased dramatically over the last six decades. However, past and present political 8  We assumed catches in 2010 were 85% the amount in 2009 following a decreasing pattern since 2006.9  Programme des nations unis pour l’environnement.10  The person who submitted this information preferred to remain anonymous.Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria-Belhabib et al. 17and social events have resulted in an increase in investments in this sector and poor monitoring of national fisheries. The continuous increase in capacity does not take into account the sustainable use of these resources. This study has shown that important components of Algerian fisheries are not accounted for in the official data and that catches of economically important taxa show signs of decline, including the small pelagic fishery which is of great importance for food security. This study also suggests that the lack of transparency, especially concerning the management of foreign fisheries may be jeopardizing domestic fisheries. This suggests that proper monitoring and statistical reporting must be prioritized and regulations more aggressively enforced.acknowledgementsWe acknowledge the support of the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. We would like to thank Dr. Farid Hemida and others for the information and knowledge they shared and regret we are unable to name them.RefeRencesAbdelguerfi A (2002) La bio-invasion, la pollution et l’érosion génétique.ALG97/G31, MATE, Alger. 100 p.Abdelguerfi A (2003) Plan d’action et stratégie nationale sur la biodiversité. Tome VIII : Évaluation des besoins en matière de renforcement des capacités nécessaires à l’évaluation et la réduction des risques menaçant les éléments de la diversité biologique en Algérie. Annexes. Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environnement, Alger. 70 p.Anon. (1955) 15ème Congrès national des pêches et industries maritimes. Alger du 21 au 27 Juin 1954. Comité permanent des congrès des pêches et industries maritimes, Alger. 347 p.Anon. (2004) Tuna ranching intelligence unit. 32, ATRT, Madrid. 41 p.Anon. (2005) Programme d’aménagement côtier (PAC). Zone côtière algéroise. Activité: Protection des sites sensibles naturels marins du secteur Cap Djinet au Mont Chenoua. Actions pilotes, plan d’action et recommendations. Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environement, Alger. 51 p.Bachet F, Benhaj S, Bernard F, Delauge J, Harmelin J, Mante A, Pascal M, Tillmann M, Vela E and Vidal P (2007) Reserve des îles Habibas. Notes naturalistes. Petites îles de Méditerranée. Conservatoire de l’espace littoral et des rivages lacustres. 107 p.Báez JC, Real R, Camiñas JA, Torreblanca D and Garcia-Soto C (2009) Analysis of swordfish catches and by-catches in artisanal longline fisheries in the Alboran Sea (western Mediterranean Sea) during the summer season. Marine Biodiversity Records 2(10): 1-4.Bas Peired C (2006) The Mediterranean Sea: Living resources and exploitation. CIHEAM–FAO. 400 p.Belala A (2004) Les lignes directrices de la loi sur la pêche et l’aquaculture à la lumière de la reglementation algérienne. Institut national d’agronomie, Alger. 34 p.Belhabib D (2007) Aspects bioéconomiques et dynamiques de la pêcherie chalutière crevettière au port de Bejaia. Ingénieur d’état en sciences de la mer et de l’aménagement du littoral thesis, Ecole nationale supérieure des sciences de la mer et de l’aménagement du littoral, Alger. 67 p.Belkessam D and Issolah F (1991) La pêche chalutière au port de Bou-Haroun : Etude statistique des débarquements et aperçu sur quelques paramètres biologiques et dynamiques d’éspèces cibles. . Ingénieur d’état en sciences de la mer et de l’aménagement du littoral thesis, Ecole nationale supérieure des sciences de la mer et de l’aménagement du littoral, Alger. 96 p.Belouahem S (2009) An ecosystemic approach to fisheries. The Algerian case. University of Montpellier II, Montpellier. 96 p.Bennoui A, Setti M, Bensmail S, Ferhani K and Bouaicha M (2010) Estimation de la biomasse exploitable de la sardine (Sardina pilchardus) & la sardinelle (Sardinella aurita) de la côte algérienne. Gestion systèmique des ressources halieutiques, ENSSMAL, Alger. 1 p.Bouaicha M (2011) Étude de suivi des rejets de la pêcherie crevettière dans la baie de Bou-Ismail. Centre national d’étude de la pêche et de l’aquaculture, Bou-Ismail. 37 p.Bouaziz A, Saiah Djebour O and Benina R (2010) Estimation de la biomasse exploitable et du point de référence biologique, F0.1, de la bogue de la région d’Alger. Gestion systèmique des ressources halieutiques, ENSSMAL, Alger. 1 p.Bouazouni O (2004) Projet régional pour le développement d’aires marines et côtières protégées dans la région de la méditerranée (MedMPA). Parc national d’El Kala: Etude socio-économique du PNEK. United nations Environment Programme. 52 p.Boude J-P (1987) Les pêches méditerranéennes. Études internationales 18(1): 83-105.Boukhalfa M and Rambeau M (1993) Algérie : La pêche artisanale quitte la cale sèche. Syfia Info 1991: 3.Bouyacoub A (2011) Le paradoxe de la consommation inégalitaire en Algérie Alger. 7 p.Bregazzi RM (2007) The plunder of bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean and East Atlantic during 2006 and 2007 ATRT, Madrid. 92 p.Breuil C (1997) Les pêches en Méditerranée: Élements d’information sur le contexte halieutique et les enjeux économique de leur aménagement. FAO, Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/w6526f/W6526f00.htm [Accessed: 04/06/2011]. 18Brualé J (1985) Exposé synoptique des données biologiques sur les mérous: Epinephelus aeneus (Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1809) et Epinephelus guaza (Linnaeus, 1758) de l’Océan Atlantique et de la Méditerranée. FAO, Rome. 64 p.Burgess E, Dimech M, Caruana R, Darmanin M, Raine H, Harrison A and Schembri PJ (2010) Non target by-catch in the Maltese bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) longline fishery (Central Mediterranean).65, ICCAT. 8 p.Cacaud P (2002a) Etude comparative sur la réglementation en matière de pêche maritime dans les pays de la Méditerranée occidentale participant au projet COPEMED. FAO, Rome. 34 p.Cacaud P (2002b) Revue de la réglementation relative à la pêche maritime et aux aires protégées dans les pays participant au projet COPEMED.CGP/REM/057/SPA, FAO, Rome. 84 p.Caddy JF, Refik R and Do-Chi T (1995) Productivity estimates for the Mediterranean: Evidence of accelerating ecological change. Ocean & Coastal Management 26(1): 18.Canapé C, Guélorget O, Barrul J, Mate I, Hemida F, Seridji R and J B (2003) Records of the buttlenose six-gill shark, Hexanchus griseus (Bonnaterre, 1788) (Condrichtyes: Hexanchidae) in the Mediterranean sea: A historical survey. Annal for Istrian and Mediterranean studies: 9.Carbonell A, De Rainieri S and Martín P (1998) Discards of the Western Mediterranean trawl fleet.94/027, Instituto Español de Oceanografía, Spain.Cavanagh RD and Guibson C (2007) Aperçu du statut de conservation des poissons cartilagineux (Chondrichtyens) en mer Méditerrannée. IUCN, Malaga. 48 p.Chakour SC, Bouzidi R and Dahout T (2010) Sustainable management of marine resources in Algeria: The contribution of an empirical approach. Gestion systèmique des ressources halieutiques, ENSSMAL. 1 p.Chalabi A, Cherrak I, Hamida S and Sail M (1995) La croissance de l’espadon pêché près des côtes Algériennes. Colllective Volume of Scientifics Papers 44(1): 3.Chalabi A, Semroud R and Grimes S (2002) Plan d’Action Stratégique pour la Conservation de la Diversité Biologique en Région Méditerranéenne CAR/ASP PAS BIO Algérie. Ministère de l’Aménagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement, Alger. 153 p.Chaussade J and Corlay J-P (1989) Atlas des pêches et cultures marines en France. Cahiers de géographie du Québec 33(88): 118-120.Chavance P (1987) Composition moyenne specifique des débarquements. 170 p.CIHEAM (2005) Agriculture, pêche, alimentation et développement rural durable dans la région méditerranéenne. Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes Paris. 311 p.Coppola SR (2001) Inventory of Artisanal Fishery Communities in the Western-Central Mediterranean. FAO, Rome. 64 p.Cornax MJ, Pastor X and Aguilar R (2006) Italian Driftneters: The Oceana report. Oceana, Madrid. 36 p.Di Natale A, Mangano A, Maurizi A, Montaldo I, Navarra E, Pinca S, Schimmenti G, Torchia G and Valastro M (1995) A review of driftnet catches by the Italian fleet: Species composition, observers data and distribution along the net.44, ICCAT, Messina. 9 p.Dieuzeide R, Novella M and Rolland J (1953) Catalogue des poissons des côtes algériennes.4, Station d’aquiculture et de la pêche de Castiglione, Castiglione. 135 p.Djabali F, Brahmi B and Mammasse M (1993) Pelagos: Poissons des côtes algériennes.Numero Special, Institut des sciences de la mer et de l’aménagement du littoral, Alger. 215 p.DPRH (2011) Statistiques locales de pêche pour l’année 2010., Direction des pêches et des ressources halieutiques. 4 p.EJF (2007) Illegal driftnetting in the Mediterranean. Environmental Justice Foundation, London. 24 p.FAO (1973) Rapport au Gouvernement de l’Algérie sur le développement des pêches basé sur le travail de L.L. Vasconcelos.3181, FAO, Rome. 51 p.FAO (2011) Fishery Country Profile: Algeria. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_DZ/en [Accessed: 04/06/2011].Fowler SL, Cavanagh RD, Camhi M, Burgess GH, Fordham SV, Simpfenclorter CA and Musick JA (2005) Sharks, rays and chimeras: The status of the Chondrichtyan fishes. Status Survey. Information press Oxford. 461 p.Furnestin J (1961) La pêche maritime algérienne et ses possibilités (Rapport de mission). Rcu. Trav. Inst. Pêches marit. 25: 21-32.Garibaldi L (2012) The FAO global capture production database: A six-decade effort to catch the trend. Marine Policy 36(2012): 8.GFCM (2011) Report on the transversal workshop on selectivity improvement, by-catch reduction and alternative gears. General fisheries commission for the Mediterranean, Marseille. 16 p.Grau A, Linde M and Grau MA (2009) Reproductive biology of the vulnerable species Sciaena umbra Linnaeus, 1758 (Pisces: Sciaenidae). Scientia Marina 73(1): 14.Griffiths RC (1991) Rapport de la sixième consultation technique du conseil général des pêches pour la méditerranée sur l’évaluation des stocks dans les divisions statistiques baléares et golfe du lion.47, FAO, Rome. 328 p.Griffiths RC, Robles R, Coppola SR and Camiñas JA (2007) Is there a future for artisanal fisheries in the western Mediterranean. FAO, Rome. 106 p.Gulland J-A (1971) The fish resources of the ocean. Fishing News (Books) Ltd., Surrey. 284 p.Hemida F (1998) The Shark and Skate Fishery in the Algerian Basin: Biological and Technological Aspects. Shark news 12.Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria-Belhabib et al. 19Hemida F (2005) Les sélaciens de la côte algérienne: Biosystèmatique des requins et des raies; écologie, reproduction et exploitation de quelques populations capturées. Doctorat d’état thesis, Université des sciences et de la technologie Houari Boumedienne, Alger. 233 p.Hemida F, Mehezen S and Canapé C (2002a) Captures of the Giant Devil Ray, Mobula mobular Bonnaterre, 1788 (Chondrichthyes: Mobulidae) off the Algerian coast (Southern Mediterranean). Acta Adriatica 43(2): 13.Hemida F, Seridji R, Labidi N, Bensaci J and Canapé C (2002b) Records of Carcharhinus spp. (Chondrichtyes: Carcharinidae) from off the Algerian coast (Southern Mediterranean). Acta Adriatica 43(2): 9.ICCAT (2003) Rapport de la période biennale 2002-03 Ie partie (2002).1, ICCAT, Madrid. 180 p.ICCAT (2007) Report for the biennial period, 2006-07 part II.3, ICCAT, Madrid. 211 p.INTERPOL (2010) Resolution: Sustainable Environmental Crime Programme. INTERPOL General Assembly 79th Session, Resolution AG-2010-RES-03. INTERPOL, Doha, Qatar. 1 p.Kara MH and Derbal F (1999) Données biologiques sur le mérou Epinephelus marginatus (Lowe, 1834) des côtes algériennes. Marine Life 9(2): 21-27.Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update.470, FAO, Rome. 131 p.Kennouche H (2003) Recherche des facteurs influençant les débarquements de la crevette rouge Aristeus antennatus (Risso, 1816) dans le port de Bou-Haroun (Baie de Bou-Ismail) : Etude du régime alimentaire et de l’exploitation, Ecole nationale supérieure des sciences de la mer et de l’aménagement du littoral, Alger. 99 p.Kroese M and Sauer WHH (1998) Elasmobranch exploitation in Africa. Marine and Freshwater Research 49(7): 573-577.Laouar Stahi S and Samar L (1990) La pêcherie chalutière de la région d’Annaba : Analyse statistique des mises à quai et appréciation du niveau d’exploitation d’espèces cibles. Ingénieur d’état en sciences de la mer et de l’aménagement du littoral thesis, Ecole nationale supérieure des sciences de la mer et de l’aménagement du littoral, Alger. 99 p.Leclaire L (1972) la sédimentation halocène sur le versant méridional du bassin Algéro-Baléares (Précontinent Algérien). Tome XXIV. Musée national d’histoire naturelle. 234 p.MATE (2005a) Programe d’aménagement côtier (PAC): Zone côtière algéroise. Activité: Protection des sites sensibles naturels marins du secteur Cap Djinet au Mont Chenoua. Actions pilotes, plan d’action et recommandations Ministere de l’aménagement du littoral et de l’environement, Alger. 51 p.MATE (2005b) Programme d’aménagement côtier (PAC). Zone côtière algéroise. Activité: Protection des sites sensibles naturels marins du secteur Cap Djinet au Mont Chenoua. Impact des activités anthropiques. Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environement, Algerie. 94 p.MATE (2006) Programe d’aménagement côtier (PAC): Zone côtière algéroise. Rapport Final Intégré. Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environement, Alger. 202 p.Maurin C (1962) Etude des fonds chalutables de la Méditerranée occidentale (écologie et pêche): Résultats des compagnes des navires océanographiques «Président-Théodore-Tissier» 1957 à 1960 et « Thalassa » 1960 et 1961.26, ISTPM. 218 p.Mediouni C (1997) Élaboration d’un bilan d’une stratégie nationale de développement durable de la diversité biologique. Tome IX: Synthèse de la stratégie algérienne d’utilisation durable de la diversité biologique. Projet ALG/97/G31. Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire et de l’environement, Alger. 69 p.Megalofonou P, Damalas D and Yannopoulos C (2005) Composition and abundance of pelagic shark by-catch in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Cybium 29(2): 5.Meuriot E and Dremiere P-Y (1986) Les systèmes de licences de pêche : le cas de la Mediterranée française. IFREMER. 100 p.Millot C (1985) Some features of the Algerian current. Journal of Geophysical Research 90(64): 10.Millot C (1987) The circulation of the levantine intermediate water in the Algerian basin. Journal of Geophysical Research 92(C8): 12.MPRH (2001) Le secteur de la pêche et de l’aquaculture en Algérie. Capacités et perspectives. Ministère de la pêche et des ressources halieutiques, Alger. 21 p.MPRH (2008) Schéma directeur de développement des activités de la pêche et de l’aquaculture. Horizon 2025 Ministère de la pêche et des ressources halieutiques, Alger. 135 p.MPRH (2010) Principaux indicateurs statistiques de pêche, année 2009 Ministère des pêches et des ressources halieutiques, Alger. 6 p.MPRH (2011) Canevas des statistiques locales mensuelles. Ministère des pêches et des ressources halieutiques. 34 p.Nait Saidi N and Taghanemt A (1991) La pêche au chalut et à la senne au port de Bejaia : Etude statistiques des mises à quai et estimation du niveau d’exploitation de quelques espèces cibles. Ingénieur d’état en sciences de la mer et de l’aménagement du littoral thesis, Ecole nationale supérieure des sciences de la mer et de l’aménagement du littoral, Alger. 83 p.Notarbartolo-Di-Sciara G (1987) A revisionary study of the genus Mobula Rafinesque, 1810 (Condrichtyes: Mobulidae) with the description of a new species. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 1987(91): 91.Nouar A (2007) Exploitation d’une espèce de crevettes profondes Aristeus antennatus (Risso, 1816)et Parapenaeus longirostris (Lucas, 1846) de la région algéroise.38, Commission internationale de la mer mediterranéene, Alger. 1 p.OCEANA (2010) Les requins grand-migrateurs, les laissés-pour-compte de l’ICCAT. Oceana. 4 p.Oliver P (1983) Les ressources halieutiques de la Méditerranée. Première partie: Méditerranée occidentale. FAO, Rome. 135 p. 20Ouyahia A (2004) Décret exécutif n° 2004-86 du 26 Moharram 1425 correspondant au 18 mars 2004 fixant les tailles minimales marchandes des ressources biologiques. Gouvernement d’Algérie, Alger. 8 p.Pillans R, Amorim A, Mancini P, Gonzalez M and Anderson C (2008) Carcharhinus altimus. In: IUCN 2010. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2010. . IUCN. 6 p. Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/161564/0 [Accessed: 04/06/2011].PNUE (1996) Etat du milieu marin et littoral de la région méditerranéenne. PAM–PNUE, Athènes. 148 p.Rahmouni A (2010) La sardine à 300 dinars le kilo. La voix de l’Oranie 3338: 1.Rarrbo K (2009) Programe Euromed Jeunesse III. Etude sur les politiques jeunesse des pays mediterranéens: Algérie. Institut national de la jeunesse et de l’éducation populaire, Marly le Roi. 42 p.Sahi MA and Bouaicha M (2003) La pêche artisanale en Algérie. Centre national d’études et de documentation pour la pêche et l’aquaculture, FAO Copemed, Alger. 23 p.Sardà F (2000) Analysis of the Mediterranean (including North Africa) deep-sea shrimp fishery: catches, effort and economics. Institut de Ciències del mar, Barcelona. 24 p.Simonnet R (1961) Essai sur l’économie des pêches maritimes en Algérie. Rev. Trav. Inst. Pêches marit.. 25(1): 34-124.Tudela S and Sacchi J (2003) Impacts des pratiques de pêche en Mediterranée: Impacts sur les espèces et les habitats sensibles, solutions techniques et recommandations. Centre d’activités régionales pour les aires spécialement protegées, Barcelone 133 p.UNODC (2011) Transnational organized crime in the fishing industry: Trafficking in persones, smuggling of migrants, illicit drugs trafficking. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna. 140 p.Varela M and Ojeda C (2010) La pesca en España: una lección no aprendida: Estudio de las pesquerías y recomendaciones ante la reforma de la Política Pesquera Común. Greenpeace, Madrid. 42 p.Vidal Junemann J (1976) Premier essai d’évaluation des ressources démersales et pelagiques au large des cêtes Algériennes. FAO, Rome. 34 p.WWF (2006) The plunder of bluefin tuna in the mediterranean and East Atlantic in 2004 and 2005. Uncovering the real story. WWF, Rome. 101 p.WWF (2008a) Lifting the lid on Italy’s bluefin tuna fishery. Assessment of compliance of Italy’s fishing fleet and farms with management rules during the 2008 bluefin tuna fishing season in the mediterranean. WWF, Rome. 140 p.WWF (2008b) Race to the last bluefin: Capacity of the purse-seine fleet targeting bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea and estimation capacity reduction needs. WWF. 124 p.Zeghdoudi E (2006) Modélisation bioéconomique des pêcheries méditerraneénnes: Application aux petits pélagiques de la baie de Bouismail (Algérie) Master of Science thesis, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona. 71 p.Zerrouki R and Taftichte S (2010) Evolution de la production halieutique dans la wilaya d’Alger. Gestion systémique des ressources halieutiques, ENSSMAL, Alger. 1 p.Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Algeria-Belhabib et al. 21Appendix Table A1. Reported and reconstructed annual catches by Algeria.Year FAO Artisanal Industrial Recreational Subsistence Discards Total reconstructed1950 27,201 24,523 32,243 0 1,344 4,612 62,7221951 23,001 24,443 27,308 0 1,350 4,296 57,3971952 29,101 24,498 33,982 0 1,356 4,264 64,1011953 22,699 24,492 26,610 0 1,363 4,359 56,8231954 20,962 24,542 24,555 0 1,369 4,327 54,7941955 25,898 24,520 29,674 0 1,375 4,612 60,1801956 21,956 24,505 25,642 0 1,381 4,801 56,3291957 21,953 24,550 25,059 0 1,387 4,643 55,6391958 18,578 22,180 22,385 0 1,394 4,833 50,7921959 22,100 21,752 26,341 0 1,495 4,801 54,3891960 25,500 21,363 30,589 0 1,596 4,928 58,4751961 30,400 20,916 35,385 0 1,528 4,991 62,8191962 21,500 20,390 23,378 0 1,459 2,369 47,5971963 16,901 19,856 21,010 0 1,391 2,369 44,6261964 17,300 19,469 20,962 0 1,546 2,401 44,3781965 18,302 18,945 22,356 0 1,700 2,401 45,4011966 20,351 18,485 24,972 0 1,854 3,253 48,5651967 20,951 18,025 25,279 0 1,873 3,159 48,3361968 18,051 17,490 22,192 0 1,891 3,159 44,7311969 23,151 17,039 28,507 0 1,909 3,127 50,5821970 24,235 15,017 30,250 0 1,927 2,994 50,1881971 23,716 12,917 30,405 44 1,869 4,317 49,5521972 28,314 14,011 35,438 89 1,811 4,647 55,9951973 31,244 15,097 38,458 133 1,753 5,199 60,6411974 35,708 16,181 43,083 177 1,696 5,653 66,7901975 37,693 17,278 45,675 222 1,638 6,061 70,8741976 35,122 18,355 42,560 266 1,580 6,178 68,9391977 43,475 19,521 52,332 310 1,522 6,887 80,5721978 34,143 20,649 40,649 355 1,464 6,612 69,7301979 38,678 21,701 45,935 399 1,407 7,065 76,5071980 48,000 22,845 56,123 443 1,349 7,711 88,4701981 56,000 23,978 64,770 487 1,291 8,305 98,8321982 64,500 25,117 74,392 532 1,233 8,919 110,1931983 65,000 26,202 74,922 576 1,175 9,210 112,0851984 65,500 27,286 75,345 620 1,118 9,501 113,8701985 66,000 28,371 75,948 665 1,060 9,790 115,8341986 65,261 29,192 75,266 709 1,002 10,391 116,5601987 94,092 30,301 108,594 753 944 12,071 152,6631988 106,434 30,246 128,070 798 886 13,250 173,2501989 99,184 28,853 117,466 842 829 12,932 160,9221990 90,192 28,475 106,727 886 771 12,776 149,6341991 79,690 32,657 93,688 931 713 12,253 140,2421992 95,266 34,907 110,979 975 655 13,003 160,5191993 101,894 42,424 116,541 1,019 597 13,313 173,8941994 135,402 47,382 154,855 1,064 540 15,165 219,0051995 105,872 48,369 113,684 1,108 482 15,402 179,0451996 81,989 48,808 88,473 1,152 424 14,199 153,0561997 91,580 48,844 101,010 1,197 366 14,643 166,0601998 92,332 50,600 101,622 1,241 308 14,676 168,4481999 102,396 52,928 114,834 1,238 251 15,464 184,7142000 113,158 54,110 128,062 1,236 193 16,426 200,0272001 133,623 57,667 151,074 1,233 193 18,262 228,4292002 134,320 62,747 150,377 1,231 193 18,799 233,3462003 140,957 74,270 155,002 1,194 193 19,231 249,8892004 113,462 83,291 122,777 1,161 193 18,156 225,5772005 126,259 88,902 135,711 1,132 193 20,397 246,3342006 145,762 90,550 157,594 1,107 193 22,581 272,0252007 146,627 94,007 156,801 1,086 193 23,971 276,0572008 137,895 90,198 148,982 1,067 193 23,807 264,2472009 127,439 89,830 137,368 1,051 193 23,630 252,0722010 93,607 82,208 108,595 1,038 193 23,986 216,020  22Appendix Table A2. Reconstructed annual marine fisheries catches by Algeria by taxon. Year Sardine Anchovy Groupers Scombroids Sparids Sharks andRaysCephalopods Crustacea Miscellaneous pelagicsMiscellaneous1950 20,004 6,078 807 2,526 5,256 2,408 942 4,635 3,348 11,4971951 17,534 4,675 795 2,361 5,126 1,926 873 5,008 3,882 10,0921952 21,395 7,144 816 2,905 5,193 2,013 933 4,685 2,975 11,0121953 14,486 5,503 830 2,262 5,211 1,969 877 4,653 5,177 10,9211954 14,674 5,005 835 2,108 5,129 1,951 862 4,393 4,783 10,2161955 16,436 7,648 848 2,256 5,145 1,729 926 4,687 5,091 10,6701956 15,647 7,421 860 2,089 5,145 1,623 898 4,883 2,298 10,8181957 15,843 6,325 874 1,988 5,144 1,634 888 5,058 3,059 10,2741958 11,864 6,035 804 1,978 4,758 1,721 900 4,914 3,049 10,3121959 14,656 5,859 800 2,080 4,730 1,735 978 4,981 3,481 10,7281960 19,967 3,985 788 2,190 4,643 2,111 986 5,112 3,733 10,6941961 23,672 5,523 771 2,153 4,552 2,098 1,037 5,177 3,687 9,9791962 14,095 5,718 755 1,946 4,308 1,649 611 2,428 3,265 8,7481963 16,484 1,294 719 4,002 4,038 1,337 608 2,463 1,547 8,1551964 17,632 802 709 1,942 3,939 1,646 648 2,596 2,829 7,7521965 17,817 2,005 700 2,672 3,857 1,306 672 2,526 2,730 7,3281966 20,978 237 694 2,128 3,852 1,547 799 3,378 2,667 8,5921967 20,733 467 680 1,990 3,746 1,528 798 3,766 2,541 8,4881968 19,289 338 665 1,854 3,646 1,271 776 3,279 2,178 7,9341969 22,726 995 659 2,070 3,628 1,266 819 3,246 3,086 8,6811970 21,887 1,996 574 1,693 3,080 1,350 848 3,311 2,744 9,3971971 21,487 1,483 508 1,702 2,709 1,331 845 3,594 2,920 9,7561972 25,929 1,127 548 1,821 2,918 1,274 901 3,764 3,396 11,1971973 22,697 6,817 592 1,922 3,178 1,365 969 4,243 3,611 12,2231974 27,939 4,714 632 2,513 3,395 1,401 1,038 5,156 3,529 13,5441975 34,723 1,595 673 2,970 3,621 1,509 1,079 4,873 3,452 13,5461976 29,406 4,062 714 2,566 3,844 1,606 1,075 5,115 3,337 14,4751977 37,681 5,317 756 2,525 4,072 1,840 1,180 5,455 3,787 15,3181978 28,287 3,344 797 2,576 4,300 2,055 1,108 5,789 3,480 15,4491979 30,595 4,010 838 3,518 4,522 2,065 1,169 6,118 4,403 16,8191980 37,055 4,962 880 4,066 4,750 2,285 1,199 6,422 5,286 19,2111981 42,649 5,781 921 4,520 4,977 2,473 1,136 6,731 6,061 21,3231982 48,571 6,650 963 5,005 5,205 2,684 1,497 7,031 6,887 23,5371983 49,144 6,703 1,004 5,082 5,432 2,744 1,573 7,331 6,977 24,0261984 49,717 6,756 1,045 5,158 5,659 2,804 1,545 7,631 7,068 24,5151985 50,253 6,814 1,087 5,240 5,885 2,873 1,716 7,938 7,155 24,9961986 54,808 5,853 1,127 4,160 6,102 2,974 1,870 8,939 11,711 17,2361987 88,841 2,163 1,168 6,261 6,328 2,993 1,949 9,841 10,807 20,6251988 109,039 1,219 1,108 6,314 6,357 3,039 1,937 8,576 12,755 21,3161989 86,958 3,439 1,023 6,105 13,557 2,903 2,078 9,329 14,525 19,5091990 77,095 3,167 1,063 5,683 11,334 2,888 1,989 9,530 16,693 18,7921991 70,884 2,574 1,268 4,795 11,413 3,210 1,842 9,402 14,330 19,2201992 80,518 3,144 1,346 4,400 12,305 3,285 1,988 9,360 21,508 20,9481993 85,754 3,386 1,605 5,082 14,218 3,873 2,113 9,393 23,820 23,0271994 116,026 4,373 1,783 5,909 15,701 4,060 2,390 9,614 30,936 26,6871995 77,117 2,303 1,824 6,155 10,341 3,804 1,916 9,614 35,221 29,2141996 67,253 1,665 1,843 5,263 10,111 3,932 1,891 9,692 18,889 30,9711997 66,406 2,238 1,855 5,567 10,140 3,024 2,012 9,705 29,530 33,5751998 66,314 4,021 1,911 6,449 10,975 4,108 2,388 10,057 24,839 34,8721999 75,475 3,645 1,901 6,339 11,140 3,811 1,981 10,073 28,931 38,4842000 68,401 6,651 1,969 6,946 11,548 3,226 2,047 10,688 43,210 42,0652001 80,107 6,966 2,069 7,563 12,204 3,881 2,129 11,303 55,916 43,0072002 96,476 2,697 2,245 7,426 13,351 4,091 2,220 11,841 46,034 44,1202003 97,165 2,223 2,592 11,607 15,519 4,489 2,748 11,623 52,829 46,8162004 88,497 1,625 2,869 9,697 17,058 4,091 2,629 11,808 40,806 44,4492005 95,991 3,558 3,123 9,178 18,188 4,275 3,341 13,214 47,428 46,0732006 112,214 1,833 3,177 9,321 18,570 4,314 2,913 14,280 56,058 47,0352007 104,493 1,849 3,515 9,959 20,063 4,526 4,007 15,657 61,468 47,8902008 70,082 2,990 3,478 14,767 19,690 4,729 3,330 16,061 78,504 48,1622009 86,413 4,033 3,394 11,382 19,456 4,657 3,042 16,256 54,446 46,5672010 62,138 2,756 3,325 11,353 18,825 4,515 2,864 16,289 46,308 46,303Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Morocco-Belhabib et al. 23ReconstRuction of maRine fisheRies catches foR moRocoo (noRth, centRal and south), 1950-20101Dyhia Belhabib, Sarah Harper, Dirk Zeller and Daniel PaulySea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canadad.belhabib@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.caabstRactFisheries catches in the Moroccan Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), including the Atlantic and Mediterranean areas, were reconstructed to include commercial small-scale, commercial large-scale, illegal and unregulated fisheries, non-commercial recreational and subsistence fisheries, and foreign catches in both EEZ areas. Estimated domestic catches suggest that Moroccan data supplied to FAO are less reliable than they should be, with over 41.5% of catches being unreported. This study also shows that 25.4 million tonnes of catches were taken from the southern EEZ area, which contributed to 52% of the Moroccan catch estimated at 48.4 million tonnes. This illustrates not only that Morocco needs to improve its fisheries monitoring system to include small-scale fishing and unregulated fishing, but also questions the impacts of the fishing access agreements signed by Morocco on the local economy and fisheries sustainability, particularly in the southern area where most foreign catches are taken.intRoductionMorocco is located in North Africa, west of Algeria and shares the Alboran Sea with Spain in the North. On the West African coast, Morocco, including the former Spanish Sahara, ranges from Tangier (36° N) to Lagouira (20° N) on Cape Blanc, which is one of the richest fishing areas in the world due to the sustained east central Atlantic upwelling (Porter 1997; Anon. 2005a). Morocco proclaimed its EEZ in 1981 (Anon. 2007). Morocco maintains the southern area under its administration since 1976, after the Spanish Sahara territory became independent from Spain (Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher 2005). In this study, we do not take position on the legality of Moroccan fisheries in Saharan waters, which is a matter of the International Court of Justice 1975 ordinance on the right for self-determination (Barreira et al. 1998). Rather, we will attempt to first estimate total catches as defined above, and allocate these catches to the three areas defined above (northen Mediterranean, Atlantic central Moroccan and Atlantic southern areas) per fishing sector. Thus, this paper presents a reconstruction of the total removals from both the northern and central coasts of Morocco (Figure 1), along with the southern areas (Figure 2), from 1950 to 2010. It provides an update to the report by Baddyr and Guénette (2001), including small-scale fisheries catches and unreported catches of industrial fisheries. It also accounts for subsistence, recreational and unreported artisanal catches, as well as discards, including catches from the waters off the Mediterranean coast of Morocco. The artisanal fishery is an informal sector in Morocco, and there is no data collection system (Malouli Idrissi et al. 2001; ArtFiMed 2009); it consists mostly of small wooden dories under six meters of length called pateras, targeting mainly small fish and other species. This category also includes hand collection of algae and mussels and shore-based fishing using lines (Baddyr and Guénette 2001). The large-scale fisheries include two types of activities: inshore or coastal fisheries initiated by Spanish and Portuguese fishers with 16 to 24 m wooden boats manufactured locally without catch preservation systems, and targeting pelagic species using purse seines, demersal species using long liners, bottom trawls and driftnets, and the off-shore industrial fishery 1 Cite as: Belhabib, D., Harper, S., Zeller, D. and Pauly, D. (2012) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches from Morocco (north, central and south), 1950-2010. pp 23-40. In: Belhabib, D., Zeller, D., Harper, S., and Pauly, D. (eds.),  Marine fisheries catches in West Africa, 1950-2010, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (3). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  Map of Morocco showing the Mediterranean northern and the Atlantic central coasts.Figure 2.  Map of the southern areas of Morocco. 24which started in 1972 and has grown rapidly since then. It consists almost exclusively of large freezer trawlers fishing for several weeks at a time (Baddyr and Guénette 2001; Franquesa et al. 2001; Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher 2005; Tudela et al. 2005; Anon. 2007; FAO 2011). Fishing in Morocco has been a major activity since the 1930s, and the industry experienced tremendous growth during the 1980s (Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher 2005). However, heavy exploitation by both national and foreign vessels (Ariz 1985; Baddyr and Guénette 2001), a lack of monitoring and enforcement because of existing economic difficulties (Kaczynski 1989), and an emphasis on short-term profits from resource exploitation rather than long-term sustainable benefits (Kaczynski 1989) resulted in over-exploitation of important demersal stocks, shifting stocks (Balguerías et al. 2000; Baddyr and Guénette 2001; Pitcher et al. 2002; Anon. 2005a) and increasing illegal, unreported and unregulated fisheries (Anon. 2005c). Importantly, fisheries contribute to the livelihood of around 400 000 people in poor, rural areas, and represent 15% of the total Moroccan exports. Moreover, 20% of the Moroccan and former Spanish Saharan populations suffer from a lack of protein, and live under the poverty line (Anon. 2005a). For these reasons, it is important to analyze more complex trends of total fisheries catches and question the management strategy of Morocco.methodsElectronic time series of landings data were available from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) from 1950 to 2010, and Moroccan National Fisheries Office reports (Office national des pêches, ONP) from 1999 to 2010. We also used data available from a previous reconstruction by Baddyr and Guénette (2001), which included the artisanal and the industrial fisheries effort and catches for Moroccan Atlantic and Western Sahara from 1950 to 1998. Reported landings are distinguished by species or higher taxonomic grouping and `miscellaneous groups´. Since the main goal of this study is to estimate the total catch per species or higher taxonomic group, we compared the FAO data to the above-cited national reports, and concluded that differences between the datasets from 1999 to 2010 were not significant. Thereafter, we aggregated catch data presented by area during the period from 2000 to 2010 (www.onp.co.ma> [2011]), separated landings from northen, central and southern areas, and concluded that catches from southern areas represented around 56% of the total Moroccan landing data supplied to the FAO. We applied this rate to the data reported to the FAO from 1950 to 2010 to estimate reported catches by Morocco for the southern areas. We used the separated data for Morocco (Mediterranean northern and Atlantic central areas) and southern areas as a reported baseline, to which we added: (1) under-reported small-scale artisanal catches; (2) under-reported large-scale catches; (3) illegal catches; (4) discards; (5) subsistence catches and (6) recreational catches. Table 1. Anchor points for small-scale fishing effort (number of boats) and the corresponding CPUE (t∙boat-1∙year-1) for Morocco.Year Effort Source CPUE Source Catch (t) SourceAtlantic central and southern areas1950 - - - - 39,245 25% higher than 1981 catches1981 2,700 Baddyr and Guénette (2001) 11.63 1.25 times CPUE1991 31,396 Based on CPUE and effort1985 4,028 Do Chi and Idelhadj (1991) - - - -1988 4,035 Baddyr and Guénette (2001) - - - -1991 - - 9.10 Boudi et al. (1990), Do Chi and Idelhadj (1991)- -1994 6,000 Baddyr and Guénette (2001) - - - -2002 8,831 Faraj (2009), adjusted by 50% - - - -2004 15,881 Anon. (2005a), adjusted by 20% - - - -2006 6,175 Faraj (2009) - - - -2007 15,496 Boudinar (2007) - - - -2010 15,112 Assumption 6.78 1.25 times CPUE1991 -  -Mediterranean northern areas  1950 - - - 19,117 30% higher than 1981 catches1981 1,343 25% of Atlantic effort adjusted by 67% 11.75 1.25 times CPUE1991 14,705 Based on CPUE and effort1985 2,000 25% of Atlantic effort adjusted by 67% - - -1988 2,007 25% of Atlantic effort adjusted by 67% - - -1994 2,985 25% of Atlantic effort adjusted by 67% - - -1999 2,547 www.inrh.org.ma [2011] adjusted by 60%a- - -2002 - - 9.12 Malouli Idrissi et al. (2001), ONP (2005)- -2004 4,411 25% of Atlantic effort adjusted by 41%a - - -2007 5,757 25% of the Atlantic effort adjusted by 36%a- - -2010 2,600 www.inrh.org.ma 2011, adjusted by 30%a3.0 Al Asri 2010 -  -a) The rate of adjustment is based on an interpolation from an under-reporting rate of 67% in 1988 to 30% in 2010.Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Morocco-Belhabib et al. 25Under-reported artisanal catchesArtisanal fishing effort in the Atlantic central and southern waters off Morocco and the corresponding catches are under-estimated (Lahnin et al. 1991; Anon. 2005a; Shelley 2008). Do Chi and Idelhadj (1991) estimated a catch per unit of effort (CPUE) of 57 kg·boat-1·day-1 for 1991, where 36.4% is unreported crustaceans and cephalopods, for 170 days of fishing (Boudi et al. 1990), i.e., 9.7 t·boat-1·year-1 (Table 1) compared to 1 t·boat-1·year-1 provided by Baddyr and Guénette (2001). We assumed that the catch per boat in 1981 was 25% higher than in 1991, i.e., 11.63 t·boat-1·year-1. Due to continuing excessive effort (Peña et al. 2003), CPUE kept on decreasing after 1991 to reach 80% of the 1991 CPUE in 2010, i.e., 6.78 t·boat-1·year-1. Thus, we re-constructed small-scale catches for the period 1981 to 2010 based on these CPUE rates interpolated from 11.63 t·boat-1·year-1 in 1981 to 9.7 t·boat-1·year-1 in 1991 and to 6.78 t·boat-1·year-1 in 2010. For the effort, we used data on the number of boats from 1981 to 1985, 1988, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2002 (which we adjusted by 50%, Faraj 2009), and 2004 (which we corrected by 20%, Anon. 2005a; Faraj 2009) and 2007. These data included the effort in the Mediterranean waters of Morocco; thus, we reduced the effort by 25% to exclude the Mediterranean effort (Do Chi and Idelhadj 1991). Thereafter, we interpolated linearly from each anchor point to bridge the gaps from 1981 to 2007, and carried the trend onward to estimate the effort for 2010 (Table 1). Thereafter, we multiplied the CPUEs by the number of boats from 1981 to 2010. For the period from 1950 to 1980, because of the presence of small-scale Spanish boats in the former Spanish Sahara waters, we assumed that the artisanal catch was 25% higher in 1950 than in 1980 and then performed a linear interpolation from 1950 to 1981. Here, we assumed that before 1975, 40% of catches were made off the southern areas mostly, because of the presence of the artisanal Spanish fleet (Ariz 1985); thereafter we assumed it decreased to be 30% of the total small-scale catches of the Atlantic area.In the Mediterranean, the Moroccan CPUE was estimated to be 6.4 t∙boat-1∙year-1 for 2000 (Malouli Idrissi et al. 2001), 11.85 t∙boat-1∙year-1 for 2004 (ONP 2005), 2.1 t∙boat-1∙year-1 for 2009 (ArtFiMed 2009) and 3 t∙boat-1∙year-1 for 2010 (El Asri 2010). Since the official data provided by ONP (2005) represents an area of relatively high production, we averaged the first two estimates and obtained a CPUE of 9.12 t∙boat-1∙year-1 for 2002 and used the catch per effort of 3 t∙boat-1∙year-1 for Table 2. Species composition of Mediterranean and Atlantic catches of Morocco for the period 1950-2010. Percentage composition derived from qualitative data in Barreira et al. (1998); Do Chi and Idelhadj (1991); Charbonnier and Caddy (1986); UNEP (2008); INRH (1999); Malouli Idrissi et al. (2001) and ArtFiMed (2009).Mediterranean AtlanticCommon name Taxon name Catch (%) Catch (%)Gilthead seabream Sparus aurata 5.0 -Axillary seabream Pagellus acarne 10.0 -forkbeard Phycis spp. 0.4 -Shrimps - 0.4 -Other sparids Sparidae 3.0 -Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus 2.0 -European eel Anguilla anguilla 8.0 -Octopus Octopus spp. 22.0 -Bullet tuna Auxis spp. 5.0 -Bonito Sarda sarda 5.0 -Swordfish Xiphias glaius 1.0 -European pilchard Sardina pilchardus 8.0 -Sharks Variousa 0.2 -Blacktip grouper Epinephelus fasciatus 0.3 -Common dentex Dentex dentex 2.0 -Venus clam Chamelea gallina 9.0 -Bogue Boops boops 11.0 -European anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus 2.0 -Caramote prawn Penaeus kerathurus 1.0 -Miscellaneous - 1.0 -Blufin tuna Thunnus thynnus 3.0 -Bluespotted seabream Pagrus caeruleostictus 1.0 -Red porgy Pagrus pagrus 2.0 -Scorpaenids and Sparids Scorpaenidae and Sparidae 1.0 -Common two-banded seabream Diplodus spp. 4.0 1Surmulets Mullus spp. 3.0 14Sea breams, Pandora etc. Pagellus spp. 4.0 1Cuttlefish Sepia spp. 10.0 5Groupers Epinephelus spp. 2.0 8European conger Conger conger 1.0 1European squid Loligo vulgaris 2.0 1European seabass Dicentrarchus labrax 6.0 1Croaker Argyrosomus regius - 1Sole Solea spp. - 1Crayfish and lobsters Palinurus spp. - 15Lobsters Homarus spp. - 15Large pelagic fish - - 15Other sharks - - 4Bivalvia - - 4Small pelagic fish - - 4Barnacles - - 0 to 10% bFinfish - - 0 to 10% ba) Smooth-hound (Mustelus mustelus), sharpnose sevengill sharks (Heptranchias griseus), bluntnose sixgill shark (Hexanchus griseus) and sand tiger shark (Carcharias taurus).b) A percentage of the illegal catches increasing from 0% in 1975 to 10% in 2010. 262010 (Table 1). Because of stock over-exploitation in the Mediterranean since the early 1980s (Oliver, 1983), we believe the catch per unit of effort was likely higher in the 1980s. Therefore, we conservatively assumed a CPUE of 11.75 t∙boat-1∙year-1 in 1981 (20% higher) declining linearly to 9.12 t∙boat-1∙year-1 in 2002, then 3 t∙boat-1∙year-1 in 2010. Thereafter, we applied the same approach to the effort data available or derived from the Atlantic effort data, where the Mediterranean effort represented 25% of the Atlantic (Do Chi and Idelhadj 1991). We then adjusted the effort by an unreported factor of 67% in 1981 to 1985 (Charbonnier and Caddy 1986) to 30% in 2010 (Table 1), when artisanal fisheries were better documented. To complete the estimate for the period 1950 to 1980, we assumed conservatively that the catches in 1950 were 30% higher than in 1981 because of the presence of the French and Spanish boats (Oliver 1983); thereafter, we interpolated linearly.A part of this artisanal fisheries catch, estimated to be around 8.5% (Malouli Idrissi et al. 2001), is kept for personal consumption (i.e., here considered subsistence). However, this component is assumed to have been larger in the 1950s (around 30%). To estimate this subsistence catch, we interpolated personal consumption rates from 30% in 1950 to 8.5% in 2010, and then applied the estimates to the artisanal catch in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic.Species disaggregation: Only a few authors described the taxonomic composition of small-scale fisheries catches for Moroccan central and southern areas. While Barreira et al. (1998) and Do Chi and Idelhadj (1991) described the species composition of catches as including: sparids, sole (Solea spp.), surmullets (Mullus spp.), European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), meager (Argyrosomus regius), conger (Conger spp.), groupers (Epinephelus spp.), cephalopods, bivalves and lobsters (Homarus and Palinurus spp.); Charbonnier and Caddy (1986) allocated a degree of importance to each species, i.e., ‘important’, ‘average’ or ‘low’, and UNEP (2008) described cephalopod catches. Here we used this information as a baseline and attributed a number to each degree of importance (Table 2). For the Mediterranean, a gear-based species disaggregation was provided by INRH (1999), from which we derived an average, in combination with the estimates provided by Malouli Idrissi et al. (2001) and ArtFiMed (2009) (Table 2).Under-reported large-scale catchesIndustrial fisheries: This component represents what is referred to as off-shore by Morocco, in contrast to coastal (semi-industrial fisheries which include coastal demersal and drfitnet fisheries). Industrial demersal catches are known to be under reported (Baddyr and Guénette 2001). The authors estimated the unreported industrial catch from 1972 (when the fishery started) to 1998 with a minimum under-reporting of 47%. Therefore, to complete the time series from 1999 to 2010, we applied an under reporting rate of 55% to the industrial catches from 1999 to 2010, which represents the average between the estimate by Durand (1995) (60% in the 1990s) and Pitcher et al. (2002) estimate of 50% to 60% in the 2000s.Coastal demersal and pelagic fisheries: As for coastal pelagic and demersal fisheries, Baddyr and Guénette (2001) assumed an unreported catch of 23% in the 1970s, El Hannach (1986) reported the same rate for the 1980s which we applied here to the coastal catch. El Mamoun (1999) identified 47% of the catches as being unreported and Anon. (2005c) in the 2000s estimated only 8% to be unreported which is low given the prevalence of illegal marketing in Morocco (Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher 2005). To adopt a conservative approach, we assumed 10% of catches were not reported in 2010, and given the monitoring system development as reported by Morocco, interpolated from 47% in 1999 to 10% in 2010 (Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher 2005). For the 1950s and 1960s, we used Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher (2005) estimate of 60% which is justified by the total absence of a statistical monitoring system during this period (CGPM 1982; Oliver 1983) (Table 3).Moroccan large-scale driftnet fishery: The driftnet fishery targets mainly swordfish and is considered under the coastal fisheries segment. The driftnet fishing effort developed quickly in the 1990s (Table 4) (Tudela et al. 2005; Anon. 2008). Although the net length is legally limited and reported to be 2 to 3 km (Abid and Idrissi 2009), it is largely under-estimated (Cornax et al. 2006). Driftnet fishers often fail to respect this regulation. Indeed, Anon. (2008) reported a length range of 3 to 14 km and Tudela et al. (2005) reported an average length of 6.8 km and a catch of 0.8 swordfishes per km of net per day for an average weight of 32 kg per fish (Srour and Abid 2002). This, when multiplied by the number of fishing days, i.e., 120 (Tudela et al. 2005), allowed estimating a swordfish CPUE of 20.9 t∙boat-1∙year-1 for 2002 and 2003. Thereafter, we applied this estimate to the number of driftneters per year. We interpolated linearly between the years of known data to fill in the missing time periods (Table 4). Landed by-catch was then estimated, including sharks, 6% of bonito (Sarda sarda), 5% of pelagic stingrays (Pteroplatytrygon Table 3. Unreported coastal demersal and pelagic landings per decade for Morocco.Decade Unreported landing (%) Source1950 60 Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher (2005)1960 60 Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher (2005)1970 23 Baddyr and Guénette (2001)1980 23 El Hannach (1986)1990 47 El Mamoun (1999)2010 10 Modified from Anon. (2005c) Table 4. Number of active driftneters per year in the Mediterranean waters of Morocco.Year Number of boats Source1989 0 Tudela et al. (2005)1993 120 Silvani et al. (1999) 1994 120 Silvani et al. (1999) 1995 200 Tudela et al. (2005)1998 225 Abid (1998), Cornax et al. (2006)a2002 267 Tudela et al. (2005), Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher (2005)a2003 274 Cornax et al. (2006)2004 300 Cornax et al. (2006), Srour and Abid (2004)a2006 300 Abid and Idrissi (2007)2007 300 Abid and Idrissi (2007)2010 300 Assumed constanta) Average estimate.Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Morocco-Belhabib et al. 27spp.) and 0.5% of dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) (Cornax et al. 2006), which we applied to the swordfish catch. Effort was relatively low from 1990 to 1994, we assumed that the unreported portion for this period was not significant. The progressive prohibition of driftnetting in Spain in 1991 (Silvani et al. 1999), and in Europe for driftnets of more than 2.5 km of length (Cornax et al. 2006), before being prohibited totally in 2002 (Tudela et al. 2005), contributed to the increase of such activity in Morocco, with nets exceeding 2.5 km since 1991. Furthermore, a possible decrease in the CPUE due to over-exploitation (Tudela 2000) would be compensated by an increase in gear capacity (i.e., total net length) per boat.Illegal fisheriesIllegal fishing is defined as all fishing methods prohibited by the government of Morocco in waters under its sovereignty or jurisdiction. Dynamite fishing and illegal cephalopod fishing are the two main illegal domestic fishing activities. Although dynamite fishing is widespread along the Mediterranean coast of Morocco (Pitcher et al. 2002; Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher 2005; Tudela et al. 2005; Boudinar 2007), non-discarded catches are often reported; thus they are considered under small-scale fisheries catches. Illegal cephalopod fishing is mainly practiced along the Saharan (southern area) coastline (Barreira et al. 1998).Illegal cephalopod fishery : Barreira et al. (1998) reported about 12,000 pateras, the majority of which are operating illegally (over the quota announced by the government), along the Saharan coast in 1998, targeting cephalopods and reportedly catching the same quantity as Spanish cephalopod boats, i.e., 20,000 t·year-1. Baddyr and Guénette (2001) documented that the legal artisanal fishery targeting cephalopods started in 1988; however, we assume  that the illegal activities started along with the industrial fishery, i.e., in 1975 (Barreira et al. 1998). Therefore, we interpolated linearly from zero in 1975 to 20,000 t·year-1 in 1990 and kept this number unchanged to 2010, assuming that the number of pateras remained stable.DiscardsSmall-scale fishery : Discards of the small-scale fishery were considered non-existent (Baddyr 1989) and therefore, not accounted for in Baddyr and Guénette (2001). However, due to the lack of preservation technology, the lack of carrying capacity of the boats and the opportunity of selling the products (Pitcher et al. 2002); Kelleher (2005) estimated a discard rate of 19%, and Weber and Durand (1986) reported a discard of 10% to 15%. Here, we estimated an average rate of 12.5% of the total small-scale catches for the period 1950 to 1989, then we interpolated linearly to 19% in 2010 (Table 5).Large-scale fisheries: Large-scale fisheries include the cephalopod industrial fishery, coastal trawl demersal fishery, coastal small pelagic fishery and coastal driftnet fishery (in the northen areas).The industrial cephalopod fishery is associated with higher rates of discarding. In the 1970s, 66% of the industrial cephalopod fleet catches were thrown overboard and in the 1980s, discards represented 46% of the retained catch (Balguerías 1997). Haddad (1994) estimated that 30% of the catch was discarded in the 1990s and Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher (2005) and Kelleher (2005) estimated that 45% was discarded in the 2000s. We interpolated linearly to derive annual estimates for the periods 1970 to 1980, 1981 to 1990, 1991 to 2002. From 2002 onward, the discard rate was held constant at 45% due to the adoption of a global quota for the industrial cephalopod fishery in 2002 (Veguila 2011), which likely maintained a high discard rate. However, to remain conservative, we kept the rate constant (Table 5). Then, we applied these rates to the reconstructed cephalopod industrial catches.By-catch from the demersal shrimp trawl fishery in North West Africa accounted for 85% of the shrimp catch (Kaczynski 1989). According to Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher (2005), 75% of this was discarded in the Atlantic areas, while Kelleher (2005) estimated that 20% to 70% was discarded. In Mediterranean Morocco, a discard rate of 12% is suggested by El Mamoun (1999). Here, we used a discard rate of 75% from 1950 to 1989, decreasing thereafter due to an increase in mesh size and boat capacity to an average rate of 43% in the 2000s. Weber and Durand (1986) reported higher discards of around 70% to 90% for the Atlantic coast. We applied the average discard rate of 80% to the reconstructed demersal catches from 1950 to 1989, and decreased the rate linearly thereafter to 45% in the 2000s (Kelleher 2005; Table 5).Table 5. Discard rates per fishing sector in the northen, central and southern areas of Morocco.Year Discard (%) SourceSmall-scaleNorthen, central and southern areas1950 12.5 Asumption1989 12.5 Durand (1995)2010 19.0 Kelleher (2005)Industrial cephalopodCentral and southern areas1970 66.0 Balguerías (1997)1980 46.0 Balguerías (1997)1990 30.0 Haddad (1994)2002 45.0 Veguila (2011), Kelleher (2005)2010 45.0 Veguila (2011), Kelleher (2005)Coastal demersal trawl fisheryNorthern areas1950 75.0 Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher (2005)1989 75.0 Rojo-Diaz and Pitcher (2005)2000 43.0 El Mamoun (1999), Kelleher (2005)2010 43.0 El Mamoun (1999), Kelleher (2005)Central and southern areas1950 80.0 Weber and Durand (1986)1989 80.0 Weber and Durand (1986)2000 45.0 Kelleher (2005)2010 45.0 Kelleher (2005)Coastal pelagic fisheryNorthern, central and southern areas1950 4.0 El Mamoun (1999)1980 4.0 El Mamoun (1999)2000 2.5 Kelleher (2005)2010 2.5 Kelleher (2005) 28Small pelagic fisherySardine fishery discards were estimated to be relatively low. For the 2000s, Kelleher (2005) provided a discard rate of 2.5%, for the 1990s, Haddad (1994) provided a discard of 5%, while El Mamoun (1999) estimated 4%. Here we applied a discard rate of 4% for the period 1950 to 1980, decreasing linearly to 2.5% in the 2000s (Table 5).Driftnet fisheryThe driftnet fishery mainly targets swordfish (Abid 1998) and generates high levels of by-catch and discards. Indeed, shark by-catch ranges from 50% (Cornax et al. 2006) to between 78% and 92% (Tudela et al. 2005) of total estimated swordfish catches. Here, we applied an average of 67.5% to the swordfish catch for the period from 1990, when driftneting began in Morocco, to 2010. The species composition of non-targeted catch was 33% blue sharks (Prionace glauca), 36% shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrhinchus) and 31% thresher sharks (Alopias vulpinus) (Tudela et al. 2005). A portion of this by-catch is discarded and therefore not reported nor accounted for in Baddyr and Guénette (2001). In this paper, since no data were available, we considered 50% as discarded and 50% as sold illegally. Driftneting also generates high levels of by-catch of non-commercial species, which are mainly discarded. Based on Tudela et al. (2005) estimate of discarded ocean sunfish (Mola mola) (508 sunfish for 2,990 swordfish) and an average weight of 46 kg for the ocean sunfish (www.fishbase.org [2011]), and 32 kg for the swordfish (Srour and Abid 2002), we derived a discard rate of 25% of swordfish catches. This is likely an under-estimate (see Stewart 2001) because of the average weight reported for ocean sunfish (about 1,000 kg)2 is over 20 times higher than the one we used here. Then, we applied the previous discard rates to the annual swordfish catch from 1990 to 2010.Subsistence fisheriesBivalves were mainly caught to sustain subsistence fishers. Shafee (1999) documented a CPUE of 22 t·boat-1·year-1 in the 1990s of which 70% was for subsistence. Catches have been steeply declining since the early 1980s (Anon. 2005b), therefore, we conservatively assumed the CPUE was 40% higher in 1980 than in 1990, i.e., 30.8 t·boat-1·year-1 and we kept the trend declining and estimated a CPUE of 14.12 t·boat-1·year-1 in 2010. The effort targeting bivalves decreased from 350 boats in 1980 to 233 boats in the 1990s and continued decreasing to an estimated 30% of the 1990s effort in 2010 due to a decreasing biomass (Shafee 1999). Here, we used CPUE and effort data to estimate catches from 1980 to 2010, then we assumed that the catches in 1950 were 20% higher than in 1980. Thereafter, we allocated 30% of these catches to the small-scale commercial fishery. This approach likely underestimates the real catch, since shore-based fishers (Shafee 1999) were not accounted for. We also conservatively assumed that the by-catch reported by Shafee (1999), often used as bait, was 5% of total bivalve catches. Here, bivalve catches were mainly documented for Mediterranean Morocco (Shafee 1999; Anon. 2005b), thus we assumed that the catches in the Mediterranean represented 70% of total removals, while 20% were caught along the central areas and 10% in the southern areas where the Zenaga were fishing for their subsistence along with the Imraguen of Mauritania (Gaudio 1984; de Brisson and Gaudio 1993); then assigned catch to species for the Mediterranean, where information was available (Shafee 1999) (Table 6).  The portion of the catch taken home by artisanal fishers for personal consumption is also considered subsistence in the present study. Malouli Idrissi (2001) estimated the portion taken home to be 8.5% of the artisanal catch. Here, we assumed this rate was higher (30%) from 1950 to 1975, before the first fisheries plans were legislated, interpolated linearly to 8.5% in 1999 (Malouli Idrissi 2001), and kept the personal consumption rate constant between 1999 to 2010. We then applied this rate to the estimated artisanal catch for the northern, central and southern areas of Morocco.Recreational fisheriesRecreational fisheries include rod and reel fishing and underwater spear-fishing. In the Mediterranean, these activities are becoming increasingly important (Zahri and Abdelaoui 2010). The number of fishing licenses and the species targeted in the Mediterranean 2  http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/ocean+sunfish> [Accessed on 16/12/2011].Table 6. Catches composition for the Mediterranean bivalve subsistence fishery (in %).Common name Taxon name Catch (%)Spiny cockle Acanthocardia aculeata 15.0European prickly cockle Acanthocardia echinata 14.0Moroccan cockles Acanthocardia tuberculata 14.0Smooth callista Callista chione 21.0Donax Donax denticulatus 2.0Venus clam Chamelea gallina 34.0Total 100.0Bait use (%)Olive green cockle Cerastoderma glaucum 1.0Pilose bittersweet Glycyremis pilosa 0.5Brown mussel Perna perna 1.0Queen scallop Aequipecten opercularis 1.0Sword razor Ensis ensis 1.0Cockle Glycyremis violacescens 0.5Total 5.0Table 7. Recreational fishing effort expressed in number of licenses in the northern areaa.Year Underwater spearfishing licencesRod-fishing licenses1950b 0 02004c 100 1,0002005c 180 2,2002006c 200 2,8002007c 230 5,3002008c 260 6,2002009c 180 5,0002010c 180 5,000a) Effort in Atlantic derived from the effort in the Mediterranean; b) Assumption; c) from Abdelaoui (2010).Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Morocco-Belhabib et al. 29from 2004 to 2009, have been well documented (Gaudin et al. 2007; Abdelaoui 2010; Zahri and Abdelaoui 2010), however, no effort estimate was available for the Atlantic.The number of spearfishing and rod-fishing licenses for the Mediterranean were available from 2004 to 20093 (Abdelaoui 2010). The number of fishing licenses indicates the number of spearfishers and rod-fishing boats, respectively. To estimate the number of spearfishers and rod-fishing boats for the period from 1950 to 2003, we assumed recreational fisheries started in 1950, i.e., zero spearfishers and zero rod-fishing boats, then interpolated linearly to 100 spearfishers and 1,000 rod-fishing boats in 2004. Since no effort data were available for the central and southern areas, we assumed the effort in the Mediterranean represented 70% of the total effort, 20% in the central areas, and in the southern areas where there was no spearfishing represented 10% of the total number of rod-fishing boats. The number of fishing days was also derived from Abdelaoui (2010) to be conservatively 70 days per year (i.e., during the summer) for the time period from 1950 to 2010, which allowed to estimate the total recreational effort (Table 7). We estimated a CPUE of 58.8 kg·fisher-1·day-1 based on observations from recreational fishers (www.hassan-peche.com [2011]; www.pecheurmarocain.com [2011]) for Atlantic central and southern areas rod-fishing, and assumed a same CPUE for the Mediterranean recreational rod-fishing fleet. We also derived a spearfishing CPUE of 17.14 kg·fisher-1·day-1 (www.hassan-peche.com> [2011]) for Atlantic areas, while for the Mediterrean, the majority of the spearfishing catch per unit of effort (70%) was estimated to be 20.6 kg·day-1 of seabreams (Zahri and Abdelaoui 2010), i.e., a total CPUE of 28 kg·day-1. Thereafter, to reconstruct recreational rod-fishing and spearfishing catches from 1950 to 2010, we applied these CPUE estimates to the effort of each segment in the Mediterranean, Atlantic Morocco and Western Sahara. This approach uses the same CPUE for the 1950 to 2010 time period; therefore, it accounts for the increasing popularity of recreational fishing by Moroccans and tourists (increasing number of fishing days).Foreign fishingForeign fisheries catches were not estimated here. However, a global overview was available through the report by Guénette et al. (2001) by the Spanish fishing fleet, whose activities were prominent in Moroccan central and southern areas among the European fleets. Belhabib et al. (this volume) reconstructed foreign fishing through fishing access agreements, with a particular focus on Spain being prominent in the area. Although we believe illegal fishing activities have significant removals, we focused on the legal removals.ResultsTotal catchesTotal reconstructed domestic catches for Morocco were estimated to be over 48.4 million tonnes for the period 1950 to 2010 compared to 28.3 million tonnes reported to the FAO (Figure 3a). In the 1950s, catches represented almost 3 times the data supplied to FAO on average compared to the 2000s when they were 50% higher than the data supplied to FAO. The Mediterranean fisheries of Morocco were two to three times the data submitted by the government of Morocco to the FAO over the period from 1950 to 2010, i.e., 3.8 million tonnes compared to 1.48 million tonnes supplied to the FAO. The unreported component accounted for about twice the reported catch in the 1950s, and decreased since the mid-1970s after Morocco declared its EEZ. Overall, total reconstructed catches for Morocco increased from about 311,000 t·year-1 in 1950 to around 1.6 million t·year-1 in 2010, reaching a peak of 1.8 million t·year-1 3  We assumed the same number of licenses for 2010.0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0Southern areaCentral areaMediterraneanFAOa020406080100120Catches (t x 103)SparidaeSardina pilchardusSmall pelagicsMiscellaneousScombridaeCephalopodsCrustaceans andmolluscsb0100200300400500600700800 Sardina pilchardusMiscellaneousSmall pelagicsDemersalsCephalopodsScombridaePalinuridae and nephropidaec0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 106)YearSardina pilchardusMiscellaneousSmall pelagicsDemersalsCephalopodsScombridaedFigure 3.  a) Estimated total marine fisheries catches by Morocco for the 1950-2010 time period as compared to the total catch reported to the FAO; b) seven most important taxa caught in the mediterranean; c) seven most important taxa caught in the central areas and; d) six most important taxa caught in the southern areas EEZ by the Moroccan fleet, 1950-2010.  30in 2001, around 1 million tonnes of which were caught off the southern areas (Figure 3a).Catches in the northern areas are dominated by sardines, other small pelagic species and scombrids, observing declining catches since the mid-2000s (Figure 3b). Catches in the central areas were  dominated by sardines, cephalopods and other demersal species (Figure 3c), while catches in the southern areas were overwhelmingly dominated by sardines (Figure 3d).Moroccan catches by sector in the northen and central areasArtisanal catchesSmall-scale reconstructed catches in Moroccan northern and central areas, mainly of crayfish, lobster, large pelagic fish and octopus, increased from 43,000 t·year-1 in 1950 to a maximum of 105,000 t·year-1 in 2004 and decreased afterwards (Figure 4). Catches increased substantially after the 1970s, when Morocco granted its first effort subsidies for fisheries. Reconstructed catches totaled around 2.8 million tonnes for the period 1950 to 2010, of which 44% were from the Mediterranean EEZ, i.e., 1.2 million tonnes (Figure 4). From a total of 2.8 million tonnes, more than 580,500 tonnes were used for personal consumption, thus not considered commercial. Personal consumption decreased from 12,800 t·year-1 in 1950 (1.5 kg∙person-1∙year-1) to 6,300 t·year-1 (0.6 kg∙person-1∙year-1) in 2010.Unreported large-scale catchMoroccan large-scale catches totaled 15.7 million tonnes over the period from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 5). This sector alone was over 47% higher than the data supplied to FAO for Atlantic Moroccan area (10.7 tonnes) (Figure 5). Coastal pelagic fisheries represented the bulk of Atlantic Moroccan (central areas) large scale catches with 83% of the total (13.1 million tonnes) over the study time period (Figure 5). Coastal demersal catches of over 793,700 tonnes represented 6% of total large scale catches. Coastal demersal catches increased from 7,620 t∙year-1 in 1950 to a peak of 40,042 t∙year-1 in 2000, and then decreased to around 25,100 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 5). Industrial catches which were estimated at over 1.6 million tonnes for the 1950-2010 time period, increased since the 1970s, when they started, to their maximum of about 86,100 t∙year-1 in the early 1990s, and decreased thereafter (Figure 5).Catches in the Mediterranean were reconstructed to be over 1.6 million tonnes compared to 1.2 million tonnes reported to the FAO over the period 1950 to 2010. The unreported component for the Mediterranean area decreased from 1,900 t·year-1 (42%) in 1950 to a maximum of approximately 18,000 t·year-1 in 2006, when 50% of the catches were not reported (Figure 5).Driftnet unregulated fisheriesThe bulk of unreported catches off the Mediterranean coast of Morocco started after the introduction of the driftnet fishery in the early 1990s, when swordfish, billfishes and sharks represented 46% of total unreported catches for the Mediterranean (Figure 6). 0204060801001201401601801950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 10³)YearSouthern areaCentral areaNorthern areasIllegal cephalopodcatch0102030405060Coastal pelagicCoastal demersalDriftnetsFAOa0100200300400500600700Catches (t x 103)Coastal pelagicCoastal demersalIndustrialFAOb01002003004005006007008009001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearCoastal pelagicCoastal demersalIndustrialFAOc0123456789101950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103)YearReported Xiphias gladiusXiphias gladiusSharksThunnus thynnusStingraysSarda sarda   and Coryphaena hippurus UnreportedFigure 4.  Morocco reconstructed small scale (artisanal) catches for the period 1950 to 2010. Figure 5.  Domestic  large-scale catches by a) Morocco in the North, compared to FAO data from Moroccan northern areas, and b) by Morocco from Atlantic central area compared to FAO data from the Moroccan Atlantic central EEZ and c) Morocco from the southern areas, compared to FAO data from the southern areas, 1950-2010. Figure 6.  Reconstructed domestic driftnet catches by Morocco from the Mediterranean coast of Morocco, 1950-2010. Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Morocco-Belhabib et al. 31Unreported driftnet catches totaled approximately 100,000 tonnes for the period from 1990 (when the fishery started) including 65% of swordfish (64,000 tonnes) and 23% of sharks and stingrays (23,000 tonnes) over the period between 1990 and 2010 (Figure 6). Morocco failed to report increasing bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) catches from 188 t·year-1 in 1990 to 630 t·year-1 in 2004 (Figure 6). Unreported bluefin tuna catches remained stable thereafter (Figure 6).DiscardsDiscarded by-catch in Atlantic Morocco represented 9% of total catches from 1950 to the late 1970s, with average discards of 12,300 t·year-1 (Figure 7). Discarding from the 1980s onward increased to an average of 48,000 t·year-1 in the 2000s, due to the development of industrial fisheries as well as coastal demersal fisheries after Morocco launched its ‘encouragement code’ for fisheries investments in the mid-1970s and consecutive four-year plans in the 1980s and 1990s (Figure 7). The total discards estimated here were over 1.7 million tonnes from 1950 to 2010. Industrial fisheries were responsible for the bulk of discards, with over 550,000 tonnes from 1973 to 2010, whereas coastal pelagic fisheries represented 27% from 1950 to 2010, and demersal fisheries 29% (505,000 tonnes). Small-scale discards which totaled 225,000 tonnes from 1950 to 2010, increased by a factor of 4 during the same time period (Figure 7).Discards in the Mediterranean are relatively low, with 286,000 tonnes discarded over the period 1950 to 2010 (Figure 7). However, the driftnet fishery alone contributed to 28% of Mediterranean discards since its introduction to Morocco in 1990, reaching over 44,000 tonnes from 1990 to 2010 (Figure 7), consisting of ocean sunfish (49%) and sharks (51%).Subsistence fisheriesMorocco does not supply subsistence catch data to the FAO. The total reconstructed subsistence catches from Atlantic Morocco were estimated to be 409,310 tonnes from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 8), of which 32% were bivalves (134,000 tonnes). Subsistence catches for the Mediterranean, consisting of 63% of bivalves (dominant in weight and caught manually or using small boats) decreased from 14,700 t·year-1 in 1950 to around  1,800 t·year-1 in 2010 (Figure 8).Recreational fisheriesRecreational catches in the central areas of Morocco were estimated at 113,000 tonnes for the period 1950 to 2010, increasing from 40 t∙year-1, right before independence of Morocco, to 10,400 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 8). Similarly, in the Mediterranean, recreational catches increased from 70 t∙year-1 to 18,000 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 8), with a total of 198,000 tonnes for the 1950 to 2010 time period (Figure 8).02468101214Small-scaleDemersalDriftnetsa010203040506070Catches (t x 10³)Coastal pelagicCoastal demersalIndustrialSmall-scaleb0204060801001201950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearCoastal pelagicCoastal demersalIndustrialSmall-scalec01020304050601950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 10³)YearNorthern areaCentral areaSouthern areaSouthern areaCentral areaNorthern areaSubsistence RecreationalFigure 7.  Estimated discards by sector for a)  Mediterranean Morocco, b) Atlantic  central areas  and ; c) southern  areas , 1950 to 2010. Figure 8.  Estimated subsistence and recreational catches for Morocco, 1950-2010. 32Moroccan (and former Spanish Saharan) catches by sector from the southern areasArtisanal catchesSmall-scale reconstructed catches in the southern areas increased from 15,700 t·year-1 in 1950 to a maximum of 45,000 t·year-1 in 2004 and decreased afterwards (Figure 4). Catches from the southern areas of Morocco were reconstructed to be around 1.5 million tonnes, of which 31% were illegally caught cephalopods from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 4). More than 224,000 tonnes have been used for personal consumption, thus not considered commercial. Personal consumption remained relatively stable over the 60 year time period at an average of 3,700 t·year-1.Unreported large scale catchCoastal pelagic fisheries catches off the southern areas of Morocco were estimated at 17.3 million tonnes over the period from 1950 to 2010. These catches increased from an average of 101,000 t∙year-1 in the 1950s to a peak of about 750,000 t∙year-1 in 2001, and decreased thereafter to less than 618,000 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 5). Coastal demersal catches were reconstructed to be over 1.3 million tonnes for the 60 year time period (Figure 5). Catches increased by a factor of five from the 1950s (10,000 t∙year-1) to 2000 (53,000 t∙year-1), then decreased by almost half in 2010, when catches were estimated at 33,000 t∙year-1 (Figure 5). Industrial fisheries removed 3,300 t∙year-1 in 1973, the year they began, and increased to a maximum of 118,000 t∙year-1 in the early 1990s (Figure 5). Overall, large scale catches (including coastal and industrial sectors) were estimated to be over 20.7 million tonnes for the 1950-2010 time period, compared to 16.1 million tonnes supplied by Morocco to FAO for these areas (Figure 5).Illegal and unregulated fisheriesIllegal cephalopod catches in the southern areas totaled 480,000 tonnes for the period from 1950 to 2010, increasing from 800 t·year-1 in 1972, when the fishery started to a plateau of 20,000 t·year-1 from 1994 to 2010 (Figure 4).DiscardsFisheries off the southern areas accounted for 60% of the discards for the period 1950 to 2010, with over 3 million tonnes discarded, increasing after 1976, when Morocco took control of the area (Figure 7). Discards represented 12% of the total reconstructed catch in the southern areas, where in 2010, they were 5 times (83,000 t∙year-1) as high as discards in 1950 (16,600 t∙year-1) with a peak of 112,000 t∙year-1 in the early 2000s (Figure 7). Small-scale discards represented 8% of total discards with 232,000 t∙year-1 for the study period; coastal fisheries represented 59% of discards with coastal pelagic fisheries responsible for over 870,000 tonnes and demersal coastal fisheries for 938,000 tonnes (Figure 7). Industrial fisheries which started in 1973, were responsible for over a third of total discards in the southern areas, i.e., 1 million tonnes over the 1950-2010 time period.Subsistence fisheriesSubsistence and recreational catches in the southern areas were estimated to be 261,000 tonnes from 1950 to 2010. Subsistence catches in these areas decreased overall from 5,600 t∙year-1 in 1950 to less than 3,600 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 8), the lowest in the areas under Morocco’s jurisdiction.Recreational fisheriesRecreational catches were estimated at 14,000 tonnes for the period 1950 to 2010. Recreational catches in the southern areas increased from 5 t∙year-1 in 1950, when the area was under the Spanish rule, to 1,300 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 8).discussionOur reconstruction of Moroccan  domestic fisheries accounts for various fisheries sectors (commercial and non-commercial) not previously included in statistical time series supplied to the FAO. Thus, it represents the most comprehensive estimate available of total domestic marine fisheries catches for Morocco. Moreover, it provides catch estimates by species or taxon and it allocates data to three separate areas, i.e., Mediterranean versus central and southern Atlantic areas.Total marine fisheries catches by Morocco in the Mediterranean and the Moroccan Atlantic EEZ were approximately 48.4 million tonnes for the period from 1950 to 2010, which is nearly two times higher than the data supplied to the FAO. The southern areas, with the largest contribution to the sardine landings (Machu et al. 2009), accounted for a large part of Moroccan catches, with an estimated 25.4 million tonnes for the 1950-2010 time period.Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Morocco-Belhabib et al. 33Although the artisanal sector is important, accounting for 16% of the total removals, it remains relatively neglected (Charbonnier and Caddy 1986) in terms of management and monitoring, with a high portion of catches not being presented in the official statistics. Coastal fisheries accounted for 71% of the domestic catch, which drives the general trend of the Moroccan fisheries during the period from 1950 to 2010.Domestic catches had an overall increasing trend; however, catches increased at a higher rate after Morocco introduced its first ‘encouragement code’ for fisheries in the 1970s followed by a succession of subsidies. The resulting increase in subsidized effort added further pressure on already depleted and over-exploited stocks: pelagic fisheries since the mid-1990s (Zahri 2006; Menioui 2007), and demersal resources since the mid-1980s (Balguerías et al. 2000; Slimani and Hamdi 2004; Menioui 2007). Demersal fisheries, especially in southern areas, where the continental shelf area remained freely accessible to fishing vessels after the Spanish occupation ended, have been heavily exploited (Garcia and Newton 1994). A plateau, with a slight decreasing tendency, is observed since 2001 where the catch was 1.8 million t·year-1 and reached 1·6 million t∙year-1 in 2010.The Moroccan population, particularly in the southern areas, suffers from malnutrition and anemia as a result of  a lack of animal protein (Skretteberg 2008), while 80% of the Morocco’s large-scale fleet output is exported to overseas markets (Suárez et al. 1996). Furthermore, these waters are subject to a constant fishing pressure by foreign fishing vessels under agreements or joint ventures with Morocco (Kaczynski 1989; Riché 2004, Belhabib et al. This volume). In the Mediterranean area, the gradual prohibition of driftnets by European countries and an increasing demand for swordfish has contributed to the increasing use of driftnets in Moroccan waters (Cornax et al. 2006). Moreover, poverty in some fishing areas has encouraged the use of dynamite for fishing (Boudinar 2007), which although not considered here, usually leads to high discard rates and unrecovered mortality, as well as substantial habitat destruction.Illegal fishing practices (Boudinar 2007), foreign fishing pressure (Porter 1997), lack of control and surveillance (Kaczynski 1989), fish habitat loss (Menioui 2007) and high rates of discards have led to the over-exploitation of demersal resources. Heavy trawling activity led to shifting stocks (Balguerías et al. 2000) and declining stock abundance (Faraj and Bez 2007). In addition, inequity of domestic fishing license attribution has favored an increasing migration of Moroccans and thus Moroccan fishing vessels towards southern waters (Veguila 2011). This, combined with the 2002 management decision to adopt a quota for cephalopods (Faraj and Bez 2007), led to the development of informal markets and thus illegal fishing, in addition to increasing the competition between the industrial and the artisanal sectors over the resource, thus increasing conflicts among fishers.This raises the question of the resource rent not captured by the Moroccan southern populations, but mainly transferred to northern areas of Morocco via migrant flows (Veguila 2011). Furthermore, the unreliability of Moroccan statistics, both in the Mediterranean and in the Atlantic areas, is highlighted by the substantial difference between our reconstructed estimate and total landings data as supplied to the FAO by Morocco.Given the extent of foreign fishing in Morocco, the question of how fishing access agreements contribute to the local economy needs to be raised. Access fees are often diverted to activities other than direct improvements to the management of fisheries resources. Decision-makers often negotiate access-agreements that are harmful to sustainable fisheries for their own personal gain. Therefore, allowing foreign fleets access to Moroccan waters does little to benefit the majority of the Moroccan population (Porter 1997).acknowledgementsWe acknowledge the support of the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.RefeRencesAbdelaoui B (2010) Recreational marine fishery in the Moroccan Mediterranean (Updating of data). INRH. 8 p.Abid N (1998) Contribution à l’étude de la pêcherie marocaine de l’espadon (Xiphias gladius) dans la région du Détroit de Gibraltar, Institut Agronomique et vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, Maroc. 95 p.Abid N and Idrissi M (2007) Gillnet. p. 31 In ICCAT Manual. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna In: ICCAT Publications [on-line].Abid N and Idrissi M (2009) Updated standardized catch rates for swordfish (Xiphias gladius) caught by the Moroccan driftnet fishery in the Mediterranean sea for the period 1999-2007. ICCAT. 8 p.Anon. (2005a) Contrat cadre pour la réalisation d’évaluations, d’études d’impact et de suivi concernant les accords de partenariat dans le domaine de la pêche conclus entre la Communauté européenne et les pays tiers : Analyse coût-bénéfice d’un éventuel accord de pêche entre la Communauté européenne et le Royaume du Maroc, et analyse de l’impact de cet accord en terme de durabilité. Final report, Oceanic Development, Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd., MegaPesca Lda. Concarneau. 128 p.Anon. (2005b) Phase diagnostic. Rapport de synthèse site «Embouchure de la Moulouya». MedWetCoast Maroc. 118 p.Anon. (2005c) Review of impacts of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing on developing countries. Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd, London. 170 p. 34Anon. (2007) Global by-catch assessment of long-lived species. Country profile: Morocco. Blue Ocean Institute. 14 p.Anon. (2008) Adrift! Swordfish and driftnets in the Mediterranean Sea. Oceana. 115 p.Ariz J (1985) Descripción de la actividad de la flota española que explota la pesquería de Cefalódos de África N.O. pp. 5-10 In Bas C, Margalef R and Rubies P (eds.), Simposio internacional sobre las areas de afloramiento mas importantes del Oeste Africano (Cabo Blanco y Benguela), Barcelona.ArtFiMed (2009) Diagnostique du site de pêche artisanale de Dikky. FAO-ArtFiMed: Développement durable de la pêche artisanale méditerranéenne au Maroc et en Tunisie. FAO, Malaga. 81 p.Baddyr M (1989) The biology of the squid Loligo vulgaris in relation to the artisanal fishing site of Tifnit, Morocco. University of Michigan. 113 p.Baddyr M and Guénette S (2001) The fisheries off the Atlantic coast of Morocco 1950-1997. p. 15 In Zeller D, Watson R and Pauly D (eds.), Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Catch, Effort and National/Regional Data Sets. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9 (3).Balguerías E (1997) Discards in fisheries from Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF region). pp. 183-214 In Technical consultationon reduction of wastage in fisheries. Tokyo, Japan. FAO fisheries report (547). FAO, Rome.Balguerías E, Quintero ME and Hernández-González CL (2000) The origin of the Saharan Bank cephalopod fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57(1): 8.Barreira A, Fabra A, Martínez AR and Tudela T (1998) From concept to design: Creating an international environmental ombudsperson. Local communities and fishing disputes in Saharan and Moroccan waters: opportunities for new dispute resoluction mechanisms. The Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development, San José. 47 p.Boudi A, Kerroumi L and Bakkali M (1990) la pêche maritime au sud: analyse et perspective. Cycle supérieur de gestion, Institut superieur de commerce et d’administration des entreprises. 308 p.Boudinar B (2007) Diagnostic du secteur de la pêche maritime au Maroc. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino de España. 229 p.CGPM (1982) Rapport de la deuxième consultation technique sur l’évaluation des stocks dans les divisions statistiques Baléares et golfe du Lion. Rapp. Pêches 263, FAO, Casablanca. 165 p.Charbonnier D and Caddy JF (1986) Report of the technical consultation of the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean on the methods of evaluating small scale fisheries in the western mediterranean. FAO Fisheries Reports (362), FAO, Rome. 155 p.Cornax MJ, Pastor X and Aguilar R (2006) The use of driftnets by the Moroccan fleet. Oceana. 24 p.de Brisson PR and Gaudio A (1984) Histoire du naufrage et de la captivité en mer de mr. de Brisson en 1785. Nouvelles editions latines, Paris, 193 p.Do Chi T and Idelhadj A (1991) Approche globale de la structure de la pêche aux petits métiers au Maroc et relations entre les composantes du secteur. p. 15 In Durand JR, Lemoalle J and Weber J (eds.), La recherche face à la pêche artisanale. ORSTOM, Montpellier.Durand MH (1995) La gestion des ports de pêche, analyse et développement de la capacité institutionnelle. Rapport intermédiaire. Rapport complémentaire : La fonction commerciale des ports de pêches. Rapport d’une mission de la banque mondiale. Banque mondiale. 42 p.El Asri A (2010) A Shared Policy for Sustainable Fishing in the Mediterranean Sea. Presentation and analysis of the Moroccan experience. CIHEAM. 52 p.El Hannach A (1986) Estimation d’une partie des captures de la pêche traditionnelle non enregistrée au long de l’Atlantique Marocain (de Tanger à Agadir). Institut agronomique et veterinaire Hassan II 11 p.El Mamoun M (1999) Les hors-circuits dabs la pêche côtière au Maroc: cas des ports de Casablanca, d’Agadir, de Nador et de Tanger. Honours thesis, Institut agronomique et vétérinaire de Hassan II, Rabat, Maroc. 128 p.FAO (2011) Profil des pêches et aquaculture par pays–Maroc. FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_MA/fr > [Accessed: 12/12/2011].Faraj A (2009) Techniques géostatistiques au service de l’aménagement de la pêcherie cephalopodière marocaine, Ecole des Mines de Paris, Paris. 221 p.Faraj A and Bez N (2007) Spatial considerations for the Dakhla stock of Octopus vulgaris: indicators, patterns and fisheries interactions. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 8.Franquesa R, Idrissi M and Alarcón J (2001) Feasibility assessment for a database on socioeconomic indicators for Mediterranean fisheries. Studies and reviews.71, FAO, Rome. 55 p.Garcia SM and Newton CH (1994) Responsible fisheries: An overview of FAO policy developments (1945-1994). Marine Pollution Bulletin 29(6-12): 528-536.Gaudin C and De Young C (2007) Recreational fisheries in the Mediterranean countries : a review of existing legal frameworks. Studies and Reviews (81). FAO, Rome. 94 p.Gaudio A (1993) Les populations du Sahara occidental: histoire, vie et culture. Paris : Éd. Karthala, 362 p.Guénette S, Balguerías E and Santamaría MTG (2001) Spanish fishing activities along the Saharan and Moroccan coast. pp. 206-213 In Zeller D, Watson R and Pauly D (eds.), Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Catch, Effort and National/Regional Data Sets. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9(3). Haddad N (1994) Evaluation de l’expérience de l’observateur scientifique marocain, Institut agronomique et vétérinaire de Hassan II, Rabat, Maroc. 140 p.INRH (1999) Situation actuelle de la pêche artisanale en Méditerranée marocaine. Résultats de l’enquête effectuée en Décembre 1998. Institut national de recherche halieutique, Nador. 28 p.Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Morocco-Belhabib et al. 35Kaczynski VM (1989) Foreign fishing fleets in the subSaharan West African EEZ. The coastal state perspective. Marine Policy 13 (1): 2-15.Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update. Fish. Tech. Pap. (470), FAO, Rome. 131 p.Lahnin A, Bertignac M, Cunningham S and Zouiri M (1991) Stratégie d’évaluation d’une pêcherie artisanale:le cas du Maroc. p. 417 In Durand JR, Lemoalle J and Weber J (eds.), La recherche face à la pêche artisanale. ORSTOM, Montpellier.Machu E, Ettahiri O, Kifani S, Benazzouz A, Makaoui A and Demarcq H (2009) Environmental control of the recruitment of sardines (Sardina pilchardus) over the western Saharan shelf between 1995 and 2002: a coupled physical/biogeochemical modelling experiment. Fisheries Oceanography 18(5): 287-300.Malouli Idrissi M, Zahri Y, Houssa R, Abdelaoui B and El Ouamari N (2001) La pêche artisanale dans la lagune de Nador, Maroc : exploitation et aspects socio-économiques. Institut National de Recherche Halieutique, Nador. 43 p.Menioui M (2007) Projet SMAP III. Sensibilisation et création d’un cadre politique favorisant l’intégration de l’environnement et du développement avec l’accent sur la gestion intégrée des zones côtières. Ministère de l’aménagement du territoire, de l’eau et de l’environnement, Rabat. 22 p.Oliver P (1983) Les ressources halieutiques de la Méditerranée. Première partie: Méditerranée occidentale. Studies and Reviews (59). FAO, Rome. 135 p.ONP (2005) Pêche côtière et artisanale au maroc. Office national des pêche. 22 p.Peña M, Le Ry J-M and El Gharbi R (2003) Etude d’analyse du potentiel de l’industrie de transformation et valorisation des produits de la mer dans la région de Souss Massa Draa, au Maroc. Rapport final. Cabinet TRANSTEC. 258 p.Pitcher TJ, Watson R, Forrest R, Valtýsson H and Guenette S (2002) Estimating Illegal and Unreported Catches From Marine Ecosystems: A Basis For Change. Fish and Fisheries 3(4): 317-339.Riché P (2004) Les ressources naturelles du Sahara occidental. l’exploitation des ressources du Sahara Occidental par le Maroc: Epuisement des cephalopodes. Association des amis de la R.A.S.D. 4 p.Rojo-Diaz P and Pitcher TJ (2005) An estimation of compliance of the fisheries of Morocco with article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 23 p.Shafee MS (1999) Étude des pêcheries bivalves sur la côte méditerranéenne marocaine. Institut agronomique et vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat. 57 p.Shelley T (2008) Natural resources and Western Sahara. pp. 17-19 In  Pinto Leite P  and Claes O (eds.), The Western Sahara conflict–The role of natural resources in decolonization. 21 p.Silvani L, Gazo M and Aguilar A (1999) Spanish driftnet fishing and incidental catches in the western Mediterranean. Biological Conservation 90 (1999): 6.Skretteberg R (2008) Occupied country, displaced people. Norwegian Refugee Council, Oslo. 19 p.Slimani A and Hamdi H (2004) Etat des stocks des principales ressources démersales en Méditerranée marocaine. CGPM, Malaga. 30 p.Srour A and Abid N (2002) L’exploitation et la biologie de l’espadon (Xiphias gladius) et du thon rouge (Thunnus thynnus) des côtes marocaines 13 p.Srour A and Abid N (2004) Situation de la Pêcherie de l’espadon (Xiphias gladius) des côtes marocaines 56, ICCAT. 5 p.Stewart PAM (2001) A review of studies of fishing gear selectivity in the Mediterranean. COPEMED, FAO, Rome. 75 p.Suárez J-L, Frieyro M, Jurado J and Rodríguez J-C (1996) The Atlantic-Mediterranean Region: North-South Convergence and Fisheries Development. Sociologia Ruralis 36(2): 249-258.Tudela S (2000) Ecosystem effects of fishing in the Mediterranean: An analysis of the major threats of fishing gear and practices to biodiversity and marine habitats. Studies and Reviews (74). FAO, Rome. 49 p.Tudela T, Kai Kai A, Maynou F, M EA and Guglielmi P (2005) Driftnet fishing and biodiversity conservation: the case study of the large-scale Moroccan driftnet fleet operating in the Alboran Sea (SW Mediterranean). Biological Conservation 121(2005): 14.UNEP (2008) Africa: Atlas of our changing environment. ProgressPress Inc., London. 374 p.Veguila V (2011) La gestion localisée de conflits «invisibles». Les mobilisations socio-économiques des jeunes Sahraouis a Dakhla. p. 4 In Aufauvre C and Najar S (eds.), Marges, normes et éthique Institut de recherche sur le Maghreb contemporain, Rabat. 310 p.Weber J and Durand H (1986) Le secteur des pêches dans les pays d’Afrique, Dakar, réunion préparatoire pour l’Afrique en vue de la prémière consultation sur l’industrie des pêches, Organisation des nations unies pour le développement industriel, Dakar. 67 p.Zahri Y (2006) Etude des prix des petits pélagiques en Méditerranée marocaine. Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona. 47 p. 36Appendix Table A1a: Annual catches by the Moroccan fleet.Year Mediterranean FAO Central areas Southern areas FAO Atlantic1950 38,515 5,300 123,866 148,933 126,6001951 40,624 6,900 102,897 121,070 93,0001952 45,302 8,700 123,956 149,321 123,9001953 38,545 8,200 126,658 152,962 130,5001954 40,182 8,700 101,626 119,538 94,7001955 37,125 5,000 97,537 114,137 89,2001956 38,782 6,100 107,642 127,776 102,0001957 39,885 6,800 132,562 161,200 138,2001958 38,648 6,300 144,520 177,286 155,3001959 38,895 6,500 133,682 162,901 137,8001960 34,746 6,500 137,832 168,528 144,1001961 35,297 6,981 142,025 174,212 150,5001962 35,421 8,049 143,133 175,748 153,4001963 36,104 8,235 149,062 183,762 162,0001964 38,975 9,635 161,649 200,566 186,0471965 38,111 10,298 173,909 217,124 200,1881966 39,505 9,782 235,780 300,007 289,1981967 37,578 8,185 205,625 259,745 245,1711968 40,462 10,793 176,651 221,040 203,8821969 39,027 9,756 186,262 234,621 214,6411970 43,129 10,869 161,238 200,871 238,3081971 45,967 14,130 148,334 183,793 211,7541972 52,361 17,437 162,756 202,790 248,5991973 55,245 19,756 238,158 304,939 371,4251974 56,239 20,631 177,834 224,065 264,2821975 56,142 15,419 148,830 186,660 209,3971976 57,860 23,932 178,994 218,668 259,3141977 71,891 33,791 159,683 194,391 225,6641978 60,969 32,071 177,943 220,788 260,0401979 71,800 35,539 173,277 216,860 249,0341980 61,187 27,328 209,352 268,764 302,0491981 70,223 40,730 239,033 313,465 348,8351982 69,601 33,121 229,983 305,531 329,2051983 67,104 32,193 281,379 374,368 420,1291984 80,839 41,557 293,613 387,113 424,3231985 72,554 35,052 307,234 410,134 436,7321986 75,786 37,378 369,454 497,221 556,3661987 77,195 39,597 317,219 429,704 452,7771988 61,660 28,975 355,905 484,612 521,3831989 65,350 30,655 337,422 460,665 487,7561990 69,778 35,660 412,995 563,769 531,7771991 68,712 32,018 438,647 601,232 562,5651992 75,599 39,239 409,576 564,506 509,8961993 69,809 31,623 463,535 637,827 591,2621994 69,951 34,999 551,535 764,653 717,5761995 81,530 39,669 596,259 822,624 807,7751996 80,422 36,268 456,957 633,676 602,2161997 65,487 28,374 558,695 770,007 752,8191998 67,830 25,369 500,642 689,573 679,9081999 73,974 33,647 508,415 699,534 704,4752000 78,237 34,902 615,412 844,691 866,2422001 71,466 27,517 734,885 1,004,123 1,066,9062002 72,088 31,856 629,114 858,820 927,6472003 86,280 36,959 598,196 804,752 880,0262004 97,641 40,090 592,614 784,268 877,2032005 106,043 45,973 629,621 831,465 977,4872006 110,562 50,523 540,742 714,613 822,9292007 106,496 42,137 534,213 700,530 833,1062008 95,051 35,752 589,938 773,152 956,9342009 90,600 40,578 658,018 871,604 1,118,4632010 81,449 33,913 633,938 839,759 1,095,090 Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Morocco-Belhabib et al. 37Appendix Table A1b: Annual catches by the Moroccan fleet.FAO Artisanal Industrial Recreational Subsistence Discards Total reconstructed1950 131,900 41,101 210,456 112 29,170 30,942 311,7801951 99,900 40,823 165,672 112 28,986 29,417 265,0101952 132,600 40,545 216,239 223 28,803 31,385 317,1951953 138,700 40,266 220,659 335 28,619 31,528 321,4081954 103,400 39,988 165,173 447 28,436 29,096 263,1391955 94,200 39,709 152,586 558 28,253 27,955 249,0611956 108,100 39,431 176,916 670 28,069 29,123 274,2091957 145,000 39,152 234,096 781 27,886 31,630 333,5461958 161,600 38,874 260,436 893 27,702 32,799 360,7041959 144,300 38,596 236,559 1,005 27,519 31,967 335,6451960 150,600 38,317 245,260 1,116 27,336 32,442 344,4711961 157,481 38,039 255,627 1,228 27,152 32,810 354,8561962 161,449 37,760 259,657 1,340 26,969 32,815 358,5411963 170,235 37,482 273,604 1,451 26,785 33,383 372,7061964 195,682 37,203 304,754 1,563 26,602 34,125 404,2471965 210,486 36,925 332,732 1,674 26,419 35,693 433,4431966 298,980 36,647 471,588 1,786 26,235 41,458 577,7141967 253,356 36,368 402,241 1,898 26,052 38,627 505,1851968 214,675 36,090 340,932 2,009 25,868 35,795 440,6941969 224,397 35,811 358,657 2,121 25,685 38,874 461,1481970 249,177 35,533 306,462 2,233 25,501 35,140 404,8691971 225,884 35,254 281,306 2,344 25,318 34,520 378,7431972 266,036 34,976 320,478 2,456 25,135 33,873 416,9171973 391,181 34,698 487,847 2,568 24,951 47,482 597,5451974 284,913 34,419 354,996 2,679 24,768 40,483 457,3461975 224,816 34,133 285,953 2,791 24,584 38,166 385,6271976 283,246 34,290 354,973 2,902 23,969 40,424 456,5571977 259,455 34,432 326,924 3,014 23,360 38,377 426,1071978 292,111 34,565 365,223 3,126 22,758 40,589 466,2611979 284,573 34,691 360,977 3,237 22,164 42,597 463,6671980 329,377 34,809 426,892 3,349 21,576 54,158 540,7851981 389,565 34,919 498,768 3,461 20,783 72,457 630,3871982 362,326 34,071 469,539 3,572 19,704 76,306 603,1921983 452,322 39,076 575,022 3,684 20,380 85,122 723,2841984 465,880 53,301 592,848 3,795 23,490 90,628 764,0631985 471,784 50,701 615,645 3,907 21,754 98,260 790,2671986 593,744 49,273 755,469 4,019 20,400 111,933 941,0931987 492,374 47,822 644,013 4,130 19,096 107,383 822,4441988 550,358 46,350 716,131 4,242 17,842 114,798 899,3621989 518,411 50,209 673,856 4,354 17,759 113,125 859,3021990 567,437 54,034 841,867 4,465 17,582 122,730 1,040,6781991 594,583 57,825 881,689 4,577 17,469 137,963 1,099,5221992 549,135 61,574 820,030 4,689 15,029 140,828 1,042,1501993 622,885 65,281 929,615 4,800 14,788 147,213 1,161,6961994 752,575 68,900 1,133,323 4,912 14,466 160,054 1,381,6551995 847,444 72,378 1,247,066 5,023 14,049 156,864 1,495,3811996 638,484 75,798 938,164 5,135 13,561 131,128 1,163,7871997 781,193 79,158 1,150,130 5,311 13,007 142,319 1,389,9241998 705,277 82,457 1,023,658 5,424 12,389 132,722 1,256,6501999 738,122 81,323 1,050,086 5,537 12,163 132,043 1,281,1522000 901,144 84,923 1,277,743 5,650 11,658 155,319 1,535,2932001 1,094,423 88,378 1,531,976 5,763 11,635 171,892 1,809,6432002 959,503 91,685 1,308,931 5,876 11,610 146,505 1,564,6062003 916,985 125,282 1,220,038 5,989 14,394 129,519 1,495,2212004 917,293 155,770 1,190,656 6,102 16,901 112,460 1,481,8882005 1,023,460 146,215 1,284,382 13,330 15,719 112,238 1,571,8852006 873,452 137,162 1,083,940 16,897 14,596 118,002 1,370,5972007 875,243 128,609 1,054,373 31,632 13,530 114,859 1,343,0032008 992,686 120,708 1,175,018 36,982 12,537 116,141 1,461,3862009 1,159,041 113,256 1,330,788 29,755 11,597 138,035 1,623,4312010 1,129,003 106,258 1,284,503 29,755 10,709 131,899 1,563,124  38Appendix Table A2a: Most important taxa caught by domestic fisheries in the Mediterranean EEZ of Morocco, 1950-2010.Year Sparidae Sardina pilchardusOther small pelagicsCephalopods Scombroids Crustaceans Molluscs and bivalvesMiscellaneous1950 5,534 4,801 3,749 2,866 3,359 479 10,497 7,2291951 5,614 5,540 4,692 2,956 3,499 478 10,437 7,4081952 6,845 7,273 4,631 2,856 3,407 478 10,378 9,4341953 4,895 5,605 5,019 2,707 2,614 470 10,314 6,9221954 5,205 6,095 5,232 2,794 2,642 468 10,253 7,4931955 5,183 4,578 4,216 2,762 2,454 462 10,191 7,2801956 5,293 5,263 4,727 2,849 2,681 460 10,131 7,3801957 5,198 6,880 4,493 2,733 2,493 458 10,070 7,5601958 5,088 7,054 3,500 2,708 2,648 453 10,009 7,1871959 5,088 6,785 4,111 2,690 2,540 450 9,948 7,2841960 4,959 6,455 3,820 2,753 2,425 442 9,885 4,0081961 5,061 6,814 3,849 2,536 2,704 440 9,824 4,0701962 5,160 6,833 4,651 2,516 2,961 437 9,763 3,1011963 4,962 6,997 4,382 2,499 3,446 434 9,702 3,6821964 4,979 8,605 4,774 2,590 3,302 434 9,642 4,6481965 5,072 8,624 5,011 2,567 3,431 430 9,581 3,3951966 5,180 9,478 3,701 2,553 3,135 428 9,521 5,5091967 5,466 6,692 4,170 2,526 3,180 422 9,459 5,6621968 5,684 7,502 6,162 2,418 3,744 421 9,399 5,1311969 5,272 9,145 4,050 2,392 3,055 417 9,337 5,3591970 5,666 9,045 4,873 2,412 4,121 424 9,278 7,3091971 5,692 13,021 4,420 2,434 4,386 440 9,235 6,3391972 6,658 17,156 4,808 2,387 3,257 430 9,161 8,5031973 6,676 15,260 8,511 2,479 3,696 447 9,101 9,0741974 6,557 18,440 6,427 2,427 3,706 434 9,082 9,1661975 6,508 14,365 7,058 2,405 3,046 414 8,979 13,3671976 5,495 19,906 9,989 2,378 4,028 441 8,911 6,7121977 7,463 24,922 14,011 2,384 4,081 428 8,848 9,7551978 5,099 19,837 14,779 2,304 3,931 444 8,774 5,8021979 6,628 19,682 20,609 2,364 3,571 420 8,963 9,5631980 6,302 14,037 17,129 2,365 2,808 391 8,660 9,4951981 5,705 12,086 29,197 2,245 3,353 395 8,701 8,5431982 5,604 12,027 27,713 2,286 2,963 393 8,417 10,1981983 6,240 14,077 24,628 2,739 3,238 435 8,292 7,4551984 7,781 19,482 27,031 3,883 6,877 859 8,572 6,3541985 7,364 18,669 22,371 3,877 3,950 539 8,384 7,4011986 7,034 24,910 19,255 3,377 3,795 503 7,804 9,1081987 6,372 34,305 12,733 2,969 3,922 465 7,337 9,0921988 5,940 22,526 10,761 2,358 3,930 410 7,419 8,3181989 6,569 22,931 12,209 2,599 4,653 447 6,839 9,1021990 6,885 25,285 11,877 2,662 8,593 492 6,686 7,2981991 6,912 23,819 11,074 2,908 7,225 504 6,688 9,5821992 7,262 29,620 11,667 3,141 9,568 547 4,934 8,8601993 7,534 22,429 11,732 3,237 7,478 554 4,924 11,9221994 8,033 20,257 13,514 3,341 9,912 576 4,924 9,3941995 8,571 20,242 19,443 3,522 8,754 578 4,911 15,5101996 8,600 21,761 16,329 3,448 9,479 606 4,932 15,2671997 7,480 14,266 13,284 3,504 10,169 588 4,850 11,3461998 7,526 13,275 11,979 3,510 8,892 603 4,941 17,1041999 7,758 19,153 11,256 3,254 9,660 545 5,337 17,0112000 7,430 22,122 11,548 3,496 9,060 612 4,618 19,3502001 7,809 15,504 10,677 3,627 7,550 628 4,464 21,2062002 8,205 14,941 11,934 4,597 8,872 690 4,320 18,5302003 10,526 15,443 13,340 5,100 15,035 952 4,738 21,1462004 12,341 17,853 13,153 6,671 20,373 1,126 5,015 21,1092005 12,950 21,328 19,646 7,048 12,462 959 4,334 27,3172006 12,618 21,979 26,787 6,334 9,671 811 3,694 28,6682007 15,392 19,579 23,624 6,643 7,609 645 3,089 29,9142008 15,837 12,519 21,786 6,047 7,099 561 2,535 28,6662009 12,796 19,800 18,034 4,938 7,228 490 2,026 25,2882010 11,833 19,155 17,289 4,394 6,678 395 1,551 20,154 Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Morocco-Belhabib et al. 39Appendix Table A2b: Most important taxa caught by the domestic fisheries in the central areas of Morocco, 1950-2010.Year Palinuridae and NephropidaeScombridae Cephalopods Demersal fishesSmall pelagics Miscellaneous Sardina pilchardus1950 6,993 6,713 1,958 3,650 7,734 20,442 76,3041951 6,948 6,541 2,164 3,820 6,984 21,099 55,2881952 6,903 6,823 2,155 3,866 7,908 22,607 73,6671953 6,858 8,178 2,146 3,869 7,883 23,039 74,6141954 6,813 5,715 2,008 3,915 6,900 21,361 54,8681955 6,768 8,034 2,085 3,874 7,124 21,835 47,7731956 6,723 9,253 1,946 4,093 7,987 20,760 56,8711957 6,678 9,388 1,980 4,354 9,006 21,105 79,9761958 6,633 13,148 2,014 4,400 9,180 21,020 88,0841959 6,587 9,326 2,005 4,618 8,922 20,849 81,3011960 6,542 10,019 1,996 4,750 9,164 21,108 84,1761961 6,497 11,529 1,944 4,107 9,880 19,903 88,0841962 6,452 11,937 1,935 3,852 9,683 20,292 88,8591963 6,407 12,557 1,969 5,018 9,973 21,498 91,5561964 6,362 10,785 2,046 4,676 10,693 27,442 99,4211965 6,317 11,833 2,166 4,808 11,479 23,438 113,6331966 6,272 11,392 2,243 5,328 13,785 24,128 172,4291967 6,226 11,130 2,104 5,417 12,922 22,019 145,0721968 6,181 8,559 2,483 5,204 11,844 23,656 117,8431969 6,136 11,456 4,397 5,473 12,655 25,415 120,5351970 6,101 17,801 2,237 5,390 9,739 27,088 92,6251971 6,062 7,774 1,971 4,694 8,748 22,988 95,8971972 6,022 6,207 1,722 4,504 8,571 31,457 104,0161973 5,956 8,385 2,030 5,778 11,399 22,035 182,2961974 5,920 10,846 3,282 6,717 9,892 24,324 116,6311975 5,745 10,433 2,028 6,320 16,097 18,075 89,9181976 6,661 12,091 2,226 4,548 15,220 20,981 117,0221977 6,430 24,489 2,166 6,695 26,462 22,338 70,9361978 6,176 26,308 2,220 5,949 31,339 21,750 84,0021979 5,962 12,760 2,247 6,720 17,134 21,701 106,4291980 6,073 18,373 8,799 9,308 17,660 28,828 120,0631981 5,427 17,201 14,576 13,184 17,279 32,259 138,8341982 4,919 32,823 19,299 14,495 15,256 38,844 104,0981983 5,482 30,336 23,578 16,502 18,261 51,867 135,0571984 7,470 60,195 24,619 17,603 21,000 56,754 105,7121985 6,781 46,030 21,067 20,025 20,051 59,526 133,5031986 6,392 49,714 25,426 22,582 21,030 80,093 163,7021987 6,039 17,749 22,612 22,954 20,602 73,958 152,5081988 5,717 21,271 30,334 24,167 25,027 70,309 177,9181989 5,994 20,262 32,136 23,993 23,281 47,665 183,8991990 6,223 17,929 39,813 28,195 31,501 59,678 229,3251991 6,450 10,905 48,077 31,930 35,170 61,684 244,0191992 6,642 12,298 43,643 33,702 36,120 63,308 213,6741993 6,817 13,522 47,946 32,192 37,911 67,898 256,7991994 6,130 22,805 43,778 33,441 39,659 68,596 337,0211995 6,457 21,327 45,417 32,112 40,891 68,890 380,6731996 6,764 14,753 45,818 28,760 30,752 67,419 262,4131997 7,040 22,646 34,805 29,532 39,801 85,290 338,8221998 7,363 14,313 36,086 28,546 43,994 73,926 295,3411999 7,495 15,288 54,618 29,732 44,323 68,119 287,6312000 7,850 24,063 71,789 37,244 41,842 74,602 357,2192001 8,199 21,226 51,975 36,756 55,033 72,571 487,3112002 8,598 20,133 37,249 32,567 38,480 69,105 421,2162003 12,971 25,126 21,069 31,068 39,011 72,518 394,3722004 17,235 42,851 17,271 25,076 36,536 75,444 377,3322005 16,654 47,070 35,320 26,230 37,113 104,291 361,4872006 16,099 43,871 31,881 27,389 37,244 78,598 303,3802007 15,607 56,958 25,182 25,277 37,104 87,259 284,9532008 15,039 56,965 37,170 23,624 38,355 71,821 346,0312009 14,446 47,465 42,656 28,825 37,171 85,567 401,3732010 13,909 46,855 42,390 28,777 34,345 83,689 383,401  40Appendix Table A2c: Most important taxa caught by Morocco from the southern areas, 1950-2010.Year Scombroids Cephalopods Demersal fishes Small pelagics Miscellaneous Sardina pilchardus1950 6,561 1,663 5,102 7,774 23,985 102,3771951 6,349 1,941 5,328 6,781 24,931 74,3061952 6,736 1,935 5,383 8,041 26,907 98,9611953 8,543 1,929 5,381 8,025 27,517 100,2131954 5,301 1,752 5,436 6,714 25,279 73,6801955 8,382 1,860 5,377 7,023 25,832 64,2281956 10,009 1,683 5,660 8,194 24,335 76,4701957 10,203 1,734 6,000 9,585 24,773 107,4451958 15,190 1,785 6,055 9,845 24,301 118,3771959 10,151 1,779 6,338 9,511 24,056 109,2671960 11,082 1,773 6,507 9,852 24,381 113,1391961 13,094 1,710 5,651 10,820 22,770 118,3771962 13,648 1,704 5,307 10,575 23,095 119,4021963 14,483 1,754 6,843 10,982 24,900 123,0751964 12,155 1,862 6,385 11,958 32,684 133,5801965 13,556 2,027 6,554 13,031 27,486 152,6551966 12,988 2,135 7,236 16,164 28,892 231,4591967 12,656 1,958 7,348 15,008 25,914 194,7901968 9,271 2,464 7,061 13,567 28,175 158,2921969 13,117 5,001 7,559 14,665 30,757 161,9931970 21,522 2,151 7,386 10,794 32,852 124,5931971 8,278 1,805 6,460 9,493 26,065 128,8101972 6,221 1,482 6,203 9,269 38,713 139,4391973 9,116 1,896 8,372 13,132 26,498 244,6291974 12,385 3,557 9,544 11,082 29,511 156,6611975 11,901 2,721 8,998 19,432 21,168 120,9591976 12,998 2,544 6,479 17,094 20,693 157,2321977 29,491 3,302 9,303 32,148 22,419 95,9651978 32,009 4,215 8,411 38,856 21,289 113,5131979 14,205 5,093 9,730 20,309 22,232 143,1171980 21,751 14,604 14,424 21,291 33,783 161,4151981 20,324 23,090 21,611 21,071 38,735 186,5611982 41,214 30,225 23,969 18,751 48,578 140,2491983 37,669 36,578 27,235 22,627 65,580 181,7301984 76,255 38,392 28,972 25,523 72,087 142,9251985 57,856 34,626 33,021 24,739 76,713 179,7821986 62,883 41,250 37,629 26,384 105,406 220,4191987 20,768 38,388 38,061 26,071 97,511 204,9141988 25,575 49,456 40,119 32,249 93,122 239,0561989 24,122 52,588 39,634 29,969 62,409 246,8021990 20,928 63,493 45,173 40,944 78,336 307,7391991 11,526 75,173 51,647 45,833 81,673 327,3321992 13,277 70,071 54,505 47,140 84,911 286,8181993 14,815 76,526 52,586 49,660 91,000 344,6841994 27,399 76,787 54,502 53,240 91,159 452,7051995 25,302 78,897 51,800 54,878 91,309 511,2031996 16,478 79,375 45,748 41,296 88,951 352,4321997 26,796 64,764 46,933 53,361 114,080 455,0861998 15,629 66,399 45,772 58,735 97,051 396,5851999 16,861 90,882 47,059 59,135 89,828 386,3172000 28,304 113,524 58,735 55,809 97,943 479,5732001 24,403 87,263 58,639 73,294 95,345 654,1282002 22,815 67,733 50,986 51,197 90,774 565,2822003 27,442 45,547 46,276 50,007 95,758 529,3882004 48,984 39,766 35,528 44,887 100,785 506,7492005 54,817 63,735 36,537 45,850 136,244 485,5762006 50,840 59,288 39,557 46,172 101,904 407,6742007 68,394 50,530 35,410 46,204 106,162 383,2312008 68,650 66,480 32,445 48,151 83,964 465,0482009 56,330 73,832 41,933 46,864 106,730 539,0042010 55,764 73,576 42,111 43,312 104,104 514,172 An overview of fish removals from Morocco by DWFs-Belhabib et al. 41An overview of fish removAls from morocco by DistAnt-wAter fleets1Dyhia Belhabib, Sarah Harper and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4 Canada<d.belhabib@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca>; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caAbstrActMorocco has productive fishing grounds. As such, especially the Atlantic areas of Morocco are targeted by distant-water fleets from more than 19 countries, which together caught approximately 90.8 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010. These foreign countries reported 64 million tonnes to FAO during the same time period for the entire Eastern Central Atlantic area (FAO area 34), which suggests massive underreporting. Asian fleets were found to have the highest level of underreporting, followed by Western Europe, with 300% and 80% higher catches than reported landings, respectively. Foreign catches increased dramatically after Morocco extended its jurisdiction over the southern areas in the mid-1970s, after which foreign catches decreased despite increasing fishing effort, suggesting over-exploitation.introDuctionMorocco is located on the boundary between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean in North West Africa (Figure 1), and experiences high productivity due to the flow of nutrient-rich Atlantic waters into the Mediterranean. The Moroccan central and southern EEZs are 254,020 km2 and 300,653 km2, respectively. Together, these areas encompass the Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem within which high marine productivity supports some of the most valuable fishing operations in the world (Cruzado 1979; Pauly et al. 2008). The narrow shelf of the central areas of Morocco offers good opportunities for pelagic fishing fleets, while a larger continental shelf in the southern areas, along with coastal upwelling, result in significant demersal and cephalopod resources for foreign fleets to exploit (Cruzado 1979; Pauly et al. 2008).In 1956, Morocco was the first French colony in West Africa to gain independence. The former Spanish Sahara (here referred to as southern areas) was under Spanish colonial rule from 1884 to 1975. Spain handed over the former Spanish Sahara to Morocco and Mauritania under the Madrid treaty in exchange for fishing and phosphate mining rights in this area, ending the Spanish occupation. Mauritania forfeited its claim and Morocco extended its jurisdiction (Buteau 2005). Morocco is the only North African country with undiscovered oil resources, making its rich fishing grounds a significant source of foreign currency. These fishing grounds are attractive to foreign fleets, mostly from Europe and Asia, with foreign exchange earnings of US $ 1.4 billion (Anon. 2011b). While Norway and France started fishing in these waters at the beginning of the twentieth century (Baddyr and Guénette 2001), Spain, through the former Spanish Sahara, granted fishing rights to Italy, Portugal, South Africa, the former Soviet Union, Japan and South Korea from 1950 until 1975 (Martínez Milán 2006). Thereafter, these grounds remained freely accessible to foreign fleets (Alder and Sumaila 2004). After Morocco extended its jurisdiction over the southern areas, access agreements were offered by Morocco and expanded to include countries from Eastern Europe (Barreira et al. 1998; Martínez Milán 2006).1 Cite as: Belhabib, D., Harper, S. and Zeller, D. (2012) An overview of fish removals from Morocco by Distant-Water Fleets, 1950-2010. pp 41-60. In: Belhabib, D., Zeller, D., Harper, S., and Pauly, D. (eds.),  Marine fisheries catches in West Africa, 1950-2010, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (3). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  Map of Moroccan central (Top) and southern (Bottom) areas. 42These agreements were justified by their potential financial contribution to food security and fisheries export developments (Atmani 2003). Although operating under fishing access agreements, foreign fishing countries do not supply catch data by Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) to the FAO. Rather, catch data are provided for the entire Eastern Central Atlantic area, which corresponds to FAO area 34, covering the area from Morocco in the north to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the South, including high seas waters half way to the Americas. This makes it difficult to trace the spatial origin of catches and assess the real impacts of fishing access agreements with Morocco, where only a fraction of the catch is landed and where the true beneficiaries of these agreements are under question (Anon. 2011a). Countries considered here are those for which presence has been historically documented, including Portugal, Spain, Italy, Norway, France, the Netherlands and Germany for Western Europe; Bulgaria, Romania and Poland for Eastern Europe; the former Soviet Union and its members; Japan, China and Korea for Asia; and South Africa. Given the significance of these fisheries, we herein analyse foreign catches in the waters of Morocco to provide more realistic estimates of these catches than what has been officially reported.methoDsIn this study, we independently estimated catches by each foreign country operating in the central areas of Morocco corresponding to the northern Atlantic area and the southern areas of Morocco (i.e., the former Spanish Sahara), which allows higher spatial resolution to refflect the species distribution. An extensive literature review resulted in a number of fragmentary catch time series and anchor points for 19 countries. We used these data to complete foreign catch estimates by country, including unreported catches. Illegal catches were only estimated for the Russian Federation, which prominently fished for small pelagics in the southern areas. We then compare reconstructed catches to the data supplied to FAO for the entire FAO area 34, since no other EEZ specific baseline was available. However, this provides a general idea of underreporting tendencies by foreign countries fishing in the waters of Morocco (and the rest of West Africa).Moroccan central areasMost of the foreign catches reported in waters under Morocco’s jurisdiction were from the southern areas, and represented 70% of the total reported landings by foreign fleets (Belveze and Bravo de Laguna 1980; Kaczynski 1989). Similarly and more recently, Riché (2004) inferred that a large amount of catches off Morocco by the international fleets are actually from these same southern areas. Therefore, we assumed catches in central Morocco represented 30% of the total catch by foreign vessels during the 1950-2010 time period. This translates into catches from central Morocco being the equivalent of 42% of catches from the southern areas, i.e., foir every tonne taken from the southern areas, 0.42 tonnes is taken from the central areas. Here, we first estimated foreign catches in the southern areas, then applied the previously suggested rate to estimate foreign catches from the central areas.Moroccan southern areas (former Spanish Sahara)SpainData for Spanish catches from the southern areas were available from 1950 to 1998 (Guénette et al. 2001). To update these catches, we estimated a catch per unit of effort (CPUE) of 1,617 t∙ boat-1∙year-1 in 1997 based on a catch of 194,632 t∙year-1 (Guénette et al. 2001) and the number of Spanish vessels operating in these waters. We assumed that the number of vessels operating in the southern areas was proportional to the catch, i.e., off the 172 Spanish vessels fishing under agreements with Morocco, 70% were operating in the southern areas in 1997 (Belveze and Bravo de Laguna 1980; Milano 2006). Then we applied this CPUE to 70% of the reported 110 Spanish vessels in 2010 under the EU-Morocco Agreement ( http://http://eur-lex.europa.eu [2012]), to estimate a catch of 83,835 t∙year-1 for 2010. We interpolated catches from 121,065 t∙year-1 in 1998 (Guénette et al. 2001) to 83,835 t∙year-1 in 2010. Using the catch composition from Guénette et al. (2001) for 1998, we disaggregated updated total catches from 1999 to 2010 into the 5 groups, i.e., 41% small pelagics, 45% demersal and deep water fish, 6% miscellaneous fish, 8% cephalopods and 2% other invertebrates. We disaggregated the cephalopod group reported by Guénette et al. (2001) into three taxa according to Ariz (1985): Octopus (67%), squid (22%) and cuttlefish (11%). Then, we completed the gaps, when no catches of cephalopods were reported using estimates presented in Balguerías et al. (2000), and when catches from Guénette et al. (2001) were considered comparatively low. Thereafter, we assigned 3.6% of the miscellaneous fish group to tunas and large pelagics and 96.4% to miscellaneous fish (Balguerias 1985).ItalyItaly started fishing in the southern areas through an agreement with the Spanish government in 1963 (Martínez Milán 2006), and continuously fished until 2011 under the EU-Morocco fishing partnership agreements. Barbier (2003) reported a catch of 450,000 t∙year-1 in 1969, which corresponds to a period when foreign fishing boat traffic was high (Martínez Milán 2006; Besenyő 2009). According to the FAO statistics, catches by Italian vessels in FAO area 34 decreased by 95% from 1969 to 2010. Therefore, we estimated that catches in 2010 would be 22,477 t∙year-1, An overview of fish removals from Morocco by DWFs-Belhabib et al. 4395% lower than catches in 1969. We then interpolated linearly from zero in 1963 to 450,000 t∙year-1 in 1969 then to 22,477 t∙year-1 in 2010. We disaggregated Italian catches based on the targeted species composition from Martínez Milán (2006): octopus (20%), demersal fish (20%), crustaceans (20%), cephalopods (20%), sharks (5%), rays (5%) and others (10%).PortugalPortuguese vessels started fishing in the southern areas in 1963 (Martínez Milán 2006) and caught 22,000 t∙year-1 in 1969 (Barbier 2003). Data from the FAO fisheries statistics database suggest that Portuguese reported landings decreased continuously from 1969 to 2010 by 68%. Using this rate, we estimated a total catch of 7,087 t∙year-1 in the southern areas of Morocco for 2010. We performed a series of linear interpolations from zero in 1963 to 22,000 t∙year-1 in 1969, then to 7,087 t∙year-1 in 2010. We disaggregated catches using the species composition in Guénette et al. (2001).Germany (former East Germany)The former German Democratic Republic (GDR) mackerel catch data were available from 1967 to 1972 and from 1978 to 1983, and sardine catches were available from 1974 to 1980, which we carried onward assuming a constant figure (FAO 1985a). We performed a series of linear interpolations to complete sardine and mackerel catch estimates from zero in 1963 to 1,561 t∙year-1 in 1974 for sardine and from zero in 1963 to 569 t∙year-1 in 1978 for mackerel, assuming East Germany started fishing in this area along with other important European fleets (Martínez Milán 2006). We estimated total catches by applying the ratio (mackerel + sardine): (other species) of 1.8. Between 2006 and 2010, 6 boats per year were operating in Western Sahara, which when multiplying by a CPUE of 1,607 t∙year-1∙boat-1 allows for a total catch of 9,642 t∙year-1 from 2006 to 2010. We interpolated linearly to complete the estimate from 1983 to 2006. Since the Democratic Republic of Germany ceased to exist and was incorporated into the Federal Republic of Germany in 1990, we simply considered catches as ‘German’ for the entire time period.NorwayNorway was fishing in the southern areas as far back as 1918 (Baddyr and Guénette 2001). Sardine catches from Morocco were reported for a group of countries all together including Norway, the former Soviet Union, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Bermuda2 at 425,900 t∙year-1 in 1974, while catches by the former Soviet Union, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and Bermuda (i.e., excluding Norway) were estimated at 318,606 t∙year-1 for the same year (Belveze and Bravo de Laguna 1980; FAO 1985a; Anon. 2011a). Therefore, the subtraction allowed to estimate the Norwegian catch from Morocco. We assumed 70% of these catches were from the southern areas and 30% from the central areas (Belveze and Bravo de Laguna 1980; Kaczynski 1989; Riché 2004), and estimated Norwegian sardine catches of 75,106 t∙year-1 in southern areas in 1974. Norway’s sardine catch was the equivalent of 83% of Spanish small pelagic catches in 1974. Thus, assuming a constant figure over time, which is likely since Norway and Spain started fishing similarly targeting the same species under Spanish permits, we applied this rate (83%) to the Spanish small pelagic catch from 1950 to 1973 and 1975. After Spain left the former Spanish Sahara in 1975, agreements were no longer offered by Spain, therefore, we used a different approach to estimate Norwegian catches off these areas. Catch data reported by Norway to FAO from FAO area 34 in 1998 were 15% of the reported catch of 1975. Thus, we prorated Norway’s 1998 sardine catch to 15% of the estimated Norwegian sardine catch of 1975 (94,712 t∙year-1), i.e., 14,207 t∙year-1 in 1998. We assumed catches were zero in 2010 when Norway stopped fishing in the southern areas under agreements with Morocco (Anon. 2010). We performed a series of linear interpolations to complete the estimated sardine catch by Norway. Mackerels (Scomber spp.) catches represented the equivalent of 11% of the estimated sardine catches between 1971 and 1975 (FAO 1985a). By applying this to the reconstructed sardine catch, we estimated mackerel catches from 1950 to 2010. Then, we applied a ratio (mackerel + sardine): (other species) of 1.8 (FAO 1985a; Goffinet 1992) to estimate catches of other species and then disaggregated catches using the same method as for Spain.FranceFrance has also been fishing in Morocco since 1918 (Baddyr and Guénette 2001). France’s sardine catches were documented from 1965 to 1975 only from Moroccan central areas (FAO 1985a). Therefore, we carried the 1965 catch estimate backwards, assuming a constant figure from 1950 to 1965. Then, we applied a CPUE estimate of 1,617 t∙boat-1∙year-1 to the number of French vessels authorized to fish in the waters under Moroccan jurisdiction, i.e., 9 boats in 2010. A large portion of the small pelagic stocks including sardine lies in the southern areas. Therefore, we conservatively assumed France’s sardine catches were the equivalent of 30% of the catch reported from Moroccan central areas. To complete the estimate for other small pelagic species, we assumed these represented 20% of the total catch based on the average ratio between sardine catches and small pelagic catches by Norway and Spain. Then, we smoothed the estimated catch data time series.2 According to the reflagging history of vessels from Bermuda, these are suspected to be Spanish vessels (www.grosstonnage.com [Accessed on 02/08/2012]). 44The NetherlandsWe assumed the Netherlands started fishing off Morocco in 1963 (Martínez Milán 2006). From 1972 to 1974, 20 Dutch vessels were operating in the southern areas (Barreira et al. 1998), and from 2006 to 2010, 6 vessels, i.e, a third of the total of 18 vessels allowed for Lithuania, Germany and the Netherlands ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu [2012]). We performed a series of linear interpolations from zero vessels in 1963 to 20 in 1972, and from 20 in 1974 to 6 vessels in 2010 to complete the effort time series. Then, we applied a CPUE of 1,607 t∙boat-1∙year-1 to the interpolated effort to estimate the total catch by the Netherlands.JapanBarbier (2003) documented catches by Japan from 1964 to 1985. These catches were concordant with the decrease observed by Kaczynski (1989) of 25% from 1976 to 1985. Barbier (2003) reported no catches from 1950 to 1963; however, Barreira et al. (1998) reported that Japan, along with Spain, was already fishing in the southern area waters since 1950, targeting cephalopods. Therefore, given a similar fishing effort, we assumed that Japan caught the same quantity as Spain in 1950, and then interpolated linearly to 20,196 t∙year-1 in 1964 (Barbier 2003). Morocco signed several agreements with Japan to develop Moroccan fisheries, with the last agreement signed in 2009. To estimate Japanese catches, we calculated the rate of change from 1985 to 2010 from Japanese catch data in area 34, i.e., a decrease of 14%, which we applied to the catch in 1985, i.e., 225,000 t∙year-1 (Barbier 2003). Thereafter, we interpolated linearly to complete the time series.The Republic of Korea (South Korea)South Korea started fishing in the southern areas in 1963 (Martínez Milán 2006), and caught around 50,000 t∙year-1 in 1969 (Barbier 2003). According to the FAO statistics database, reported catches by the Republic of Korea in FAO Area 34 increased 2.89 times from 1969 to 1981 and then decreased by 75% from 1981 to 2010. We applied these rates to the catch in 1969 and estimated the Korean catch in the southern areas to be 94,674 t∙year-1 in 1981 and 23,101 t∙year-1 in 2010. We performed a series of linear interpolations to complete the Korean catch time series from southern areas. To disaggregate catches, we assumed the Korean fleet targeted the same species as other fleets (Barbier 2003) and used the species breakdown in Guénette et al. (2001).ChinaChina signed the first fishing agreement with Morocco in 1985, and has been fishing there ever since. China operated 63 to 70 Chinese vessels under joint ventures off Morocco in 2003 and 20103. Therefore, we assumed the number of boats was zero in 1985, and we interpolated linearly to an average of 63 boats in 2003 and then to 70 boats in 2010. We multiplied the number of boats by an average CPUE of 2,283 t∙year-1∙boat-1 (based on data in Pauly et al. 2012) to estimate total catches from 1985 to 2010.Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) membersAccording to the FAO statistics database, the former USSR and its members started reporting catches in 1988. However, Belveze and Bravo de Laguna (1980) documented catches by the USSR off Morocco as early as 1964. Barbier (2003) and FAO (1985a) estimated sardine and mackerel catches by USSR as well as Romania which started fishing in these waters in 1967. We first interpolated catches from zero in 1964 to the reported catch of sardine in 1970 (80,100 t∙year-1) and the reported catch of mackerel in 1973 (111,765 t∙year-1). Goffinet (1992) reported total catches of 200,000 t∙year-1 for 1970, therefore, using the ratio (mackerel + sardine): (other species) of 1.8, we estimated other taxa caught by the USSR fleets from 1964 to 1970. We then interpolated all catches from 200,000 t∙year-1 in 1970 to zero in 1991 (Garibaldi and Grainer 2002) when the Soviet Union ceased to exist.Illegal catches by the USSR were estimated by Goffinet (1992) to be around 250,000 t∙year-1 in the 1970s and the 1980s. We assumed these catches started in 1965 along with legal fishing activities, increased linearly to 250,000 t∙year-1 in 1971, remained constant until 1987, then decreased linearly to be zero in 1991.Russian Federation: the Russian Federation (Russia) renewed fishing agreements with Morocco up until 2011 (Eyckmans 2011). Under these agreements, the Russian Federation was mainly operating in the southern areas, catching around 100,000 t∙year-1 (Eyckmans 2011). We reconstructed Russian catches from 1950 to 1991 as part of the former USSR catch, and independently as the Russian Federation after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Assuming the same Soviet Union catch allocation as for Mauritania (IMROP, unpub. data), Russian catches represented 22% of the total Soviet Union catch from 1950 to the late 1980s. Russian catches were then around 100,000 t∙year-1 from 2000 to 2010, when Russia was mostly fishing off the southern areas (Eyckmans 2011). Thereafter, we performed a linear interpolation to complete the estimate and disaggregated catches taxonomically using the same method applied to Spain.3 http://wuxizazhi.cnki.net/Search/ZYJJ200402001.html ,  http://www.leconomiste.com/article/la-peche-hauturiere-en-crise-grave and http://www.aujourdhui.ma/economie-details35916.html [Accessed August 13th, 2011].An overview of fish removals from Morocco by DWFs-Belhabib et al. 45Lithuania: Lithuanian vessels took 22% of total catches by the Soviet Union (IMORP, unpub. data) from 1950 to 1990. We applied this rate to catches by the USSR from 1950 to 1990. The agreement between Morocco and the EU in 2006 allowed Lithuania, Germany and the Netherlands to operate 18 industrial fishing vessels in Morocco for a quota of 50,000 t∙year-1. We assumed the effort was distributed evenly between Lithuania, Germany and the Netherlands and allocated 1/3, i.e., 6 vessels per year to each of the above mentioned countries from 2006 to 2010. We used a CPUE of 1,607 t∙ boat-1∙year-1, i.e., the same as for Spain, to estimate total catches by Lithuania from 2006 to 2010. We then performed a linear interpolation from 1990 to 2010.Latvia and Ukraine: Latvia and the Ukraine represented 33% and 22% respectively of former Soviet Union catches (IMROP, unpub. data). Therefore, we applied these rates to the Soviet Union reconstructed catch to allocate the catches to country assuming a constant figure over time. No catches were recorded after 1991, since the Ukraine resumed agreements with Morocco only in 2012 (Danine 2012), while Latvia resumed fishing with one vessel in the southern areas in 2011 (Catzeflis 2011).Other former Soviet republics, such as Georgia and Estonia were not reported historically as having significant catches from the waters of Morocco, thus they were not considered in the present study.RomaniaRomania started fishing in the southern areas of Morocco in 1967 (FAO 1985a). Landings by the Romanian fleet from these areas were documented by FAO (1985a) from 1971 to 1983 for mackerel, and from 1974 to 1981 for sardine. We assumed Romania stopped fishing in the southern areas (at least legally) in 1993 when catches for FAO area 34 were no longer reported to FAO. We then interpolated linearly to complete the time series. Thereafter, we applied the same approach as for the USSR to determine the portion of other species caught along with sardines and mackerels. We disaggregated catches using the species composition presented in Guénette et al. (2001).BulgariaCatches of mackerel and sardine by Bulgaria were estimated by FAO (1985a), since 1968 and 1973, respectively. We assumed Bulgaria started fishing in the southern areas when Bulgaria started reporting catches from area 34 to the FAO, i.e., 1964 and ended its fishing activities in the area in 2000. We interpolated linearly each estimate from zero in 1964 to the first anchor point for both species, then from 1983 and 1982 respectively for mackerel and sardine to 0 zero in 2000. We then applied the ratio (mackerel + sardine): (other species) of 1.8 to estimate catches of other species.PolandPoland reported catches in FAO area 34 between 1957 and 2010, and caught 19,000 t∙year-1 from the southern areas in 1969 (Barbier 2003). FAO (1985a) reported sardine catches from 1970 to 1977, then in 1979, and mackerel catches from 1967 to 1977 and for 1980 and 1981. Here we considered that Poland started fishing in the southern areas in 1963 (FAO 1985b). To estimate the catch in 2010, we used the rate of change of the Polish landings in area 34 as reported to FAO from 1981 to 2010, when reported landings increased by a factor of 24. We estimated a catch of mackerel of 2,137 t∙year-1 and a catch of sardine of 38,759 t∙year-1 in 2010 from the southern areas. We performed a series of interpolations to complete the time series for sardine and mackerel. Thereafter, we estimated catches of other taxa using the ratio (sardine and mackerel): (other species) as 0.41 (Barbier 2003), then disaggregated catches using the catch composition in Guénette et al. (2001).South AfricaSouth Africa did not report any catches from the Eastern Central Atlantic (FAO area 34). However, South Africa is fairly active in the area, and started fishing off Morocco as early as 1963 (Martínez Milán 2006), catching an estimated 100,000 t∙year-1 in 1969 (Barbier 2003), and was still operating there in 2008 (Anon. 2008). Although South Africa has diplomatic relationships with the unofficial government of ‘Western Sahara’ (here Morocco southern areas), which would infer prohibiting fishing activities in these waters under Moroccan licensing, South African companies were operating under private Moroccan licenses in 2008 (Anon. 2008). Therefore, we assumed catches in 2010 by South Africa in the southern areas were 1% of the 1969 catch as a conservative approach, since catches decreased substantially with improved diplomatic relations between the unofficial government and South Africa. We then interpolated linearly to complete the time series, and applied the species breakdown provided in Guénette et al. (2001).To allow for comparison and assess underreporting, FAO landings by each country were extracted from FAO FishstatJ covering the entire FAO statistical area 34 from Morocco in the North to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the South. These were then compared to reconstructed catches, as estimated here, to assess the levels of reporting by each country. 46resultsTotal reconstructed catchesTotal foreign catches in the waters of Morocco were estimated to be 90.8 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010, compared to 56.9 million tonnes reported to FAO from the complete FAO area 34, which suggests strong underreporting at least by 30%. This assumes all catches in area 34 outside Morocco were properly reported. Catches increased from on average 175,000 t∙year-1 in the 1950s to a peak of 4.3 million t∙year-1 in 1978, after Morocco took over the former Spanish Sahara, and then decreased to one million t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 2a). Total foreign catches in the southern areas were estimated at 65.8 million tonnes from 1950 to 2010, 13% higher than catches supplied by these countries to FAO for the entire FAO area 34, i.e. 56.9 million tonnes (Figure 2a). Catches followed the same pattern as the data supplied to FAO, increasing from 110,000 t∙year-1 in 1950 to a peak of 3 million t∙year-1 in 1978, after Morocco extended their jurisdiction over the former Spanish Sahara (Figure 2a). Catches decreased thereafter to around 753,000 t∙year-1 in 2010 compared to 623,000 t∙year-1 supplied to the FAO for the entire FAO area 34 (Figure 2a). Overall, catches from the southern areas were 14% higher than landings supplied to FAO from FAO area 34 in the 1950s, 30% to 100% higher in the 1980s, and up to 55% higher in the 2000s. Total foreign catches in central waters were estimated at 25 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010, the equivalent of 40% of the foreign catch from the waters off Western Sahara. Foreign catches from Morocco’s central areas (50 million tonnes) represented half of landings data supplied to FAO for the FAO area 34 between 1950 and 2010 (Figure 2a).Overall, catches include 40% of clupeids (sardines and sardinellas), 23% of demersal fish species (Sparidae and Mercuccidae), 21% of cephalopods including squids, octopus and cuttlefish, 6% of large pelagic species, and 10% of other miscellaneous marine species (Figure 2b). Southern areasSpainSpanish catches from the waters of the southern areas, were reconstructed to be 12 million tonnes for the time period considered in this study, which was almost as high as total catches declared by Spain from the entire FAO area 34 (13.6 million tonnes). Between 1950 and 2010, Spanish reconstructed catches were 20% higher than the reported catch by Spain covering the entire FAO area 34 (Figure 3). Spanish catches from the southern areas increased from 52,000 t∙year-1 in the 1950s to 378,000 t∙year-1 on average in the late 1970s corresponding to the highest catch, when these areas were a free fishing access zone. Catches decreased thereafter to less than 125,000 t∙year-1 in 2010.01002003004005006007008001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO01002003004005006007008001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0Southern areaCentral areaFAO0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.01950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20106 )YearOther fishesCephalopodsSardina pilchardusScombroidsCrustaceansMolluscsElasmobranchiiFAO6 )ab...1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAOa.1.01.52.02.53.03.54.04 5ySardinella spp.lClupeidaeElasmobranchiiMolluscs and crustaceansOthers Sardina pilchardusMerluccidaeScombroids SparidaeCatch (t x 106 )Figure 3.  Reconstructed Spanish catch from Morocco central and southern areas, compared to the reported catch by Spain from FAO area 34, 1950-2010. Figure 4.  Reconstructed catches by Italy from Morocco  central and southern areas, compared to the reported catch by Italy from FAO area 34, 1950-2010.Figure 2.  Total reconstructed foreign catches by a)the two areas of Moroccan waters conscribed; and b) by taxon, compared to total reported catches by the same foreign countries from FAO area 34, 1950-2010. An overview of fish removals from Morocco by DWFs-Belhabib et al. 47ItalyItalian catches were estimated at 11.6 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010, i.e., 8 times higher than what Italy submitted to FAO for the entire FAO area 34 (1.5 million tonnes), which suggests substantial underreporting. Italian catches from the southern areas increased from zero in 1963, when Italy started fishing in the area, to 562,500 t∙year-1 in 1968, compared to 62,000 t∙year-1 supplied to the FAO for FAO area 34 (Figure 4).PortugalPortuguese catches were estimated at 665,000 tonnes for the period 1950 to 2010, which represented 50% of the catch data supplied by Portugal to FAO for FAO area 34, i.e., 1.4 million tonnes (Figure 5). During the 1960s and the early 1970s, Portuguese reconstructed catches in the southern areas were as high as the Portuguese data supplied to FAO for the entire area 34 (Figure 5). Reconstructed catches were around 10% higher than the reported catch in FAO area 34 in 1980, i.e., 17,800 t∙year-1 compared to 16,030 t∙year-1 (Figure 5). GermanyGerman catches were estimated at 567,000 tonnes between 1950 and 2010. Catches varied substantially over the study period, however, there was an increasing trend from 3,200 t∙year-1 in 1964 to a peak of 31,500 t∙year-1 in 1970 and then a decreasing pattern to a plateau of 9,600 t∙year-1 in the 2000s (Figure 6).FranceFrench catches from the southern areas totalled 124,000 tonnes between 1950 and 2010. French catches increased from 2,100 t∙year-1 in 1950 to a peak of 4,300 t∙year-1 in 1969 (Figure 7). Catches decreased thereafter, and were estimated at 1,600 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 7).NorwayNorwegian catches were estimated at over 2.9 million tonnes for the 1950-2010 time period. Catches increased from 4,000 t∙year-1 in 1950 to a peak of 163,000 t∙year-1 in 1975 (Figure 8). Norwegian catches decreased rapidly 051015202530354045501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO0204060801001201401950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103)YearSouthern areaFAO01020304050607080901950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO0501001502002501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO0204060801001201401601802001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103)YearSouthern areaFAOFigure 5.  Reconstructed catches by Portugal from Morocco Atlantic areas, compared to reported catch by Portugal from FAO area 34, 1950-2010. Figure 6.  Reconstructed catches by Germany from the southern areas, compared to reported catches by Germany from FAO area 34, 1950-2010. Figure 7.  Reconstructed catches by France from Morocco central and southern areas, compared to reported catches by France from FAO area 34, 1950-2010. Figure 8. Reconstructed catches by Norway from Morocco Atlantic areas, compared to reported catch by Norway from FAO area 34, 1950-2010. Figure 9. Reconstructed catches by the Netherlands from the southern areas of Morocco, compared to reported catches by the Netherlands from FAO area 34, 1950-2010.  48to zero in 2010 when Norway gave up fishing operations in the southern areas (Figure 8).The NetherlandsCatches by the Netherlands increased from 5,000 t∙year-1 in 1964 to a peak of 33,700 t∙year-1 in the mid-1970s, then decreased gradually to 9,900 t∙year-1 on average in the late 2000s (Figure 9). The Netherlands reported catches from the FAO area 34 only since the mid-1990s, therefore, all reconstructed catches prior to the mid-1990s were not reported (Figure 9). After 1995, Netherlands’ reconstructed catches represented 17% of the catch reported to FAO in FAO area 34 on average.JapanThe Japanese fleet, which operated from 1950 to 2010 in the southern areas, caught over 11.1 million tonnes during this time period. Japanese catches were almost 3 times higher than data supplied by Japan to FAO for the entire FAO area 34 (3.1 million tonnes), which suggests substantial underreporting by Japan (Figure 10). Although underreporting by Japan was already high in the late 1960s, the underreported component further increased after Morocco extended their jurisdiction over the former Spanish Sahara in the mid-1970s (Figure 10). The underreported component was at its maximum in 2002, when Japan caught 203,600 t∙year-1 in the southern areas compared to 8,440 t∙year-1 for the whole FAO area 34 supplied to the FAO, i.e., 23 times higher. The peak of Japanese catches off the southern  areas corresponds to the maximum Japanese catch of the entire FAO area 34 in the late 1960s. Thereafter catches decreased but at a slower rate than reported Japanese catches in the entire FAO area 34 (Figure 10).South KoreaSouth Korean catches were estimated to be 276,000 tonnes for the period between 1950 and 1964, during which Korea supplied no catch data for FAO area 34 to FAO (Figure 11). Thereafter, catches were about 50% higher than the data supplied by Korea to FAO, i.e., 2.8 million tonnes compared to 1.8 million tonnes reported to FAO. Korean catches increased gradually to a peak of 95,120 t∙year-1 in 1981 and decreased thereafter to 23,200 t∙year-1 in 2010, almost as high as the catch 0501001502002503003504004505001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO0204060801001201401601802001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO0204060801001201401601802001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO01002003004005006007008001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO0501001502002503003504001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAOFigure 10. Reconstructed Japanese catches from Morocco central and southern areas, compared to the reported catch by Japan from FAO area 34, 1950-2010. Figure 11. Reconstructed catches by South Korea from Morocco central and southern areas, compared to reported catch by South Korea from FAO area 34, 1950-2010. Figure 12. Reconstructed catches by China from Morocco central and southern areas, compared to reported catches by China from FAO area 34, 1950-2010. Figure 13. Catches by Russia from Morocco central and southern areas, compared to reported catches by the Russian Federation from FAO area 34, 1950-2010.Figure 14.  Reconstructed catches by Lithuania from Morocco central and southern areas, compared to reported catches by Lithuania from FAO area 34, 1950-2010.An overview of fish removals from Morocco by DWFs-Belhabib et al. 49supplied by Korea to FAO for the entire FAO area 34, i.e., 23,700 t∙year-1 (Figure 11).ChinaChinese catches were estimated at 1.7 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010, compared to a reported catch of 360,012 tonnes in FAO area 34, which suggests substantial underreporting (Figure 12). Chinese catches increased from 5,200 t∙year-1 in 1986 to 110,269 t∙year-1 in 2010, showing an increasing presence of Chinese fishing fleets in the southern areas (Figure 12).Former Soviet UnionRussian Federation: Russian catches from the southern areas were estimated at 4.4 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010, which is 30% of the catch by the former Soviet republics. Catches started at 16,700 t∙year-1 in 1966, increasing to a peak of 263,130 t∙year-1 in 1978. Catches decreased thereafter to 27,600 t∙year-1 in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union and then increased to around of 100,000 t∙year-1 from 2001 onwards (Figure 13).Lithuania: Similarly, Lithuanian catches increased from 16,700 t∙year-1 in 1966 to a peak of 263,000 t∙year-1 in 1978. Catches decreased rapidly to 27,600 t∙year-1 in 1991 and then to 9,700 t∙year-1 by 2010. Overall, catches by Lithuania were estimated at 3.1 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010, accounting for 21% of catches by all former Soviet republics considered here (Figure 14).Latvia: Catches by Latvia from the southern areas totalled 4.1 million tonnes, most of which were caught within the 1970-1990 time period, with a peak of 263,000 t∙year-1 in 1978. Latvian catches represented over 29% of the total catch by former Soviet republics (Figure 15).Ukraine: Ukrainian catches followed the same trend as other former Soviet Union members. Catches were estimated at 2.8 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010, which is 19% of the total catch by republics of the former Soviet Union. Catches increased from 16,700 t∙year-1 in 1966 to a peak of 263,000 t∙year-1 in 1978, then decreased rapidly to zero from 1991 onwards (Figure 16).01002003004005006001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO0204060801001201950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO010203040506070801950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAO01002003004005006007001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearFAOCentral areaSouthern area01002003004005006001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearCentral areaSouthern areaFAOFigure 15. Reconstructed catches by Latvia from Morocco central and southern areas, compared to reported catches by Latvia from FAO area 34, 1950-2010.Figure 16. Reconstructed catches by Ukraine from Morocco central and southern areas, compared to catches supplied by Ukraine from FAO area 34, 1950-2010.Figure 17. Reconstructed catches by Romania from Morocco Altantic areas, compared to the reported catch by Romania from FAO area 34, 1950-2010.Figure 18. Reconstructed catches by Bulgaria from Morocco central and southern areas, compared to the reported catch by Bulgaria from FAO area 34, 1950-2010.Figure 19. Reconstructed catches by Poland from Morocco central and southern areas, compared to the reported catch by Poland fromFAO area 34, 1950-2010. 50RomaniaThe reconstructed Romanian catch was estimated to be over 261,700 tonnes for the 1950-2010 time period. Catches reached a maximum of 68,200 t∙year-1 in 1976, and then decreased to zero since 1984 (Figure 17). In the mid-1970s, reconstructed catches surpassed reported catches by Romania from the entire FAO area 34 (Figure 17).Bulgaria Bulgarian catches in the southern areas increased from zero in 1963 to a peak of 49,500 t∙year-1 in 1979, when Bulgarian data as supplied to FAO were zero for FAO area 34 (Figure 18). Overall, reconstructed Bulgarian catches were slightly higher than reported catches, which indicates underreporting by Bulgaria (Figure 18).PolandPolish catches were estimated at 3.5 million tonnes over the period from 1950 to 2010, twice higher than the catch supplied by Poland to FAO for the entire FAO area 34, i.e., 1.2 million tonnes (Figure 19). Catches increased drastically in the mid-1970s to 470,000 t∙year-1, and then decreased to less than 6,000 t∙year-1 in the early 1980s. Thereafter, catches increased by a factor of 24 from 1985 to 2010, when Polish catches were estimated at 141,000 t∙year-1 (Figure 19).South AfricaAlthough South Africa did not supply catch data from FAO area 34 to FAO, a total catch of 2.5 million tonnes was estimated, increasing from 11,000 t∙year-1 in 1961 to a peak of 100,000 t∙year-1 in 1969, and then decreasing to 1,000 t∙year-1 by 2010 (Figure 20).Central areasSpainSpanish catches in Moroccan central areas were estimated at 5.1 million tonnes for the 1950-2010 time period, i.e., 38% of the data supplied by Spain to FAO (13.6 million tonnes). Catches were relatively constant at 23,700 t∙year-1 in the 1950s, increasing gradually to a peak of 209,000 t∙year-1 in 1979, and were variable thereafter, with a decreasing trend (Figure 3).ItalyItaly caught around 5 million tonnes from the mid-1960s, when the Italian fleet started fishing in Morocco’s central areas to 2010. These catches are 2.3 times higher than landing data supplied by Italy to FAO for FAO area 34 (1.5 million tonnes) (Figure 4). This underreporting tendency increased over time, with average catches being twice as high as Italian reported landings for FAO area 34, i.e., 58,300 t∙year-1 on average reported to FAO compared to a reconstructed catch of 153,200 t∙year-1 in the 1960s (Figure 4). Between 1970 and 1999, reconstructed catches were three times higher than landings supplied to FAO, i.e., 31,100 t∙year-1 supplied to FAO compared to 124,000 t∙year-1 on average, and 6 times higher in the 2000s with 5,200 t∙year-1 supplied to FAO compared to 32,000 t∙year-1 on average (Figure 4).PortugalCatches by Portugal totalled 286,000 tonnes from 1950 to 2010, which represented 21% of landings supplied by Portugal to FAO, i.e., 1.3 million tonnes (Figure 5). Catches by Portugal increased from 1,600 t∙year-1 in 1964 to a peak of 9,460 t∙year-1 in 1969, and decreased since then to around 3,000 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 5).0204060801001201401601802001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearSouthern areaCentral areaFigure 20.  Reconstructed catches by South Africa from Morocco central and southern areas, no catches were reported to FAO from FAO area 34, 1950-2010.An overview of fish removals from Morocco by DWFs-Belhabib et al. 51FranceFrance catches in the Moroccan central areas were estimated at over 413,000 tonnes during the 1950-2010 time-period. Catches by France increased from 6,900 t∙year-1 on average in the 1950s to over 14,000 t∙year-1 in the late 1960s, and then decreased to around 5,500 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 7).NorwayAs in the southern areas, Norwegian catches increased considerably until 1975, when the issue around the Moroccan borders started, and reached 70,300 t∙year-1 in 1975. Catches decreased thereafter to zero in 2010 (Figure 8). Norwegian catches in the Moroccan central areas were estimated at 1.3 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010, which is 60% higher than landings supplied by Norway to FAO for FAO area 34 (780,000 tonnes).JapanJapanese catches from Moroccan central areas were 57% higher (4.8 million tonnes) than the catch data supplied by Japan to FAO (3.05 million tonnes) covering the entire FAO area 34 (Figure 10). Japanese catches off the Moroccan central areas were as high as the catches supplied to FAO for the FAO area 34 for the 1950s, 30% of the catch supplied to FAO for the 1960s, twice higher in the 1970s, and 5 to 6 times higher since the 1980s (Figure 10).South KoreaSouth Korean reconstructed catches in Moroccan central areas were estimated at 103,000 tonnes over the period from 1950 to 1963, where no catches from FAO area 34 were supplied by South Korea to FAO. Between 1964 and 1968, reconstructed catches (18,100 t∙year-1 on average) were three times as high as landings supplied by South Korea to FAO with 6,400 t∙year-1 on average (Figure 11). Reconstructed catches represented the equivalent of 56% of the catch supplied by South Korea to FAO from 1969 to 1987 with 33,000 t∙year-1 compared to 67,000 t∙year-1 on average supplied to FAO (Figure 11). Between 1988 and 1998, reconstructed catches were 51% higher than landings supplied by South Korea to FAO with a reconstructed catch of 27,900 t∙year-1 on average compared to 19,300 t∙year-1 supplied to FAO (Figure 11). The underreporting tendency was then reversed in the 1990s and 2000s, when reconstructed catches represented 63% of landings supplied by South Korea to FAO for the FAO area 34 (Figure 11). This denotes inconsistencies in catch reporting by South Korea to FAO.ChinaChinese catches off the Moroccan central areas were estimated in the present study at 725,000 tonnes from 1950 to 2010. Catches by China increased continuously from 2,200 t∙year-1 in 1986 to over 47,300 t∙year-1 in 2010, over 20 times in less than 25 years (Figure 12).Former Soviet UnionCatches by former Soviet republics represented 20% of landings supplied to the FAO for FAO area 34, with a total of 3.2 million tonnes for the period between 1950 and 2010 compared to 17.9 million tonnes of catch data supplied to the FAO. Catches increased from 17,200 t∙year-1 in 1966, when the Soviet Union started fishing in Morocco, to a maximum of 407,000 t∙year-1 in 1978, then decreased gradually to zero in the early 1990s.Russia : Russian catches off Moroccan central areas increased from around 3,700 t∙year-1 in the mid-1960s to a peak of over 88,100 t∙year-1 in the mid-1970s (Figure 13). Reconstructed catches decreased thereafter to 26,000 t∙year-1 on average in the 1980s and zero in the 1990s and 2000s when Russian fleets moved south towards the former Spanish Sahara waters (Figure 13).Lithuania: Lithuanian catches from the Moroccan central areas were estimated at around 703,600 tonnes between 1950 and 2010. The bulk of this was caught in the mid-1970s with 51,000 t∙year-1 on average (Figure 14). Catches declined in the 1980s and were zero in the 1990s, at the collapse of the Soviet Union. Lithuania followed the same pattern as Russia in the 2000s, moving southwards.Latvia: Latvia was the most prominent Soviet republic in terms of catches totalling over one million tonnes between the mid-1960s and the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Latvian catches increased from 5,700 t∙year-1 in 1966 to a peak of 134,000 t∙year-1 in 1978 and decreased thereafter to zero in 2010 (Figure 15).Ukraine: Ukrainian catches in the Moroccan central areas increased from 3,700 t∙year-1 in 1966 to a peak of 89,400 t∙year-1 in 1978, and then decreased gradually to zero in the early 1990s, when the Soviet Union collapsed (Figure 16). 52RomaniaRomanian catches were estimated at 112,500 tonnes, i.e., 7% of landings data supplied by Romania to FAO from the FAO area 34, i.e., 1.5 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010 (Figure 17). Catches by Romania in Morocco’s central areas increased from 240 t∙year-1 in the late 1960s to a peak of 29,300 t∙year-1 in 1976, when Morocco took over Western Sahara. Catches decreased thereafter to 1,850 t∙year-1 in 1983, after which Romania was reportedly no longer fishing in Morocco (Figure 14).BulgariaCatches by Bulgaria in Morocco’s central areas were estimated at 191,000 tonnes for the period from 1950 to 2010, which represented 45% of the catches supplied by Bulgaria to FAO for FAO area 34 (424,000 tonnes). Although Bulgaria did not report any catches from FAO area 34 for the years 1979, from 1984 to 1989, 1993 to 1997, and 1999, catches were reconstructed here for Morocco and estimated at 21,200 t∙year-1 in 1979, 5,000 t∙year-1 on average between 1984 and 1989, and 1,700 t∙year-1 in the 1990s (Figure 18).PolandPolish catches in the Moroccan central areas were 30% higher than data supplied by Poland to FAO for FAO area 34, with a total of 1.5 million tonnes over the study time period compared to 1.2 million tonnes supplied to FAO. Catches increased from 1,800 t∙year-1 in 1964 to a peak of 202,000 t∙year-1 in the late 1970s, then decreased to about 60,500 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 19).South AfricaSouth African catches in the Moroccan central areas were estimated at around 1.1 million tonnes for the 1950-2010 time period, whereas this country did not supply any data to FAO from the entire FAO area 34. Catches increased from 4,800 t∙year-1 in 1961 to a peak of 43,000 t∙year-1 in 1969, and have been decreasing since then to a minimum of 430 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 20).DiscussionOverall total catches by foreign fleets in the waters of Morocco were conservatively estimated at 90.8 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010. Here, we treat the waters of Morocco as the EEZ equivalent waters for time periods prior to actual declaration of the EEZ. Catches reached their maximum in the mid-1970s when Morocco extended their jurisdiction over the southern areas, and when these EEZ equivalent waters were freely accessible to foreign fleets. Although reconstructed catches within EEZs cannot be directly compared to catches supplied to FAO for the entire FAO area 34, by analyzing the trends we can begin to assess the underreporting trends. Since the late 1980s, reconstructed catches within Morocco’s EEZ and waters under Moroccan jurisdiction alone were 37% higher on average than catch data supplied to FAO from the entire FAO area 34, showing no significant improvements in reporting. Underreporting may in fact be higher since here we compare catch data from Morocco to landings supplied to FAO for the entire FAO area 34.Furthermore, our estimate of total catches from Morocco is likely conservative since it does not include illegal catches, nor the catch of flag of convenience countries such as Belize (used by the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany), Bermuda (used by Spain), Panama (used by Russia), Comoros (used by Sweden) and vessels reflagged to Morocco (Spanish origin) which land catches elsewhere (Catzeflis 2011) [information collected from different vessel databases www.vesselfinder.com, www.shipspotting.com, and www.marinetraffic.com)].Western Europe was responsible for over half of the total foreign catch from Morocco as estimated here, and thus caught almost twice as much as Western Europe reports for the entire FAO area 34. Eastern Europe, including former Soviet republics, caught 32% of the total foreign catch, mainly from Morocco southern area, compared to 29% of the total foreign catch by Asian countries. Eastern European and Asian catches were 7% higher than the total catch reported to FAO for FAO area 34. When analyzed individually, some countries performed even more poorly in terms of reporting. China, for example, caught almost 7 times what was reported by FAO as Chinese catch in FAO area 34, indicating high underreporting and poor spatial accounting, as described in Pauly et al. (2012).When Morocco extended its jurisdiction over the southern areas, the Moroccan government assumed exploitation rights and signed bilateral agreements offering access to the country’s resources. This allowed foreign fleets to extract from the waters of the southern areas two to three times as much as they were catching in the central areas.Historical events in Morocco directly impacted fisheries by foreign fleets. For example, the unreported component by Western Europe was lower in the 1950s when Spain was the colonial power ruling the former Spanish Sahara. An overview of fish removals from Morocco by DWFs-Belhabib et al. 53The underreporting component increased drastically in the 1980s after Morocco extended their jurisdiction over the southern areas, especially during the armed conflict, before the cease-fire agreement was reached (UN 2011). The underreporting component decreased again in later years. However it still remains high.After the 1995 EU-Morocco fishing access agreement dispute, Morocco and the EU agreed to reduce the fishing quota by 40%, to protect Moroccan resources and fishing industry, which at the time represented 11% of the GDP. However, as shown here, for the same period, actual catches by EU members increased by 5%, which further questions the validity of these agreements in terms of sustainability and the ability of Morocco to monitor foreign fleets in its waters and the waters under its control. This also points to a failure of EU flag-state control over its fishing fleets. At the time of this study, the international community questioned the real contribution of the EU-Morocco fishing access agreements to food security in Morocco’s southern areas. This further illustrates how these agreements were of limited benefits to poor populations for years.In this study, we illustrated that foreign countries which accessed the waters of Morocco, increased their catches, but reported less over time. European Union members, for which access agreement information is freely available in the EU law database (http://eur-lex.europa.eu), underreported their catches substantially. These countries act under the 1982 UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), where in cases where a country cannot utilise the full perceived surplus, this country shall give other nations access to the surplus (Anon. 1982). However, the host country must also prioritize local population interests and livelihoods and enforce fisheries rules and legislations. Non-transparency and non-effectiveness of West African management issues have been well documented for decades (Virdin 2005; Standing 2008, 2011), yet countries such as those in the European Union fail to adhere to the latter when applying their fishing rights under UNCLOS. Furthermore, results of this study, where Western European catches in Morocco were higher than the catch data supplied to FAO covering the area from Morocco to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, suggest these countries are an integral part of a failing fisheries management system in West Africa. Furthermore, the pattern of underreporting shows an increase after the independence of these countries from Europe (Spain and France), highlighting how their development path followed the colonial pattern of exporting primary natural resources.This high level of underreporting suggests that Moroccan fishing access agreement partners do not comply with the obligation of comprehensive reports, or landing a large part of the catch at Moroccan landing sites, contrary to what is stated by official sources and reported to FAO (Atmani 2003). Thus, these agreements did not help reshape food security, especially in southern areas which still suffer from a lack of animal protein (FAO 2003). Furthermore, out of 11 exploited stocks included in fishing access agreements with the EU, 9 are overfished and 2 are unassessed. This challenges the Moroccan logic of offering access agreements to foreign fleets, while at the same time in 1999, this country cancelled the fishing access agreement with the EU to preserve fisheries resources for local populations. Additionally, these agreements have little to no economic value for the local populations. AcknowleDgementsWe acknowledge the support of the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.referencesAlder J and Sumaila UR (2004) Western Africa: A Fish Basket of Europe Past and Present. The Journal of Environment 13(2): 156-178.Anon. (1982) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. United Nations. 208 p.Anon. (2008) Namibian-South African fishing company setting up in occupied WS. Norwegian Support Committee for Western Sahara. 4 p.Anon. (2010) Un géant arrête ses achats au Maroc et Sahara Occidental. Fish Elswhere. 1 p.Anon. (2011a) Commission defends EU-Morocco fisheries agreement. European Parliement, Brussels, Belgium. 2 p.Anon. (2011b) Value chain report: Morocco. INFOSAMAK. 29 p.Ariz J (1985) Descripción de la actividad de la flota española que explota la pesquería de Cefalódos de África NO. p. 5 In Bas C, Margalef R and Rubies P (eds.), Simposio internacional sobre las areas de afloramiento mas importantes del Oeste Africano (Cabo Blanco y Benguela). 2 Barcelona.Atmani H (2003) Expert consultation on international fish trade and food security. Moroccan fisheries a supply overview.708, FAO, Casablanca, Morocco. 23 p.Baddyr M and Guénette S (2001) The fisheries off the Atlantic coast of Morocco 1950-1997. p. 15 In Zeller D, Watson R and Pauly D (eds.), Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Catch, Effort and National/Regional Data Sets. Fisheries Centre Research Report 9 (3).Balguerias E (1985) Actividades de la flota artesanal Canaria que faenó en la costa africana de 1975 a 1982. Investigaciones Pesqueras 5(2): 851-857.Balguerías E, Quintero ME and Hernández-González CL (2000) The origin of the Saharan Bank cephalopod fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57(1): 8.Barbier M (2003) Le conflit du Sahara occidental: Réédition d’un livre paru en 1982. L’Harmattan. 420 p. 54Barreira A, Fabra A, Martínez AR and Tudela T (1998) From concept to design: Creating an international environmental ombudsperson. Local communities and fishing disputes in Saharan and Moroccan waters: opportunities for new dispute resoluction mechanisms. The Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development, San José. 47 p.Belveze H and Bravo de Laguna J (1980) Les ressources halieutiques de l’Atlantique centre-est. Deuxième partie : Les ressources de la côte Ouest-Africaine entre 24oN et le détroit de Gibraltar.182, FAO. 81 p.Besenyő J (2009) Western Sahara. IDResearch Ltd./Publikon Publishers, Budapest, Hungary. 197 p.Buteau G (2005) Le Maroc au Sahara Occidental, 1975-2005: Trente ans d’une quête pour la souveraineté. Institut d’Etudes Politiques Lyon, France. 95 p.Catzeflis F (2011) Pêches abusives en Afrique de l’Ouest : un pillage organisé. L’UE paye le Maroc pour pouvoir pêcher au Sahara Occidental occupé. Greenpeace. 6 p.Cruzado A (1979) Coastal upwelling off Western Sahara. Investigacion Pesquera 43(1): 149-160.Danine O (2012) Pêche, vers un accord Maroc-Ukraine. Quotidien Les Echos 17 Août 2012: 1.Eyckmans S (2011) La flotte russe doit quitter le Sahara Occidental occupé. Western Sahara Resource Watch. 1 p.FAO (1985a) Rapport de la troisième reunion du Groupe de travail ad hoc sur la sardine Sardina pilchardus (Walb.) 85, COPACE FAO, Casablanca, Maroc. 157 p.FAO (1985b) Report of the First ad hoc working group on seabream (sparidae) stocks in the northern CECAF zone. CECAF, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X6835E/X6835E00.htm#TOC [Accessed: 04/02/2012].Garibaldi L and Grainger R (2002) Chroniques des captures des pêches maritimes dans l’Atlantique Centre-Est de 1950 à 2000 Pêcheries maritimes, écosystèmes et sociétés en Afrique de l’Ouest : un demi-siècle de changement (1). IRD, Bruxelles, Belgique. 100-112 p. In: P. Chavance, M. Ba, D. Gascuel, M. Vakily et D. Pauly (eds.) Pêcheries maritimes, écosystèmes et sociétés en Afrique de l’Ouest : un demi-siècle de changement. Collection des rapports de recherche halieutique ACP-UE 15.Goffinet T (1992) Development and fisheries management: The case of northwest Africa. Ocean & Coastal Management 17(2): 105-136.Guénette S, Balguerías E and Santamaría MTG (2001) Spanish fishing activities along the Saharan and Moroccan coast. pp. 206-213 In Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Catch, Effort and National/Regional Data Sets. 3. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia.Kaczynski VM (1989) Foreign fishing fleets in the subSaharan West African EEZ. The coastal state perspective. Marine Policy 13(1): 2-15.Martínez Milán JM (2006) Integrating Western Saharan Coastal Fisheries into the International Economy, 1885-1975. XIV International Economic History Congress, Helsinki. 14 p.Milano E (2006) The new Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco: fishing too south. Amsterdam Centre for International Law, Amsterdam. 33 p.Pauly D, Alder J, Booth S, Cheung WWL, Christensen V, Close C, Sumaila UR, Swartz W, Tavakolie A, Watson R, Wood L and Zeller D (2008) Fisheries in Large Marine Ecosysems: Descriptions and diagnoses. pp. 23-40 In Sherman K and Hempel G (eds.), The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A perspective on changing conditions in LMEs of the world’s regional seas182. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies.Pauly D, Belhabib B, Cheung W, Cisneros-Montemayor A, Harper S, Lam V, Mai YY, Le Manach F, Mok KM, van der Meer L, Shon S, Swartz W, Sumaila UR, Watson R, Zhai Y and Zeller D (2012) Catches [of the Chinese distant- water fleet]. pp. 21-29 & 81-85 In Blomeyer R, Goulding I, Pauly D, Sanz A and Stobberup K (eds.), The role of China in World Fisheries. European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies–Fisheries, Brussels.Riché P (2004) Les ressources naturelles du Sahara occidental. 4 p.Standing A (2008) Corruption and industrial fishing in Africa.2008, Insitute for security studies. 29 p.Standing A (2011) Making transparency work in Africa’s marine fisheries.11, Chr. Michelsen Institute Anti-Corruption Resource Centre. 31 p.UN (2011) MINURSO: Mission des Nations Unies pour l’organisation d’un référendum au Sahara occidental United Nations. 2p. p.Virdin J (2005) West Africa Regional Fisheries Program. Lessons for reducing IUU fishing. The World Bank. 9 p.An overview of fish removals from Morocco by DWFs-Belhabib et al. 55Appendix Table A1. Reconstructed catches by W. European countries from Morocco’s southern areas.Year France Germany Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal Spain1950 2,074 0 0 0 4,010 0 52,0031951 2,074 0 0 0 4,017 0 54,1931952 2,074 0 0 0 4,043 0 64,5241953 2,074 0 0 0 5,008 0 51,8141954 2,074 0 0 0 5,038 0 54,9121955 2,074 0 0 0 5,039 0 51,2971956 2,074 0 0 0 5,051 0 47,6821957 2,074 0 0 0 6,981 0 49,1041958 2,074 0 0 0 6,989 0 58,4911959 2,074 0 0 0 4,140 0 68,3151960 2,074 0 0 0 4,155 0 87,1291961 2,074 0 0 0 5,125 0 91,3731962 2,074 0 0 0 5,141 0 82,9341963 2,074 0 0 0 7,096 0 59,3351964 2,074 3,159 112,500 4,914 9,967 3,508 50,6351965 2,074 4,350 225,000 6,606 12,852 6,887 57,2851966 2,074 6,628 337,500 10,068 14,793 10,399 58,3371967 2,074 9,946 450,000 15,431 26,314 14,327 98,9191968 1,650 1,915 562,500 17,682 26,336 18,334 97,3061969 4,346 4,698 450,000 21,297 36,898 22,000 102,0011970 3,116 31,505 439,573 24,666 38,793 21,422 106,4111971 3,882 30,594 429,145 27,215 54,611 20,437 129,1741972 4,238 4,932 418,718 32,089 71,123 20,876 175,2251973 1,716 4,791 408,290 33,780 67,839 21,594 220,4411974 1,991 4,572 397,863 31,880 129,800 20,018 279,9761975 1,682 4,919 387,436 33,725 163,412 21,039 322,6531976 2,022 13,112 377,008 30,919 157,274 19,345 279,0281977 2,011 21,671 366,581 29,837 151,184 18,751 345,3821978 2,000 1,188 356,153 28,371 145,180 17,912 346,9721979 1,988 15,254 345,726 29,413 139,522 18,659 486,9151980 1,977 16,637 335,299 27,943 133,160 17,791 335,1421981 1,966 16,831 324,871 25,827 127,488 16,529 320,2181982 1,954 17,539 314,444 26,719 121,546 17,219 309,0941983 1,943 16,541 304,017 25,845 115,364 16,727 387,1561984 1,932 16,241 293,589 25,184 109,281 16,398 422,8661985 1,920 15,917 283,162 25,075 102,961 16,404 425,5711986 1,909 15,637 272,734 24,028 96,937 15,797 419,6131987 1,898 15,355 262,307 23,553 91,093 15,619 281,0381988 1,886 14,906 251,880 22,381 84,858 15,141 304,8921989 1,875 14,760 241,452 21,637 78,917 14,541 403,2111990 1,864 14,496 231,025 21,274 72,966 14,388 405,7601991 1,852 14,162 220,597 19,599 66,825 13,396 341,4031992 1,841 13,875 210,170 20,069 60,760 13,816 327,3331993 1,830 13,603 199,743 18,750 54,761 13,007 288,4891994 1,818 13,279 189,315 18,730 48,743 13,186 316,2851995 1,807 12,994 178,888 18,220 42,632 12,913 241,1811996 1,796 12,681 168,460 16,543 36,597 11,891 90,9451997 1,784 12,407 158,033 15,989 30,575 11,613 338,7521998 1,773 12,117 147,606 15,946 24,549 11,742 296,0641999 1,761 11,707 137,178 14,907 22,501 11,344 153,6152000 1,750 11,413 126,751 14,187 20,456 10,971 150,9492001 1,739 11,120 116,324 13,468 18,410 10,599 148,2832002 1,727 10,826 105,896 12,749 16,364 10,227 145,6172003 1,716 10,533 95,469 12,030 14,319 9,855 142,9502004 1,705 10,239 85,041 11,311 12,273 9,483 140,2842005 1,693 9,946 74,614 10,591 10,228 9,111 137,6182006 1,682 9,649 64,187 9,864 8,182 8,739 134,9522007 1,671 9,649 53,759 9,864 6,136 8,367 132,2862008 1,659 9,649 43,332 9,864 4,091 7,995 129,6202009 1,648 9,649 32,904 9,864 2,045 7,623 126,9532010 1,637 9,649 22,477 9,864 0 7,250 124,286  56Appendix Table A2. Reconstructed catches by former Soviet republics and East European countries from Morocco’s southern areas.Year Bulgaria Latvia Lithuania Romania Russia Poland Ukraine1950 0 0 0 0 0 0 01951 0 0 0 0 0 0 01952 0 0 0 0 0 0 01953 0 0 0 0 0 0 01954 0 0 0 0 0 0 01955 0 0 0 0 0 0 01956 0 0 0 0 0 0 01957 0 0 0 0 0 0 01958 0 0 0 0 0 0 01959 0 0 0 0 0 0 01960 0 0 0 0 0 0 01961 0 0 0 0 0 0 01962 0 0 0 0 0 0 01963 0 0 0 0 0 0 01964 0 0 0 0 0 4,239 01965 895 0 0 0 0 8,468 01966 1,792 25,004 16,669 0 16,669 12,720 16,6691967 2,689 49,861 33,345 0 33,345 16,967 33,2411968 3,586 75,036 50,024 567 50,024 21,217 50,0241969 4,482 100,049 66,699 1,133 66,699 26,184 66,6991970 5,361 124,996 83,331 1,698 83,331 18,966 83,3311971 15,418 150,171 100,114 2,269 100,114 6,019 100,1141972 20,732 172,678 115,105 6,178 115,105 9,188 115,1191973 9,819 197,341 131,295 9,695 131,295 17,371 131,5601974 6,812 171,971 114,126 9,789 114,126 54,862 114,6481975 4,951 218,005 145,148 40,819 145,148 70,310 145,3371976 8,486 136,291 91,041 68,179 91,041 242,355 90,8611977 35,829 269,489 179,927 30,723 179,927 347,490 179,6601978 21,151 389,708 262,807 50,777 262,807 469,949 259,8051979 49,469 276,230 184,079 20,199 184,079 12,015 184,1531980 36,682 163,329 109,072 3,285 109,072 9,562 108,8861981 40,441 168,967 113,426 8,138 113,426 7,205 112,6451982 44,136 216,083 144,189 3,919 144,189 5,615 144,0551983 13,655 220,254 147,006 4,306 147,006 10,433 146,8361984 13,781 210,004 140,027 0 140,027 15,254 140,0031985 12,886 207,823 138,314 0 138,314 19,978 138,5491986 12,028 186,608 124,426 0 124,426 24,785 124,4051987 11,192 166,256 110,656 0 110,656 29,713 110,8371988 10,309 124,442 82,898 0 82,898 34,387 82,9611989 9,461 82,875 55,295 0 55,295 39,283 55,2501990 8,612 41,502 27,659 0 27,659 44,208 27,6681991 7,740 0 26,474 0 35,790 48,903 01992 6,877 0 25,428 0 42,426 53,677 01993 6,022 0 24,382 0 49,062 58,574 01994 5,165 0 23,151 0 56,869 63,460 01995 4,297 0 22,166 0 63,114 68,083 01996 3,438 0 20,996 0 70,531 72,911 01997 2,580 0 19,950 0 77,166 77,809 01998 1,721 0 18,842 0 84,193 82,747 01999 860 0 17,322 0 93,830 87,557 02000 0 0 16,233 0 100,000 92,379 02001 0 0 15,145 0 100,000 97,200 02002 0 0 14,056 0 100,000 102,021 02003 0 0 12,967 0 100,000 106,843 02004 0 0 11,878 0 100,000 111,664 02005 0 0 10,789 0 100,000 116,485 02006 0 0 9,699 0 100,000 121,307 02007 0 0 9,699 0 100,000 126,128 02008 0 0 9,699 0 100,000 130,949 02009 0 0 9,699 0 100,000 135,771 02010 0 0 9,699 0 100,000 140,591 0An overview of fish removals from Morocco by DWFs-Belhabib et al. 57Appendix Table A3. Reconstructed catches by East Asian countries and South Africa from Morocco’s southern areas.Year China Japan South Korea South Africa1950 0 52,128 0 01951 0 49,529 2,620 01952 0 47,603 5,276 01953 0 45,092 7,871 01954 0 43,159 10,573 01955 0 54,273 13,161 01956 0 40,806 15,827 01957 0 38,448 18,419 01958 0 36,063 20,977 01959 0 33,927 23,679 01960 0 31,650 26,294 01961 0 29,327 28,859 11,0771962 0 27,068 31,473 22,1471963 0 22,774 34,410 33,5281964 0 20,164 36,784 44,3741965 0 40,262 39,346 55,3761966 0 60,518 42,057 66,5901967 0 287,143 44,713 77,7371968 0 288,574 47,368 88,8891969 0 300,418 50,000 100,0001970 0 299,163 53,573 97,3131971 0 301,018 57,640 95,4941972 0 300,047 61,178 92,7711973 0 300,000 64,891 90,3421974 0 300,756 68,786 88,1481975 0 299,362 72,182 85,3301976 0 291,367 75,764 82,7761977 0 283,610 79,392 80,2901978 0 276,302 83,144 77,9311979 0 270,874 87,509 76,0991980 0 261,637 90,650 73,1981981 0 256,204 95,119 71,3601982 0 249,309 92,880 69,1111983 0 241,037 90,127 66,4811984 0 233,328 87,584 64,0081985 0 224,161 84,491 61,1371986 5,188 222,954 82,060 58,7501987 11,048 222,990 80,074 56,6781988 18,790 220,352 77,129 53,9271989 21,842 219,810 74,924 51,6951990 27,085 219,298 72,714 49,4551991 32,945 217,191 69,976 46,8561992 38,188 215,683 67,440 44,3961993 43,431 214,856 65,116 42,0741994 49,599 213,896 62,744 39,7191995 54,534 211,737 60,025 37,1461996 60,394 210,536 57,586 34,7491997 65,637 209,591 55,212 32,3911998 71,188 208,744 52,857 30,0391999 78,803 207,417 50,376 27,6142000 84,258 206,131 47,904 25,1952001 89,714 204,844 45,433 22,7762002 95,169 203,557 42,962 20,3562003 100,680 202,270 40,491 17,9372004 102,054 200,983 38,020 15,5182005 103,424 199,696 35,549 13,0992006 104,794 198,409 33,078 10,6792007 106,164 197,123 30,607 8,2602008 107,533 195,836 28,136 5,8412009 108,903 194,549 25,665 3,4212010 110,269 193,260 23,195 1,002  58Appendix Table A4. Reconstructed catches by West European countries from Morocco’s central areas.Year France Italy Norway Portugal Spain1950 6,914 0 1,724 0 22,2881951 6,914 0 1,727 0 23,2271952 6,914 0 1,738 0 27,6551953 6,914 0 2,154 0 22,2081954 6,914 0 2,166 0 23,5351955 6,914 0 2,167 0 21,9861956 6,914 0 2,172 0 20,4361957 6,914 0 3,002 0 21,0461958 6,914 0 3,005 0 25,0691959 6,914 0 1,780 0 29,2801960 6,914 0 1,786 0 37,3441961 6,914 0 2,204 0 39,1621962 6,914 0 2,211 0 35,5451963 6,914 0 3,051 0 25,4311964 6,914 48,375 4,286 1,508 21,7021965 6,914 96,750 5,526 2,962 24,5521966 6,914 145,125 6,361 4,471 25,0031967 6,914 193,500 11,315 6,161 42,3971968 5,500 241,875 11,324 7,884 41,7051969 14,486 193,500 15,866 9,460 43,7181970 10,388 189,016 16,681 9,212 45,6081971 12,940 184,532 23,483 8,788 55,3641972 14,125 180,049 30,583 8,977 75,1011973 5,719 175,565 29,171 9,285 94,4811974 6,638 171,081 55,814 8,608 119,9981975 5,608 166,597 70,267 9,047 138,2891976 6,741 162,114 67,628 8,319 119,5921977 6,703 157,630 65,009 8,063 148,0311978 6,666 153,146 62,427 7,702 148,7121979 6,628 148,662 59,994 8,023 208,6921980 6,590 144,178 57,259 7,650 143,6421981 6,552 139,695 54,820 7,108 137,2451982 6,514 135,211 52,265 7,404 132,4781983 6,477 130,727 49,606 7,193 165,9351984 6,439 126,243 46,991 7,051 181,2401985 6,401 121,760 44,273 7,054 182,4001986 6,363 117,276 41,683 6,793 179,8461987 6,325 112,792 39,170 6,716 120,4531988 6,288 108,308 36,489 6,511 130,6771989 6,250 103,824 33,934 6,253 172,8161990 6,212 99,341 31,375 6,187 173,9091991 6,174 94,857 28,735 5,760 146,3251992 6,136 90,373 26,127 5,941 140,2951993 6,098 85,889 23,547 5,593 123,6461994 6,061 81,406 20,959 5,670 135,5601995 6,023 76,922 18,332 5,552 103,3701996 5,985 72,438 15,737 5,113 38,9791997 5,947 67,954 13,147 4,994 145,1891998 5,909 63,470 10,556 5,049 126,9431999 5,872 58,987 9,675 4,878 64,6792000 5,834 54,503 8,796 4,718 63,5562001 5,796 50,019 7,916 4,558 62,4342002 5,758 45,535 7,037 4,398 61,3112003 5,720 41,052 6,157 4,238 60,1892004 5,683 36,568 5,277 4,078 59,0662005 5,645 32,084 4,398 3,918 57,9442006 5,607 27,600 3,518 3,758 56,8212007 5,569 23,116 2,639 3,598 55,6982008 5,531 18,633 1,759 3,438 54,5762009 5,494 14,149 879 3,278 53,4532010 5,456 9,665 0 3,118 52,330 An overview of fish removals from Morocco by DWFs-Belhabib et al. 59Appendix Table A5. Reconstructed catches by former Soviet republics and East European countries from Morocco’s central areas.Year Bulgaria Latvia Lithuania Romania Russia Poland Ukraine1950 0 0 0 0 0 0 01951 0 0 0 0 0 0 01952 0 0 0 0 0 0 01953 0 0 0 0 0 0 01954 0 0 0 0 0 0 01955 0 0 0 0 0 0 01956 0 0 0 0 0 0 01957 0 0 0 0 0 0 01958 0 0 0 0 0 0 01959 0 0 0 0 0 0 01960 0 0 0 0 0 0 01961 0 0 0 0 0 0 01962 0 0 0 0 0 0 01963 0 0 0 0 0 0 01964 0 0 0 0 0 1,823 01965 385 0 0 0 0 3,641 01966 771 5,684 3,717 0 3,717 5,470 3,7901967 1,156 11,372 7,520 0 7,520 7,296 7,5821968 1,542 17,062 11,375 244 11,375 9,123 11,3751969 1,927 22,750 15,167 487 15,167 11,259 15,1671970 2,305 28,410 18,892 728 18,892 8,155 18,9401971 6,630 34,167 22,431 961 22,431 2,588 22,7781972 8,915 38,768 25,829 2,655 25,829 3,951 25,8451973 4,222 49,210 33,405 4,245 33,405 7,470 32,8071974 2,929 38,136 25,328 4,193 25,328 23,591 25,4241975 2,129 58,146 39,647 17,952 39,647 30,233 38,7641976 3,649 23,246 15,488 29,299 15,488 104,212 15,4981977 15,406 80,578 53,471 13,150 53,471 149,421 53,7191978 9,095 134,036 88,104 21,528 88,104 202,078 89,3571979 21,272 83,256 55,759 8,725 55,759 5,166 55,5041980 15,773 34,877 23,182 1,408 23,182 4,112 23,2511981 17,390 37,685 24,519 3,415 24,519 3,098 25,1231982 18,978 57,527 38,210 1,679 38,210 2,414 38,3511983 5,872 59,344 39,351 1,842 39,351 4,486 39,5631984 5,926 54,842 36,400 0 36,400 6,559 36,5621985 5,541 53,738 36,050 0 36,050 8,590 35,8251986 5,172 44,780 29,876 0 29,876 10,658 29,8531987 4,813 35,898 24,002 0 24,002 12,777 23,9321988 4,433 26,863 17,954 0 17,954 14,786 17,9091989 4,068 17,928 11,899 0 11,899 16,892 11,9521990 3,703 8,971 5,978 0 5,978 19,009 5,9811991 3,328 0 0 0 0 21,028 01992 2,957 0 0 0 0 23,081 01993 2,590 0 0 0 0 25,187 01994 2,221 0 0 0 0 27,288 01995 1,848 0 0 0 0 29,276 01996 1,478 0 0 0 0 31,352 01997 1,109 0 0 0 0 33,458 01998 740 0 0 0 0 35,581 01999 370 0 0 0 0 37,650 02000 0 0 0 0 0 39,723 02001 0 0 0 0 0 41,796 02002 0 0 0 0 0 43,869 02003 0 0 0 0 0 45,942 02004 0 0 0 0 0 48,016 02005 0 0 0 0 0 50,089 02006 0 0 0 0 0 52,162 02007 0 0 0 0 0 54,235 02008 0 0 0 0 0 56,308 02009 0 0 0 0 0 58,381 02010 0 0 0 0 0 60,454 0  60Appendix Table A6. Reconstructed catches by Asia and South Africa from Morocco’s central areas.Year China Japan South Korea South Africa1950 0 22,415 0 01951 0 21,297 1,127 01952 0 20,469 2,269 01953 0 19,390 3,385 01954 0 18,558 4,546 01955 0 23,338 5,659 01956 0 17,547 6,805 01957 0 16,533 7,920 01958 0 15,507 9,020 01959 0 14,589 10,182 01960 0 13,609 11,306 01961 0 12,611 12,409 4,7631962 0 11,639 13,533 9,2771963 0 9,793 14,796 13,9891964 0 8,671 15,817 19,0811965 0 17,313 16,919 23,1781966 0 26,023 18,084 27,0971967 0 123,471 19,227 33,2231968 0 124,087 20,368 38,2221969 0 129,180 21,500 43,0001970 0 128,640 23,036 41,5461971 0 129,438 24,785 39,3151972 0 129,020 26,333 39,7521973 0 129,000 28,221 39,9351974 0 129,325 30,316 35,6031975 0 128,726 31,899 37,7951976 0 125,288 32,277 36,3531977 0 121,952 34,139 34,2841978 0 118,810 35,779 33,5241979 0 116,476 37,836 32,9001980 0 112,504 39,230 31,6311981 0 110,168 41,239 29,5171982 0 107,203 40,192 29,3481983 0 103,646 38,690 28,3551984 0 100,331 37,442 27,3651985 0 96,389 36,568 26,3721986 2,224 95,870 35,460 25,2131987 4,735 95,886 34,652 24,1931988 8,053 94,751 33,273 23,1771989 9,361 94,518 32,376 21,9461990 11,608 94,298 31,456 21,0651991 14,119 93,392 29,417 20,1701992 16,366 92,744 29,202 19,3581993 18,613 92,388 27,424 18,0451994 21,257 91,975 27,172 17,1321995 23,372 91,047 26,097 16,0591996 25,883 90,530 23,437 15,2151997 28,130 90,124 23,617 13,9551998 30,509 89,760 22,939 12,9471999 33,773 89,190 21,880 11,9412000 36,111 88,636 20,807 10,8952001 38,449 88,083 19,734 9,8492002 40,787 87,529 18,661 8,8032003 43,149 86,976 17,587 7,7572004 43,737 86,423 16,514 6,7102005 44,325 85,869 15,441 5,6642006 44,912 85,316 14,367 4,6182007 45,499 84,763 13,294 3,5722008 46,086 84,209 12,221 2,5262009 46,673 83,656 11,148 1,4802010 47,258 83,102 10,074 433 Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals off Mauritania-Belhabib et al. 61Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals from mauritania,1950-20101Dyhia Belhabib1, Didier Gascuel2, Elimane Abou Kane3, Sarah Harper1, Dirk Zeller1 and Daniel Pauly11Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada2Pôle Halieutique Agrocampus Ouest65 Route de Saint Brieuc, CS 84215, F-35042 Rennes Cedex, France3BP. 22 Nouadhibou, Mauritaniad.belhabib@fisheries.ubc.ca; Didier.Gascuel@agrocampus-ouest.fr; enamile@yahoo.fr; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.caabstractMauritania enjoys large fisheries resources, exploited by an important domestic small-scale sector and industrial fleets operated mainly by foreign countries. Total marine fisheries catches by Mauritania were estimated from 1950 to 2010, including commercial landings, subsistence, illegal and unreported domestic catches, as well as catches by non-Mauritanian legal and illegal fleets. Commercial landings were obtained from FAO fisheries statistics database and from the Mauritanian Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries Research (IMROP) for both domestic and foreign fleets. Non-commercial data were obtained from field surveys and grey literature, which were converted to per capita rates and catch per unit of effort estimates using population data. Illegal catches and discards were estimated using recent at-sea observer data, collected by IMROP expanded to cover the 1950-2010 time period. Total reconstructed catches were estimated to be 72.1 million tonnes over the study period, increasing from 59,400 t∙year-1 in 1950 to a peak of 2.3 million t∙year-1 in 1976, and then decreasing to 1.9 million t∙year-1 in 2010, and were overwhelmingly by foreign fleets. Domestic catches were reconstructed to be three times as high as official landings data reported by Mauritania, with 11.8 million t compared to 3.9 million t reported to the FAO. In addition, we noted that catches , including illegal catches, from the Banc d’Arguin National Park, an important marine protected area, were twice as high as official landings. This poses questions about protection of the park area. The data presented here are preliminary, and will be improved using local expertise. introductionMauritania is located in Northwest Africa, and is member of the Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic Fishery (CECAF) and the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) of the West Africa sub-region created in 1985 (FAO 2002). The waters off Mauritania are influenced by upwelling systems and the Canary island current which stimulates high levels of marine resource productivity (M’Barek and Mahfoudh 1995; Campredon and Cuq 2001). This makes these waters some the richest fishing grounds in the world (Goffinet 1992). Fisheries in Mauritania have been historically the subject of exploitation by foreign fleets, particularly from Europe (Gascuel et al. 2007). After the independence from France in 1960, it took almost 20 years for Mauritania to implement its first fisheries policy ‘nouvelle politique de pêches’ adopted in 1979 (Ould Cheikhna et al. 2005), shortly after the government declared the Mauritanian EEZ, and promoting nationalization of catches, artisanal fisheries development and monitoring with the  first fisheries landings surveys in the 1980s (Bakhayokho et al. 1988). In 1994, a monitoring body was created to enforce fisheries legislations (Anon. 2002a). There are two distinct fishing sectors active in Mauritanian waters. The industrial (large-scale) sector is operated almost exclusively by foreign fleets under fishing access agreement or joint ventures (Josse and Garcia 1986), and more recently flags of convenience. This sector directs the vast majority of catches to the international market (UNDP 2001). The artisanal sector mainly operates canoes under 12 m long, pirogues and Tarifian purse-seine boats of 14 to 15 m (Josse and Garcia 1986).  Small-scale fishing was largely aimed for subsistence until the 1980s (Nancy 2010). It was a seasonal activity, where fishers were often migrating to follow moving fish stocks (Campredon and Cuq 2001). 1 Cite as: Belhabib, D., Gascuel, D., Kane, E.A., Harper, S., Zeller, D. and Pauly, D. (2012) Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals from Mauritania, 1950-2010. pp 61-78. In: Belhabib, D., Zeller, D., Harper, S. and Pauly, D. (eds.),  Marine fisheries catches in West Africa, 1950-2010, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (3). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada [ISSN 1198-6727]. 62This activity, historically operated by the Imraguen and N’Diago populations (Sall and Thioye 2006), had the main purpose of sustaining fishers and their families, and mainly targeted grey mullets for the Imraguen (Bakhayokho et al. 1988; Sall and Thioye 2006) and mainly groupers, mullets, sardinellas, blackspot seabreams for the N’Diago (Sall and Thioye 2006).In 1958, the urbanization of coastal cities attracted agricultural populations to  part-time fishing practices (Marfaing 2005). Furthermore, in the south of Mauritania, N’Diago fishers were fishing for subsistence following the same pattern than the Imraguen in the North until the mid-1980s (Trouillet et al. 2011). Subsistence fishing decreased thereafter and gradually shifted to commercial cephalopod fishing for the N’Diago fishers (CMAP 2010) and shark fishing for the Imraguen (Anon. 2002b) along with the industrialization of the artisanal fleet and  fisheries harbours in Nouadhibou and Nouakchott. This marketing pattern, along with climate change, and droughts in the 1970s and the 1980s in the Sahel area, contributed to increased migrations towards the coast of Mauritania (Tacko Kandji et al. 2006), thus increasing fishing pressure on coastal areas and the dependence of the Mauritanian population on seafood. At the same, time the number of pirogues increased from less than 500 in the 1970s to more than 2,000 in the 1990s and about 4,000 in recent years.Artisanal fishing is particularly important because of its contribution to food security in Mauritania (Lenselink 2004). Imraguen traditional fishing communities depend directly on fish for their livelihood. These communities have the exclusive fishing rights in the Parc National du Banc d’Arguin (Picon 2002), the largest marine protected area in Africa stretching along the Mauritanian coast from Cape Blanc to Cap Timiris (Campredon and Cuq 2001). This park was created in 1976 and stretches along about a third of the Mauritanian coast. Designated as a Rmsar Convention Wetland site in 1982, and considered as a ‘gift to earth’ in 2001 by the United Nations (UNEP 2011), the PNBA is particularly important because it represents the main spawning ground for many commercially important and endangered species (Boëly et al. 1979; Troadec and Garcia 1980; Jager 1993). Over almost half a century, fishing pressure on the coastal areas, the extent of foreign fishing and a lack of reliable catch data created serious concerns over the Mauritanian resources sustainability, which is not an exception in Western Africa (Goffinet 1992). This, along with a high corruption profile and a low governance rate (MRAG 2005) frames a perfect opportunity for overfishing and under-reporting by the industrial fleet, and overcapitalization by the domestic artisanal  fleet (Goffinet 1992; Agnew et al. 2010). Furthermore, of a total population of 3.3 milion in Mauritania, 1.5 milion is dependent on fishing (Ould Mohamed Vall 2004; Anon. 2011),  especially in the northern maritime areas where communities livelihood is based almost entirely on this activity, with no other opportunities apart from fishing (Njock 2007). Hence, reconstructing fisheries catches would enhance chances for better management, as required for poverty reduction and food security. This study will update the reconstruction of Mauritanian catches by Gascuel et al. (2007), including the under-reported catches, as well as unreported artisanal catches. It will also provide the first comprehensive estimate of the Imraguen fisheries catch being an important subsistence and traditional activity for the Imraguen population, and the total removals from the Banc d’Arguin National Park (PNBA), which is itself of significant importance for West African fish stocks (Lefeuvre 2007).methodsElectronic time series of reported landings data from 1950 to 2010 were available and used in this study. In addition, we used data available from Gascuel et al. (2007), and unpublished data from the Mauritanian Institue of Oceanographic and Fisheries Research (IMROP) covering the period 1990 to 2005, and statistical time series covering the period from 2004 to 2010 (Kane Élimane 2011). Reported landings are distinguished by species or higher taxonomic grouping and `miscellaneous groups´. Since the main goal of this study is to estimate the total catches per species or higher taxonomic group, we used previously reconstructed data (Gascuel et al. 2007) as a more comprehensive baseline for foreign fishing, and FAO data as a reported baseline for artisanal fishing, to which we added: (1) illegal, unreported, and unregulated commercial catches; (2) non-commercial catches; (3) discards; and (4) illegal foreign flag catches.  Figure 1.  Map of the Mauritanian Exclusive Economic Zone highlighting the Banc D’Arguin National Pak.Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals off Mauritania-Belhabib et al. 63This reconstruction is tentative and an improved version, including official data from IMROP and additional input from IMROP experts will be produced later. In the meantime, we hope that this contribution may serve as a place-holder, as it broadly identifies the catch in the Mauritanian EEZ.Artisanal catchesFishing effort surveys conducted by IMROP started along the coast of Mauritania in 1982 and have been expanding to cover most of the coast since 1985 (Ferraris and Chaboud 1995). While the number of pirogues was believed to be estimated fairly well since that period (based on two surveys performed each  year in all the Mauritanian fishing camp sites), artisanal catches were monitored by IMROP only in Nouakchott and Nouadhibou from 1981 to 1992 (Josse and Garcia 1986; Josse 1989; Failler et al. 2004), and expanded to cover the north area and Nouakchott from 1993 to 1997, and the PNBA and the central areas from 1997 onward (Labrosse et al. 2010). These surveys were based on samples taken by IMROP observers twice a week, directly when pirogues arrived on the beach (Chaboud and Ferraris 1995). To conservatively estimate artisanal catches, we first assembled anchor points for the number of pirogues and the observed CPUEs, reported at two landings sites, for the 1980s and 2000s. We interpolated the number of pirogues to complete the time series from 1950 to 2005 (Table 1). We estimated the geometric mean for the CPUEs observed at both landing sites (Table 2), then performed an extrapolation back and forward to complete the time series. We multiplied the number of pirogues by the annual CPUE, which is the overall average – regardless of the number of fishing days - and estimated the artisanal catch between 1950 and 2005, then added to the offcially IMROP recorded data 8% of artisanal unreported catches, which represents the general rate of under-reporting estimated by MRAG (2005) from 2005 and 2010. Our method is conservative, since catches are based on effort data that are known to be fragmentary  and started covering the entire coast after the 1980s (Bakhayokho et al. 1988). The fishing efficiency of pirogues is known to have strongly increased over time, especially due to the motorization of pirogues in the 1970s, but also to the introduction of ice, more efficient gear and more recently electronic devices (such as GPS). At the same time, the decrease in resources abundance is also well documented (Christensen 2005; Gascuel et al. 2007). This compensated for the increase in CPUE caused by the increasing fishing technology, which here translated into a slow decline as observed.Artisanal catches in the PNBAIn the Banc d’Arguin waters, fishing for flathead grey mullet (Mugil cephalus) by the nomadic Imraguen population has been described since the 15th century mainly for subsistence (Picon 2002).These fishers developed a rudimentary, but unique land-based fishing technique using a net on a wooden stick fishers carried on their shoulders (Anon. 2002b; Bernardon and Ould Mohamed Vall 2004). This selective technique, combined with traditional territorial fishing rights per village and seasonal closure of the fishery (Picon 2002; Bernardon and Ould Mohamed Vall 2004), was a recipe for durability. Imraguen fishers started using small wooden sailing boats introduced by Canarian fishers, in the early 1950s. This, along with growing commercial interest, intensified fishing for mullets and meager (Argyrosomus regius) which developed quickly in the 1950s (Anon. 2002b; Picon 2002) and for shark fins from 1980 to 2003, when this fishery was banned in the park area (Diop and Dossa 2011). This activity was practiced in the Parc National du Banc d’Arguin, created in 1976, where Imraguen maintain exclusive fishing rights, as well as north up to Villa Cisneros and south to Cape-Timiris (Lotte 1937). From 1950 to 1980, the establishment of fishing villages South of Cape Timiris (Chaboud et al. 1988) contributed to increasing fishing effort and capacity. Imraguen catches, as part of the total artisanal catch, were grossly under-reported before 1985 (Bakhayokho et al. 1988; Trouillet et al. 2011) and are still under-estimated (Failler et al. 2002). Therefore, we estimated Imraguen catches as a portion of the artisanal catch to have an estimate of the total removals from the PNBA area, and to be able to determine unreported catches taken by Imraguen from the park Table 1. Anchor points representing the number of pirogues operating in Mauritania between 1950 and 2010.Year Pirogues Source1950 125 Chavance 20041982 519 IMROP unpublished data1985 622 IMROP unpublished data1986 580 IMROP unpublished data1987 735 IMROP unpublished data1988 703 IMROP unpublished data1989 748 IMROP unpublished data1990 763 Inejih et al. 20041991 785 Inejih et al. 20041992 729 Inejih et al. 20041993 1,263 Inejih et al. 20041994 1,565 Inejih et al. 20041995 2,295 IMROP unpublished data 1996 2,842 IMROP unpublished data 1997 2,728 IMROP unpublished data1998 3,142 IMROP unpublished data1999 2,640 IMROP unpublished data2000 2,750 IMROP unpublished data2001 2,850 IMROP unpublished data2002 3,700 IMROP unpublished data2003 3,800 IMROP unpublished data2004 3,950 IMROP unpublished data2005 3,950 IMROP unpublished dataTable 2. CPUE anchor point used for the extrapolation of the average CPUE per pirogue (t∙pirogue-1∙year-1) in two areas of Mauritania.Year Nouadhibou Nouakchott Total1982 17.7 18.3 -1985 33.6 14.7 -1986 39.9 18.0 -1987 45.7 26.5 -1998 - - 22.51999 - - 26.12000 - - 25.92001 - - 27.92002 - - 23.4 64Table 3. Anchor points representing the population of Imraguen in the PNBA equivalent waters.Year Land-based CPUESource Fishers Source Boat-based CPUESource Boats Source1950 6.8 Assumptiona 461 Estimated N/A N/A 0 Assumption1960 6.8 Assumptiona 400 Anthonioz (1967) 55.3 Assumptiona 31 Anthonioz (1967)1970 8.5 Bakhayokho et al. (1988) 164 Assumption 49.2 Interpolated 73 Picon (2002)1980 8.5 Bakhayokho et al. (1988) 125 Assumption 43.1 Interpolated 95 Estimated1997-2010 Between 1997 and 2010, surveyed catch data were available and directly used.a) assumed to be 20% lower than the estimate provided by Bakhayokho et al. (1988).b) assumed to be 10% higher than estimate provided by Chaboud et al. (1988).area. Surveyed catch data time series were available only recently, i.e, since 1997 (Bernardon and Ould Mohamed Vall 2004; Kane 2012 unpub. data). Therefore, to reconstruct Imraguen catches, from 1950 to 1993, we combined CPUE estimates for land-based fishers with the number of land-based fishers, and CPUE estimates for boats with the number of boats. We conservatively assumed the catch per land-based fisher in the 1950s and 1960s was 80% of the 1980s catch per land-based fisher of 8.5 t∙year-1∙fisher-1 (Bakhayokho et al. 1988), i.e., 6.8 t∙year-1∙fisher-1.  The catch per boat in 1959 was estimated at 55.3 t∙year-1∙boat-1, by dividing the catch of 700 t∙year-1 of dried fish (Ould Mohamed 2010), converted to wet weight using a conversion factor of 2.37 (FAO Fishstat) by the effort of 30 boats in 1959 (Ould Mohamed 2010). The catch per boat in 1988 was estimated based on Chaboud et al. (1988) at 38.2 t∙year-1∙boat-1 (Table 3). In 1950, when fish were exclusively caught by land-based fishers, the number of land-based fishers2 was derived to be 461. In 1960, 31 boats and 400 land-based fishers were operating  (Anthonioz 1967). In 1970, 73 boats were operating (Maigret 1970 in Picon 2002) employing 4.5 fishers on average (Anthonioz 1967) for a number of 164 land-based fishers, assuming the number of land-based fishers was proportionally  half the number of boat-based fishers, as the use of boats was increasingly attractive for the Imraguen (Table 3). We applied the same method for 1980, when 95 boats were operating for 125 land-based fishers, i.e., a third of the number of boat-based fishers. We interpolated CPUE estimates and the corresponding effort linearly from 1950 to 1980, which we multiplied to estimate the total Imraguen catch per year.  Thereafter, we performed a linear interpolation from the estimated catch in 1980 to the surveyed catch of 1,000 t∙year-1 in 1997 (Bernardon and Ould Mohamed Vall 2004). Subsistence catchesSubsistence fisheries in Mauritania comprise: (1) Imraguen subsistence catches in the PNBA including catches given or shared as almsgiving, Neerane, fish offered to people who help landing catches; and Ndawal, catches offered to retired fishers who can’t operate anymore (Chaboud et al. 1988), and (2) N’Diago subsistence catches.Imraguen subsistence catchesInside the PNBA, Imraguen fishing from June to September was mainly for subsistence, while mullets fishing (from October to January) and meager (from January to June) was partly commercial (Josse and Garcia 1986). Outside the PNBA, Imraguen historically fished for subsistence during the wet season from August to January (Murray-Lee 1987). To estimate subsistence catches in the PNBA, we first aggregated available data on Imraguen population from 1,500 in 1950 to 1,800 in 1960 (Picon 2002), and then to 2,750 on average from 2001 to 2010 (Anon. 2002b), which we interpolated to complete the time series. For 1978, Doucet et al. (1981) estimated a total Imraguen catch of 7,000 t∙year-1, which were refered to as being for subsistence (Doucet et al. 1981). However given the nature of Imraguen catches, this number is more likely to include both subsistence and artisanal catches. Subsistence catch here is not defined as the consumption per capita, since part of the subsistence catch is sold to markets outside the PNBA, this rather shows both the consumption of the Imraguen population and catches that are taken by the Imraguen and sold informally. Therefore, the difference between the latter and the estimated artisanal catch represents the subsistence catch of the Imraguen population for 1978, i.e., a subsistence catch of 1,981 t∙year-1. The subsistence catch divided by a total interpolated Imraguen population of 2,217 landed a per capita catch of 0.89 t∙capita-1∙year-1 for 1978. We assumed this consumption rate (including Neerane and Ndawal) was 10% higher in 1950, i.e., 0.98 t∙capita-1∙year-1, since evidence suggests catches aimed at personal consumption decreased since the 1950s (Failler et al. 2002), with expanding market (COPACE 1993) and the growing interest in trading the catch (Diop and Ould Cheibani 2000). We performed a linear interpolation to estimate the catch per capita per year from 1950 to 1978. Total subsistence catches in the Imraguen area were obtained as the product of the total Imraguen population per year and the per person estimated catch from 1950 to 1978. In 1988, 15% of the Imraguen catch was consumed, 10% was offered as Neerane and 10% was allocated to the Ndawal (Chaboud et al. 1988), to which 2% of catch consumed by the crew is added (Chaboud and Ferraris 1995), leading to the equivalent of 37% of Imraguen artisanal catches being for subsistence in 1988, thus not reported. In 2009, the  subsistence portion was equivalent to 11% of the total artisanal catch, whereas 9% was donated for almsgiving (Ly and Zein 2009). This, added to the crew consumption of 2%, represented the equivalent of 22% of the Imraguen artisanal catch not reported nor accounted for previously. 2 http://www.la-croix.com/Archives/2004-03-24/La-petite-communaute-des-Imraguen-veut-preserver-ses-ressources-halieutiques-_NP_-2004-03-24-204732 [Accessed on November 24th 2011].Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals off Mauritania-Belhabib et al. 65We interpolated these rates linearly, which we applied to the total Imraguen artisanal catch to estimate subsistence catches by this population in the PNBA, and kept the subsistence catch constant for 2009 and 2010.N’Diago subsistence catchesThe N’Diago people, living in south Mauritania, accounted for around a tenth of the total artisanal catch in the 1950s (E.K., Pers. Obser., IMROP) and 8% of the artisanal fisheries removals in the 1980s (Bakhayokho et al. 1988). We interpolated these rates assuming these were constant from 1980 to 2010. Thereafter, we applied these rates to the total Mauritanian artisanal catch to estimate commercial catches by the N’Diago people for the 1950-2010 time period. We calculated the percentage of subsistence catches over artisanal catches for 1950 and 1978 for the Imraguen subsistence catch, i.e., 82% and 48% for 1950 and 1978, and 37% and 22% for 1988, 2009-2010, respectively. We then applied the same rates then for N’Diago subsistence catches, given that the fish market was homogenous between both areas and that both populations share the same fishing tradition in Mauritania (Trouillet et al. 2011).Industrial fishingThe Mauritanian industrial fleet is made up of vessels of foreign origin that have either been reflagged to Mauritania or operate under chartering arrangements (Bru and Hatti 2000; Gascuel et al. 2007), being mostly Chinese and European vessels for the most recent period (Obaidullah and Osinga 2010; Mallory 2012). This reflagging of boats was common in Mauritania, and driven by reduced fishing fees. For example, 109 Chinese and 44 EU industrial fishing vessels were reflagged in 1999 (Agnew et al. 2010), while in the past it was mostly Soviet Union vessels that were offered joint ventures in Mauritania. Mauritania started chartering vessels and encouraging joint ventures in the 1970s (Gibbs 1984) to nationalize the catch after the bankruptcy of the Societé Mauritanienne de l’Armement des Pêches with its 13 industrial vessels, which cost over $10 million (using a French loan). Joint ventures were 43% Mauritanian state owned, 49% foreign owned and 7.6% private owned (Gibbs 1984). Flags of convenience appeared in Mauritania in 1995 and have been increasing since then (Obaidullah and Osinga 2010). We updated Gascuel et al. (2007) reconstructed industrial catches from 2005 to 2010 data using data from CMAP (2010). While Gascuel et al. (2007) used an under-estimation percentage of 30%, we believe catches were still grossly under-estimated. Ould Taleb Ould Sidi (2000) estimated the total catch to be twice as high, i.e., under-estimated by 100%. However here, to remain conservative, we used Gascuel et al. (2007) under-reporting rate. Gascuel et al. (2007) already estimated foreign catches with the under-reporting of 30% of catches, We here updated this estimate by applying the same under-reporting rate to the data by IMROP from 2005 to 2010.  To allocate catches to actual beneficiary or owner country, we assumed the year of first reported catch data in Fishstat by each country in FAO area 34 as the same year of fishing in Mauritania, and used IMROP catch data per country thereafter (Gascuel et al. 2007). To disaggregate USSR catches to member country, we used the most recent data by IMROP per member country (Gascuel et al. 2007), which we aggregated and estimated the percentage of catch per country assuming a constant figure since the start of USSR fishing operations in the Mauritanian EEZ in 1958. Domestic industrial catch data from Gascuel et al. (2007) was updated using the domestic industrial catch data from 2005 to 2010 from CMAP (2010) on one hand, and the conservative under-estimation rate estimated by Gascuel et al. (2007) on the other hand, given that Mauritanian flagged vessels are more likely to land catches in Mauritania. Canarian fishingThe period between the early 1950s and the beginning of the 1980s was characterized by the presence of a relatively important Canarian purse-seine fleet, estimated between 100 and 200 wooden vessels of 8 to 25 m, landing their catches in Las Palmas, and supplying the ‘Societe industrielle de la grande pêche’ (SIGP, ‘industrial fishing company’) since 1924 (Ould Mohamed 2010) and IMAPEC later, a fish processing factory based in Nouadhibou (Mohamed Mahmoud Ould Sadegh, Fédération nationale des pêches, pers. comm.). In some cases, several hundred Canarian vessels were believed to have operated in Mauritanian waters until 1980, when Canarian fishers left Mauritanian fishing grounds (Mohamed Mahmoud Ould Sadegh, Fédération nationale des pêches, pers. comm.).  Herein, we averaged the number of vessels at 150 in 1950, interpolated to 200 in 1959 (Ould Mohamed 2010) and then to zero in 1980. While in 1980, 7,000 t∙year-1 were caught by Canarian fishers in the waters of the PNBA (Ould Mohamed 2010); in 1959 Ould Mohamed (2010) estimated that 16,000 t∙year-1 of meager were caught by the Canarian fleet and in 1968, around 15,000 t∙year-1 were supplied to the IMAPEC3 , and 4,000 t∙year-1  in 1978 and 1979 as reported by Doucet et al. (1981) and Bakhayokho et al. (1988). We estimated the CPUE in 1959 by dividing the catch of 15,000 t∙year-1 by the effort of 200 vessels, i.e., 80 t∙year-1∙vessel-1, multiplied this CPUE by the averaged effort of 150 Canarian vessels in 1950, and then interpolated catches to complete the time series from 1950 to 1980.Illegal fishingMassive illegal fishing is taking place in the Mauritanian EEZ (Scharm and Schack 2006). Four types of illegal fishing are known to occur in Mauritania: unlicensed fishing practiced by foreign fishers; illegal gear use by the industrial 3 http://mauritania.lezajsk.pl/development-program/125 [Accessed on April 9th 2013]. 66Table 4. Taxonomic composition of illegal Senegalese catches and N’Diago subsistence catches.Taxon name Common name Frequency Contribution to catches (%)SourceSardinella spp. Sardinellas All year 12.5 Sall and Thioye (2006)Pagrus spp. Seabreams All year 12.5 Sall and Thioye (2006)Epinephelus aeneus White grouper All year 12.5 Sall and Thioye (2006)Octopus spp. Octopus 9 months 10.5 Sall and Thioye (2006)Sepia spp. Sepia 9 months 10.0 Sall and Thioye (2006)Mugil spp. Mullets 6 months 5.0 Sall and Thioye (2006)Solea spp. Soles 5 months 1.0 Sall and Thioye (2006)Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish 2 months 1.0 Sall and Thioye (2006)Selachians Selachians - 30.0 Vernet (2007)Miscellanuous - 6 months 5.0 Sall and Thioye (2006)Total - - 100 -fleet, illegal demersal and small pelagic artisanal fisheries; and fishing in the protected PNBA. These illegal activities were inferred to be the equivalent of 9% of the total current legal catch reported by Mauritania to the FAO in the late 2000s (Agnew et al. 2010). Illegal or pirate fishing decreased since 1996-1998 because of the increase in the level of monitoring, control and surveillance (Agnew et al. 2010), but still remained at high levels (Ould Taleb Ould Sidi 2005). Here, we estimated three categories: illegal unlicensed artisanal Senegalese fishing, illegal fishing in closed areas using illegal artisanal gear (in the PNBA), and illegal industrial fishing which was either unlicensed or operated in closed areas in conflict with exclusive artisanal fishing areas.Senegalese illegal artisanal catchesSenegalese fishers operated in Mauritanian waters due to the depletion of local fish stocks in Senegal (Obaidullah and Osinga 2010). Illegal Senegalese fisheries catches have been estimated to be 13,000 t∙year-1 in 2005, the equivalent of 15% of the reconstructed Mauritanian artisanal catches, with an estimated 704 unlicensed Senegalese artisanal vessels in Mauritanian waters (Agnew et al. 2010). There is evidence of proportionality between Senegalese illegal fishing activities and Mauritanian artisanal fisheries in the 2000s. Indeed, many Senegalese fishers operate two thirds of the time for Mauritanian fishers and one third of the time on their own accounts (Marfaing 2005). Therefore, we assumed illegal Senegalese catches were the equivalent of 15% of the Mauritanian artisanal reconstructed catch per year from 2005 (13,000 t∙year-1) to 2010 (13,200 t∙year-1). In 1989, political relations between Mauritania and Senegal resulted in border closure, and expatriation of Senegalese workers from Mauritania  (Gousseau 2007). Therefore, illegal Senegalese fisheries practices increased and fishers were operating frequently in Mauritanian waters without authorization (Marfaing 2005). We assumed catches in 1989 were 50% of the 2001 illegal catch, since closure of boarders increased the segment of unreported and illegal Senegalese fisheries catches off Mauritania from 1989 to 2001. Since then, 705 illegal Senegalese boats per year were operating in Mauritania (Marfaing 2005). During the same period, Mauritania handed over fishing licenses to Senegalese fishers for pelagic fish (mainly Sardinella) excluding mullets and high value species, with 250 licenses in 2001, and 270 in 2004 and 2005. The ratio illegal:legal boats decreased by 8% from 2001 to 2005. Thus, we assumed catches in 2001 were conservatively 8% higher than catches in 2005. From 1950 to 1989, we referred to catches as being unregulated, and assumed the same trend as for Mauritanian artisanal fisheries, since the most recent periods show similar patterns. To disaggregate these catches, we used the Senegalese migrants catch description by Sall and Thioye (2006). In order to derive a species disaggregation index, we assumed the number of months spent targeting these species relatively to the total time allocated to fishing all these species, is a good indicator of the quantity caught, then we derived the proportion of each species catch relatively to the total catch (Table 4).Illegal catches in the PNBAIllegal fishing in the PNBA refers to all unreported catches by non Imraguen fishers inside PNBA waters, and Imraguen or non-Imraguen catches using motorized boats inside the PNBA. The park is referred to as a ‘tank’ for illegal fishers by Failler et al. (2002) to highlight the extent of illegal fishing in the park area. The number of infractions and the corresponding number of illegal boats observed in the PNBA were available from 1999 to 2003 (Table 5) from Marfaing (2005), including pirogues and occasional sightings of trawlers. Here, we assumed that the real number of illegal boats would realistically be 20% higher, since not all illegal boats have been observed. In 2002, 2,500 t∙year-1 of illegal fish were caught in the waters of the PNBA (Failler et al. 2002). Using this catch, with the corresponding number of boats, we estimated a CPUE of 5.8 t∙year-1∙boat-1, which we applied to the available effort data, i.e., from 1999 to 2003, assuming a constant CPUE. From 1976 to 1999, we assumed illegal catches were proportional to the legal component from the PNBA, which is justified by the popularity of the park and the ‘tank’ effect described by Failler et al. (2002). These activities were already widespread in 1976, and illegal fishing has decreased since then, thus, we assumed illegal catches in 1976 were 50% higher than the catch in 1999. With the advancement of monitoring techniques (Agnew et al. 2010) and the implementation of a locally implemented surveillance system in 1998 (FAO 2006), illegal catches in the PNBA decreased considerably (Marfaing 2005; Scharm and Schack 2006; Agnew et al. 2010), therefore we assumed in 2010, they were 50% of the 2003 illegal catch (Table 5).  Thereafter, we interpolated between the three estimates linearly to complete the time series from 1976 to 2010.Catches by illegal industrial fleetsAlthough Mauritania made significant improvements in reducing foreign illegal fishing during the 2000s (Pramod et al. 2008), illegal fishing was, and still is, of major concern (Gibbs 1984; Anon. 2002a; Addico 2008; Pramod et al. Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals off Mauritania-Belhabib et al. 672008). Illegal catches in West Africa were at least 1.3 times the reported catch in the late 1970s (Gibbs 1984). In Mauritania, from 1973 to 1977, most of the industrial catch was taken by unlicensed vessels from the Mauritania (Gibbs 1984), and probably in territorial waters. Right after independence and before the declaration of the Mauritanian EEZ, these waters were  legally accessible for large foreign fleets with no government regulations, as they were legal High Seas waters. Therefore, before the declaration of the Mauritanian EEZ in the late 1970s, these catches are considered unregulated rather than illegal. Catches in 1978 were therefore considered to be twice as high as the legal industrial catch. In the 1990s and the 2000s, 30 to 40 boats from Asia were operating illegally in the Mauritanian waters4, thus, despite significant improvements in monitoring techniques, illegal catches in 2010 were assumed to be 50% lower than the illegal/unregulated catch in 1978. Therefore, we assumed illegal catches from 1950 to 1969 were 1.3 times the industrial catch from Gascuel et al. (2007), twice as high as the industrial reconstructed catch from 1975 to 1985, and decreased thereafter by 50% in 2010. We interpolated the estimated illegal catch to complete the time series. Before the declaration of the Mauritanian EEZ, we consider catches as being unregulated rather than illegal.DiscardsDiscards of the artisanal sectorThe discard rate is around 5% of the total artisanal catch, based on direct observations in 2009 (Ly and Zein 2009). Thus, we assumed a constant rate of 5% from 1950 to 2010, and applied this to the reconstructed artisanal and subsistence catch from 1950 to 2010.Discards of the industrial sectorDiscards of the domestic industrial sector were estimated using data from Gascuel et al. (2007) from 1950 to 2005, then updated based on the percentage of discards derived from Gascuel et al. (2007) for 2005. This discard rate was then applied to industrial catches from 2006 to 2010, to allowing the update of the 1950-2005 discards time series provided by Gascuel et al. (2007). Recreational catchesThe ‘Baie de l’étoile’, located in the Nouadhibou, is the only recreational fishing  centre in Mauritania, allowing 24 tourists to fish for 5 days during a trip of 8 days (Tomatis 2001). This facility opened in 1960 (Ould Mohamed 2010), and in 1972, the first records of tourist fishing were found in the ‘livres d’or’ reporting number of fishes, species and the weight caught for a period of 25 years from 1972 to 1997. Using these records, we estimated the average CPUE per tourist by dividing total catches reported by the number or tourists, and assumed the CPUE was constant from 1995 to 2010. We then assumed the number of tourists fishing was zero in 1970s when this activity began, 10% of the total number of tourists visiting Mauritania as reported by Diarra (2009) between 1997 and 2006, corresponded to the number or ‘reporters’ in the ‘livre d’or’ from 1972 to 1995, and decreased by 50% between 2006 and 2010 because of political and security reasons in the Sahel area. Recreational tourist catches from the waters of the PNBA are estimated as the product of the CPUE by the number of tourists and the number of fishing days per tourist (i.e., 5 days∙boat-1∙year-1).Species disaggregationArtisanal, subsistence and illegal artisanal catches in the PNBA were disaggregated to taxon level using survey data from the Mauritanian Institute of Fisheries (IMROP) in the Banc d’Arguin National Park (Kane Élimane 2011). To disaggregate catches by the N’Diago for subsistence, and illegal Senegalese catches, we estimated a percentage per taxon based on the number of months that fishers spend targeting the latter taxon (Table 3), assuming the same species composition for both sectors, since market value and food preferences are homogenous between 4 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2001-1464+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN  [Accessed on November 23rd 2011].Table 5. Illegal pirogues and corresponding catches in the waters of the PNBA. Year Number of boatsaCPUE(t∙boat-1∙year-1)Catch(t∙year-1)Method1950-1975 0 - 0 Assumed1976 - - 3,071 Assumed to be 50% higher than 1999 catches1999 355 5.8 2,047 Effort multiplied by CPUE2000 493 5.8 2,842 Effort multiplied by CPUE2001 386 5.8 2,227 Effort Multiplied by CPUE2002 299 5.8 2,500 Effort multiplied by CPUE2003 185 5.8 1,065 Effort Multiplied by CPUE2010 - - 533 Assumed to be 50% of the 2003 catchesa) From Mainfraing (2005) adjusted by +20% 68020406080100120FAO data excluding industrialReconstructed artisanal01234561950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearCatches (t·10³)ab204060801001204Yeara3 )b3 ) 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200YearCymbiumUnreportedReporteda01234561950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20103 )YearbCatch (t x 103 ) 0the southern areas of Mauritania and Senegal (Sall and Thioye 2006). Similarly, we converted IMROP artisanal catch data per taxon (IMROP, unpub. data) to percentages and applied this to the difference between total artisanal catches and Imraguen artisanal catches. We applied the same method to estimate foreign legal catches per taxon, where reported catch data in the Mauritania EEZ per country were available from IMROP for the late 1990s to the mid-2000s for Spain, Korea, China, Lithuania, France, Cyprus, Netherlands, Latvia, Italy, Romania, Ireland, Slovenia, Japan, Ukraine and Iceland, whereas for Russia we applied the same species breakdown as for Lithuania, a former USSR member, and the Irish species breakdown to the UK where data were not reported. To disaggregate illegal catches by non-African countries, we aggregated reported catches by all foreign countries (IMROP, unpub. data) and estimated percentages per taxon which we applied to the illegal catch per country, i.e., Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Japan, Korea, China and other non-identified flags.  Domestic discards for trawlers were assumed to have the same taxonomic composition as trawlers operating in Senegal, i.e., Brachydeuterus auritus, Galeoides decadactylus, Chloroscombrus chrysurus, Sepia spp., Trichiurus lepturus, Arius spp., Pseudotholithus spp., and Cynoglossus monody, while small-pelagic trawlers (joint ventures with Russia) were assumed to discard the same species described by ter-Hofstede and Dickey-Collas (2006), i.e., 24.9% of Sardina pilchardus, 16.2% of Scomber japonicus, 15% of Trachurus trecae, 5.1% of Sardinella maderensis, 2.9% of Sardinella aurita and 35.9% of ‘marine fishes nei’.resultsTotal reconstructed catchesReconstructed Mauritanian domestic catches totaled 11.8 million tonnes for the 1950-2010 time period (Figure 2a), compared to total removals by foreign countries of 60.3 million tonnes within the Mauritanian EEZ (Figure 2a). The Mauritanian small-scale catch was estimated to be only 4% of the total reconstructed catch including foreign removals. Total reconstructed domestic Mauritanian catches (11.8 million tonnes) were 200% higher than the officially reported data (Figure 2a). The under-reporting tendency decreased by half during the last six decades, which shows improvement in monitoring (Figure 2a). However, foreign catches still constitute the bulk of catches (Figure 2a). Over the total 72.1 million tonnes reconstructed catches, over 60 million tonnes were caught by foreign vessels during the 1950-2010 time period, of these catches, 27.9 million tonnes (47%) were caught by illegal vessels/pirogues. Domestic catches include carangids, sardinellas and cephalopods (Figure 2b).02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,60002004006008001,0001,2001,4001,600Illegal foreignForeign catchesFAODomesticab5001,0001,5002,0002,51950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103)YearDomesticFAOTotal catchesabFAOForeignDomestic3 )YearFAOForeign legalDomestic industrialForeign illegalArtisanalNon-commercial01002003004005006001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearCarangidaeSciaenidaeSardinellaMugilidaeOctopusSmall-pelagicsCephalopodaAriidaeTrichiuridaeOthersCatch (t x 103)bFigure 3.  Estimated artisanal catches from a) Mauritania and b) the PNBA, 1950-2010.Figure 2.  Reconstructed total removals from Mauritanian waters compared to the data supplied to FAO a) by the foreign and domestic fleets and b) by taxon, 1950-2010.Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals off Mauritania-Belhabib et al. 69Reconstructed catches by sectorArtisanal catchesArtisanal reconstructed catches totaled 2.2 million tonnes over the 1950 2010 time period (Figure 3a).  Reconstructed artisanal catches increased from around 3,500 t∙year-1 in 1950 to around 110,000 t∙year-1 on average in the 2000s (Figure 3a). A sharp increase was observed in the mid-1990s driven by the high interest in the shark fin fishery. Imraguen catches were part of the artisanal catch, and were estimated to be 268,000 tonnes from 1950 to 2010, i.e., 16% of the total artisanal catch. These catches increased from around 3,100 t∙year-1 in 1950, to a peak of 5,200 t∙year-1 in 1980, when shark fishing begun (Figure 3b).Subsistence catchesTotal reconstructed subsistence catches, including catches by the Imraguen and N’Diago, were estimated to be over 139,000 tonnes for the 1950-2010 time period, i.e., more than 1% of the total reconstructed domestic catch (Figure 2a). Subsistence catches increased slightly from around 1,600 t∙year-1 in 1950 to 2,900 t∙year-1 in 2010, driven by the increase of N’Diago subsistence fishing activities in southern waters (Figure 4). The contribution of Imraguen catches to subsistence fisheries decreased from 90% in 1950 (1,500 t∙year-1) to less than 25% in 2010 (680 t∙year-1, Figure 4). Industrial catches by legal fleetsDomestic industrial catches in Mauritania were estimated at 9.4 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010, of which 5.2 million tonnes were discards. Industrial Mauritanian catches increased from 8,300 t∙year-1 in 1950 to a peak of 420,000 t∙year-1 in 2005, then decreased to 260,000 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 5a).Legal industrial catches by the foreign fleet from Mauritanian waters, estimated at 32.1 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010, were the equivalent of around three times the domestic catch (Figure 5a). Foreign industrial catches increased from 14,230 t∙year-1 in 1950 to be almost hundred times higher in 2008 (1.2 million t∙year-1), decreasing slightly thereafter to 1.04 million t∙year-1 in 2010. Very large quantities were caught by eastern European and former Soviet Union countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovenia and Ukraine) with 37% of the legal foreign catch, i.e., around 12 million tonnes for the period from 1950 to 2010. Flag of convenience (FOC) countries (mainly Chinese flying the flags of Cyprus and Belize) caught between 1987 and 2010 as much fish as Western Europe countries (France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom) in 60 years, with over 8.1 million tonnes (25%), whereas East Asian countries (China, Japan and Korea) were responsible of 8% of the total legal foreign removals (Figure 5b).Canarian catchesCanarian catches were estimated at 372,500 tonnes between 1950 and 1980, when Canarian fishers left Mauritania. Catches increased slightly from 12,000 t∙year-1 in 1950 to 16,000 t∙year-1 in 1959, and then 00.511.522.533.51950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103)YearSouthern areasImraguen   1.02.03.0Catch (t x 103 )   00.20.40.60.81.01.21.4YearDomesticForeigna   00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearWestern EuropeEastern Europe/ frormer USSREast AsiaOthersFOC countries (China)b0.abCatch (t x 106 )0.51.01.52.02 51950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010rDomestic discardsLegal foreignUnreported domesticReported domesticIllegal foreign   .......rester  r easter  r e/ fr r er ast siat ersF  c tries ( i a)bCatch (t x 106 )aFigure 4.  Reconstructed subsistence catches from Mauritania, 1950-2010.Figure 5.  a) Estimated industrial domestic and foreign catches from the Mauritanian EEZ, and b) catches by the foreign legal fleets from Mauritania per country/region of origin, 1950-2010. 70012345671950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t·10³)Year   0.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61970 1980 19 0 20 2010Catch (t x 103 )Yeardecreased to zero in 1980. Canarian catches were overwhelmingly from the PNBA waters (Figure 6).Illegal catchesUnregulated and illegal catches by foreign fleets in Mauritania were estimated to be over 27.9 million tonnes for the period from 1950 to 2010, which represented about 40% of the total removals by legal domestic and foreign vessels in Mauritania (Figure 2). Catches increased from 19,900 t∙year-1 in 1950 to their maximum of 1.4 million t∙year-1 in 1976, before the declaration of the Mauritanian EEZ, when they were considered unregulated rather than illegal. Illegal catches decreased thereafter to 359,000 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 7). Illegal catches in the PNBA: Illegal catches in the Park National du Banc D’Arguin area totaled around 75,400 tonnes between 1950 and 2010 (Figure 8). Illegal fishing in the PNBA started in 1976 at around 3,070 t∙year-1, i.e., the equivalent of 26% of the total Imraguen catch (Figure 8). Catches decreased thereafter to 533 t∙year-1 in 2010 representing 10% of the Imraguen artisanal and subsistence catch in the park area (Figure 8).Illegal Senegalese catches: Illegal Senegalese catches in Mauritania totaled 435,200 tonnes betwen 1950 and 2010 (3% of the total illegal catch). Illegal Senegalese catches increased from 1,400 t∙year-1 from 1950 to a peak of 15,600 t∙year-1 in 2001, right when Mauritania handed over fishing authorizations to some 300 Senegalese pirogues, before increasing again to 17,000 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 8). Illegal foreign (non-African) catches: Illegal catches by non-African countries (.e., excluding Senegal)were estimated at 27.4 million tonnes from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 9). Illegal catches by non-African countries increased from 18,500 t∙year-1 in 1950 to reach a peak of 1.4 million t∙year-1 in 1976, and then decreased to an average of 370,000 t∙year-1 in the late 2000s (Figure 9). The former Soviet Union members and Eastern Europe countries (Lithuania, Romania, Russian Federation and Ukraine) totaled around 11.9 million tonnes between 1950 and 2010, i.e., 43% of the total non-African illegal catch (Figure 9). The Netherlands, Spain and Italy together caught more than 5.4 million tonnes over the same period, with Spain being responsible for most of the illegal catch by Western Europe (2.8 million tonnes) (Figure 9). Catches by Asian countries led by China (1.1 million tonnes) represented 14% of the total illegal non-African catch (Figure 9). Other countries (suspected to be of Chinese and Korean origins) contributed to 24% of these catches with over 6.5 million tonnes (Figure 9). These are most likely vessels flying flags of convenience.Domestic discardsDiscards, estimated to be around 5.3 million tonnes for the period from 1950 to 2010, increased from 1,700 t∙year-1 in 1950 to 16,000 t∙year-1 in 1980 (Figure 10) and then increased rapidly with the increase of industrial domestic catches to 213,000 t∙year-1 in 1984, and remained relatively at a high level since then (Figure 10).0246810121416181950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearFigure 7.  Estimated catches by illegal fleets from the waters of Mauritania, 1950-2010. 024681012141618201950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearIllegal SenegaleseIllegal from PNBAFigure 8.  Illegal catches from the waters of the PNBA and by Senegalese illegal fishers in Mauritania, 1950-2010.Figure 6.  Reconstructed catches by fishers from the Canarian islands from Mauritania, 1950-2010.Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals off Mauritania-Belhabib et al. 71Recreational catchesReconstructed recreational catches in Mauritania, particularly in the PNBA, were relatively low, estimated at 1 t∙year-1 in 1971, increased to a peak of 138 t∙year-1 in 1984, decreased drastically to less than 8 t∙year-1 in 1989, with the conflict between Mauritania and Senegal and then increased again to 108 t∙year-1 in 2003, before decreasing to a minimum of 3 t∙year-1 in 2010 (Figure 11). discussionTotal reconstructed catches taken from Mauritanian waters were estimated to be 72.1 million tonnes over the 1950-2010 time period. These catches went overwhelmingly to fleets of foreign origin, i.e., 60 million tonnes, of which over 27.9 million tonnes were illegally caught. The foreign legal catch  provided few and low domestic benefits, and most of the value was going overseas (Barbut 2008). Mauritanian domestic catches, including the artisanal and subsistence catch, and the industrial sector operated by vessels of foreign origin, were estimated at 11.6 million tonnes, three times the catch data of 3.8 million tonnes supplied to the FAO. However, this work excluded the relatively high Senegalese catch under agreement with Mauritania, which in 2012 was estimated at around 100,000 t∙year-1. The political context played an important role on how Mauritanian fisheries evolved over time. Indeed, the ten years that followed Mauritanian independence from France (in 1960) exposed Mauritanian waters to the bulk of illegal foreign fishing. Furthermore, prior to the 1989 events between Mauritania and Senegal, Senegalese illegal catches were a matter of lack of regulation and monitoring. It is only after the political events that the Mauritanian government began to enforce prohibition of unregulated ‘foreign’ fishing in its territorial waters. Senegalese fishers seeking economic refuge were forced to operate in waters off Mauritania because of the scarcity of the resources in their traditional fishing grounds (Failler and Binet 2012). These fishers accuse EU and Asian illegal vessels of depleting fisheries resources (UNEP 2006). Although ignored by the management body, this activity contributed to the extraction of over 422,000 tonnes during the last 60 years, which is almost as high as the Imraguen catch in the PNBA. Furthermore, another 100,000 t∙year-1 caught by legal Senegalese fisheries could be added to the equation in the late 2000s according to anonymous official sources.This raises serious concerns regarding the quality of data submitted to FAO by Mauritania, and highlights the significant correlation existing between IUU fishing and poor governance (Mallory 2012). Furthermore, the Mauritanian government reporting the chartered and joint-venture vessel catches as ‘domestic’, despite the majority of the benefit of these catches going overseas (e.g. most of them are Chinese), is only but aggravating the transparency issues around the low benefits received by the Mauritanian population (Agnew et al. 2010). Indeed, despite this large contribution to fisheries removals, the true economic, social and food security contribution of joint ventures and charter activities beyond access fees in questionable (Goffinet 1992; Ould Cheikhna et al. 2005; Folsom and Weidner 1976 in Pramod et al. 2008; Dobo 2009; Cherif 2011).    00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 106 )YearEast AsiaEastern EuropeOthersWestern Europe0204060801001201401601950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearFigure 9. Catches by the illegal foreign (non-African fleets) from Mauritania, 1950-2010.0501001502002501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearFigure 10.  Discards by the domestic fisheries of Mauritania, 1950-2010. Figure 11.  Recreational catches from Mauritania, 1950-2010.  72Thus, in Mauritania, the extent of foreign fishing access agreements is strongly related to the level of debt of the country, and the fees paid suggest economic desperation (Gorez and Oriordan 2003). For example, in the case of foreign industrial tuna vessels operating off Mauritania, the cost of fishing licenses paid to Mauritania represented as little as 0.18% of the estimated catch value (Solie 2004). Another example is the octopus stock which has been driven to its lowest historical abundance (UNEP 2006), yet new fishing agreements have been signed with China to target these species (Cherif 2011). Moreover, subsidized access by the EU fleet to Mauritanian waters unfairly outcompeted the  local artisanal industry (Gorez and Oriordan 2003; CTA 2011).   Mauritania does not have a long-standing fishing tradition (Scharm and Schack 2006; Gascuel et al. 2007), with official fish consumption figures between 6.8 kg∙capita-1∙year-1 and 17 kg∙capita-1∙year-1 in coastal areas, and 3 kg∙capita-1∙year-1 in eastern areas (Ould Cheikhna et al. 2005). However, such average official numbers do not reflect the vital importance of fish for traditional fishing communities, where fish consumption can reach up to 80 kg∙capita-1∙year-1 in the case of the Imraguen  and N’Diago (Failler et al. 2002). Unfortunately, fish consumption in the area is in rapid decline (Failler et al. 2002), due to the over-exploitation of fish stocks (UNEP 2006; Agnew et al. 2010) and trade liberalization on shark fisheries which are not traditionally consumed by Mauritanian people for religious and cultural reasons (UNEP 2006). In the PNBA, the Imraguen who are strictly dependent on fishing activities, have seen their catch decline by almost three fold. The increase shown by official reports may be due to an increase in reporting rather than an increase in catches, which would be questionable given the over-exploitation pattern the area witnessed. This suggests a shifting baseline (Pauly 1995). When compared to available recent survey data (Kane Élimane 2011), these catches are two fold the reported numbers. These estimates have low uncertainty, since onsite surveys from direct observations by Failler et al. (2002) showed similar catches in the waters of the PNBA. Likewise, artisanal catches in the 2000s were estimated to be around 80,000 t ±  10,000 t by Ould Cheikhna et al. (2005), which corresponds to our estimate in the present study. Subsistence fishing, which in 1950 represented 36% of the small-scale catch, decreased to around 2% in recent years. This could be related to the increase in catch-based economic activities by both Imraguen and N’Diago traditional fishing communities. The economic interest in species like sharks resulted in strong overfishing, which besides impacting livelihoods, increased conflict over fishing grounds and resources (Lenselink 2004). Furthermore, evidence suggests effort in Mauritania is focused on resource exploitation and profit maximization in the short term (Trouillet et al. 2011) rather than long term economic profitability and food security, with only 10% of the catch being landed in Mauritania (CTA 2011). Indeed, Mauritania was identified as suffering from abnormal food shortages in the 1980s (Pollnac 1985), yet most of the fish produced goes overseas. Furthermore, development strategies around fisheries are still based on exports and handing over fishing access agreements or joint ventures.  This represents a danger, both for fisheries sustainability and for food security in Mauritania. Mauritania, like its neighbors is at risk of facing a major food security issue related to the lack of protein if the current questions around fisheries, such as the realistic benefits of fishing access agreements, illegal fishing, and short term profits are not addressed. Our estimation of artisanal catches from the entire Mauritanian coast from 1950 to 2010 showed that the bulk of the artisanal Mauritania catches were caught by the Imraguen in the waters of the PNBA up until the early 1980s. This further supports the hypothesis that the data on Mauritania artisanal effort are heavily under-estimated and was fragmentary up until the 1980s when data collection started expanding to cover the rest of the Mauritanian regions. Futhermore, this illustrates the importance of fisheries to local communities dependant upon them. acknowledgementsWe acknowledge the support of the Sea Around Us Project, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. We also thank the MAVA foundation for supporting the project ‘Sea Around Us in West Africa, research and collaboration’. The authors thank the Dr. Omar Sarr for his sound advice. D.B. specifically thanks the IMROP team, the Association of Cephalopod Artisanal Fishers, the National Federation of Fisheries and members of the subsistence fishing community for their hospitality during our short visit to Mauritania. Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals off Mauritania-Belhabib et al. 73referencesAddico MT (2008) Maritime security threats and responses in the west and central african maritime region / gulf of Guinea. United Nations Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea – Maritime Security, 23-27 June 2008, New York. 27 p. Agnew DJ, Walmsley SF, Leotte F, Barnes C, White C and Good S (2010) Estimation of the cost of illegal fishing in West Africa. MRAG. 97 p.Anon. (2002a) Diagnostique stratégique de filières agro-industrielles. Rapport Mauritanie. Clichy. 20 p.Anon. (2002b) Evaluation de l’impact de la libéralisation du commerce. Une étude de cas sur le secteur des pêches de la République Islamique de Mauritanie. UNEP. 173 p.Anon. (2011) Aquaculture, fisheries, poverty and food security. WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. 56 p.Anthonioz A (1967) Les Imraguen, Pêcheurs nomades de Mauritanie (El Memghar). Bulletin de l’IFAN 29(B): 695-738.Bakhayokho M, Chaboud C, Diop H, Kebe M, Nguer A, Ould Mohamed Ahmed A and Sok M (1988) La pêche artisanale Les ressources halieutiques de la ZEE mauritanienne. Description, évaluation et aménagement (89/49). FAO, Rome. 23 p.Barbut M (2008) Sustainable Fisheries Development Projects in 9 West African Countries Global Environment Facility. 13 p.Bernardon M and Ould Mohamed Vall M (2004) Le mulet en Mauritanie: biologie, écologie, pêche et aménagement. Programme regional de conservation de la zone côtière marine (PRCM).Bru H and Hatti M (2000) Pêche artisanale et lutte contre la pauvreté. PROJET SPPD MAU/00/001, PNUD/FAO. 53 p.Campredon P and Cuq F (2001) Artisanal Fishing and Coastal Conservation in West Africa. Journal of Coastal Conservation 7(1): 91-100.Chaboud C and Ferraris J (1995) Rapport d’évatuation des. systèmes d’échantillonnage de la pêche artisanale mauritanienne au CNROP. ORSTOM, Montpellier. 70 p.Chaboud C, Kébé M, Mohamed Ahmed A, Diop H and Lawal HS (1988) Eléments sur la pêche artisanale mauritanienne. Bulletin Scientifique CNROP, IMROP. 48 p.Cherif AM (2011) La convention Ply-Hondone Fishery- Mauritanie: Analyse des impacts économiques, sociaux et environmentaux. Pêchecops. 8 p.CMAP (2010) Etude relative à l’analyse des politiques publiques dans le secteur des pêches en Mauritanie. Ministère des affaires economiques et du développement. 71 p. COPACE (1993) Évaluation des stocks et des pêcheries mauritaniennes. Voies de développement et d’aménagement. 95/60, FAO, Rome.CTA (2011) ACP-EU trade issues in the fisheries sector: information and analysis. Fisheries News Update, Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation. 20 p.Diop M and Dossa J (2011) Trente années d’exploitation des requins en Afrique de l’Ouest 3. FIBA. 94 p.Diop M and Ould Cheibani MM (2000) Etudes de cas dans les pays de la CSRP; Cas de la Mauritanie. CSRP Report, CSRP, Dakar, Senegal. 64 p.Dobo A (2009) Illegal Chinese fishing in West African waters: A study on Chinesse IUU activities and its consequences to socio-ecological systems. Master’s thesis, University of Stockholm. 53 p.Doucet FJ, Pease PH and Troadec J-P (1981) Mauritanie. Politique de développement et d’aménagement des pêches dans la zone économique exclusive: Rapport rédigé pour le Gouvernement de la République islamique de Mauritanie. FAO, Rome. 135 p.Failler P and Binet T (2012a) Migrations des pêcheurs dans l’espace régional africain. Gouvernance écosystémique. Rapport de synthèse, PRCM. 13 p.Failler P and Binet T (2012b) West African fisheries at a deadlock or why migration is not the solution anymore. IUCN and Sub-Regional Commission for Fisheries. 12 p.Failler P, Van de Walle G, Carrier S, Deme M, Blade D and Dia A (2002) Imperatives of the governance of marine protected areas in West Africa. Centre for the Economics and Management of Aquatic Resources (CEMARE), University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. 28 p.FAO (2002) Sub-regional fisheries commission workshop on vessel monitoring systems. Saly, Senegal, 14-17 October 2002.696, FAO, Rome, Italy. 45 p.FAO (2006) Expert workshop on marine protected areas and fisheries management: review of issues and considerations. FAO Fisheries Report 825, FAO, Rome, Italy. 301 p.Gascuel D, Zeller D, Taleb Sidi MO and Pauly D (2007) Reconstructed catches in the Mauritanian EEZ. pp. 105-119 In Zeller D and Pauly D (eds.), Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for key countries and regions (1950-2005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15 (2). Gibbs D (1984) The Politics of Economic Development: The Case of the Mauritanian Fishing Industry. African Studies Review 27(4): 79-93.Goffinet T (1992) Development and fisheries management: The case of northwest Africa. Ocean & Coastal Management 17(2): 105-136.Gorez B and Oriordan B (2003) An examination of fisheries relations between the European Union and ACP countries Brussels. 30 p. 74Gousseau V (2007) Les événements de 89–Le conflit Mauritanie–Sénégal Master 2 Européen de Développement Culturel thesis, Université Lille 3 Charles De Gaulle, Histoire contemporaine.Jager Z (1993) The distribution and abundance of young fish in the Banc d’Arguin, Mauritania. Hydrobiologia 258(1): 185-196.Josse E and Garcia S (1986) Description et évaluation des ressources halieutique de la ZEE mauritanienne COPACE/PACE SERIES 86/37, FAO, Rome. 296 p.Kane Élimane A (2011) Capture et effort de Pêche au PNBA. Institut mauritanien de recherches océanographiques et des pêches (IMORP). 14 p.Labrosse P, Brahim K, Ould Taleb Ould Sidi M and Gascuel D (2010) Évaluation des ressources et aménagement des pêcheries de la ZEE Mauritanienne. IMORP, Nouadhibou. 279 p.Lefeuvre J-C (2007) Patrimoine naturel en héritage: une nouvelle approche pour intégrer recherche et gestion. Institut français de la Biodiversité. 10 p.Lenselink NM (2004) Participation à la gestion des pêches artisanales pour améliorer les moyens d’existence des pêcheurs en Afrique de l’Ouest. Une synthèse des entretiens et des études de cas réalisés en Mauritanie, au Sénégal, en Guinée et au Ghana. Fish. Tech. Pap. 432, FAO, Rome. 52 p.Lotte L (1937) Coutumes des Imraguen (Côtes de Mauritanie, A. O. F.). Journal de la Société des Africanistes: 41-51.Ly OK and Zein SAOM (2009) Évaluation économique d’une zone humide : le cas du Diawling, Mauritanie. UICN, Gland.M’Barek MS and Mahfoudh M (1995) Hydro climatic conditions and fisheries in the Mauritanian EEZ. p. 2 In Summaries of contributions presented at the workshop on West African fisheries organized during the advanced course on upwelling systems (Atlantic Ocean Eastern Boundary). A joint effort from IOC and the European Union mast programme. UNESCO, Las Palmas, Spain.Mallory GT (2012) China as a distant water fishing nation. US-China Economics and Security Review Commission, John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 11 p.Marfaing L (2005) Du savoir faire sénégalais en matière de pêche sur les côtes mauritaniennes: une approche historique. Wiener Zeitschrift für kritische Afrikastudien 8: 30.MRAG (2005) Review of impacts of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing on developing countries. Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd, London. 170 p.Murray-Lee M (1987) Mauritania fishing. Imraguen fishermen. UNICEF. 2 p.Nancy S (2010) Le banc d’Arguin en Mauritanie. Récits de paysages. Grandir & Fiba, Piazzola sul Brenta, Italie. 35 p.Njock JC (2007) Pilot project. Coastal fisheries co-management in Congo, Gabon, Guinea and Mauritania.2, FAO- Department of International development, Cotonou, Benin. 30 p.Obaidullah F and Osinga Y (2010) How Africa is feeding Europe: EU (over)fishing in West Africa. Greenpeace. 16 p.Ould Abeid Sa and Gaye EHD (2009) Accord de Pêche Sénégal-Mauritanie: les professionnels artisans sénégalais et mauritaniens se concertent. FNP–CONIPAS. 2 p.Ould Cheikhna SA, Guisset D and Mbarek OSM (2005) Evaluation de la contribution socio-économique de la pêche au PIB et au développement rural en Mauritanie. FAO, Rome, Italie.Ould Mohamed SM (2010) L’évolution de la pêche en Mauritanie depuis l’indépendance à nos jours (1960-2009). . University of Université de la Rochelle, Centre de recherche en histoire internationale et atlantique, La Rochelle. 594 p. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/2509960/Levolution_de_la_peche_en_Mauritanie_depuis_lindependance_a_nos_jours_1960-2009_ [Accessed: 10/04/2013].Ould Mohamed Vall M (2004) Étude de la dynamique des systèmes d’exploitations et de l’écobiologie de la reproduction, des trois mugilidés : Mugil cephalus (Linnaeus, 1758), Liza aurata (Perugia, 1892) et Mugil capurrii (Risso, 1810), analyse de leur stratégies d’occupations des secteurs littoraux mauritaniens et de leurs possibilités d’aménagement. Doctorat en sciences, Université de Nice, Nice. 129 p.Ould Taleb Ould Sidi MM (2000) Évolution des captures et de l’effort de pêche des flottilles industrielles de petits pélagiques dans la zone économique exclusive mauritanienne Bulletin Scientifique du Centre National de Recherches Océanographiques et des Pêches 28: 1-31.Ould Taleb Ould Sidi MM (2005) Les ressources de petits pélagiques en Mauritanie et dans la zone nord-ouest africaine: Variabilité spatiale et temporelle, dynamique et diagnostic. Docteur thesis, École nationale supérieure agronomique de Rennes, Rennes. 286 p. Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes on the shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10 (10): 430.Picon B (2002) Pêche et pêcheries du banc d’Arguin. Histoire d’une identité Fondation internationale du banc d’Arguin, Mauritanie. 66 p.Pollnac RB (1985) Sociocultural issues in West African fisheries development. International Center for Marine Resource Development, Kingston, Rhode Island. 28 p.Pramod G, Pitcher TJ, Pearce J and Agnew D, editors (2008) Source of information supporting estimates of unreported fishery catches (IUU) for 59 countries and the high seas. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 16 (4). 242 p.Sall A and Thioye A (2006) Étude des migrations des communautés de pêche sur la côte mauritanienne : cas de la zone côtière sud (Nouamghar –N’diago). 34 p.Scharm W and Schack U (2006) Fighting illegal unreported unregulated fishing (IUU) in Mauritania. German Society for Technical Cooperation, Bonn, Germany. 4 p.Solie K (2004) Evaluation du marché du poisson de Conakry à travers la consommation par individu : Approche méthodologique. 117 p.Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals off Mauritania-Belhabib et al. 75Tacko Kandji S, Verchot L and Mackensen J (2006) Climate change and variability in the Sahel region: impacts and adaptation strategies in the agricultural sector. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya. 44 p. ter Hofstede R and Dickey-Collas M (2006) An investigation of seasonal and annual catches and discards of the Dutch pelagic freezer-trawlers in Mauritania, Northwest Africa. Fisheries Research 77(2): 184-191. Tomatis J (2001) Étude du potentiel de développement touristique de la Mauritanie   Mauritania Integrated Framework Volume II.Troadec JP and Garcia S (1980) The fish resource of the Eastern central Atlantic. Part one: The resources of the gulf of Guinea from Angola to mauritania. Fish. Tech. Pap. 186, FAO. 166 p.Trouillet B, Guineberteau T, Bernardon M and Le Roux S (2011) Key challenges for maritime governance in West Africa: Fishery-based lessons from Guinea and Mauritania. Marine Policy 35(2): 155-162.UNDP (2001) Summary of DTIS (2001) concerning Commodity Development. UNDP. 12 p.UNEP (2006) Evaluation de l’impact de la libéralisation du commerce Une étude de cas sur le secteur des pêches de la République Islamique de Mauritanie. UNEP, Genève, Suisse. 165 p.UNEP (2011) Banc D’Arguin National Park. UNEP- World Conservation Monitoring Centre. 9 p.Vernet A-L (2007) Synthèse analytique des bases de données du projet ‘Système d´information et d´analyse des pêches’. IRD. 90 p. 76Appendix Table A1. Annual catches from Mauritania’s EEZ, 1950-2010.Year Reported to FAO Artisanal Subsistence Industrial Discards Total domestic Total foreign1950 3,000 3,286 1,629 6,835 1,680 13,166 34,0891951 3,000 3,608 1,656 7,285 1,677 13,962 36,5411952 5,000 3,930 1,682 9,079 2,395 16,806 48,4601953 5,000 4,252 1,709 10,079 2,411 18,152 52,9551954 5,000 4,573 1,735 10,565 2,433 18,991 53,8991955 5,000 4,894 1,762 13,343 2,077 21,743 68,3631956 5,000 5,214 1,788 10,755 2,090 19,498 59,3171957 5,000 5,534 1,815 11,613 1,743 20,337 64,0361958 10,000 5,853 1,841 13,389 3,829 24,528 93,5501959 10,000 6,172 1,868 17,538 3,745 28,922 135,4061960 12,000 6,491 1,894 10,614 4,447 23,028 116,7491961 14,000 6,809 1,921 11,521 5,806 25,621 144,8201962 15,000 7,127 1,947 12,935 5,738 27,293 171,8051963 15,000 7,444 1,974 12,353 5,722 27,021 178,0751964 15,000 7,761 2,000 17,461 5,526 32,260 251,5571965 17,000 8,077 2,027 26,435 6,298 42,332 278,2971966 19,000 8,393 2,053 28,024 7,803 45,751 272,5901967 22,700 8,708 2,080 69,336 8,931 88,516 518,0611968 29,000 9,023 2,107 110,405 12,297 133,276 742,8151969 35,000 9,338 2,133 79,169 15,396 105,462 748,3241970 43,570 9,652 2,160 88,921 18,174 118,316 1,058,6111971 52,925 9,966 2,186 90,258 21,747 123,549 1,201,2531972 30,291 10,279 2,213 78,480 12,764 103,112 1,228,1661973 27,190 10,592 2,239 89,417 11,108 112,714 1,442,0441974 37,697 10,905 2,266 96,818 18,091 127,421 1,644,9011975 27,921 11,217 2,292 87,219 12,339 112,392 1,755,6721976 27,834 11,528 2,319 97,462 11,630 125,317 2,141,2771977 31,897 11,839 2,345 79,297 13,557 109,355 2,064,5401978 35,467 12,150 2,372 65,917 19,190 101,883 1,049,5841979 18,541 12,460 2,369 54,546 16,177 87,748 1,069,2301980 15,598 12,770 2,367 71,002 16,742 105,016 1,483,0611981 52,779 13,079 2,364 111,090 109,026 237,636 1,253,6561982 50,288 13,349 2,362 120,136 141,297 279,162 1,241,9461983 75,600 14,222 2,359 105,074 158,966 282,551 1,473,5941984 51,676 15,094 2,357 90,011 213,978 323,283 1,305,0771985 60,277 15,965 2,354 98,641 193,559 312,273 1,420,8511986 70,614 14,877 2,352 100,440 220,257 339,690 1,416,1751987 82,397 18,840 2,350 101,726 223,390 347,827 1,426,3191988 71,666 18,007 2,347 87,304 214,993 324,169 1,300,0841989 70,000 19,146 2,372 71,949 181,070 275,953 1,235,2791990 60,000 19,517 2,396 54,625 162,129 240,018 1,074,1701991 61,637 20,066 2,420 57,058 141,825 222,647 1,199,7031992 61,054 18,621 2,445 67,461 173,519 263,351 1,350,8731993 54,452 32,188 2,469 63,465 234,587 333,290 1,208,3481994 46,746 39,920 2,494 59,391 199,384 301,337 937,4551995 48,147 58,501 2,518 54,946 118,072 233,210 1,174,6931996 55,324 72,394 2,542 67,376 143,450 284,196 1,553,2521997 65,127 69,442 2,567 51,150 227,164 348,858 1,348,3581998 89,043 79,924 2,591 45,298 163,527 289,306 1,374,6261999 94,527 66,828 2,616 53,516 138,301 259,836 1,252,4882000 104,456 69,856 2,640 63,032 122,560 257,305 1,366,3742001 130,142 72,345 2,664 67,745 127,618 268,850 1,243,0742002 144,131 93,856 2,689 67,253 133,984 295,455 1,600,2102003 187,650 96,326 2,713 134,167 139,397 368,716 1,307,8942004 258,733 100,058 2,738 226,558 144,874 470,077 1,564,6162005 291,877 95,043 2,762 274,145 149,913 517,886 1,316,4082006 150,312 102,204 2,786 81,530 155,562 337,669 1,045,1762007 208,207 109,366 2,811 148,212 213,816 469,357 1,465,6322008 180,328 116,528 2,835 103,388 186,296 403,764 1,580,8252009 201,900 123,690 2,860 72,984 169,868 363,684 1,415,1802010 261,238 123,690 2,860 64,403 169,868 355,027 1,404,298 Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals off Mauritania-Belhabib et al. 77Appendix Table A2. Six most important taxa caught by domestic fisheries in Mauritania’s EEZ, 1950-2010.Year Ariidae Carangidae Cephalopoda Small-pelagics Mugilidae Octopus Sciaenidae Trichiuridae Othersa1950 809 1,101 384 3,795 711 910 839 204 4,6731951 840 1,188 382 4,067 779 923 875 224 4,9431952 828 1,350 589 5,486 803 1,434 866 237 5,4901953 863 1,527 595 5,996 874 1,466 906 278 5,9411954 894 1,623 593 6,290 941 1,477 942 300 6,2431955 916 2,038 523 7,950 999 1,324 969 410 6,9431956 928 1,625 485 6,901 1,042 1,247 984 313 6,3191957 939 1,723 397 7,717 1,084 1,049 999 349 6,4451958 896 1,711 974 9,553 1,052 2,437 954 273 7,0591959 959 2,366 1,037 11,343 1,161 2,608 1,025 430 8,3911960 863 1,212 1,042 9,229 1,049 2,609 923 134 6,3811961 899 1,337 1,399 9,518 1,128 3,484 965 116 7,2081962 895 1,422 1,435 10,776 1,150 3,582 963 139 7,3801963 906 1,370 1,392 10,677 1,193 3,491 978 127 7,3541964 992 2,078 1,544 12,649 1,355 3,893 1,075 300 8,8591965 1,051 3,336 1,915 16,988 1,480 4,815 1,144 569 11,5351966 1,080 3,561 2,343 17,536 1,557 5,866 1,178 568 12,5791967 1,191 10,166 3,189 36,690 1,777 7,943 1,305 2,083 24,7051968 1,242 16,865 4,578 55,491 1,899 11,303 1,366 3,542 37,5431969 1,217 10,906 5,642 40,591 1,886 13,869 1,341 2,028 28,5511970 1,007 11,614 3,421 43,315 1,528 5,725 16,466 2,102 33,7231971 955 10,884 3,893 45,269 1,440 6,839 19,380 1,805 33,6901972 1,172 11,184 2,739 38,430 1,856 6,394 10,037 2,190 29,7311973 1,241 13,347 2,330 42,636 1,998 4,848 10,424 2,759 33,7761974 1,150 13,995 4,342 50,168 2,070 17,498 4,449 2,667 31,7421975 1,205 13,049 2,292 44,323 2,367 14,790 3,365 2,647 29,0311976 1,840 14,776 2,334 48,050 2,929 15,771 4,087 3,075 33,1461977 1,734 11,275 2,749 40,379 2,565 17,260 3,571 2,184 28,3461978 1,628 9,356 3,032 35,883 3,394 15,813 6,638 1,528 25,3471979 1,840 9,498 1,036 33,311 3,864 6,318 3,282 1,672 27,6821980 2,265 13,094 3,250 38,767 4,120 7,007 2,667 2,448 32,1551981 1,891 28,324 10,219 97,848 3,760 23,115 3,525 2,707 67,0671982 1,544 35,269 8,721 115,751 3,772 20,778 4,114 3,272 86,8191983 1,510 31,381 15,226 106,668 3,315 30,183 3,688 1,631 89,8931984 1,323 40,422 6,561 137,355 3,323 23,999 5,663 1,990 103,6531985 1,277 37,557 7,307 124,512 3,687 25,324 5,868 2,044 105,7041986 1,577 40,254 10,184 132,492 2,914 37,325 5,947 1,672 108,2321987 1,815 40,006 7,474 127,929 3,269 43,416 5,228 1,409 118,3581988 6,805 35,538 12,562 103,653 3,813 39,575 13,030 6,400 103,8211989 10,406 27,335 19,234 70,624 4,173 42,519 15,019 9,590 78,1321990 13,396 22,717 20,908 49,427 4,179 39,774 15,952 12,486 62,2831991 18,712 19,083 28,552 4,546 4,504 45,958 19,737 17,678 65,0101992 22,870 23,300 36,295 4,656 5,009 48,683 23,895 21,640 78,0661993 30,767 30,860 44,084 6,721 7,011 49,945 31,995 29,208 104,4381994 26,598 26,075 39,976 6,773 8,520 48,960 28,010 24,719 93,8341995 16,935 16,357 30,948 11,814 11,920 46,796 18,687 14,479 68,3321996 20,508 19,258 35,728 16,939 14,655 55,338 22,477 17,625 85,4231997 30,423 34,915 41,957 18,049 12,140 38,172 32,197 28,147 116,4691998 22,018 32,336 32,009 19,846 10,701 34,531 23,763 20,206 98,0511999 18,851 36,159 27,252 17,979 7,844 26,503 19,912 17,204 91,6472000 17,023 35,297 26,791 19,356 8,635 30,648 18,218 15,348 89,7002001 17,150 45,912 26,045 21,522 6,529 25,083 18,120 16,074 96,2522002 18,339 48,818 25,187 26,633 9,243 28,175 19,570 16,845 107,5682003 19,956 54,668 36,163 32,272 13,021 53,826 21,294 17,607 124,9662004 21,326 70,135 51,103 39,517 15,615 88,667 22,785 18,414 147,7412005 21,976 98,652 53,752 55,766 14,642 94,066 23,248 19,178 141,5852006 22,543 47,750 31,618 35,021 16,371 40,844 23,924 19,597 105,2562007 30,528 51,854 49,301 63,968 19,680 62,729 32,155 26,705 138,0502008 26,922 57,702 38,374 50,688 19,497 45,305 28,543 23,141 119,5642009 24,211 45,611 30,856 112,101 16,528 31,516 25,557 20,623 100,5822010 24,234 54,829 26,233 169,372 16,043 24,922 25,509 20,716 95,124a) ‘others’ includes Alectis alexandrinus, Brachydeuterus auritus, Cynoglossus goreensis, Decapterus rhonchus, Dentex spp., Dicentrarchus punctatus, Dicolocoglossa cuneata, Diplodus spp., Drepanidae, Epinephelus spp., Galeoides decadactylus, Gynglimostoma ceratum, Leptocharias smithii, Mycteroperca rubra, Pagellus bellottii, Panulirus regius, elasmobranchii and other fishes and crustaceans. 78Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Cape Verde, 1950-2010-Trindade Santos et al. 79ReconstRuction of maRine fisheRies catches foR the Republic of cape VeRde, 1950-20101Isaac Trindade Santos1, Carlos Alberto Monteiro2, Sarah Harper3, Kyrstn Zylich3, Dirk Zeller3 and Dyhia Belhabib31Universidade Science without Borders Program, Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological -Development (CNPq). Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde Núcleo de Engenharia de Pesca, Cidade Universitária Prof. José Aloísio de Campos Rua Mal. Rondon S/N, Jardim Rosa Elze, São Cristóvão - Sergipe - Brasil CEP 49100-000 2Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento das Pescas (INDP) São Vincente, Mindelo, SC.P. 132, República de Cabo Verde3Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canadaisaactrindade@yahoo.com.br; monteiro.carlos@indp.gov.cv; s.harper@fisheries@ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.balhabib@fisheries.ubc.caabstRact Total marine fisheries catches were estimated for the islands of Cape Verde from 1950 to 2010. Fisheries catch data were very limited before 1981, when the first fisheries landing surveys started. Catches reported by the Cape Verdean National Institute of Fisheries Development to FAO represent only domestic commercial catches by national fleets. Inconsistencies were found in the data supplied to FAO and were adjusted using various governmental and non-governmental sources. Total marine fisheries catches for 1950-2010 were estimated at over 758,500 t, including subsistence catches (131,600 t), recreational catches (7,700 t), baitfish catches (177,000 t). Total reconstructed catches of over 758,500 t were 1.7 times the landings of 442,318 t reported by Cape Verde to FAO. intRoductionThe Republic of Cape Verde, a former Portuguese colony which gained independence in 1975, is comprised of 10 major islands and numerous islets of volcanic origin. Situated off West Africa between latitude 15.8°N and longitude 23.8°W, it covers a land area of approximately 4,000 km2 with an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of around 790,000 km2 (Figure 1, www.seaaroundus.org). Nine of these islands are inhabited with a total human population of 491,875 (INE 2010). The uninhabited islands are often used by fishers for overnight encampments (Meintel 1984; Silva 2009).Darwin’s visit to Cape Verde aboard the M.H.S. Beagle in 1832 highlighted these islands’ marine life (Almeida 1997; Pauly 2004; Stobberup 2005). However, fisheries research and monitoring were neglected until recently (MAAP 2004). It was only in 1981 that a national fisheries agency started to collect catch and effort data (Monteiro 2002; Stobberup and Erzini 2006). Today, the National Institute of Fisheries Development (INDP) is responsible for the collection of fisheries statistics.Domestic fisheries in Cape Verde are classified into three sectors: artisanal (small-scale), semi-industrial and industrial (INDP 2008, 2009; MegaPesca 2010). Small-scale fisheries represent an important source of employment (Baptista et al. 2006) and supply of animal protein for the local population (Tvedten and Hersoug 1 Cite as: Trindade Santos, I., Monteiro, C.A., Harper, S., Zylich, K., Zeller, D. and Belhabib, D. (2012) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Cape Verde, 1950-2010. pp 79-90. In: Belhabib, D., Zeller, D., Harper, S. and Pauly, D. (eds.),  Marine fisheries catches in West Africa, 1950-2010, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (3). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  The Cape Verde islands and their Exclusive Economic Zone. 801992). The small-scale fleet comprises boats ranging from 3 to 8 meters, which use hand-lines for large pelagic and demersal species, and purse seine, beach seine (arrasto de praia), gill net and dynamite for small pelagic species. The latter are used as baitfish or for direct human consumption (MegaPesca 2004). Scuba diving is practiced to catch coastal lobsters, mollusks and demersal fish species (MAAP 2004). Florida fighting conch (Strombus alatus) is widely exploited for tourist and domestic consumption (SEPA 1999). Both activities, scuba diving and catching conch, are considered small-scale fisheries.The domestic semi-industrial and industrial fleets, here called “large-scale”, operate boats from 8 to 20 meters and 20 to 28 meters, respectively (Fonseca 2000; MegaPesca 2004, 2010). These fleets target mainly large pelagic and demersal fishes using hand-line and pole and line, small pelagic species with purse-seine, and lobsters using traps (MAAP 2004). Prior to 1991, tuna landings represent about 80% of the total large-scale catch. In 1992, when new purse seine vessels targeting small pelagic species were introduced to this fishery sector, tuna landings started to decrease, and eventually tuna in total large-scale landings decreased to about 40% by 1998 (Fonseca 2000).Recreational fisheries, which started, along with tourism in 1939 (Fialho 2011; CVRS 2012), are encouraged by the government and have developed alongside the tourism industry (Cabral 2005; MegaPesca 2010; ESR 2011). However, recreational catch data in Cape Verde, as in many other countries (e.g., Zeller et al. 2008), is scarce as the fisheries lacks monitoring.Despite substantial investments in Cape Verdean fisheries, many coastal fishing communities suffer high rates of poverty (Baptista et al. 2009). These populations are heavily dependent on foreign aid, which covers about 40% of food imports (MegaPesca 2010). Furthermore, rising temperatures, decreasing rainfall and cyclical droughts related to climate change in the Sahel have further exposed rural populations to food security issues due to declining agricultural production (Kandji et al. 2006; Badjeck et al. 2011). Subsequently, populations tend to respond to climate change effects on agriculture by increasing fishing effort, thus placing increased pressure on coastal fisheries resources (MAAP 2004). Extractions of marine fisheries resources are often underestimated in official statistics (Zeller et al. 2007). Landings data presented by FAO on behalf of countries cover mainly commercial fisheries (Garibaldi 2012), and Cape Verde is no exception (MAAP 2004). Cape Verdean fisheries play an important role in national food security and the local economy (Baptista and Santos 2008; ESR 2011). Hence, the aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive estimate of total domestic marine fisheries catches from Cape Verde, including reported landings and unreported catches (i.e. subsistence catches, discards, and recreational catches) from 1950 to 2010. methods Reported landings data were acquired from the FAO FishStatJ database, along with various publications, including bulletins from the National Institute of Fisheries Development of Cape Verde (INDP) for the period from 1950 to 2010 (Stobberup 2005). Using all available sources, we derived estimates of (1) adjusted landings, (2) baitfish catch, (3) discards, (4) recreational catches, and (5) subsistence catches, using a catch reconstruction approach (Zeller et al. 2007; Zeller and Pauly 2007). Adjusted and unreported landings Differences between the data reported by FAO and those supplied by INDP were identified for some time-periods, mainly 1950-1985 and 2004-2010. From 1986 to 2002, we kept the data supplied by INDP as the reported baseline, since they were consistent with FAO (Figure 2). We used landings data presented by Watanabe (1981, in Stobberup 2005) from 1956 to 1980 as a more reliable estimate, based on a compilation from various sources, and replaced the data reported to FAO for this period. To estimate landings from 1950 to 1956, we carried the 1956-1960 trend backwards and completed the time series. From 1981 to 1985, landings data from Stobberup (2005) were used, as the data supplied to FAO contained extrapolations errors, which were later identified by the INDP (Figure 2). From 2004 to 2010, FAO landings were greater than reported landings by INDP, due to the inclusion of catches by re-flagged foreign vessels targeting large pelagic species in the FAO data (Carlos Alberto Monteiro, pers. obs. INDP). These reflagged catches were identified as such, and 0510152025301950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103)YearINDPAdjusted landings FAOFigure 2.  Adjusted landings from 1950 to 1985 (non-marked thin line without dots) and official INDP reported landings from 1986 to 2009 (thick line without dots). Lines without dots were used as domestic base line used in the resconstruction process, line with dots: data reported by FAO.Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Cape Verde, 1950-2010-Trindade Santos et al. 81treated as non-EEZ reported landings. These adjusted for 1950-2010 were used as the baseline to estimate unreported domestic catch components (adjusting landings revealed that part of these were unreported between 1950 and 1980). Landings were separated into two sectors based on INDP (1998; 2008; 2009): the artisanal sector operated by boats between 3 and 8 meters, and the large-scale (also-called semi-industrial) sector operated by boats of over 8 meters long.Baitfish catchesBaitfish is important for both small-scale and large-scale fisheries in Cape Verde (MegaPesca 2004). The small-scale fishery uses about 5 kg·boat-1·trip-1 of live bait (Table 1) to catch large pelagic and demersal species (SEP 1985; Silva 2009). Similarly, the large-scale fleet, which also targets large pelagic and demersal species, and lobsters (MegaPesca 2010), uses around 380 kg·boat-1·trip-1 of bait fish (Table 1), where 50% are eventually discarded (MAAP 2004). The number of boats and the corresponding number of trips were obtained from INDP (2009) for 2009 (Table 1), then multiplied by 5 kg·boat-1·trip-1 for small-scale boats and 380 kg·boat-1·trip-1 for large-scale boats, resulting in a baitfish catch rate of 700 t·year-1 for small-scale boats and 2,333 t·year-1 for large-scale boats. Thereafter, we used landings by INDP (2009) to estimate the ratio ‘bait fish/landings of targeted species’, where 700 t∙year-1 of bait fish were used to catch 4,552 t∙year-1 of fish by the small-scale fleet, and 2,333 t∙year-1 of bait fish were used to catch 4,328 t∙year-1 by the large-scale fleet, i.e., 15% and 54%, respectively in 2009. We assumed constant rates from 1950 to 2010 and applied these rates over the adjusted landings to estimate total small pelagic baitfish catches from 1950 to 2010. Dynamite use in bait fisheriesFishers have been using dynamite to catch baitfish in Cape Verde since the 1950s, (MAAP 2004). This practice is illegal, but is still widely used. We treat these baitfish catches as unreported catch, since it is not regulated or monitored (Medina et al. 2002). Dynamite fishing is particularly damaging as it generates high rates of underwater mortality (Vakily 1993). In 1985, a development programme encouraged the use of purse seines in the artisanal small-scale fishery, as an alternative to the use of explosives (MAAP 2004; Silva 2009). Since then, purse seine fishing has increased and slowly replaced dynamite fishing (MAAP 2004). Therefore, we assumed that from 1950 to 1985, the amount of baitfish caught by dynamite fishing was the equivalent of 50% of the total baitfish estimated, and decreased this percentage to 10% by 2010, as the use of dynamite decreased (MAAP 2004). DiscardsCape Verdean fishery discards are generated by the baitfish fishery. However for the purposes of this study, the underwater mortality generated by explosives was not considered. Keeping baitfish alive onboard fishing vessels is an important issue in Cape Verde fisheries (SEP 1985). The issue here is lack of sufficient space to keep the baitfish alive. Hence, a large proportion of the live baitfish, i.e. 50%, dies onboard fishing vessels (MAAP 2004). Therefore, to estimate onboard discards generated by the baitfish fishery, we used a discard rate of 50% applied to the total reconstructed baitfish catch. Recreational catchesCape Verde does not supply any recreational catch data to FAO. Recreational fishing in Cape Verde, a member of the International Game Fish Association (IGFA 2012), started after the first airport opened in 1939 (Fialho 2011), and is practiced exclusively by tourists (MAAP 2004). The total number of tourists Table 1: Cape Verdean fleets and trips reported by INDP and its respective quantity of bait fish used per trip.Fleet Year Boats Effort (trips·boat-1·year-1)Catches (t) Source Bait·boat-1·trip-1 (kg)SourceSmall-scale fleet 2009 136 135 4,552 INDP 2009 5 Silva (2009)Large-scale fleet 2009 89 69 4,328 INDP 2009 380 MAAP (2003)Table 2: Recreational fishery estimates for Cape Verde. Year Number of TouristsNumber of tourists fishingCPUE (t·tourist-1·year-1)Catches (t)1939 0a 0 - -1988 14,000b 175 0.248 441990 23,000b 288 0.248 711995 58,000b 727 0.215 1572000 145,076c 1,818 0.183 3322001 162,000c 2,030 0.176 3582002 152,000c 1,905 0.170 3232003 178,790c 2,241 0.163 3662004 184,738c 2,315 0.157 3632005 233,548c 2,927 0.150 4392006 280,582c 3,517 0.144 5052007 312,880c 3,921 0.137 5372008 333,354c 4,178 0.131 5452009d 330,319c 4,140 0.124 5132010 381,831b 4,786 0.124 593aAssumed-value; bwww.ine.cv [2012]; cAnon (2010); d For 2009, the catches were extracted from the web site [www.capeverdemarlin.com], Anon (2012). 82was available for 1988, 1990, 1995, and from 2000 to 2010 (CCIT 2010) (Table 2). We interpolated linearly from zero tourists in 1939 to 14,000 tourists in 1988 and completed the time series by a series of linear interpolations between 1988 and 2000. The number of recreational fishers (92 tourist·month-1), the number of trips (4 trips·tourist-1·year-1), and catch per tourist (124 kg·tourist-1·day-1 or 0.496 t·tourist-1·year-1), were available for 2009 from a company offering “fishing safaris” in Cape Verde (Anon. 2012). As these catches were likely highliner catches from the most successful fishers, presented for advertising and promotional purposes, we assumed the actual catch rate to be 25% of the reported catch, i.e., 0.124 t·tourist-1·year-1. Due to the high development of tourism in the archipelago (Cabral 2005), we conservatively assumed the number of companies offering fishing safaris was 1 per island (9 companies in total), with the same average number of tourists per company, i.e., 828 tourists·month-1. Since the number of fishing tourists represents a monthly average over seven months, we conservatively assumed that the number of recreational fishers was five times as high as the previous estimate over a one year period. We estimated the percentage of recreational fishers (4,140) out of the total number of tourists (330,319), i.e., 1.3%, and applied this rate to the total number of tourists from 1950 to 2010 (excluding 2009) to derive a time series of recreational fishers (Table 2). We assumed the annual catch per tourist from 1950 to 1990 was twice (0.248 t·tourist-1·year-1) the 2009 and 2010 catch rate (0.124 t·tourist-1·year-1, Table 2) because of the overexploitation of large pelagic species targeted by tourists in the archipelago and commercial fisheries (Monteiro 2002; Stobberup 2005). A linear interpolation was used between 1991 and 2009 to complete the time series. We then estimated the total annual catch by multiplying the total number of recreational fishers by the catch per tourist for each year (Table 2). Recreational catches were disaggregated using catch data by Anon. (2012, Table 3). Subsistence catches Cape Verdeans catch fish to meet their nutritional needs via subsistence fishing (WorldBank 2008; Baptista et al. 2009). These catches consist mainly of mackerel scad (Decapterus macarellus) and other small pelagic species, which are not reported, and thus not included in official catch figures (MAAP 2004). Subsistence fishers commonly use beach seine, purse seine, gillnet, hand line and dynamite (SEP 1985; MAAP 2004). Therefore, subsistence catches for Cape Verde were estimated as a proportion of reported catches from each fishing gear. Beach seine catches were available from INDP bulletins from 1997 to 2001, and for 2008 and 2009 (INDP 1998, 2008, 2009). These included catches used for bait and for personal consumption. We divided these catches by total reported landings and estimated the proportion caught by beach seines between 1997 and 2001, and for 2008 and 2009, i.e., 2.1%, 3.6%, 5.4%, 4.7% and 4% respectively for the years between 1997 and 2001, and 13.6% and 15.9% for 2008 and 2009 respectively. After the independence of Cape Verde in 1975, the contribution of beach seines to total catches was lower because of the increasing use of purse-seine (MAAP 2004). Thus, we conservatively assumed beach seine catches accounted for 10% of the total catch between 1950 and 1974. Thereafter, we interpolated linearly from 10% in 1974 to 2.1% in 1997 and from 4% in 2001 to 13.6% in 2008 to complete the time series assuming the same rate for 2009 and 2010, and applied these rates to the total reported landings. We assumed the equivalent of 50% of estimated beach seine catches were used for personal consumption, i.e., subsistence, because of their low value (MAAP 2004), thus not reported nor used as bait fish. Since fish caught by other, mainly offshore gears (e.g., gillnet, purse seine, hand line and dynamite), are of better quality and are more likely to be sold and used as baitfish (MAAP 2004), we assumed the equivalent of 25% of the reported landings by these gears to be Table 4: Main fishing gears used by foreign fleets operating in Cape Verde and the development of licences drawn. Source: DGP, Cape Verde.Gears by vessel Flag Licences drawn2007 2008 2009 2010Surface long line Japan 18 18 16 8Pole and line Senegal 7 2 4 0Total (non - EU) 25 20 20 8Surface long line            EU28 27 26 28Pole and line 11 10 8 8Purse seine 8 10 12 21Total (EU)  47 47 43 57Table 5: Development of declared foreign fleet catches by main species (Japan and US), within Cape Verdean EEZ. Only about 9.4% of the foreign fleets reported their catches (DGP in Fonsceca 2000). Source: (MAAP 2004).Main species 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002Yellowfin tuna 63.0 44.3 54.8 31.5 35.9 124.8Skypjack tuna 263.0 - - - - 40.2Bigeye tuna - 32.0 211.7 279.1 148.1 144.8Bill fish 21.4 - 7.0 23.7 5.0 3.2Swordfish 146.0 159.6 54.7 52.9 11.1 72.4Sharks 522.9 590.3 125.4 331.3 109.5 486.2Others 101.3 293.4 51.6 205.2 58.7 170.8Table 3: Taxonomic composition of recreational catches.Common name Taxon name %aMarlins Makaira spp. 70Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri 7Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares 10Sailfish Istiophorus platypterus 3Gilthead seabream Sparus spp. 3Groupers Epinephelus spp. 3Others 3a) Percentages from Anon (2012).Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Cape Verde, 1950-2010-Trindade Santos et al. 83unreported subsistence catch kept for personal consumption. We then applied this rate to the total landings (excluding estimated catches of beach seine) from 1950 to 2010.Industrial foreign fleet catchesForeign fishing vessels operating in the Cape Verde EEZ are mainly longliners and some purse seiners. According to Hallier and Vieira (1996 in Fonseca 2000), their annual average catches are around 4,000 t. Between 43 and 57 foreign vessels from Japan, Senegal and the EU have been fishing in Cape Verde from 2007 to 2010 (Table 4), under a range of different access arrangements and there is no record of landings from these vessels in Cape Verdean ports (MegaPesca 2010). Most recently, new agreements were made with China (Carlos Alberto Monteiro, pers. obs.). The inconsistencies found between the statistics presented by INDP and FAO for the period 2004-2010 are likely due to re-flagging of foreign vessels, considered as domestic catch by FAO. Only a few truly domestic Cape Verdean vessels have the capacity to operate in offshore waters within the Cape Verde EEZ. While FAO reports these catches as being caught by Cape Verde, based on data from ICCAT, no knowledge of these catches exist among Cape Verdean fisheries experts (Carlos Alberto Monteiro, pers. obs.), and hence these catches are likely exclusively for foreign beneficial ownership. However, because we were unable to identify the beneficial country of origin, these catches were treated here as Cape Verdean catches. This highlights a need for greater transparency of actual beneficial vessel ownership in order to improve fisheries accounting not just in Cape Verde, but everywhere. The number of licenses given to foreign fleets from the Europe Union and Japan are registered by General Direction of Fisheries (DGP) of Cape Verde (Table 4). The main species targeted by those fleets are highly migratory species, e.g., bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and sharks (as by-catch) (Table 5). Furthermore, all foreign fleets have to fill in logbooks and report to the port authorities fishing location, catch, entry and exit from Cape Verde jurisdiction as well as allow observers on board (MegaPesca 2004). However, only about 10% of the foreign fleets really declare their catches (DGP, in Fonsceca 2000).Taxonomic compositionWe derived a species composition of major taxonomic groups from INDP (1998, 2008, 2009) reports. We converted quantities by species to percentages for both small-scale (Table 6) and large-scale (Table 7) fleets. We applied the species breakdown for small pelagic and demersal species from 1950 to 1998 based on INDP (1998), and from 1999 to 2010 from INDP Table 7: Taxonomic composition (in %) of main groups for large-scale reported landings derived from INDP bulletins (1998, 2008, 2009) and SEP (1985).Period Large pelagicsSmall pelagicsDemersals Others Lobsters Sharks1950-1985a 83 10 4.97 0.02 1.41 0.031986a 84 10 4.68 0.00 1.36 0.011987a 86 13 0.14 0.01 1.42 0.021988a 91 7 0.95 0.00 1.56 0.011989a 80 11 7.85 0.01 1.12 0.021990a 84 10 4.76 0.01 1.38 0.021991a 82 15 1.04 0.01 1.86 0.021992a 84 12 0.21 0.01 2.83 0.021993a 43 52 0.23 0.01 4.66 0.021994a 40 56 0.95 0.06 3.49 0.021995a 33 63 1.82 0.01 2.36 0.011996a 44 51 2.81 0.01 1.54 0.011997a 40 54 4.98 0.06 0.70 0.011998a 27 70 2.58 0.03 0.55 0.011999b 29 67 3.30 0.08 0.66 0.012000b 49 46 4.07 0.10 0.82 0.042001b 47 50 2.70 0.06 0.78 0.042002b 41 55 2.81 0.15 0.83 0.042003b 30 67 1.72 0.01 0.66 0.042004b 32 66 1.46 0.10 0.56 0.042005b 38 59 2.57 0.01 0.78 0.042006b 22 74 3.76 0.03 0.41 0.042007b 26 70 4.12 0.47 0.20 0.042008b 19 78 2.93 0.22 0.20 0.042009-2010c 20 76 3.06 0.02 0.21 0.04aINDP (1998); bINDP (2008); cINDP (2009).Table 6: Taxonomic composition in (%) for main groups of small-scale reported landings derived from INDP (1998, 2008, 2009).Period Large pelagicsSmall pelagicsDemersal Others Sharks Lobsters Buzio cabrad Octopusc1950-1986a 63 27 8 0.11 0.31 0.10 1.16 0.051987a 63 25 10 0.18 0.31 0.06 1.17 0.051988a 66 21 11 0.14 0.31 0.09 1.16 0.051989a 47 41 11 0.38 0.32 0.08 1.19 0.051990a 47 40 10 0.51 0.32 0.09 1.20 0.051991a 43 42 13 0.30 0.32 0.09 1.18 0.051992a 45 44 9 0.22 0.31 0.09 1.17 0.051993a 45 45 8 0.42 0.32 0.09 1.19 0.051994a 44 45 9 0.17 0.31 0.08 1.17 0.051995a 45 41 12 0.42 0.32 0.09 1.19 0.051996a 44 41 13 0.35 0.32 0.09 1.18 0.051997a 44 37 17 0.72 0.32 0.09 1.21 0.051998a 35 52 12 0.57 0.15 0.13 0.00 0.001999b 38 40 20 0.60 0.15 0.11 1.23 0.062000b 34 41 22 0.69 0.14 0.09 1.24 0.062001b 44 32 22 0.45 0.17 0.11 1.21 0.052002b 47 31 20 0.47 0.19 0.11 1.21 0.052003b 46 31 20 0.52 0.21 0.10 1.21 0.052004b 33 40 24 0.42 0.21 0.10 1.21 0.052005b 30 44 23 0.64 0.24 0.10 1.22 0.062006b 41 32 25 1.23 0.28 0.10 1.25 0.062007b 34 34 29 1.75 0.29 0.11 1.27 0.062008b 33 34 29 1.77 0.34 0.10 1.27 0.062009-2010c 41 31 26 1.89 0.31 0.13 0.43 0.06aINDP (1998); bINDP (2008); cINDP (2009); dStrombus alatus 84(2008, 2009). The taxonomic breakdown for tuna from 1950 to 1983 was derived from SEP (1985). For 1984-1998, we used the percentages from INDP (1998), and for 1999-2010 we used the percentages found in INDP (2008, 2009). We disaggregated baitfish catches using the same species composition as that of the small pelagic fishery, and for subsistence catches we used the same species composition as that of small pelagic and demersal fisheries. ResultsBaitfish catchesOur total reconstructed baitfish catches (utilized in the fishery, i.e., not discarded) for Cape Verde from 1950 to 2010 were estimated to be around 88,450 t (Figure 3). Between 1950 and 1965, catches remained at around 900 t·year-1. Between 1966 and 2010, baitfish catches varied with large catches in 1985 (2,600 t) and 2006 (2,200 t) and lower catches in 1976 (1,100 t) and 1990 (1,200 t). Baitfish caught using dynamite, and utilized in the fishery, were estimated at 15,500 t from 1950 to 1985 and 9,100 t between 1986 and 2010. Baitfish catches were dominated by mackerel scad with 48,800 t,  blackspot picarel (Spicara melanurus) with 19,900 t and bigeye scad (Selar crumenophthalmus) with 11,200 t, over the 1950-2010 time period.DiscardsDiscards generated by baitfish catches totaled around 88,450 t between 1950 and 2010, and included mainly small pelagics (Figure 3). Baitfish discards increased from 655 t·year-1 in 1950 to 1,700 t·year-1 in 2010, with peaks of 1,800 t in 1967, 2,600 t in 1985, and around 2,200 t in 2006. Small pelagic species, such as mackerel scad represented over 50% (48,800 t) of the discards from 1950 to 2010. Recreational catchesThe total recreational catch was estimated at approximately 7,700 t over the period 1950-2010, which included 5,400 t of marlin (Makaira spp.), 540 t of wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), 770 t of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), and just under 1,000 t of other pelagic species including sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus) and demersal species such as gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) and groupers (Epinephelus spp.).Subsistence catches Subsistence catches totaled 132,000 t for the period between 1950 and 2010, of which 17,600 t (13%) were taken by beach seine, and 12,300 t (9%) by dynamite. Subsistence catches by other gears (purse seine, gillnet and hand line) were estimated at approximately 101,800 t (77%) (Figure 4). Mackerel scad represented 41% of the subsistence catches with over 54,600 t.Industrial foreign fleet catchesFor the period from 2004 to 2010, the data reported to FAO was higher than the data shown in INDP reports for the same period (Figure 2). These catches were higher due to the inclusion of re-flagged foreign fleet catches (Carlos Alberto Monteiro, pers. obs. INDP). From 2004 to 2010, INDP reported 17,800 tonnes of large pelagic “Tunídeos”, yellowfin tuna, common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), frigate tuna (Auxis thazard), little tunny 011223341950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103)YearDynamiteBeach seineOther gears0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.51950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103)YearDynamiteBeach seineOther gears0123456781950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 102)YearSmall-scale baitfishSmall-scale discardsLarge-scale discardsLarge-scale baitfish01234561950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103)YearSmall-scale landingsSmall-scale discardsLarge-scale landingsLarge-scale discardsDynamite landingsDynamite discardsCatch (t x 103 )Figure 3.  Small and large-scale baitfish catches (i.e., live baitfish used in the fishery) and the corresponding baitfish discards generated by sector.Figure 4.  Subsistence catches by different gears; beach seine, dynamite and other gears (purse seine, gillnet and hand line) from Cape Verde waters, 1950-2010.Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Cape Verde, 1950-2010-Trindade Santos et al. 85(Euthynnus alletteratus) and wahoo, for the same period, data supplied to FAO were 93,600 t, which represented an addition of 75,700 t in this category. While these catches are technically foreign, the unknown origin of these fleets required that they continue to be considered domestic landings. Total reconstructed catchesTotal reported catches for Cape Verde were estimated to be approximately 287,200 t between 1950 to 2010 for the small-scale fishery and 155,000 t for the large-scale fishery (Figure 5a). The overall reconstruction includes adjusted landings, bait fish catches (utilized and discarded), recreational catches and subsistence catches, for a total reconstructed catches of 758,500 t from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 5a). Yellowfin tuna is the most abundant large pelagic species, representing 16% of the total reconstructed catch (Figure 6b) and the most abundant small pelagic species was mackerel scad, representing 32% of the total reconstructed catch. From 1950 to 1963, total reconstructed catches remained relatively constant at around 7,000 t·year-1, and then increased to 16,600 t·year-1 in 1977. Catches reached a peak of 19,300 t·year-1 in 1985, and then decreased to 10,900 t·year-1 in 1992, increasing again to 18,100 t·year-1 in 2006. The unreported component showed a decreasing trend, in 1950 reconstructed catches were over 6 times the landings data supplied to FAO and in 2010 the under-reporting tendency was reversed, when the data reported by FAO were 26% higher. However, in recent years FAO data included essentially non-domestic catches of large pelagic species by foreign fleets, if these were excluded in 2010, reconstructed catches would be about 1.7 times the data provided by Cape Verde to FAO. discussionTotal reconstructed catches for Cape Verde for the period 1950-2010 were estimated at approximately 758,500 t, nearly 1.7 times the total landings supplied by Cape Verde to FAO (448,200 t). Overall, unreported components were: 132,000 t (subsistence catches), 176,900 t (bait fish catches, including discards as bait fish) and 7,700 t (recreational catches). Adjusted landings, now acounting for the under-reporting prior to 1980, and over-reporting in the 2000s, based on reported INDP bulletins and other literature sources were 442,318 t. The current fisheries data monitoring system only covers about 15% of landings sites in Cape Verde (INDP 1998, 2008, 2009), which suggests substantial under-reporting, as illustrated in this study. Research efforts have mainly focused on the study of fishing possibilities in the archipelago (Fonseca 2000; Stobberup 2005; Baptista et al. 2006; Baptista and Santos 2008), without emphasizing the importance of collecting consistent catch time series (Stobberup et al. 2005; Merino 2006). This report is the first attempt of accounting for all Cape Verdean fisheries removals. Besides poor monitoring coverage and a lack of reliable data, environmental concerns about Cape Verdean marine resources and the sustainability of fisheries are increasing (FOPESCA 1997; SEPA 1999; Baptista 2005). Ecosystems are threatened by the use of destructive gears such as dynamite (MAAP 2004; Merino 2006) and the loss generated by these gears (discards as underwater mortality) could be as high as 265,000 t from 1950 to 2010, which is the equivalent to about 38% of total reconstructed catches. Although these numbers illustrate the destruction and waste caused by the use of dynamite, they were not included in the analysis of fisheries trends described in the present study.The increasing trend in subsistence catches suggests a rising dependence on fish as source of food. This dependence is accentuated by climate change which has caused cyclical droughts since 1968 affecting agricultural production (Anon. 1999; NAPA 2007). Subsistence fisheries show high vulnerability to climate change in most West African 051015202530Large-scaleSmall-scaleFAOSubsistenceDiscardsLarge Pelagic catchesRecreationalabCatches (t x 103 ) 0510152025301950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Small-scaleLarge-scaleDiscardsSubsistenceFAOCape Verde pelagic catches1Recreationala00510152025RecreationalArtisanalAdjusted FAo baselineIndustrialSubsistence Discards 5 10 15 20 251950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearThunnus albacaresDecapterus marcellusAuxis thazardKatsuwonus pelamisSelar crumenophthalmusSpicara melanurus OthersAcanthocybium solandribCatch (t x 103 )aFigure 5.  Overall catch reconstruction compared to data supplied to FAO (a) and and its taxonomic breackdown by major taxa (b) from 1950 to 2010. Others inlude large pelagics (7 taxa), small pelagics (10 taxa), demersal (26 taxa), lobsters (4 taxa), sharks, molluscs (Strombus alatus and Octopus spp.). 86countries (Allison et al. 2009). Tourism development in the Cape Verde archipelago has resulted in increasing sport fishing (ICCAT 2009). Catches by tourists from 1950 to 1980 were relatively low, about 23 t·year-1, due to the low number of tourists participating in recreational fishing. These catches increased to 325 t·year-1 from 1990 to 2010, due to the expansion of tourism (Cabral 2005). This trend shows that recent developments of tourism in the archipelago along with the complete absence of monitoring of recreational fisheries (MAAP 2004) has generated considerable unreported catches. Tourist catches represented about 7% of the Cape Verdean artisanal reconstructed domestic catch from 2000 to 2010, which suggests a strong interest in recreational fishing by tourists over the past decade.Overall, this study shows that fisheries data in Cape Verde, as in many countries in the world, are a substantial under-estimate of total domestic fisheries removals. In this context, we present a more realistic estimate of total domestic catches for Cape Verde. acknowledgmentsThis report is a contribution of the Sea Around Us Project toward the project “Marine Conservation Research, Collaboration and Support in West Africa”, funded by the MAVA Foundation. The Sea Around Us Project is a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. Isaac Trindade Santos thanks The Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Cnpq) and the Program Science without Borders. Special acknowledgments and thanks for Kim Araújo Stobberup, Manuel Pinheiro (Cape Verde) and all members of INDP and DGP.RefeRencesAllison EH, Perry AL, Badjeck MC, Adger WN, Brown K, Conway D, Halls AS, Pilling GM, Reynolds JD, Andrew NL and Dulvy NK (2009) Vulnerability of national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 10: 173-196.Almeida RA (1997) Chronological references: Cabo Verde/Cape Verdean american. 23 p. Available at: http://www1.umassd.edu/SpecialPrograms/caboverde/cvchrono.html [Accessed: 04/02/2012].Anon. (1999) The Climate in Cape Verde. 2 p. Available at: http://www.spainexchange.com/guide/CV-climate.htm [Accessed: 04/18/2012].Anon. (2012) Cape Verde Merlin. Sport fishing company from São Vincente, Cape Verde. 8 p. Available at: http://www.capeverdemarlin.com/news.php?st=48 [Accessed: 03/20/2012].Badjeck MC, Katikiro RE, Flinter M, Ndiaga D and Máñez KS (2011) Envisioning 2050: Climate change, Aquaculture and Fisheries in West Africa. The WorldFish Center Workshop Report No. 2011-09., World Fish Center, The WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. 28 p. Baptista AJMS (2005) Sustentabilidade da produção pesqueira em Cabo Verde. PhD thesis, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Economia Aplicada. Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Minas Gerais. 180 p. Baptista AJMS, Brito O and Lopes J (2009) Capital social e desenvolvimento das comunidades piscatórias de Cabo Verde. I Congresso de desenvolvimento regional de Cabo Verde. XV Congresso da APOR, Cabo Verde. 14 p.Baptista AJMS, Gomes AP and Santos CM (2006) Características da tecnologia de produção da pesca artesanal em Cabo Verde. SOBER XLIV Congresso da sociedade brasileira de economia e sociologia rural. “Questões agrárias, educação no campo e desenvolvimento”, 23-37 july, Fortaleza. 20 p.Baptista AJMS and Santos CM (2008) Utilização da capacidade da pesca artesanal em Cabo Verde. SOBER XLVI Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Economia, Administração e Sociologia Rural, 20-23 july, Rio Branco - Acre. 12 p.Cabral JCPT (2005) O papel do turismo no desenvolvimento de Cabo Verde. Turismo e combate à pobreza: Nu djunta-mô. Masters thesis, Instituto superior de economia e gestão. Universidade Técnica de Lisboa. 221 p. CCIT (2010) Plano Estratégico para Desenvolvimento do Turismo 2010-2013. Câmara de Comércio, Industria e Turismo. Portugal - Cabo Verde. 4 p. Available at: http://www.portugalcaboverde.com/item2_detail.php?lang=1&id_channel=33&id_page=95&id=100 [Accessed: 04/01/2012].CVRS (2012) Sponsored section. Cape Verde rising star. 12 p. ESR (2011) Espírito Santo Research (ESR). Cabo Verde Economic Outlook - Economia em recuperação - Análise setorial: O setor da pesca. Desenvolvimento e Sustentabilidade. 20 p. Fialho F (2011) Cape Verde: the graduate. Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Energy. 3 p. Available at: http://www.makingitmagazine.net/?p=3437 [Accessed: 04/01/2012].Fonseca BO (2000) Expansion of pelagic fisheries in Cape Verde a feasibility study. United Nations University - Fisheries Training Programme, Cape Verde. 27 p. FOPESCA (1997) Simpósio “Realismo no desenvolvimento da pesca artesana”. Fomento à pesca artesanal no Fogo e na Brava - FOPESCA - Projecto de cooperação Caboverdiana-Alemã, S. Filipe, Cabo Verde. 371 p.Garibaldi L (2012) The FAO global capture production database: A six-decade effort to catch the trend. Marine Policy 36(2012): 760-768.ICCAT (2009) Report of the standing committee on research and statistics (SCRS). Internetional Comission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Madrid, Spain. 273 p. Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Cape Verde, 1950-2010-Trindade Santos et al. 87IGFA (2012) International game fish association. Available at: http://www.igfa.org/Default.aspx [Accessed: 04/01/2012].INDP (1998) Dados sobre a pesca artesanal, pesca industrial, conservas e exportações. Ministério do abbiente, do desenvolvimento rural e dos recursos marinhos. Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento das Pescas, Mindelo, Cabo Verde. Boletim estatístico nº 7. 112 p. INDP (2008) Dados sobre a pesca artesanal, pesca industrial, conservas e exportações. Ministério do abbiente, do desenvolvimento rural e dos recursos marinhos. Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento das Pescas, Mindelo, Cabo Verde. Boletim estatístico nº 17. 77 p. INDP (2009) Dados sobre a pesca artesanal, pesca industrial, conservas e exportações. Ministério do abbiente, do desenvolvimento rural e dos recursos marinhos. Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento das Pescas, Mindelo, Cabo Verde. Boletim estatistico nº 18. 74 p. INE (2010) Resultados definitivos do Censo 2010. Instituto Nacional de Estatística, Cabo Verde. 19 p. Kandji ST, Verchot L and Mackensen J (2006) Climate Change and Variability in the Sahel Region: Impacts and Adaptation Strategies in the Agricultural Sector. UNEP - United Nations Enviroment Programme. 58 p. MAAP (2004) Segundo plano de acção nacional para o ambiente - PANA II. Cape Verde 2004-2014. Vol. 6 Plano de gestão dos recursos da pesca. 218 p. Medina AD, Vieira MHSR and Varela PQ (2002) Deuxième rapport national sur l’état de la biodiversité au Cap Vert. Direction générale de l’environnement Project CVI/00/G41/A/1G/99), MAAP, Praia, Cap Vert. 129 p. MegaPesca (2004) Framework contract for performing evaluations, impact analyses and monitoring services in the context of fisheries partnership agreements concluded between the community and non-member coastal states. Specific agreement (06): Cape Verde., France. 102 p. MegaPesca (2010) Specific convention N° 28: Ex-post evaluation of the current protocol to the fisheries partership agreement between the European Union and Cape Verde and analysis of the impact of the future protocol on sustainabillity. Oceanic Developpement., France. 135 p. Meintel D (1984) Race, culture, and Portuguese colonialism in Cape Verde. Maxwell School of Citzenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, New York. 201 p.Merino SEM (2006) Auto-avaliação das capacidades nacionais para a gestão global ambiental. Perfil temático na área da conservação da biodiversidade. Ministério do ambiente e agricultura. 65 p. Monteiro CA (2002) Evolution des pêcheries du Cap Vert d’après les jeux de données statistiques. Description du Système statistique et analyse critique des données. Presented at International Symposium on Marine Fisheries, Ecosystems, and Societies in West Africa: half a century of change, Dakar 24/28 Juin/2002. 25 p. NAPA (2007) National Adaptation Programme of Action on climate change. Mynistry of Environment and Agriculture, Republic of Cape Verde. National meteorology and geophysics institute. 40 p. Pauly, D. 2004. Darwin’s Fishes: an encyclopedia of ichthyology, ecology and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, xxv + 340 p.SEP (1985) Reflexões sobre a pesca em Cabo Verde. Secretaria de Estado das Pescas (SEP). Primeiro encontro nacional sobre as pescas, Cabo Verde. 499 p.SEPA (1999) Estratégia nacional e plano de acção sobre a biodiversidade.República de Cabo Verde - Ministério da Agricultura, Alimentação e Ambiente. Secretariado executivo para o ambiente (SEPA). 75 p.Silva HDM (2009) Pesca Artesanal em Cabo Verde - Arte de pesca linha-de-mão. Masters thesis, Departamento de Biologia. Universidade de Aveiro, Portugal. 51 p. Stobberup KA (2005) The Cape Verde coastal ecosystem. A study of community structure, trophic interactions and exploitation pattern. PhD thesis, University of Algarve, Faculdade de Ciências do Mar e do Ambiente, Portugal. 154 p. Stobberup KA, Amorim P and Monteiro VM (2005) Assessing the effects of fishing in Cape Verde and Guinea Bissau, Northwest Africa. p. 22 In Kruse GH, Gallucci VF, Hay DE, Perry RI, Peterman RM, Shirley TC, Spencer PD, Wilson B and Woodby D (eds.), Fisheries Assessment and Management in Data-Limited situations. University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program.Stobberup KA and Erzini K (2006) Assessing mackerel scad, Decapterus macarellus, in Cape Verde: Using a Bayesian approach to biomass dynamic modelling in a data-limited situation. Fisheries Research 82(2006): 194-203.Tvedten I and Hersoug B (1992) Fishing for development. Small-scale fisheries in Africa. The Scandinavian Institute of African Studies. Uppsala. 227 p.Watanabe K (1981) Fish landings and trade of Cape Verde Islands, 1956 - 1979. UNDP/FAO project CVI/77/001. 42 p. WorldBank (2008) Cape Verde - Fisheries Sector Strategy Assessment. Agricultural and Rural Development Unit. Sustainable Development Department. Country Department AFCF1, World Bank, Africa Region. 92 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. Fish. Bull. 105: 266-277.Zeller D, Darcy M, Booth S, Lowe MK and Martell S (2008) What about the recreational catch? Potential impact on stock assessment for Hawaii`s bottomfish fisheries. Fisheries Research 91(2008): 89-97.Zeller D and Pauly D, editors (2007) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for key countries and regions (1950 - 2005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15 (2). 163 p. 88Appendix Table A1: FAO reported landings of the Cape Verde Islands vs. large and small-scale adjusted landings (baitfish included), subsistence catches, discards and recreational catches. Year FAO Small-scale Large-scale Subsistence Discards Recreational Total reconstructed1950 900 2,955 1,139 1,055 655 10 5,3541951 800 3,054 1,177 1,090 677 11 5,5221952 1,000 3,153 1,215 1,125 699 12 5,7191953 1,400 3,252 1,253 1,161 721 12 5,9351954 1,700 3,352 1,292 1,196 743 13 6,1421955 1,600 3,451 1,330 1,232 765 14 6,3091956 1,300 3,199 1,417 1,186 766 15 6,0731957 1,300 3,776 1,667 1,399 903 16 7,1581958 1,700 4,273 1,165 1,409 800 17 7,1311959 1,500 3,650 1,284 1,273 772 18 6,4821960 1,600 3,861 1,667 1,421 912 19 7,2711961 1,600 3,843 1,904 1,474 983 20 7,5691962 1,500 3,679 1,549 1,345 856 20 6,8771963 2,000 3,989 1,284 1,363 807 21 6,9251964 2,500 5,083 2,406 1,922 1,265 22 9,8551965 3,500 8,487 2,553 2,856 1,662 23 14,4721966 4,000 6,597 1,904 2,201 1,267 24 11,1481967 5,900 9,559 2,686 3,171 1,814 25 16,0461968 4,900 7,624 2,406 2,593 1,528 26 13,1561969 4,000 5,268 2,553 2,007 1,330 27 10,2971970 5,181 7,730 2,613 2,671 1,602 28 13,5751971 4,153 6,682 1,904 2,223 1,276 28 11,2621972 4,078 5,394 2,553 2,040 1,343 29 10,4641973 8,333 5,027 3,070 2,068 1,463 30 10,6821974 3,428 3,504 2,686 1,574 1,188 31 8,1901975 3,900 5,595 2,052 1,966 1,209 32 10,0491976 3,800 4,507 2,170 1,704 1,133 33 8,7931977 6,000 9,208 2,568 3,024 1,741 34 15,4201978 7,000 7,782 2,302 2,580 1,512 35 13,2091979 7,476 6,597 1,904 2,169 1,267 36 11,1361980 8,351 6,142 4,835 2,743 2,121 36 14,4741981 14,272 5,600 4,408 2,494 1,934 37 13,1971982 12,019 4,957 3,901 2,201 1,712 38 11,6811983 11,697 6,919 5,447 3,064 2,390 39 16,2861984 10,634 5,734 4,513 2,532 1,981 40 13,4981985 10,190 7,490 5,896 3,298 2,587 41 17,6151986 7,309 5,643 3,273 2,200 1,574 42 11,7241987 7,309 4,874 4,199 2,209 1,760 43 11,9821988 6,374 4,828 2,914 1,890 1,355 44 10,2061989 8,601 7,357 2,822 2,495 1,566 58 13,3741990 6,570 5,659 2,087 1,891 1,168 71 10,2081991 7,369 5,126 3,166 1,994 1,417 91 11,0021992 6,564 5,004 2,876 1,888 1,307 109 10,4761993 6,995 5,556 2,756 1,988 1,312 126 11,0521994 8,256 6,183 3,693 2,340 1,620 142 13,1601995 8,495 5,377 5,012 2,422 1,894 157 13,9341996 9,155 5,782 5,387 2,590 2,014 197 15,0221997 9,705 5,805 5,976 2,710 2,154 235 15,8521998 9,424 6,094 5,355 2,676 1,989 271 15,4721999 10,360 6,881 5,590 2,960 2,100 303 16,9092000 10,586 7,922 4,880 3,036 1,981 332 17,3172001 8,676 6,402 4,115 2,471 1,627 358 14,3172002 8,145 6,116 4,658 2,545 1,722 323 14,7382003 8,103 5,837 4,079 2,372 1,531 366 13,6542004 10,396 5,924 4,369 2,482 1,593 363 14,1972005 21,617 5,413 4,037 2,301 1,449 439 13,1902006 24,590 5,186 7,196 2,981 2,184 505 17,4302007 18,328 5,220 5,637 2,662 1,783 537 15,3552008 23,768 4,514 5,218 2,403 1,604 545 13,8832009 16,828 5,078 5,495 2,661 1,692 513 15,0702010 19,500 5,053 5,495 2,649 1,668          593 15,063Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Cape Verde, 1950-2010-Trindade Santos et al. 89Appendix Table A2: Taxonomic composition of the reconstructed catch of the Cape Verde Islands.Year Thunnus albacaresKatsuwonus pelamisAcanthocybium solandriAuxis thazard thazardDecapterus macarellusSelar crumenophthalmusSpicara melanurusOthers1950  1,242  414  551  95  1,845  238  536  891 1951  1,284  428  570  98  1,907  246  554  921 1952  1,326  442  589  101  1,969  254  572  951 1953  1,368  456  607  104  2,031  262  590  981 1954  1,410  470  626  108  2,093  270  609  1,011 1955  1,452  484  644  111  2,156  278  627  1,040 1956  1,367  513  605  117  2,099  271  608  1,004 1957  1,613  604  714  138  2,476  320  717  1,179 1958  1,743  433  780  100  2,406  310  704  1,189 1959  1,521  470  677  108  2,213  285  644  1,078 1960  1,645  605  728  138  2,511  324  728  1,200 1961  1,666  687  735  157  2,634  340  761  1,244 1962  1,563  562  693  128  2,370  306  688  1,139 1963  1,649  472  736  108  2,353  303  686  1,155 1964  2,192  871  967  198  3,424  442  990  1,614 1965  3,493  946  1,559  217  4,915  633  1,434  2,383 1966  2,705  707  1,209  162  3,775  486  1,103  1,846 1967  3,913  1,001  1,749  229  5,433  699  1,587  2,644 1968  3,150  889  1,405  204  4,477  577  1,305  2,169 1969  2,279  923  1,005  210  3,582  462  1,035  1,687 1970  3,215  962  1,432  220  4,635  597  1,349  2,235 1971  2,737  708  1,224  162  3,810  491  1,113  1,868 1972  2,327  924  1,027  211  3,634  469  1,051  1,717 1973  2,248  1,101  984  250  3,766  486  1,083  1,740 1974  1,629  957  707  217  2,924  378  836  1,335 1975  2,344  751  1,043  172  3,439  443  1,000  1,663 1976  1,947  784  860  179  3,051  394  882  1,450 1977  3,767  957  1,685  219  5,210  671  1,522  2,545 1978  3,198  854  1,429  196  4,471  576  1,305  2,182 1979  2,705  707  1,210  162  3,760  484  1,098  1,847 1980  2,873  1,723  1,244  391  5,178  669  1,479  2,321 1981  2,620  1,571  1,134  356  4,717  609  1,347  2,119 1982  2,318  1,390  1,004  315  4,171  539  1,191  1,881 1983  3,238  1,942  1,402  440  5,821  752  1,662  2,603 1984  2,718  1,700  839  449  4,812  622  1,374  2,286 1985  3,551  2,222  1,096  587  6,284  812  1,794  2,967 1986  2,561  1,298  781  360  4,148  536  1,161  1,888 1987  2,426  1,696  756  439  3,715  480  1,560  2,014 1988  2,269  1,087  690  305  2,619  339  1,673  2,047 1989  2,451  1,110  744  316  5,150  663  1,320  2,543 1990  1,895  813  576  235  3,993  515  961  1,889 1991  1,774  1,195  556  311  4,108  531  1,240  2,079 1992  1,541  592  489  177  5,054  662  826  1,843 1993  1,656  538  502  190  5,462  715  765  1,911 1994  1,797  600  545  187  6,684  879  1,006  2,282 1995  1,790  1,013  559  273  6,391  843  1,466  2,527 1996  1,854  980  578  269  6,882  909  1,652  2,846 1997  1,733  754  539  217  7,107  950  2,399  3,181 1998  1,514  722  477  203  8,232  1,088  1,350  2,799 1999  1,478  878  770  632  4,120  2,986  2,858  4,111 2000  1,481  765  773  539  4,094  3,007  2,938  4,555 2001  1,457  629  762  422  3,244  2,303  2,193  3,962 2002  1,418  558  740  363  3,720  2,512  2,238  3,815 2003  1,343  517  705  334  3,325  2,270  2,066  3,624 2004  1,082  557  573  392  3,474  2,434  2,324  3,893 2005  825  334  448  220  3,589  2,432  2,216  3,575 2006  1,153  612  619  434  4,879  3,085  2,513  4,757 2007  908  391  497  262  4,267  2,682  2,214  4,617 2008  799  374  443  257  3,821  2,404  1,994  4,191 2009  1,300  604  635  428  3,664  2,388  2,107  4,312 2010  1,290  588  636  414  3,581  2,346  2,134  4,469  90Guinean fisheries, past, present and...future-Belhabib et al. 91Guinean fisheries, past, present and...future?1Dyhia Belhabib1, Alkaly Doumbouya2, Ibrahima Diallo2, Sory Traore2, Youssouf Camara2, Duncan Copeland1, Beatrice Gorez3, Sarah Harper1, Dirk Zeller1 and Daniel Pauly11Sea Around Us Project, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canada2Centre National des Sciences Halieutiques de Boussoura – CNSHBBP: 4334–Conakry/ République de GUINEE3Coalition for fair fishing agreementsChaussée de Waterloo 244 Bruxelles 1060 Belgiqued.belhabib@fisheries.ubc.ca; adoumbouyah@gmail.com; idiallo@cnshb.org; so_traore@yahoo.fr; youssoufh@yahoo.fr; d.copland@fisheries.ubc.ca; cffa.cape@scarlet.be; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.caabstractGuinea is known for the wealth of its fisheries resources, targeted by both the domestic as well as foreign legal and illegal fleets. Domestic fisheries catches along the Guinean coast between 1950 and 2010 were estimated at 8.3 million t, compared to 2 million t of landings as reported to FAO. Small-scale fisheries subsectors accounted for over 5.6 million t. Foreign fisheries, with an estimated 22.6 million t between 1950 and 2010, constituted the bulk of fisheries removals in Guinean waters, and threaten the sustainability of Guinea’s already over-exploited fisheries. These fleets caught over 3 times the maximum potential catch estimated by the Guinean government. This poses serious concerns regarding the domestic food security of Guinea, as well as livelihood of fishers and the local economy, as thousands of jobs are lost to illegal foreign fishing.introductionGuinea is located in the ‘corner’ of North West Africa, with Guinea Bissau to the North and Sierra Leone, Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire to the south (Figure 1). With an Exclusive Economic Zone of 59,400 km2 (www.seaaroundus.org) and the largest continental shelf of North West Africa (second in all of West Africa), Guinea enjoys a productive marine environment induced by the Guinea Current upwelling system.Historically, Guinea was one of the first countries of the West African French colonial empire to gain independence from France in 1958. After independence, Guinea suffered governance issues, a succession of political conflicts, poverty and food security crises, and the Guinean population has been under the risk of serious hunger for decades (Anon. 2004; von Grebmer et al. 2010; Anon. 2011b). With an annual per capita consumption spendings of US$ 175-452, half of the population lives under the poverty line and 13% in extreme poverty (Anon. 2004; www.worldbank.org [2012]).More than 1.5 million people directly depend on fish for their livelihoods, with 60% of the protein intake of the Guinean population from fish (Goujet et al. 1992; Anon. 2003; N’Dia 2004; WFC 2005). The Guinean population suffers from malnutrition and animal protein deficits (Lopriore and Muehlhoff 2003; Touré 2006), which can be related to declining fish productivity (Figure 2) caused by over-exploitation (Gascuel et al. 2009). It is clear, however, that fisheries, if well managed, could provide more security in terms of food and income to local communities. Fisheries management initiatives should be supported by fisheries catch data for local and foreign sectors in the Guinean EEZ. This is far from being the case. Moreover, Guinea is known to be the country most strongly affected by illegal fishing in West Africa, which makes it one of the worst cases of illegal fishing in the world (Godoy 2010). It is important to better understand how much fish is taken from Guinean waters, before attempting to make any plan on how management incentives should be implemented. Not surprisingly, without proper knowledge of long-term 1 Cite as: Belhabib, D., Doumbouya, A., Diallo, I., Traore, S., Camara, Y., Copeland, D., Gorez, B., Harper, S., Zeller, D. and Pauly, D. (2012) Guinean fisheries, past, present and... future?. pp 91-104. In: Belhabib, D., Zeller, D., Harper, S. and Pauly, D. (eds.),  Marine fisheries catches in West Africa, 1950-2010, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (3). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  Map of Guinea showing the Guinean EEZ. 92fisheries removals in Guinean waters, many fisheries development initiatives since the 1950s have failed, since they prioritized the expansion of fishing as key to ‘sustainable development’ (Kaczynski and Fluharty 2002).The available literature on fisheries in Guinea documents an artisanal sector comprised of traditional fishing with pirogues of less than 12 m since the 1950s, and advanced artisanal fishing (or semi-industrial fishing) with trawlers under 100 GRT, and to a lesser extent, an industrial demersal fishing sector (Chavance and Diallo 1996; Damiano 1999; Gascuel et al. 2009) alongside the foreign industrial sector which is prominent in Guinean waters (Lesnoff et al. 1999). Subsistence fishing is also important in Guinea and constitutes an important source of protein for the Guinean population (Chavance and Diallo 1996; Chauveau et al. 2000; Sidibe 2003). Guinea was handing out fishing licenses to foreign fleets in the early 1950s, even before the declaration of the Guinean EEZ in 1980, and the definition of artisanal fishing zones in 1985 (Lesnoff et al. 1999). Artisanal fishing zones are also subject to non-authorized exploitation by foreign vessels operating illegally (Gorez 2010). This paper analyses the fisheries in one of the poorest countries of the world and reconstructs historic fisheries catches (1950-2010) using the method described by Zeller et al. (2007) in an attempt to provide a more realistic estimate of Guinean fisheries removals including the prominent foreign catches.MethodsReported fisheries landings time series were extracted from the Food and Agriculture Organisation database (FishstatJ) covering the 1950-2010 time-period, and used as a reporting baseline for this study. Effort time series including the number of artisanal and industrial vessels were available through the ‘Centre national des sciences halieutiques de Boussoura’ (CNSHB) and an extensive literature review that covered the period from 1950 to 2010. Effort estimates combined with catch per unit of effort estimates (CPUE) allowed estimating total catches for industrial (domestic and foreign) and artisanal sectors in the Guinean Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), from which subsistence fisheries and discards were inferred.Artisanal fisheriesArtisanal fishing in Guinea is conducted by canoe-type boats of less than 12 m. This sector includes all motorized and unmotorized canoes as long as their activity is defined as artisanal for commercial purposes by the Guinean legislation. This sector operates in Guinea since 1950. This definition excludes the Senegalese Yoli-type pirogues that target sharks for their fins since the mid-1980s. Official artisanal fishing effort surveys in Guinea started in 1989 (Gascuel et al. 2009). These surveys included catches since the mid-1990s (Chavance 2002). The number of traditional artisanal pirogues was documented in the 1950s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s (Table 1), from which we derived a complete series for the 1950-2010 time-period by linear interpolations. We estimated a catch per unit of effort (CPUE) of 29.8 t·boat-1·year-1 by dividing a catch of 53,300 t·year-1 in 1989 (Chavance and Domalain 1999) by the corresponding effort of 1,788 pirogues (Gascuel et al. 2009; Anon. 2011a). Given that most fishers (also farmers) were operating part-time (50%) in the agricultural sector in the early 1950s (Chavance and Domalain 1999), we divided the 1989 CPUE by two, which  accounted for the time spent fishing, then again by two to account for the lower efficiency of the non-motorized pirogues used in the 1950s compared to the 1980s (Sidibe 2003), considering that increasing technology and modernization (motorization) lead to considerably higher catches (Mathew 2001). Therefore, the CPUE in 1950 was estimated at 75% of the CPUE in 1989, i.e., 22.4 t·boat-1·year-1. Discussions with local representatives or artisanal fisheries revealed that although Guinean waters are heavily over-exploited (Figure Table 1. Artisanal effort anchor points and the corresponding CPUE. Interpolations are indicated by ‘-’.Year Number of boatsSource CPUE (t·boat-1·year-1)1950 1,000 Bouju (1993) 22.4a1951-1982 -  -1983 1,700 Pollnac (1985) -1984 1,700 Weber and Durand (1986) -1985-1988 - -1989 1,788 Gascuel et al. (2009) 29.8b1990-1991 - -1992 2,306 Chavance and Diallo (1996) -1993-1994 - -1995 2,343 CNSHB 1995-2004 in Gascuel et al. (2009) -1996 2,358 CNSHB 1995-2004 in Gascuel et al. (2009) -1997 2,561 CNSHB 1995-2004 in Gascuel et al. (2009) -1998 2,361 CNSHB 1995-2004 in Gascuel et al. (2009) -1999 2,361 CNSHB 1995-2004 in Gascuel et al. (2009) -2000 2,564 CNSHB 1995-2004 in Gascuel et al. (2009) -2001 3,637 CNSHB 1995-2012, unpub. data -2002 3,636 CNSHB 1995-2004 in Gascuel et al. (2009) -2003 3,636 CNSHB 1995-2004 in Gascuel et al. (2009) -2004 3,636 CNSHB 1995-2004 in Gascuel et al. (2009) -2009 6,025 CNSHB 1995-2012, unpub. data2010 6,030 CNSHB 1995-2012, unpub. datad 26.8aa) Assumption; b) Chavance and Domalain (1999).Figure 2.  Relative abundance in the marine environment from 1985 to 1995, adapted from trawl surveys documented Domain et al. (1999), updated by the CNSHB. Guinean fisheries, past, present and...future-Belhabib et al. 932), artisanal fishers increased the time spent at sea per day, and the distance to fishing grounds, as well as the total number of days per year. Therefore, we assumed the catch per year was 10% lower in 2010 compared to 1989 (i.e., 26.8 t·boat-1·year-1) to account for this increase in the intensity of fishing, which illustrates via increasing costs the over-exploitation of Guinean coastal fisheries resources (Domain 1999; Gascuel et al. 2009). Furthermore, during discussions within the CNSHB with local experts, fishers representatives noted that annual artisanal catch per boat was much higher than the official estimate of 16 t·boat-1·year-1. We believe this further illustrates the importance of the unreported component in the 2000s as shown previously in the study of Chavance and Domalain (1999). Thereafter, we performed a linear interpolation between CPUE anchor points (Table 1), and then multiplied the resulting rates by the estimated number of pirogues. To derive a taxonomic breakdown, we applied the average species disaggregation provided by Gascuel et al. (2009), accounting for a multi-gear artisanal fishery from 1985 to 2004 (Table 2).Semi-industrial fisheriesSemi-industrial fishing is also commonly called advanced-artisanal fishing in some countries of West Africa2. This sector in Guinea is operated by trawlers of which the capacity is under 100 GRT. Although this sector started in 1981, it only expanded from 1985 onward (Chavance and Diallo 1996), with the first vessels delivered from Spain (Damiano 1999). Anchor points for the number of vessels (exclusively trawlers) were available from Damiano (1999), Bah et al. (2002) and Richard et al. (2006). We assumed effort from 2006 to 2010 was constant since the overall artisanal effort was constant over the same time period (Table 3). We then interpolated linearly to complete the time series. CPUE rates were estimated at 122 t·boat-1·year-1 for 1981 and 111 t·boat-1·year-1 for 2002 based on catch and effort estimates by Damiano (1999), Chavance and Diallo (1996) and Bah et al. (2002). We assumed a 10% lower CPUE for 2010, i.e., 100 t·boat-1·year-1. This rather low decreased in CPUE, despite strong over-exploitation of Guinean fisheries resources, is justified by the increasing fishing capacity (e.g., the number of fishing days per year per boat). We interpolated linearly between the CPUE rates and applied these to the estimated effort (Table 3). Thereafter, we disaggregated catches using the taxonomic breakdown provided by Damiano (1999, Table 4).Subsistence fisheriesSmall-scale fishing before the 1980s was mainly for subsistence (Chavance 1999). Guineans, along with other migrant fisher groups from Ghana and Sierra Leone, were catching fish for personal consumption. Subsistence fishing in Guinea can be land-based or operated by dugout-canoe type boats propelled by paddle, sail and/or motor of less than 25 hp, mostly of 8 and 15 hp. The most important part of small-scale fishing was thus for subsistence in the 1950s and 1960s (Chauveau et al. 2000). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that at least the equivalent of the commercial catch (i.e., the equivalent of 100% of artisanal catch) was caught for personal consumption, i.e., subsistence from 1950 to 1980 when the Guinean EEZ was declared. In the last decade (2000s), a portion of small-scale catches intended for commercialization were kept for personal consumption (N’Dia 2004). Consequently, we assumed that subsistence catches from 2000 to 2010 were equivalent to 10% and 5% of the artisanal catch respectively, which we interpolated. We interpolated from 100% in 1980 to 30% in 2000 to complete 2 For the purposes of the Sea Around Us Project, the semi-industrial sector was treated as ‘industrial’.Table 2. Breakdown of artisanal species by Gascuel et al. (2009).Taxon name Scientific name Percentage (%)Bonga shad Ethmalosa fimbriata 53Bobo croaker Pseudotolithus elongatus 8Sardinellas Sardinella spp. 7Guinean sea catfish Arius spp. 7Croakers Pseudotolithus spp. 6Seabreams Sparus spp. 6Mullets Mugilidae 3Royal threadfin Pentanemus quinquarius 2Demersal fishes - 2Jacks Caranx spp. 1Grunt Pomadasys spp. 1Soles Solea spp. 1Giant African threadfin Polydactylus quadrifilis 0.9Rays Elasmobranchii 0.5Sharks Elasmobranchii 0.5Large pelagics Scombroids 0.5Barracudas Sphyraena spp. 0.5Lesser African threadfin Galeoides decadactylus 0.1Table 3. Semi-industrial effort anchor points and the corresponding CPUE. ‘-’ indicate Interpolations.Year Number of boatsSource CPUE(t·boat-1·year-1)1950 0 Assumptiona 01980 0 Assumptiona 01981 1 Damiano (1999) 122b1982 1 Damiano (1999) -1983 1 Damiano (1999) -1984 1 Damiano (1999) -1985 2 Damiano (1999) -1986 5 Damiano (1999) -1987 7 Damiano (1999) -1989 17 Damiano (1999) 122c1990 11 Damiano (1999) -1991 9 Damiano (1999) -1992 11 Damiano (1999) -1993 16 Damiano (1999) -1995 10 CNSHB, unpub. data1996 11 CNSHB, unpub. data -1997 10 CNSHB, unpub. data1998 4 CNSHB, unpub. data1999-2000 0 CNSHB, unpub. data2001 - -2002 18 Bah et al. (2002) 111d2003-2005 - -2006 14 Richard et al. (2006) -2007-2009 - -2010 14 Assumed constant 100ca) Advanced artisanal fishing started in 1981 (Damiano 1999);b) Derived from the available average catch per day of 0.9653  t·boat-1·day-1 for 1989 and the number of fishing days for 1981 (126 days) (Damiano 1999);c) Assumption;d) Derived from a catch of 2000 tonnes and an effort of 18 vessels for 2002 (Bah et al. 2002). 94the time series, and then applied the resulting rates to the reconstructed artisanal catch from 1950 to 2010. Bonga shad (Ethmalosa fimbriata), sardinellas (Sardinella spp.) and other small pelagics (Clupeidae) are the main taxa kept for subsistence in Guinea (Goujet et al. 1992), and were assigned to the estimated subsistence catch equally (33% per taxon).IndustrialDomesticGuinean industrial fishing is mostly composed of trawlers operating under joint venture arrangements (Sidibe 2003). Joint ventures are second-generation fishing agreements which allow the transfer of part of a vessel ownership to a third party in the host country and commonly translate into reflagging vessels. In Guinea, it mainly consists of reflagging foreign vessels, but with highly variable or no real Guinean ownership. This fishery started in 1950 (Moal 1961 in Lesnoff et al. 1999). N’Dia (2004) provided effort data with 23 vessels in 1985, 13 in 2002, and 12 in 2004, which then represented 7% of the total industrial fleet including foreign vessels. We assumed that this rate remained constant until 2010, and calculated the number of vessels to be 13 trawlers. To reconstruct catches by these joint venture vessels, we first interpolated effort data of the number of trawlers per year from zero vessels in 1950 to 23 trawlers in 1985, and performed a series of linear interpolations to complete the time series. We multiplied this effort by the CPUE of 2,400 t·boat-1·year-1 (Kaczynski 1989) from 1950 to 2010, assuming the resulting decline in CPUE caused by over-exploitation (Gascuel et al. 2009) would be compensated for with increasing vessel capacity and the number of fishing trips.ForeignHerein, we first estimated total foreign catches by the legal fleets using an overall average CPUE, then we separately estimated catches by the Chinese fleet, as a subset, using a CPUE that is typical of the Chinese fleet. Catches by the EU fleet were also estimated as a subset of total foreign catches. The remaining foreign catch (after subtracting Chinese and EU catches) were disagregated per beneficial country of origin and per taxon.Total foreign catches: Although Guinea declared its EEZ in 1980, the first formal industrial fishing licences were distributed in the early 1970s (Lesnoff et al. 1999; Sidibe 2003), and Moal (1961 in Lesnoff et al. 1999) already documented foreign industrial trawlers operating in Guinea’s EEZ equivalent waters in the 1950s. Industrial fishing effort by gear type from 1950 to 2003 was reconstructed and interpolated for years when data were not available (Table 5), while the 2005 data point was fragmentary, the total effort was available for 2004 (177 vessels) and 2010 (169 vessels) including all gear types Table 5. Anchor points for annual industrial fishing effort by foreign fleets.Year General bottom trawlersDemersal fish trawlersCephalopod trawlersShrimp trawlersSmall pelagic seinersLarge pelagics (longline and purseiners)Mixed 1950 12a 1f 1f 1f 0f 0f 0a1961 12a,b - - - - - -1966 10c - - - - - -1971 - 4g - 1f - - -1972 - 5f - 0f - - -1973 - 9f - 2f - - -1974 - 10f - 3f - - -1975 - 6f - 1f - - 43h1976 10c 10f - 6f - 0f -1977 - 25f - 4f - 0f -1978 - 48f - 5f - 2f -1979 - 47f 5f 8f - 8f -1980 - 58f 5f 10f - 9f -1981 - 45f 7f 12f - 11f -1982 - 46f 3f 12f - 7f -1983 - 49f 9f 13f - 11f -1984 14d 43f 10f 12f - 21f -1985 - 23f 14f 11f - 45f -1986 - 33f 24f 10f - 28f 0g1987 - 41f 24f 7f - 47f 21g1988 - 31f 18f 9f - 40f 13g1989 - 11f 19f 8f - 51f 15g1990 - 49f 31f 13f 0f 41f 11g1991 - 49f 24f 3f 11f 23f 7g1992 - 40f 15f 6f 9f 19f 0g1993 - 36f 64f 8f 8f 23f 0g1994 - 34f - 5f 4f 24g -1995 - 42g 34g 6h 2g 26g -1996 - 37g 25g 16g 4g 37g -1997 - 72g 55g 24g 6g 38g -1998 - 76g 55g 11g 4g 49g -1999 - 54g 38g 17g 3g 50g -2000 - 75g 58g 45i 5g 43g -2001 - 67g 46g 43i 5g 47g -2002 - 55g 38g 58i 4g 39g -2003 - 61g 42g 18g 5g 43g -a) Assumption ; b) Moal (1961) in Lesnoff et al. (1999); c) Caverivière (1979) in Lesnoff et al. (1999); d) Weber and Durand (1986); e) Richard et al. (2006); f) Lesnoff et al. (1999); g) Sidibe (2003); h) Chavance and Diallo (1996); i) CNSHB (2004).Table 4. Semi-industrial catches taxonomic breakdown.Taxon name Scientific name Percentage (%)Cassava croaker, longneck croaker and law croakerPseudotolithus senegalensis, P. typus and P. brachygnathus30Bobo croaker Pseudotolithus elongatus 11Cameroon croaker, Guinea croaker Pseudotolithus epipercus, P. moori 7Royal threadfin Pentanemus quinquarius 6African sicklefish Drepane africana 2Sompat grunt Pomadasys jubelini 1Lesser African threadfin Galeoides decadactylus 17Guinean sea catfish Arius spp. 13Rays Rajiformes 7Other demersal species - 6Guinean fisheries, past, present and...future-Belhabib et al. 95(N’Dia 2004; Fontana 1998, in Richard et al. 2006; Diop and Dossa 2011). We calculated the annual sum representing the total effort from 1950 to 2003, then interpolated linearly the total effort by year to 2004 and 2010 to complete the time series. The effort between 1950 and 2003 was documented on the basis of licences; we conservatively assumed each licence accounted for one vessel. Thereafter, we applied an average CPUE of 2,400 t·boat-1·year-1 (Kaczynski 1989) to the total number of vessels. These estimates are considered conservative especially for the earlier time period when fishing licences and vessels were not all reported (Lesnoff et al. 1999). Total foreign catch by all authorized fishing under foreign flags in Guinea’s waters includes catches by the European fleet under EU Fisheries Partnership Agreements (FPAs), China, Japan, Korea, African countries and other fleets notably those from Flag of Convenience countries (FoC). Industrial catches under EU agreements: Guinea and Europe signed their first fishing access agreements in the early 1980s (N’Dia 2004), for shrimp trawlers from Spain, Portugal and Greece; demersal fish and cephalopod trawlers from Spain, Italy and Greece; tuna seiners and pole and line vessels from France and Spain; and tuna longliners from Portugal and Spain (EU 2004). The number of vessels were available from formal agreements between 1980 and 2010 from the EU agreements database ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu[2012]) which corresponded to the number of EU vessels operating in Guinea (N’Dia 2004) (Table 6). We converted the effort expressed in GRT to the number of vessels using an average of 141 GRT·vessel-1. We then multiplied the number of vessels by the average CPUE of 2,400 t·boat-1·year-1 (Kaczynski 1989) to estimate total catches by the European countries under EU-Guinea agreements. Although European countries benefiting from these agreements are often not specified, based on the European Community – Guinea 2003 agreement (EU 2004), 59% of the effort was from Spain, 20% was from France, 9% was from Greece, 6% from Portugal and 6% from Italy. We assumed these rates were constant from 1980 to 2010, except for Portugal who started fishing in Guinea in 1981 and was no longer under EU agreements after 2007. We allocated 0% of EU catches to Portugal in 1980 and from 2007 to 2010; the remaining 6% (originally Portuguese) was distributed evenly to the remaining countries, i.e., Spain, France, Greece and Italy. Effort estimates under agreements are conservative, since they only include agreements between Guinea and the EU on behalf of EU countries, whereas other occasional government fishing agreements and joint ventures (for example with Spain and Greece) were documented for the 1970s and 1980s, but not accounted for in this estimation (Weber and Durand 1986).The Chinese distant water fleet: The Chinese distant water fishing fleet was operating in Guinea between the 1950s and 2010 (Lesnoff et al. 1999), until the 2000s with formal fishing access agreements mainly for cephalopod and demersal resources (Lesnoff et al. 1999; Sidibe 2003; Anon. 2012). To estimate the number of Chinese vessels operating under licence in Guinea, we divided the reported total GRT (N’Dia 2004) by an average GRT of 250 GRT·vessel-1 (Anon. 2003) (Table 7) of which 55% were targeting cephalopods and 45% demersal fish and crustaceans (N’Dia 2004). We performed a series of linear interpolations to complete the effort time series between 1950 and 2010 (Table 7). We then multiplied the derived effort time-series by a CPUE of 221 t·boat-1·year-1 for cephalopod vessels Table 6. Number of vessels per gear type from the European Union under formal agreements (EU 2004; N’Dia 2004; EU 2009).Year Tuna seiners Small pelagic seiners Longliners (tuna) Trawlers1950 to 1979 0 0 0 01980 25 25 0 121981 25 25 0 121982 25 25 0 121983 25 25 0 121984 25 25 0 121985 45 25 6 121986 45 25 6 121987 45 25 6 121988 45 25 6 121989 45 25 10 121990 45 25 10 121991 24 8 5 121992 24 10 5 171993 24 10 5 171994 28 7 7 201995 28 7 7 201996 33 13 28 201997 33 13 28 201998 36 14 22 181999 38 14 16 162000 38 14 16 162001 38 14 16 162002 38 14 16 162003 38 14 16 162004 34 12 16 702005 31 10 15 602006 28 8 15 502007 24 6 15 412008 21 4 15 312009 17 2 14 212010 14 0 14 12Table 7. Anchor points for annual fishing effort in capacity converted to number of Chinese vessels operating in the Guinea EEZ.Year GRT trawlers GRT CephalopodTrawlersNumber of vesselsSource1950 0 0 0 assumption1996 1,500 2,048 26 N’Dia (2004)1997 1,500 2,048 26 N’Dia (2004)2000 1,000 2,200 22 N’Dia (2004)2001 1,000 2,200 22 N’Dia (2004)2003 800 1,500 16 N’Dia (2004)2004 800 1,500 16 N’Dia (2004)2010 NA NA 30 Anon. (2012) 96and 1,252 t·boat-1·year-1 for trawlers (Pauly et al. 2012).  Assuming a constant CPUE overtime for the Chinese fleet particularly highlights the compensation due to first increasing fishing capacity per boat, but also refflects upon the increasing unregulated practices of the Chinese fleet fishing in the artisanal and near-shore zones of Guinea, on contrast to fleets of other origin. These vessels were operating under licence with Guinea. Although we assumed all catches were exclusively from the Guinean EEZ, these estimates remain conservative since they do not account for the occasional and seasonal Chinese fleets operating in Guinea. Catches of the demersal and cephalopod fleets consist to 50% of scianids (Pseudotolithus senegalensis, P. typus, P. elongatus, Cynoglossus canariensis, C. monody, C. senegalensis, Arius heudeloti, A. istiscutatus, A. parkii, Galeoides decadactylus, Pomadasys incisus, P. jubelini), 44% of cephalopods (Sepia spp. and other cephalopods), 2.4% of sparids (Pagellus bellottii and Sparus caeruleostictus) and 3.6% of crustaceans (Penaeus notialis, P. kerathurus and Perapenaeopsis atlantica) (Lesnoff et al. 1999). We used these rates to disaggregate Chinese catches from Guinean waters.Other fleets: The difference between the total estimated catch and the sum of European (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain and France) and Chinese catches was allocated to other flags operating under licences in the Guinean EEZ (Table 8). We determined the presence or absence of a foreign fishing country per year based on a literature review, i.e., when a country is mentioned as fishing in Guinea’s waters, then that country was present during that year. We assumed the absence of literature documenting a country fishing in Guinea meant the absence of that country during that period/year, and the first time this country was mentioned would correspond to the first year it started fishing in Guinea. According to the presence or absence of a country in the Guinean EEZ, we first assumed an even distribution by country depending on the number of countries operating and the start and end of fishing operations by country. For example, the former USSR (Russia and Ukraine) were the only fleet fishing in Guinea from 1950 to 1957, therefore, we allocated 100% of catches to these former Soviet republics from 1950 to 1957. In 1958, Korea, Poland and Germany started fishing in the Guinean EEZ, we allocated 0% of the catch to these countries in 1957, and then interpolated from these rates to 20% for each country (USSR, Korea, Poland, Germany) in 1965 assuming approximately the same catch per country. In 1966, USA, Japan, Liberia, Ghana Ivory Coast and Senegal started industrial fishing operations in Guinea; therefore they were allocated 0% in 1965 increasing linearly to 10% for each country in 1970, right before Malta (mostly Korean reflagged vessels), Sierra Leone and Senegal started fishing in Guinea etc. This rationale assumes an even distribution of catches where countries which started fishing earlier get a higher percentage of unallocated catches in the earliest time-periods, decreasing thereafter when other countries start fishing.Illegal fishingThere are three main types of illegal fishing in Guinea: fishing without a licence (42% of the cases), industrial fishing in artisanal zones (21%, i.e., the equivalent of 50% of illegal unlicensed vessels), and fishing using illegal gear (31%) (EJF 2006; Gorez 2010). In this study, we only estimated catches by non-licenced or non-authorized foreign vessels as a conservative approach to avoid double counting, since legal vessels may have been using illegal mesh size or operating in artisanal zones. Foreign fleets operate increasingly in Guinea without authorizations (Godoy 2010). In 2006, illegal fishing by foreign fleets represented the equivalent of 63% of legal landings, when 22 boats of an observed total of 104 boats were illegal (EJF 2006). Chinese vessels (including under flags from Belize and Panama) represented 50% to 60% of illegal fishing vessels (Dobo 2009; EJF 2009; Mallory 2012). The remaining countries include South Korea (with flags from Korea, and FoC countries like Malta, Panama and Belize), vessels reflagged to Guinea and to Senegal and others (Anon. 2006; EJF 2009). We estimated that illegal vessels represented the equivalent of 13% of the legal fleet in 2006, i.e., 22 vessels (EJF 2006) divided by the total legal fleet in 2006 (176 vessels). We then applied this percentage to the total legal fleet from 1950 to 2010. Catches taken before the declaration of the EEZ are considered legal but unregulated in this study. Thereafter, we distributed catches by flag, where China represented 60% of catches, and the remaining catch was allocated evenly between Korea, Guinea, Senegal and others.Although industrial catches in artisanal areas are already accounted for here, since the catch reconstruction disregards the zone of the catch, it is important to establish an estimated amount taken from reserved artisanal fishing zones in Guinea. The equivalent of 50% of illegal catches are caught within artisanal zones (Gorez 2010). Table 8. Countries operating in the Guinean EEZ under agreements.Country Period SourceRussia 1950-2000s  Lesnoff et al. (1999); Sidibe (2003)Ukraine 1950-2000s  Lesnoff et al. (1999); Sidibe (2003)Korea 1958-2010  Weber and Durand (1986); Lesnoff et al. (1999); Sidibe (2003); Gorez (2010)Poland 1958-2010  Lesnoff et al. (1999)Japan 1966-mid 2000s  Weber and Durand (1986); OECD (2010)Yugoslavia 1966-1984  Weber and Durand (1986)Maltaa 1971-2000  Sidibe (2003)Germany 1958-1984  Lesnoff et al. (1999)Liberiaa, b 1966-1986  Weber and Durand (1986); Lesnoff et al. (1999); Sidibe (2003); Dobo (2009)Ghanaa, b 1966-1986  Weber and Durand (1986); Lesnoff et al. (1999); Sidibe (2003); Dobo (2009)Côte d’ivoire 1966-2010  Weber and Durand (1986); Lesnoff et al. (1999); Sidibe (2003); Dobo (2009)USA 1966-2010  Weber and Durand (1986); Lesnoff et al. (1999); Sidibe (2003); Dobo (2009)Senegal 1971-2010  Weber and Durand (1986); Lesnoff et al. (1999); Sidibe (2003); Dobo (2009)Sierra Leone 1971-2010  Weber and Durand (1986); Lesnoff et al. (1999); Sidibe (2003); Dobo (2009)a) Korean vessels reflagged.b) Operating under joint ventures with Guinea.Guinean fisheries, past, present and...future-Belhabib et al. 97Therefore, we applied the latter rate to the estimated illegal catch from 1950 to 2010, to retrace illegal catches in artisanal areas.DiscardsDiscards in the industrial fisheries of Guinea (domestic and foreign) are important and range between 40% and 67% of demersal fish catches (discarding mainly cephalopods), 78% to 150% of shrimp catches and 82% of cephalopod catches from 1986 to 1998 (Weber and Durand 1986; Sidibe 2003). Artisanal fisheries discards ranged between 10% and 15% of the artisanal catches (Weber and Durand 1986) and here were assumed to be constant. Therefore, to estimate discards by sector, we assumed discard rates were constant from 1950 to 1986 for industrial fisheries, and during the 1950-1986 and 1998- 2010 time periods for artisanal fisheries. Comparative results by Sidibe (2003) show a 6% decrease in the catch kept onboard industrial vessels since 1998, i.e., here increase in discards by 6% from 1998 to 2010. We interpolated linearly the above mentioned discard rates by sector from 1986 to 1998 for artisanal fisheries, and from 1986 to 1998, then from 1998 to 2010 for industrial fisheries. We applied these discard rates to the reconstructed demersal fish, shrimp and cephalopod catch for the domestic and foreign sectors along with artisanal domestic reconstructed catches. We performed a species breakdown for large-scale shrimp and cephalopod sector discards using the estimated discard rates per species by Sidibé et al. (2003), i.e., 71% of lesser African threadfin catches, 53% of bobo croaker catches, 35% of longneck croaker catches and 28% of the Cassava croaker catch by calculating corresponding species rates and assuming 20% is unknown fish species, we disaggregated the remaining 80% to include the four species listed above. resultsTotal reconstructed catches in GuineaTotal catches (domestic and foreign) taken in Guinea’s waters between 1950 and 2010 accounted for 31.8 million t (Figure 3a). Guinean domestic catches were estimated at 8.4 million t between 1950 and 2010 compared to 2 million t of landings as reported by FAO, i.e., 4.2 times as high (Figure 3b). Domestic catches in the Guinean EEZ increased from 47,800 t·year-1 in 1950 to a first peak of around 178,000 t·year-1 in 1985, decreasing in the late 1990s, and then increased again and reach their maximum of 231,000 t·year-1 in 2009, i.e., over twice as high as the data supplied to FAO (81,000 t·year-1) (Figure 3b). Over a total of 8.4 million t, 130,000 were caught by industrial vessels of foreign beneficial ownership reflagged to Guinea.Guinean domestic catches were almost as high as foreign industrial catches including illegal removals between 1950 and the early-1970s, with a total domestic catch of 2.3 million t compared to a foreign catch of 2.3 million t between 1950 and 1973 (Figure 3a). This trend has changed since the early 1980s, after Guinea declared its EEZ, when foreign catches (19.2 million t) were over three times the reconstructed 0100200300400500600700800Legal foreignDomesticIllegal foreignFAOabc1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010l iill l iacb0.00.20.40.60.81.01.21.4Catches (t x 106)YearLegal foreignDomesticIllegal foreignFAOCatches (t x 103)2004006008001,001,2001,400Catches (t x 103)050100150200250300DiscardsFAObArtisanalSubsistenceIndustrialSemi-industrial0501001502002501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearOthersBonga shadCorakersThreadfinCatfishesSardinellasc GruntsClupeoidsCephalopodsSparidsCatches (t x 103)a 50 100 150 200 25Catches (t x 103)SubsistenceArtisanalFAOIndustrialDiscards0501001502002501950 1970 1980 1990 2 00 2 10YearOthersBonga shadCorakersThreadfinCatfishes SardinellasGrunts ClupeoidsCephalopodsSparidae0bc0204060801001201401950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearFAOArtisanal204060801001201401608Catches (t x 103 )Figure 3.  Estimated catch from the Guinea EEZ by a) the domestic and foreign sectores, b) the domestic sector compared to catches supplied to FAO, and c) taxon, 1950-2010. Figure 4.  Total reconstructed artisanal catches by Guinea compared to data supplied to the FAO, 1950-2010. 98domestic catch (5.1 million t) between 1980 and 2010 (Figure 3a).Domestic catch breakdown is dominated by Bonga shad, other small pelagics including sardinella, and cephalopods (Figure 3c).Reconstructed catches by sectorArtisanalArtisanal landed catches (i.e., excluding discards) were estimated at 3.4 million t for the period between 1950 and 2010, increasing from around 22,000 t·year-1 in 1950, to a plateau of 101,000 t·year-1 in the eary 2000s (Figure 4). Thereafter, catches increased, driven by the increase in the fishing effort to a maximum of 156,000 t·year-1 in 2009 (Figure 4). Artisanal catches were constituted mainly of Bonga shad, sardinellas and croakers.Semi-industrial fisheriesSemi-industrial catches were estimated at around 40,000 t between 1950 and 2010, which is less than 1% of the total reconstructed catch (Figure 3b). Catches increased from 0 t·year-1 in 1950 to a peak of around 1,900 t·year-1 in 2001 then decreased steadily thereafter. Semi-industrial catches were dominated by croakers (Scianidae).SubsistenceSubsistence catches increased from 22,400 t·year-1 in 1950 to about 46,000 t·year-1 in 1980 then decreased to 8,200 t·year-1 in 2010 (Figure 5). Subsistence catches totalled around 1.7 million t from 1950 to 2010 which represents 20% of the total reconstructed catch in Guinea since 1950 (Figure 5). This included small pelagic species, mostly sardinella and bonga shad, which accounted for 66% of total subsistence catches.IndustrialDomestic: Domestic industrial landed catches (i.e., excluding discards) were estimated at 2.1 million t between 1950 and 2010, accounting for 25% of the total domestic catch (Figure 6), and equivalent to over half of the Guinean artisanal catch. Around 130,000 t of these domestic industrial catches were taken by foreign vessels reflagged to Guinea. Industrial catches in the Guinean EEZ increased from 325 in 1950, when the fishery started, to a peak of 58,500 t·year-1 in 1985, then decreased to around 36,000 t·year-1 in 2001 (Figure 6). Guinean industrial catches remained relatively constant during the last decade at about 36,000 t·year-1 (Figure 6).Foreign: Foreign legal catches (excluding discards)in the Guinean EEZ were estimated at nearly 15 million t over the period from 1950 to 2010. Industrial foreign catches increased from 36,400 t·year-1 in 1950 to their first peak of 351,600 t·year-1 in 1988, i.e, twice as high as total domestic catches (166,400 t·year-1), then decreased to 338,000 t·year-1 in 1993 after the first attempt to limit foreign industrial fishing by Guinea (Figure 7). Thereafter, foreign industrial catches increased drastically to reach a peak of 551,000 t·year-1 in 2000, over 3 times higher than the reconstructed domestic catch in Guinean EEZ (Figure 7), then decreased again to 424,000 t·year-1 in 2010. Overall, 0501001502002501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearTotal domesticSubsistence501001502002503003Catches (t x 103 )To al domesticSubsistenceCatches (t x 103 )0501001502002501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103)YearTotal domesticIndustrial501001502002503003Catches (t x 103)Total domesticIndustrial01002003004005006001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearEast AsiaWest EuropeEast EuropeAfrica (including reflagged )Others01002003004005006001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearEast AsiaEast EuropeAfrica(including reflagged)West EuropeOthersFigure 5.  Reconstructed subsistence compared to total domestic catches in Guinea, 1950-2010.Figure 6.  Domestic industrial catches in Guinean EEZ compared to total reconstructed catches, 1950-2010. Semi-industrial catches, also called advanced-artisanal, are not included in the industrial catch shown in this figure. Figure 7.  Foreign catches by legal fleets in Guinea, 1950-2010.Guinean fisheries, past, present and...future-Belhabib et al. 99industrial foreign catches (15 million t) were almost twice as high as the domestic catch (8.4 million t) during the 1950-2010 time-period. Countries from Eastern Europe (Russia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia and Poland) and East Asia (Korea, Japan and China) accounted for the bulk of foreign industrial catches in the Guinean EEZ between 1950 and 1980, with 68% of the total foreign catch (Figure 7). After 1980, when Guinea declared its EEZ, foreign industrial catches were dominated by Western European countries accounting for 50% of the industrial reconstructed catch and East Asian countries with 20% of the total foreign industrial catch from 1981 to 2010 (Figure 7). More recently, western European industrial catches decreased to account for 43% of industrial catches in Guinean EEZ between 2005 to 2010, whereas African vessel (mostly non-African reflagged) catches increased from being 14% of the total foreign catch in Guinea waters from 2005 to about 20% in 2010 (Figure 7).IllegalIllegal foreign catches totalled around 1.3 million t from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 8). Illegal catches increased from around 3,300 t·year-1 in 1950 to around 26,700 t in 1980, when Guinea declared its EEZ. Catches prior to the EEZ declaration were considered unregulated rather than illegal. Illegal catches remained relatively constant from 1980 to 1993 at around 27,000 t·year-1. Thereafter, illegal catches increased, after Guinea reduced the number of foreign fishing licences, to a peak of at least 47,400 t·year-1 in the late 1990s, then decreased to remain at a relatively constant catch of around 37,000 t·year-1 in the 2000s (Figure 8). Overall, China was responsible for the bulk of illegal catches in Guinea, with over 60% of the illegal catches between 1950 to 2010 (approximately 800,000 t), whereas vessels reflagged to Guinea and Senegal were responsible for 20% of the total illegal catch in the Guinean EEZ, followed by Korea with 10% (approximately 130,000 t, Figure 8).DiscardsDomestic discards were estimated at 1.2 million t between 1950 and 2010 (Figure 9), which is 14% of the total reconstructed domestic catch (Figure 2b). Discards increased from 2,800 t·year-1 in 1950 to a peak of 31,000 t·year-1 in the mid-1980s, before declining substantially in the late 1990s. By 2010, discards had increased again to around 27,000 t·year-1 (Figure 9). Industrial fisheries were responsible for the bulk of discards with 64% (782.171 million t) of the total discards by the Guinean fleet from 1950 to 2010, of which 40% was by the demersal sector. Artisanal discards were estimated at 436,000 t·year-1 between 1950 and 2010, i.e., 36% of the total discard by the Guinean fleets (Figure 9).Foreign discards were estimated at 7.2 million t between 1950 and 2010, 48% of which were by demersal trawlers, 20% by shrimpers, and 32% by cephalopod trawlers (Figure 10). Foreign discards increased from 16,300 t·year-1 in 1950 to a peak of 426,000 t·year-1 in 2000 then decreased to be 205,000 t·year-1 by 2010 (Figure 10).discussionThis study is the first attempt to reconstruct the recent history of Guinean fisheries catches, including all the sectors that have been identified from 1950 to 2010. Although results were based on a number of assumptions, they were supported by well documented facts, evidence and external expertise. Thus, while uncertainty around these estimates exists, they are probably more accurate than the data provided to the FAO on behalf of Guinea and the distant water 0501001502002503003504004501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearDemersalCephalopodShrimp051015202530354045501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearChinaKoreaGuineaSenegalFoC - 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearChinaKoreaGuineaFOCSenegal0102030405060701950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catches (t x 103 )YearArtisanalIndustrial CephalopodIndustrial demersalIndustrial shrimp5115225335Catches (t x 103 )ArtisanalIndustrial CephalopodIndustrial demersalIndustrial shrimpFigure 9.  Discards by the domestic sectors in Guinea, 1950-2010. Figure 10.  Discards by the foreign fleet by taxonomic group from the waters of Guinea, 1950-2010. Figure 8.  Illegal catches in the Guinean EEZ by country of origin, 1950-2010.  100fleet countries that exploit its EEZ.  Furthermore, while this study uses CPUEs documented in published literature, in-country discussions with representatives of the artisanal fishing community revealed that the CPUE could be 40% higher than the one used here on average. However, the decreasing CPUE shown in the literature was validated (Aboubacar Kaba, ROPPA, pers. comm.). Along with the over-exploitation of formerly important species such as the giant African threadfin, ray species and snappers; a major decrease in fish size was also reported (Abdullaye Soumah, Artisanal Fishers Association, pers. comm.), which is another sign of over-exploitation.Foreign fleets can significantly reduce catch opportunities for artisanal fishers, which have been declining over the last decades (EJF 2009). Indeed, the obvious spatial conflict between artisanal and foreign industrial sectors has further reduced the ability of artisanal fishers to improve their livelihoods. The poorly regulated and little monitored or enforced distant water fleets are clearly not helping here, but rather handicapping domestic fisheries and socio-economic development in Guinea. Therefore, the validity of fishing access agreements (let alone the substantial illegal fishery) offered to capture a ‘surplus’ in the Guinea EEZ is highly questionable, as the benefits to the Guinean population should be seriously considered. Repetitive evidence of illegal fishing, which is considered an international trans-boundary crime (INTERPOL 2010), by European and Asian fleets was available for decades (Anon. 2006). This, along with an obvious lack of monitoring and enforcement of Guinean fisheries (direct exports, trans-shipment, subsistence fisheries, industrial discards, processed fish3) (Solie 2004), raises serious concerns about the long term sustainability of Guinean fisheries. Furthermore, catches by foreign fleets are substantially higher than the potential catch of 200,000 t·year-1 estimated by the Guinean government (Anon. 2003). Moreover, in the mid-1990s, stocks of targeted and non-targeted species were already over-exploited, and abundance decreased (Figure 2). Therefore, the very recent 60% decrease in IUU catches (Aboubacar Kaba, ROPPA, pers. comm.) is related to the decrease in fishing opportunities for the illegal fleet in terms of ressource availability  and surveillance capacity. While decreasing industrial presence is believed to have decreased the conflicts between artisanal and industrial sectors, the increasing presence of Senegalese pirogues fishing in Guinea but landing in Senegal, creates a new type of conflict with the Guinean artisanal fishers (Abdullaye Soumah, Artisanal Fishers Association, pers. comm.).   Another aspect of Guinean fisheries which most likely contributed to the decrease in catches inspite of an increasing capacity, is the high level of corruption involving European fleets (mostly Spanish tuna vessels) and members of the Guinean government, resulting in foraged licenses4. These fleets, along with other Asian fleets, were fishing in Guinean waters but exporting catches relabelled as Senegalese, Mauritanian or under the name of any West African country obeying the EU hygiene and health standards (Aboubacar Kaba, ROPPA, pers. comm.), which is now the new fashion in West Africa.   Economically, in the 1980s Guinea received compensation 5 times lower than the ex-vessel value of landings by foreign fleets fishing under Guinean access agreements (Kaczynski 1989), and this has further increased in recent years. As the amount of fish taken from Guinean waters by foreign fleets increased, the compensation decreased from 20% in the 1980s to 3% of the landed value of catches in 2010. While this mirrors a pattern seen elsewhere in West and East Africa (Iheduru 1995; Kaczynski and Fluharty 2002; Le Manach et al. in press), the repercussions in Guinea are extensively perceived, since fishing agreements had almost no benefit on local fishing communities, now facing the expansion of their own (over-exploited) fisheries at higher fishing costs. This study highlights the importance of fisheries resources in Guinea; both as protein source and an avenue of livelihood for coastal populations. Fish is more accessible to a large part of the population than any other animal protein sources. With increasing frequency of droughts caused by climate change, this dependency on fish is likely to increase (Allison et al. 2009), and therefore the present challenges persist, the economic future of Guinean fisheries is highly uncertain.acknowledGeMentsThis report is a contribution of the Sea Around Us Project toward the project “Marine Conservation Research, Collaboration and Support in West Africa”, funded by the MAVA Foundation. The Sea Around Us Project is a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. D.B and D.C. thank the CNSHB team,  Mr. Aboubacar Kaba, ROPPA and UNPAG for their hospitality during a short stay in Guinea and for answering transparently to the authors questions. referencesAllison E, Perry AL, Badjeck MC, Adger WN, Brown K, Conway D, Halls AS, Pilling GM, Reynolds JD, Andrew NL and Dulvy NK (2009) Vulnerability of national economies to the impact of climate change on fisheries. Fish and fisheries 10: 173-196.Anon. (2003) Guinea: diagnostic trade integration study. CNSHB. 67 p.Anon. (2004) Guinea: Government changes rice distribution system after attacks on trucks. IRIN Humanitarian news and analysis, Conakry. 2 p.Anon. (2006) Witnessing the plunder 2006. How illegal fish from West African waters finds its way to the EU ports and markets. GreenPeace, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 38 p.Anon. (2011a) États des lieux nationaux–Cepia. Dynamiques halieutiques et systèmes de gestion des pêches: République de la Guinée et RNC de Tristao. Commission sous régionale des pêches, Conakry, Guinée 34 p.Anon. (2011b) Guinea Overview. African Development Bank. 18 p.3  http://www.mpl.ird.fr/ci/peg/GetInfo.html?id=0287 [accessed on March 23rd].4 This information was released under condition of anonymity.Guinean fisheries, past, present and...future-Belhabib et al. 101Anon. (2012) Dans le cadre de leur accord de pêche, la Chine offre une compensation ’pour les dommages que les chalutiers chinois infligent aux pêcheurs artisans guinéens’. Quotidien Guinée 24: 1.Bouju S (1993) Les boaty de Guinée: Presque deux siècles de pêche à la dorade. Centre National des Sciences halieutiques de Boussoura (CNSHB), Conakry, Guinée. 14 p.Chauveau J-P, Chaboud C and Jul-Larsen E (2000) Les pêches piroguières en Afrique de l’Ouest : dynamiques institutionnelles ; pouvoirs, mobilités, marchés. Karthala, ParisChavance P (1999) Traits caractéristiques et évolution récente de la pêche artisanale. pp. 295-311 In Domain F, Chavance P and Diallo A (eds.), La pêche côtière en Guinée: ressources et exploitation. IRD édition, Paris.Chavance P (2002) Pour une reconstruction d’un demi-siècle d’évolution des pêcheries en Afrique de l’Ouest. pp. 114-130 In Chavance P, BA M, Gascuel D, Vakily JM and Pauly D (eds.), Pêcheries maritimes, écosystèmes & sociétés en Afrique de l’Ouest : Un demi-siècle de changement. Actes du Symposium International Dakar, Sénégal, 24-28 Juin 2002. IRD, Bruxelles.Chavance P and Diallo A (1996) Suivi et compréhension de la dynamique des exploitations halieutiques. Première réflexion sur un observatoire des pêches en Guinée. CNSHB/Orstom, Conakry, Guinea. 23 p.Chavance P and Domalain G (1999) La pêche artisanale: histoire, structure, fonctionnement et dynamique. Notes sur les captures et les efforts de la pêche artisanale maritime. pp. 277-291 In Domain F, Chavance P and Diallo A (eds.), La pêche côtière en Guinée: ressources et exploitation. Institut de Recherche et de Développement / CNSHB, Conakry, Guinée.CNSHB (2004) La pêche crevettière en Guinée: évolution du nombre de bateau ayant pris une licence dans les trente dernières années. CNSHB. 1 p.CSRP (2009) Etude sur le savoir écologique des pêcheurs artisans des petits pélagiques en Afrique du Nord-Ouest. Projet BBI 13286 CSRP/Wageningen International. CSRP, Dakar, Sénégal 46 p.Damiano A (1999) La pêche artisanale avancée. pp. 199-210 In Domain F, Chavance P and Diallo A (eds.), La pêche côtière en Guinée : ressources et exploitation. Insitut de recherche et de développement, Conakry.Diop M and Dossa J (2011) Trente années d’exploitation des requins en Afrique de l’Ouest.3, FIBA, Arles, France. 94 p.Dobo A (2009) Illegal Chinese fishing in West African waters. A study on Chinese IUU activities and its consequences to sicio-ecological systems. Ecosystems, governance and globalisation Master’s programme thesis, Stockholm University, Stockholm. 54 p.Domain F (1999) Influence de la pêche et de l’hydroclimat sur l’évolution dans le temps du stock côtier (1985-1995). pp. 117-136 In Domain F, Chavance P and Diallo A (eds.), La pêche côtière en Guinée : ressources et exploitation. Insitut de recherche et de développement, Conakry.EJF (2006) The West African nation of Guinea is estimated to be one of the hardest hit by illegal pirate fishing. Environmental Justice Foundation. 3 p.EJF (2009) Dirty fish. How EU hygiene standards facilitate illegal fishing in West Africa. Environmental Justice Foundation, London, UK. 27 p.EU (2004) Protocol defining for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2008 the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Guinea on fishing off the coast of Guinea. Official Journal of the European Union 99: 12-64.EU (2009) Agreement in the form of an exchange of letters on the provisional application of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Guinea. Official Journal of the European Union 156: 33-34.Fontana A (1998) Les pêches maritimes guinéennes : réalité et enjeu. ORSTOM, 16 P.Gascuel D, Guenettte S, Diallo I and Sidibe A, editors (2009) Impact de la pêche sur l’écosystème marin de Guinée–modélisation EwE 1985/2005. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 17 (4). 60 p.Godoy J (2010) Illegal fishing in Guinea’s waters “worst in the world“. Inter Press Service News Agency. 3 p.Gorez B (2010) Illegal fishing in Guinea: stealing fish, stealing lives. Coalition for fair fisheries arrangements (CFFA), Bruxelles, Belgium. 3 p.Goujet R, Lootvoet B and da Veiga Coutinho MJ (1992) Commerce et transformation du poisson à Dixinn (Conakry). Éléments d’analyse historique, sociologique et économique. Document scientifique du Centre de recherche halieutique, CRHB, Boussoura, Conakry.Iheduru CO (1995) The Political Economy of Euro-African Fishing Agreements. The Journal of Developing Areas 30(1): 63-90.INTERPOL (2010) Resolution: sustainable environmental crime programme. General Assembly 79th session, Doha, Qatar. 1 p.Kaczynski VM (1989) Foreign fishing fleets in the subSaharan West African EEZ. The coastal state perspective. Marine Policy 13(1): 2-15.Kaczynski VM and Fluharty DL (2002) European policies in West Africa: who benefits from fisheries agreements? Marine Policy 26(2002): 75-93.Le Manach F, Andriamahefazafy M, Harper S, Harris A, Hosch G, Lange GM, Zeller D and Sumaila UR (In Press) Who gets what? Developing a more equitable framework for EU fishing agreements. Marine Policy 2012: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.1006.1001.Lesnoff M, Morize E and Traore S (1999) La pêcherie industrielle en Guinée: état et bilan des données disponibles. pp. 175-198 In Domain F, Chavance P and Diallo A (eds.), La pêche côtière en Guinée : ressources et exploitation. Insitut de recherche et de développement, Conakry. 102Lopriore C and Muehlhoff E (2003) Food Security and Nutrition Trends in West Africa–Challenges and the Way Forward. FAO, Rome, Italy. 24 p.Mallory GT (2012) China as a distant water fishing nation. US-China Economics and Security Review Commission, John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. 11 p.Mathew S (2001) Small-scale fisheries perspectives on an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, Reykjavik, Iceland. 18 p.Moal G (1961) Rapport de nussion d’assistance technique en matière de pêches maritim es en Guinee. Doc. multigr. 46 p.N’Dia Y (2004) Policy research – Implications of liberalization of fish trade for developing countries: a case study for Guinea. FAO, Rome, Italy. 52 p.OECD (2010) Review of fisheries in OECD countries 2009: policies and summary statistics. OECD, Paris, France. 409 p.Pauly D, Belhabib D, Cheung W, Cisneros-Montemayor A, Harper S, Lam V, Mai YY, Le Manach F, Mok KM, van der Meer L, Shon S, Swartz W, Sumaila UR, Watson R, Zhai Y and Zeller D (2012) Catches [of the Chinese distant- water fleet]. In Blomeyer R, Goulding I, Pauly D, Sanz A and Stobberup K (eds.), The role of China in World Fisheries21-29 & 81-85 European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies–Fisheries, Brussels.Pollnac RB (1985) Sociocultural issues in West African fisheries development. International Center for Marine Resource Development, Kingston, Rhode Island. 27 p.Richard T, Camara ING, Diallo ST, Keita A and Bah S (2006) Rapport national sur l’environnement marin et côtier. PNUE, Conakry, Guinée. 63 p.Sidibe A (2003) Les ressources halieutiques démersales côtières de la Guinée : exploitation, biologie et dynamique des principales espèces de la communauté à Sciaenidés. Thèse de Doctorat de l’ENSA de Rennes thesis, Agrocampus Ouest. 320 p.Solie K (2004) Evaluation du marché du poisson de Conakry à travers la consommation par individu : Approche méthodologique. 117 p.Touré DA (2006) Evaluation des aspects nutritionnels de la stratégie de réduction de la pauvreté (SRP) en Guinée. Ministère du Plan, Conakry. 37 p.von Grebmer K, Ruel MT, Purnima M, Nestorova B, Olofinbiyi T, Fritschel H and Yohannes Y (2010) Global Hunger Index: the challenge of hunger. Focus on the crisis of child undernutrition. Concern Worldwide and Welthungerhilfe, Washington D. C.Weber J and Durand H (1986) Le secteur des pêches dans les pays d’Afrique. Réunion préparatoire pour l’Afrique en vue de lâ première consultation sur l’industrie de la pêche. .86, Organisation des Nations Unies pour le dévelopement industriel, Dakar, Sénégal. 135 p.WFC (2005) Fish and Food Security in Africa. WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. 11 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.Guinean fisheries, past, present and...future-Belhabib et al. 103Appendix Table A1. Annual catches by Guinea.Year Data reported to FAO Artisanal Industrial Subsistence Discards Reconstructed catches1950 900  22,357  0    22,357  2,795  47,509 1951 900  23,013  1,445  23,013  3,709  51,180 1952 900  23,690  3,022  23,690  4,708  55,111 1953 900  24,376  4,599  24,376  5,713  59,064 1954 1,800  25,069  6,176  25,069  6,616  62,931 1955 1,800  25,771  7,753  25,771  7,611  66,906 1956 1,800  26,481  9,330  26,481  8,612  70,904 1957 2,600  27,199  10,907  27,199  9,480  74,785 1958 2,600  27,925  12,484  27,925  10,479  78,813 1959 2,600  28,659  14,061  28,659  11,483  82,862 1960 3,400  29,401  15,638  29,401  12,325  86,766 1961 3,400  30,152  17,215  30,152  13,329  90,848 1962 3,400  30,910  18,792  30,910  14,338  94,950 1963 3,400  31,677  20,369  31,677  15,350  99,073 1964 4,200  32,451  21,946  32,451  16,173  103,022 1965 4,200  33,234  23,523  33,234  17,187  107,178 1966 4,200  34,025  25,100  34,025  18,204  111,354 1967 5,000  34,824  26,677  34,824  19,016  115,342 1968 5,000  35,631  28,254  35,631  20,035  119,552 1969 5,000  36,446  29,831  36,446  21,057  123,781 1970 5,000  37,270  31,408  37,270  22,082  128,030 1971 7,300  38,101  32,985  38,101  22,471  131,658 1972 7,300  38,941  34,562  38,941  23,493  135,936 1973 8,500  39,788  36,139  39,788  24,175  139,891 1974 11,100  40,644  37,716  40,644  24,450  143,454 1975 12,370  41,508  39,293  41,508  25,099  147,408 1976 8,920  42,380  40,870  42,380  27,130  152,760 1977 8,120  43,260  42,447  43,260  28,398  157,365 1978 9,000  44,148  44,024  44,148  29,170  161,490 1979 17,453  45,044  45,601  45,044  27,661  163,351 1980 18,900  45,949  47,219  45,989  28,250  167,406 1981 20,700  46,861  48,837  44,830  28,729  169,256 1982 22,600  47,782  50,454  43,592  29,174  171,002 1983 24,400  48,728  52,031  42,255  29,643  172,656 1984 26,200  49,053  53,649  40,356  29,989  173,047 1985 28,000  50,229  55,524  39,179  30,601  175,532 1986 30,500  50,988  51,733  37,636  27,967  168,324 1987 32,000  51,753  50,698  36,117  27,489  166,058 1988 35,000  52,524  49,745  34,549  26,602  163,420 1989 38,000  53,300  48,465  32,677  25,624  160,065 1990 41,000  56,899  46,898  32,115  25,239  161,152 1991 46,000  62,355  45,206  32,115  24,603  164,279 1992 51,000  67,755  43,955  31,824  24,245  167,779 1993 56,000  67,798  42,727  28,807  22,685  162,017 1994 60,000  67,787  41,380  25,695  21,218  156,080 1995 64,760  67,623  39,879  22,480  19,345  149,327 1996 60,580  67,683  38,377  19,360  19,819  145,238 1997 58,841  73,088  36,806  17,482  21,256  148,633 1998 65,764  66,782  35,307  12,900  17,086  132,075 1999 83,314  66,055  34,038  9,741  11,802  121,637 2000 87,513  71,498  32,665  7,276  12,343  123,782 2001 101,227  98,735  31,464  9,806  14,189  154,193 2002 87,358  101,511  32,575  9,296  20,947  164,329 2003 114,845  101,154  31,638  8,757  15,890  157,439 2004 88,550  100,637  30,534  8,190  20,082  159,443 2005 98,566  100,121  30,793  7,629  17,712  156,255 2006 94,489  113,524  31,367  8,224  21,331  174,445 2007 70,823  128,280  31,895  8,651  27,095  195,922 2008 81,240  141,722  32,511  8,915  28,108  211,256 2009 81,000  155,868  33,083  9,015  29,676  227,642 2010 93,000  154,045  33,810  8,159  27,010  223,024   104Appendix Table A2. Total reconstructed catches by taxon caught by the domestic fisheries of Guinea, 1950-2010. Year Pseudotolithus spp.Threadfins Arius spp.Ethmalosa fimbriataClupeoids Pomadasys spp.Cynoglossusspp.Cephalopods Scombroids Sparidae Othersa1950 3,062 356 1,464 19,225 16,432 127 0 0 347 1,238 5,2581951 3,659 590 1,746 19,831 16,920 239 161 675 359 1,312 5,6901952 4,308 846 2,052 20,453 17,423 360 337 1,415 371 1,391 6,1561953 4,959 1,103 2,360 21,075 17,931 483 514 2,160 382 1,470 6,6271954 5,446 1,321 2,589 21,870 18,396 588 672 2,821 382 1,503 7,3421955 6,096 1,576 2,896 22,523 18,918 709 847 3,556 395 1,583 7,8091956 6,748 1,832 3,204 23,176 19,445 831 1,022 4,295 407 1,664 8,2801957 7,240 2,043 3,435 24,166 19,939 932 1,173 4,926 410 1,706 8,8151958 7,893 2,298 3,744 24,836 20,479 1,054 1,348 5,662 423 1,788 9,2901959 8,549 2,554 4,053 25,507 21,024 1,175 1,524 6,401 436 1,870 9,7691960 9,034 2,759 4,282 26,397 21,539 1,273 1,668 7,008 440 1,915 10,4511961 9,691 3,015 4,592 27,086 22,097 1,395 1,844 7,745 453 1,998 10,9311962 10,351 3,272 4,904 27,777 22,660 1,518 2,020 8,486 466 2,081 11,4161963 11,013 3,530 5,216 28,471 23,228 1,640 2,197 9,228 479 2,165 11,9041964 11,494 3,730 5,443 29,277 23,770 1,735 2,337 9,816 485 2,214 12,7211965 12,158 3,988 5,757 29,988 24,351 1,858 2,513 10,558 498 2,298 13,2111966 12,824 4,247 6,071 30,703 24,937 1,981 2,690 11,302 512 2,383 13,7041967 13,304 4,443 6,297 32,339 25,498 2,075 2,828 11,879 518 2,434 13,7251968 13,972 4,702 6,613 33,063 26,097 2,198 3,005 12,623 532 2,520 14,2271969 14,643 4,962 6,929 33,792 26,701 2,322 3,182 13,369 546 2,606 14,7311970 15,315 5,222 7,247 34,665 27,310 2,445 3,360 14,115 559 2,693 15,0981971 15,432 5,292 7,302 36,704 27,843 2,480 3,415 14,346 554 2,683 15,6091972 16,104 5,551 7,619 37,456 28,465 2,603 3,592 15,089 568 2,771 16,1191973 16,485 5,709 7,799 38,875 29,051 2,678 3,703 15,556 572 2,809 16,6541974 16,521 5,747 7,815 41,071 29,594 2,697 3,735 15,692 565 2,790 17,2271975 16,882 5,896 7,985 42,559 30,191 2,768 3,840 16,130 569 2,827 17,7621976 18,411 6,453 8,708 41,407 30,957 3,031 4,210 17,688 613 3,059 18,2231977 19,289 6,784 9,123 41,738 31,636 3,188 4,434 18,625 634 3,182 18,7321978 19,752 6,968 9,341 43,023 32,263 3,276 4,561 19,161 642 3,236 19,2671979 18,319 6,481 8,663 48,410 32,642 3,048 4,249 17,848 589 2,982 20,1191980 18,651 6,617 8,817 50,050 33,293 3,111 4,339 18,229 593 3,016 20,6911981 18,894 6,719 8,929 51,198 32,523 3,158 4,409 18,520 595 3,036 21,2761982 19,112 6,812 9,028 52,403 31,698 3,200 4,471 18,784 596 3,053 21,8451983 19,340 6,908 9,136 53,517 30,811 3,246 4,539 19,068 598 3,075 22,4201984 19,477 6,986 9,198 54,181 29,513 3,283 4,597 19,312 592 3,064 22,8451985 19,853 7,131 9,364 55,477 28,750 3,343 4,683 19,671 598 3,105 23,5571986 18,380 6,413 8,678 55,508 27,813 2,984 4,151 17,436 580 3,082 23,2991987 17,854 6,181 8,397 55,622 26,778 2,848 3,945 16,977 576 3,024 23,8541988 17,760 5,894 8,376 54,476 26,167 2,658 3,665 16,143 559 3,355 24,3671989 17,542 5,557 8,331 53,179 25,335 2,466 3,387 15,266 541 3,691 24,7711990 17,490 5,290 8,350 52,979 25,378 2,326 3,170 14,611 557 4,005 26,9951991 17,495 4,945 8,424 54,721 25,987 2,141 2,881 13,680 581 4,479 28,9461992 18,469 4,734 9,005 54,762 26,879 1,989 2,643 12,858 599 5,406 30,4341993 17,875 4,292 8,809 53,036 25,225 1,758 2,326 11,618 544 5,671 30,8621994 16,705 3,838 8,272 52,758 23,060 1,550 2,041 10,272 828 5,541 31,2151995 17,383 3,496 8,807 47,271 22,198 1,307 1,708 8,936 896 6,645 30,6821996 16,307 3,604 8,237 48,957 21,096 1,349 1,750 9,204 2,834 5,897 26,0041997 15,983 3,606 7,561 55,084 18,237 1,435 1,838 9,894 1,998 6,032 26,9631998 13,152 2,372 6,220 46,931 16,621 1,013 1,296 7,653 1,652 4,725 30,4391999 7,352 1,042 3,965 48,496 16,270 413 510 4,078 500 4,083 34,9282000 10,796 1,047 6,150 41,596 19,003 396 483 2,873 427 2,654 38,3562001 13,419 835 8,391 59,830 16,429 290 190 1,378 1,481 6,162 45,7892002 20,036 2,484 10,023 61,268 14,942 1,005 1,180 6,510 1,159 4,866 40,8572003 16,484 1,985 13,446 67,130 10,471 378 440 2,435 225 2,254 42,1912004 18,568 3,655 9,823 57,452 9,112 905 1,056 5,876 533 3,052 49,4122005 21,186 3,373 7,946 35,800 7,480 637 720 4,021 3,306 2,027 69,7602006 25,597 4,233 9,406 57,665 10,376 898 951 5,337 1,257 3,240 55,4842007 24,136 4,340 11,331 73,962 13,406 1,449 1,488 8,380 1,224 6,456 49,7482008 27,864 4,313 16,440 81,826 13,076 1,385 1,348 7,624 1,757 5,875 49,7492009 29,827 4,488 17,336 89,873 14,184 1,439 1,292 7,332 1,993 6,742 53,1362010 27,175 3,767 16,173 84,100 20,521 1,173 987 5,417 4,289 6,081 53,339a) include Elasmobranchii, Carangidae, Mugilidae, Sparidae, Drepane africana, P. notialis, Penaeus kerathurus, and various fishes.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.52383.1-0354243/manifest

Comment

Related Items