UBC Faculty Research and Publications

Fisheries Catch Reconstructions : Islands : Part IV Zylich, Kyrstn; Zeller, Dirk, 1961-; Ang, Melanie; Pauly, D. (Daniel) 2014

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
52383-Zylich_K_et_al_Fisheries_catch_reconstructions.pdf [ 7.09MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 52383-1.0354318.json
JSON-LD: 52383-1.0354318-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 52383-1.0354318-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 52383-1.0354318-rdf.json
Turtle: 52383-1.0354318-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 52383-1.0354318-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 52383-1.0354318-source.json
Full Text
52383-1.0354318-fulltext.txt
Citation
52383-1.0354318.ris

Full Text

ISSN 1198-6727Number 22014 Volume 22Fisheries Centre Research ReportsFisheries catch reconstructions:islands, Part iVISSN 1198-6727 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, CanadaFisheries Centre Research Reports2014 Volume 22  Number 2Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, Part iVEdited byFisheries Centre Research Reports 22(2)157 pages © published 2014 byThe Fisheries Centre,University of British Columbia2202 Main MallVancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4 ISSN 1198-6727 Kyrstn Zylich, Dirk Zeller, Melanie Ang 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 22(2)157 pages © Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2014Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(2)2014Edited byPreface iReconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Anguilla (1950 - 2010) 1Robin Ramdeen, Kyrstn Zylich, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for the British Virgin Islands (1950 - 2010) 9Robin Ramdeen, Sarah Harper, Kyrstn Zylich, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of domestic fisheries catches in the Chagos Archipelago: 1950 - 2010 17Dirk Zeller and Daniel PaulyReconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Cuba (1950 - 2010) 25Andrea Au, Kyrstn Zylich, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Dominica (1950 - 2010) 33Robin Ramdeen, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for the Dominican Republic (1950 - 2010) 43Liesbeth van der Meer, Robin Ramdeen, Kyrstn Zylich, and Dirk ZellerThe catch of living marine resources around Greenland from 1950 t0 2010 55Shawn Booth and Danielle KnipReconstructing Icelandic catches from 1950 to 2010 73Hreiðar Þór ValtýssonReconstruction of marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Kiribati (1950 - 2010) 89Kyrstn Zylich, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of total marine catches for the Maldives: 1950 – 2010 107Mark Hemmings, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of the Republic of the Marshall Islands fisheries catches: 1950 - 2010 121Andrea Haas, Sarah Harper, Kyrstn Zylich, James Hehre, and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for St. Kitts and Nevis (1950 - 2010) 129Robin Ramdeen, Kyrstn Zylich, and Dirk ZellerReconstructing Singapore’s marine fisheries catch, 1950 - 2010 137Loida CorpusReconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for the Republic of Vanuatu, 1950 - 2010 147Kyrstn Zylich, Soohyun Shon, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerAppendix: Notes on the completion of FAO Form Fishstat NS1 (National Summary) 157S.P. MarriottKyrstn Zylich, Dirk Zeller, Melanie Ang and Daniel PaulyiThis is the fourth of our Fisheries Centre Research Reports featuring catch reconstructions for islands.  Like its predecessors, a wide variety of islands is covered; some are countries in their own right, e.g., Iceland, while others are overseas territories of other countries, e.g., the British Virgin Islands.This set of reconstructions is particular, however, in that it includes the largest island in the world, Greenland, where all living resources, including seabirds and marine mammals are exploited, as well as the Chagos Archipelagos in the Indian Ocean, where all legal exploitation ceased when its Exclusive Economic Zone was declared a marine reserve in 2010, at the very end of the period covered here.There are six reconstructions from the Caribbean Islands, ranging in size from Cuba to tiny Anguilla, and five from the Pacific, ranging from wealthy Singapore, with a minuscule EEZ to impoverished and tiny Kiribati, with an immense EEZ.As well, we present here, as an appendix, a reprinted version of ‘Notes on the Completion of FAO Form Fishstat NS1 (National Summary)’ by S.P Marriott, a now deceased author then based in Kiribati.  His contribution, originally published in 1984, and meant to be humorous, contained more than a grain of truth and it seems appropriate to reprint it here as the catch reconstructions presented herein are meant to correct for the deficient process to assemble catch statistics that he took issue with.We hope that these 15 contributions, which were assembled as part of our attempt to re-estimate the history of global fisheries, will be found to be useful on their own as well.We thank The Pew Charitable Trusts for funding the Sea Around Us, and the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation for supporting the publication of this work, and the subsequent release of data. We take this opportunity, finally, to thank the several external colleagues and the Sea Around Us team members who contributed to the reconstructions documented herein.The Editors July 2014PreFaceAnguilla - Ramdeen et al. 1reconstruction oF total marine Fisheries catches For anguilla (1950-2010)1Robin Ramdeen, Kyrstn Zylich, and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canadar.ramdeen@fisheries.ubc.ca; k.zylich@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstractAccurately recording marine fisheries catches is difficult in both space and time and thus under-reporting of fisheries catches occurs worldwide. inconsistencies in fisheries data collection in Anguilla mean that fisheries statistics are deficient for this British overseas territory in the Caribbean. Reconstructed total catches were estimated at approximately 49,000 t for the period 1950-2010, which is 2.75 times the official landings of 17,854 t reported by the FAO on behalf of Anguilla. The difference can be attributed to under-reporting from artisanal, subsistence and recreational sectors. Under-reported fisheries catches can lead to over estimations of available marine resources.introductionAnguilla is the most northerly of the Leeward Islands in the Eastern Caribbean, located between 18° N and 63° W. It is an arid, low lying coralline island, with a land area of 91 km2, which borders the Atlantic Ocean in the North and the Caribbean Sea in the South (Figure 1). Anguilla’s submarine platform is shared with Saint Martin, Sint Maarten and Saint Barths. The island has a declared Exclusive Economic Zone of slightly over 92,000 km2 (www .seaaroundus.org).The first known residents of Anguilla were the Arawak Indians, originating from South America. Rene Laudonniere, the French explorer, was probably the first European to formally recognise the island, calling it Anguille (French for ‘eel’) because of its elongated shape (Kozleski 2004). The British Government created a federation between Anguilla and St. Kitts in 1871, with Nevis joining soon after (Kozleski 2004). However, soon after the federation was formed, Anguillans became resentful about the way St. Kitts dominated the tri-island grouping. In 1967, Anguilla rebelled and police from St. Kitts were employed to defend the federation. Another rebellion ensued in 1969 (Ferguson 1997) and Britain had to intervene. In 1980, with support from Britain, Anguilla succeeded in separating from St. Kitts and Nevis. Today, Anguilla remains a British overseas territory in the Caribbean (Ferguson 1997).Historically, salt production, lobster fishing and overseas employment were the main sources of income in Anguilla. In the early 1980s, the government began an aggressive marketing campaign to position Anguilla as a luxury tourist destination. With its white sand beaches and turquoise seas, Anguilla has a tourism industry that today contributes around 50% to national GDP, whilst fishing accounts for approximately 2% (Lum Kong 2007). The fisheries of Anguilla are multi-gear and multi-species. The majority of fishing in Anguilla is done with traditional Antillean arrowhead traps (Richardson 1984) which are used to target lobsters and finfish, such as parrotfish (Scaridae), goatfish (Mullidae) and squirrelfishes (Holocentridae). There is also a small fishery for queen conch, with most conch fishers using SCUBA gear (Wynne 2010) on trips organised to fill specific orders (Lum Kong 2007).The lobster fishery is the most prosperous fishery in Anguilla (Olsen and Ogden 1981; Lum Kong 2007). Spiny lobsters, Panulirus argus and P. guttatus, known locally as ‘crayfish’, are caught using traps baited with cow hide. A small but growing hand-capture fishery also exists, where fishers snorkel at night to capture foraging individuals (Wynne 2010). Hook and line techniques are commonly used by fishers targeting deep slope species such as groupers and hinds (Serranidae), as well as snappers (Lutjanidae), while seine nets are used on occasion to land small schooling pelagics, such as jacks (Carangidae) and herrings (Clupeidae). There is an emerging offshore FAD (fish aggregating 1  Cite as: Ramdeen, R., Zylich, K. and Zeller, D. (2014) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Anguilla (1950-2010). pp. 1-8. In: Zylich, K., Zeller, D., Ang, M. and Pauly, D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  Map showing position of Anguilla with line demarcating EEZ. 2device) fishery targeting dolphin fish (Coryphaena hippurus), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), tuna, marlin and swordfish on a request basis. These large pelagics are also targeted by a small recreational sector made up of locals and hotel operated vessels, as well as foreign vessels from St. Martin (Lum Kong 2007). Spearfishing for subsistence purposes is done on occasion by locals (Murray et al. 1999), whereas this activity is strictly prohibited for tourists visiting the island.The population of fishers operating in Anguilla has increased substantially since 1975. Olsen and Ogden (1981) noted that there were 89 active fishers in 1974 (Table 1). This number has increased over the years, with the most recent estimate being 500 active fishers in 2007 (Gumbs and Rawlins 2007). The open access nature of the fishing industry has contributed to over-fished inshore resources (Gumbs 2003). Fishing is usually done twice weekly and catches are landed at several sites, including Island Harbour, Cove Bay, Sandy Ground, Sandy Hill Bay, Forest Bay, Little Harbour, Blowing Point and Crocus Bay (Lum Kong 2007). Additionally, fishers on the west will land catches on neighbouring St. Martin biweekly. Fish is mainly marketed unprocessed to hotels, restaurants and central markets, with lobsters mainly sold to hotels and restaurants.There are no trade data in the FAO database for Anguilla. However, colonial records for the islands of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla show seafood imports of, on average, 450 t∙year-1 from 1955-1962 for the tri-island federation. Thus, it can be assumed that some portion of this seafood was supplied to Anguilla. Since the early 1960s, Anguilla’s lobster trap fishery has supported a lucrative lobster trade of around 2.5 t·month-1 (FAO 1969) to neighbouring islands such as St. Martin, which is the largest export market for Anguillan seafood products (Jones 1985). Before the 1990s, it was estimated that about 40% of all finfish and 75% of all lobster caught in Anguilla were exported to St. Martin, St. Thomas and Puerto Rico. However, since the growth of the tourist industry on Anguilla, it is now estimated that export figures are below 10% (Gumbs 2003).Sampling for catch and effort data was initiated in 1986, however data collection was carried out opportunistically depending on the availability of a vehicle for transport (Gumbs 2003). In 1991, the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources was established, although regular fisheries data collection began only in 2008 (J. Gumbs, pers. comm., Fisheries Department). Presently, data on fisheries landings are collected in three categories: finfish, lobster and conch. Data collection takes place during weekdays at 5 sites: Island Harbour, Crocus Bay, Road Bay, Cove Bay and Blowing Point. Meanwhile, boats also land catches at three other well known sites: Forest Bay, Little Harbour and Meads Bay (Ken Rawlins, pers. comm., Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources) as well as Sandy Hill Bay. Although it is known that fish are landed at these other sites, only recorded landings are included in the statistics and no estimates are made to account for landings made at unmonitored sites. Further, due to the direct exporting of fish to St. Martin, analysis of landings by local fishers becomes difficult, as no customs records are available for these exports (Jones 1985).Without reliable island-wide catch data as well as trade data, it is difficult to make informed fisheries management decisions. A complete review of all available fisheries reports was undertaken to reconstruct Anguilla’s total fisheries catches for the period 1950-2010.methodsStudies on fisheries catches in Anguilla have been presented by FAO (1969), Olsen and Ogden (1981), Richardson (1984), Jones (1985), Gumbs (2003), Lum Kong (2007), and Gumbs and Rawlins (2007). The most comprehensive description of Anguilla’s fishing industry is that of Jones (1985). Using information on household and non-household seafood consumption from Jones (1985), together with local and tourist population data for Anguilla, we reconstructed the seafood demand in Anguilla from 1950-2010. To estimate seafood exports from Anguilla, we utilised trade proportions presented by Gumbs (2003) along with reconstructed domestically-consumed catches to deduce catches being exported from the island. Finally, we apply a minimal recreational catch per tourist to estimate catches made by the recreational sector.Domestic and tourist populationData on Anguilla’s local population were available for 1960, 1994 and 2001 from the national statistics website ( http://gov.ai/statistics/statistics.htm). Using linear interpolation between anchor points, and carrying this trend backward to 1950 and forward to 2010 we reconstructed the human population of Anguilla 1950-2010. Over a 40 year period, Anguilla’s population has doubled from 5,810 in 1960 to over 11,550 in 2001 (Figure 2).Table 1.   Data sources on number of fishers in Anguilla.Year No. active fishers Source1974 89 Olsen & Ogden (1981)1978 320 Olsen & Ogden (1981)1984 332 Jones (1985)2007 500 Gumbs (2007)02468101214161950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Local Population (x 103 )YearFigure 2.  Total local population data for Anguilla during the period 1950-2010.Anguilla - Ramdeen et al. 3Data on the number of stop-over tourists (travelers who stay on the island for more than one day) were available from the Statistics Department of Anguilla2 for 1981-1998 and from the Caribbean Tourism Organisation3 for 2000-2010. We assumed tourism started in 1950, so a direct linear interpolation was done to estimate the tourist population in years with missing data. The population of stop-over tourists has increased by an order of magnitude from around 6,500 in 1980 to over 60,000 in 2010 (Figure 3).Small-scale catchesDomestically-consumed catchesSeafood consumption by locals and tourists in Anguilla in 1984 was assessed by Jones (1985). Per capita consumption of fresh finfish, lobster and conch were surveyed in households as well as hotels, restaurants and guesthouses (Table 2).Using seafood consumption rates for households and non-households, together with population data for local Anguillans and stop-over tourists on the island, we reconstructed the domestically-consumed seafood demand. In order to avoid over-estimation, we assumed the seafood consumption rates presented by Jones (1985) are in whole (wet) weights, although they likely represent product weights. FAO applies conversion rates from product to wet weight for conch and lobster. Thus, in certain instances FAO values were slightly higher than our reconstructed catches. Thus, we accepted FAO values for queen conch from 1974-1989, 1992 and 2009-2010 and for lobster from 1977-1983.Exported catchesBased on Gumbs (2003), we attributed 40% of finfish and 75% of lobster catches in 1950 to exports. Thus, reconstructed domestically-consumed catches of finfish and lobster which were not exported accounted for 60% and 25% of total finfish and lobster catches in 1950, respectively. The rapid rise in tourism created increased demand for seafood on the island, and thus less that 10% of finfish and lobster was exported from Anguilla from 2000 onwards (Gumbs 2003). Thus, reconstructed domestically-consumed catches of finfish and lobster, only accounted for 90% of total catches by the 2010. Using direct linear interpolation, we scaled the export proportions from 40% finfish and 75% lobster exports in 1981 to 10% each in 2010. In this way, we were able to reconstruct the catches exported from Anguilla for the period 1950-2010.Since it is known that fishers engage in subsistence fishing (Mukhida and Gumbs 2007), we assumed some proportion of our domestically-consumed catches to comprise not only artisanal catches but subsistence catches as well (Lum Kong 2007). To assign small-scale catches to artisanal and subsistence sectors, it was assumed that in 1950, 80% of near-shore catches were for subsistence purposes and 20% were for sale (artisanal). In 2010, 60% of near-shore catches were attributed to the subsistence sector and 40% to the artisanal sector. A linear interpolation was done between these two years to derive an assumed assignment by sector for the entire 1950-2010 time-period.2  http://www.gov.ai/statistics/ [Accessed August 2012]3  http://www.onecaribbean.org/ [Accessed: August 2012]Table 2.   Fresh seafood consumption rates in Anguilla (Jones 1985).Consumption (kg/person/year)Fish Lobster ConchHouseholds 23.6 0.8 1.8Hotels & restaurants 7.7 5.3 2.50204060801950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Tourist Population (x 103 )YearTable 3.   Taxonomic breakdown applied to reconstructed catches from Anguilla, based on FAO data for St. Kitts and Nevis as well as Lum Kong (2007).ProportionTaxon 1950 2010Acanthocybium solandri 0.005 0.003Acanthuridae 0.050 0.010Atherinidae 0.000 0.010Balistidae 0.000 0.005Belonidae 0.000 0.013Carangidae 0.050 0.008Carangidae 0.050 0.275Decapterus 0.050 0.126Clupeidae 0.050 0.172Corryphaenidae 0.005 0.008Dasyatidae 0.000 0.010Engraulidae 0.050 0.126Exocotidae 0.050 0.011Haemulidae 0.100 0.006Holocentridae 0.050 0.003Lutjanidae 0.150 0.022                         Meluccius spp. 0.000 <0.001Mullidae 0.050 0.015Myliobatidae 0.000 0.010Pomacanthidae 0.000 0.010Scaridae 0.000 0.012Scombridae 0.010 0.091Sardinella 0.010 0.037Serranidae 0.200 0.009Sparidae 0.050 0.001Trichiuridae 0.000 0.002Misc. marine fishes 0.020 0.008Figure 3.  Stop-over tourists population for Anguilla during the period 1950-2010. 4Recreational fisheryKlausing (1978) conservatively estimated catches from the recreational sector of the Anguilla, which averaged to a rate of about 1.0 kg∙tourist-1∙year-1. Assuming participation of tourists in recreational fishing in Anguilla was 10% in 1950 and 20% in 2010, we calculated the number of recreational fishing tourists. Applying the modest rate from Klausing (1978), we conservatively estimated catches from Anguilla’s recreational sector for the time period 1950-2010. These may be substantial underestimates.Taxonomic compositionLum Kong (2007) presented a list of marine species targeted by fisheries, but without quantitative information. To further disaggregate finfish catches into more informative taxonomic components, we used the 2000-2010 FAO landings composition breakdown for St. Kitts and Nevis, both neighbouring islands. This was the time period when the most disaggregated species breakdown was available. Conch and lobster data were removed since these were reconstructed separately. Taking the 2000-2010 average species composition from St. Kitts and Nevis, together with some additions from Lum Kong (2007), we derived an assumed taxonomic breakdown for Anguilla reconstructed catches in 2010. For the 1950 anchor point, we re-allotted proportions to each species based on our knowledge of changes in reef species over time (Table 3). We interpolated between these anchor points to derive a taxonomic breakdown for Anguillan finfish catches for the period 1950-2010.Catches of conch were designated to queen conch, Strombus gigas, based on the predominance of this strombid species in Caribbean catches. The Caribbean spiny lobster fishery for Panulirus argus was established since the early 1960s (Olsen and Ogden 1981; Lum Kong 2007), but over the past 20 years fishers have also increasingly targeted Panulirus guttatus as well (Lum Kong 2007). Since this smaller lobster species averages 2-3 lbs (0.91-1.36 kg), it is preferred by restaurants because of its simpler and more profitable portion control (Hodge 1993; Gumbs 2003a). To disaggregate lobster catches by species, we assumed in 1950 that 95% of lobster catches comprised P. argus, while 5% comprised P. guttatus. From 2000-2010, we assumed a 50:50 split between these two species. Interpolating between the 1950 anchor point and the 2000 anchor point, we disaggregated catches of lobster for the period 1950-2010.resultsDomestically-consumed catches were estimated at slightly over 34,100 t, while exported catches amounted to nearly 15,000 t. Examining reconstructed catches by sector, subsistence catches dominated with nearly 22,500 t, while artisanal and recreational catches comprised around 26,400 t and 230 t, respectively for the time period 1950-2010 (Figure 4a). Thus, total reconstructed catches were approximately 49,000 t for the period 1950-2010, which is 2.75 times the official landings of 17,854 t reported by the FAO on behalf of Anguilla (Figure 4a). Total unreported catches from 1950-2010 were around 31,300 t, being on average nearly 510 t∙year-1 for the time period 1950-2010.Catches of lobster were dominant, with Panulirus argus comprising 16% and P. guttatus 11% of total catches (Figure 4b). Groupers (Serranidae; 12%), queen conch (10%), snappers (Lutjanidae; 9%) and grunts (Haemulidae; 6%) were also dominant in catches. Small, schooling pelagic species such as jacks (Carangidae; 6%), clupeids (3%) and sardines (Sardinella; 3%) were common as well. The remaining 22% comprised 17 families and a pooled ‘marine fishes’ category (Figure 4b).discussionIn 1984, seafood products worth an estimated US$2.2 million were caught by Anguillan fishers (Jones 1985). This included some US$1.3 million worth of exports, making the fishing industry the most valuable foreign currency earner after tourism (Jones 1985). A census in the same year indicated that 7% of the working population were full-time fishers. 00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.0SubsistenceRecreationalSupplied to FAOArtisanala)00.20.40.60.81.01.21.41.61.82.01950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearPanulirus argusSardinella spp.SerranidaeOther Panulirus spp.Strombus spp.LutjanidaeHaemulidaeCarangidaeb)OthersClupeidaeFigure 4.  Reconstructed total catch for Anguilla a) by fishing sector, with data reported by FAO on behalf of Anguilla overlaid as line graph; and b) by major taxa, with ‘others’ representing contributions from 17 minor families plus ‘marine fishes nei’.Anguilla - Ramdeen et al. 5However, despite the evident socio-economic importance of Anguilla’s small-scale fisheries, government spending for the effective management of fisheries is severely lacking in Anguilla. Several limitations in the Department of Marine and Fisheries Resources have been reported and include inadequate staffing and additional workloads (Gumbs 2003). Consequently, comprehensive data-collection, analysis and reporting is poor in Anguilla. When fisheries managers use poor catch data as a basis for management measures, it is likely that under-reported catches will lead to over-estimates of resource availability. Total catches for Anguilla as reconstructed here were more than twice the landings reported to the FAO by national agencies. The difference can be attributed to under-reporting of small-scale fisheries, from artisanal, subsistence and recreational sectors. Without reliable island-wide catch data, it is difficult to make informed fisheries management decisions.Already, fishers are fishing at increasingly further distances from the traditional inshore reef area, due to declining catches near-shore (Mukhida and Gumbs 2007). With the trend of stop-over tourists increasing, the impact of tourists on the island’s marine resources should not be overlooked. The estimate of recreational catches taken by tourists totalled over 200 tonnes and is rather conservative but highlights that the sector exists and proper monitoring and accounting is needed.Our reconstruction did not estimate catches made by foreign fishers in Anguilla’s EEZ. Historically, the presence of St. Martin fishers has been documented, but data on their effort and catches were not available (Jones 1985). This needs addressing by Anguillan authorities. Thus, total removals in Anguillan waters are likely higher than our reconstructed estimates. Our reconstruction of Anguilla’s historic fisheries catches should be viewed as a first-order improvement of the historic catch data, which should lead to improved monitoring and estimation of actual total annual catches in Anguilla.acknowledgementsThis work was completed as part of Sea Around Us, a scientific collaboration between The University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. We are grateful to Mr. James Gumbs and Mr. Kenroy Rawlins of the Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources in Anguilla for their assistance in understanding the fisheries sector of Anguilla.reFerencesFAO (1969) Report to the government of Saint Kitts Nevis and Anguilla: Exploratory and experimental fishing around Saint Kitts and Nevis. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy. 6 p.Ferguson J (1997) Eastern Caribbean: A guide to the people, politics and culture, 1 edition edition. Interlink Pub Group Inc.Gumbs J and Rawlins K (2007) Anguilla national report. In CFRM Fisheries Report: National Reports: Report of the third Annual Scientific Meeting, Kingstown, St.Vincent and the Grenadines. 4 p.Gumbs JC (2003) National report on the fishing industry of Anguilla Prepared for the CFU/FAO Training Workshop on “Fisheries Statistics and Data Management” 10-22 March 2003, UWI, Barbados. 5 p.Hodge, R. J. (1993). A critical analysis of the lobster fishing industry in Anguilla. U.K., University of Hull. Unpublished Master of Science.Jones TP (1985) The fishing industry of Anguilla 1985. A report prepared for the Anguillan government and commonwealth secretariat Anguilla. 38 p.Klausing JH (1978) Feasibility study for a medium scale industry. UNIDO.Kozleski L (2004) Leeward islands. Mason Crest Publishers, Philadelphia. 63 p.Lum Kong A (2007) Report on the Anguilla fisheries, marine, coastal sector. Biodiversity Conservation Inc., Cannonball Complex, The Valley, Anguilla. 49 p.Mukhida F and Gumbs J (2007) Linking the social to the natural: A socioeconomic review of Shoal-Bay-Island Harbous, Anguilla. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Anguilla. 61 p.Murray PA, Keith N, Vasantha C and Roland H (1999) Logical framework analysis as a tool for management of a tropical fishery. In 52nd Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Key West, Florida. 262 p.Olsen DA and Ogden JC (1981) Management planning for Anguilla’s fishing industry. Eastern Caribbean Natural Areas Program, Christiansted, St.Croix. 43 p.Richardson LV (1984) Anguilla. In Wood J (ed.), The workshop on biosphere reserves and other protected areas forsustainable development of small Caribbean islands, Atlanta.Wynne S (2010) Status of Anguilla’s Marine Resources 2010. Department of Fisheries and Marine Resources for the Government of Anguilla, Anguilla. 46 p. 6Appendix Table A1.  List of marine fish taxa targeted in Anguilla (Lum Kong 2007).The finfish (reef fish) trap fisheryShallow reef and grass areas Red hind (Epinephelus guttatus)Butterfish (Epinephelus fulvus)Spotted eagle ray (Aetobatus narinari)Stingray (Dasyatis spp.)Blue Tang (Acanthurus coeruleus)aYellow tail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus)aGrunts (Haemulidae)Doctorfish (Acanthuridae)Parrotfish (Scaridae)Porgy (Sparidae)Goatfish (Mullidae)Squirrelfish (Holocentridae)Triggerfish (Balistidae)Angelfish (Pomacanthidae)Deep reef areas Deepwater red snapper (Lutjanidae)Blackfin snapper (Lutjanus buccanella)Silk snapper (Lutjanus vivanus)Queen snapper (Etelis oculatus)Groupers (Serranidae)The line fisheryShallow reef Snappers (Lutjanidae)Groupers and Hinds (Serranidae)Deep reef Snappers (Lutjanidae)Groupers (Serranidae)The seine net fisheryHorse eye jack (Caranx latus)Crevalle jack (C. hippos)Bar jack (C. ruber)Bonito (Euthynnus alleteratus)Ballyhoo (Hemiramphus spp.)Scads (Decapterus spp.)Herrings (Clupeidae)Silversides (Atherinidae)The lobster trap fisherySpiny lobster (Panulirus argus)Spotted spiny lobster (Panulirus guttatus)The conch fisheryQueen conch (Strombus gigas) a (Abernethy, 2005)Anguilla - Ramdeen et al. 7Appendix Table A2.  FAO landings vs. reconstructed total catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector for Anguilla, 1950-2010.Year FAO landings Reconstructed total catch Artisanal Subsistence Recreational1950 - 222 117 105 -1951 - 233 124 109 -1952 - 244 132 112 -1953 - 256 139 116 -1954 - 267 147 120 -1955 - 278 154 124 -1956 - 290 162 127 -1957 - 301 170 131 -1958 - 312 177 135 -1959 - 323 185 138 -1960 - 335 193 142 -1961 - 347 201 146 -1962 - 360 210 150 -1963 - 372 218 154 -1964 - 385 227 158 -1965 - 398 236 162 -1966 - 410 244 165 -1967 - 423 253 169 -1968 - 435 262 173 11969 - 448 271 177 11970 101 460 279 180 11971 101 473 288 184 11972 101 486 297 188 11973 101 498 306 191 11974 207 522 318 203 11975 207 534 327 206 11976 207 546 336 209 11977 257 558 345 212 11978 257 569 354 214 11979 257 581 363 217 11980 345 631 384 247 11981 345 643 393 249 11982 345 635 382 252 11983 375 659 394 264 11984 395 727 436 290 21985 395 840 506 331 21986 585 944 537 404 31987 542 1,012 582 426 31988 507 1,154 670 479 51989 465 1,134 661 469 51990 421 1,141 653 482 51991 383 1,113 627 480 51992 503 1,155 634 515 61993 382 1,228 674 547 71994 391 1,344 729 607 81995 390 1,210 646 557 71996 455 1,173 618 548 71997 480 1,283 667 607 81998 505 1,283 659 616 81999 530 1,271 644 618 82000 560 1,259 631 620 82001 585 1,319 653 657 92002 610 1,380 675 695 102003 635 1,438 696 732 112004 660 1,495 715 769 112005 685 1,550 733 805 122006 710 1,737 812 910 142007 735 1,807 835 956 152008 759 1,625 744 868 142009 681 1,478 667 799 122010 701 1,589 708 868 13 8Appendix Table A3.  Reconstructed total catch (in tonnes) by major taxa for Anguilla, 1950-2010. ‘Others’ contain 22 additional taxonomic categories.Year Panulirus argus Serranidae Panulirus spp. Strombus spp. Lutjanidae Carangidae Haemulidae Sardinella spp. Clupeidae Others1950 15 39 1 9 30 20 20 10 10 691951 20 40 1 10 30 21 20 11 10 711952 24 41 2 10 31 21 21 11 11 731953 28 42 2 11 32 22 21 11 11 751954 32 43 3 12 33 23 22 11 11 771955 36 45 4 12 33 23 22 12 12 791956 40 46 5 13 34 24 23 12 12 811957 44 47 6 14 35 25 23 12 12 841958 47 48 7 14 36 25 24 13 12 861959 51 49 8 15 37 26 25 13 13 881960 54 50 9 16 38 26 25 13 13 901961 58 52 10 16 39 27 26 14 13 921962 61 53 12 17 40 28 27 14 14 951963 65 54 13 18 41 28 27 14 14 971964 68 56 15 19 42 29 28 15 15 1001965 71 57 16 19 43 30 29 15 15 1021966 74 59 18 20 44 31 29 15 15 1051967 77 60 20 21 45 31 30 16 16 1071968 80 61 22 21 46 32 31 16 16 1101969 83 63 24 22 47 33 31 17 16 1121970 86 64 26 23 48 34 32 17 17 1151971 88 65 28 24 49 34 33 17 17 1171972 91 67 30 24 50 35 33 18 17 1201973 94 68 32 25 51 36 34 18 18 1221974 96 70 35 37 52 36 35 18 18 1251975 98 71 37 37 53 37 35 19 18 1271976 101 72 40 37 54 38 36 19 19 1301977 103 74 43 37 55 39 37 19 19 1321978 105 75 45 37 56 39 38 20 20 1351979 107 76 48 37 57 40 38 20 20 1371980 109 78 51 75 58 41 39 21 20 1401981 110 79 54 75 60 41 40 21 21 1421982 103 79 53 75 60 42 40 21 21 1421983 109 82 58 75 61 43 41 22 21 1471984 131 88 72 75 66 46 44 23 23 1591985 166 98 96 75 74 52 49 26 26 1781986 166 101 99 165 76 53 50 27 26 1821987 191 110 118 142 82 57 55 29 29 1991988 235 125 152 127 94 65 63 33 33 2271989 231 126 155 105 94 66 63 33 33 2291990 227 129 157 94 97 68 65 34 34 2361991 211 128 153 94 96 67 64 34 33 2331992 206 129 154 135 97 68 64 34 34 2351993 226 140 175 111 105 73 70 37 36 2551994 246 151 198 126 113 79 75 40 39 2761995 206 140 172 114 105 73 70 37 36 2561996 190 138 165 112 103 72 69 36 36 2521997 206 149 185 127 112 78 74 39 39 2731998 199 150 185 129 113 79 75 40 39 2751999 189 150 183 130 113 78 75 40 39 2752000 180 150 180 130 112 78 75 40 39 2752001 188 156 188 140 117 82 78 41 41 2872002 196 163 196 150 122 85 82 43 42 3002003 203 170 203 159 127 89 85 45 44 3132004 210 176 210 169 132 92 88 47 46 3252005 217 182 217 179 137 95 91 48 47 3372006 247 201 247 206 151 105 101 53 52 3732007 255 209 255 219 157 109 105 55 54 3882008 219 192 219 196 144 101 96 51 50 3562009 182 174 182 217 131 91 87 46 45 3222010 190 181 190 277 136 95 90 48 47 335British Virgin Islands - Ramdeen et al. 9reconstruction oF total marine Fisheries catches For  the british Virgin islands (1950 – 2010)1Robin Ramdeen, Sarah Harper, Kyrstn Zylich, and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canadar.ramdeen@fisheries.ubc.ca  ; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca  ; k.zylich@fisheries.ubc.ca  ; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.ca abstractThe problem of underreporting catches in fisheries is global. This report presents the reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for the British Virgin Islands for the period 1950-2010, which includes estimates of misreported near-shore catches, reported offshore catches and un-reported recreational catches. The reconstructed total catches for the British Virgin Islands for the period 1950-2010 were estimated to be approximately 72,000 t, which is 2.3 times the reported catch of 30,271 t as presented by the FAO on behalf of the British Virgin Islands. This amount better reflects the importance of small-scale fisheries in providing seafood to consumers, livelihoods to fishers and recreation to visitors.introductionThe British Virgin Islands (BVI) consist of 60 islands, islets and cays situated in the Eastern Caribbean, located around 18˚ 30′ N and 64˚ 30′ W (Figure 1). The BVI have an Exclusive Economic Zone of approximately 81,000 km2 (www .seaaroundus.org) with an estimated total population of around 22,000 persons (Anon. 2003). Sixteen of the islands are inhabited, but only four (Tortola, Jost Van Dyke, Virgin Gorda and Anegada) have major settlements.Originally settled by Arawaks, (aboriginals originating from South America), the islands were rediscovered by Christopher Colombus in 1493, who claimed them for Spain. From about 1615 to 1640, the Dutch privateer Joost Van Dyk commanded a Dutch settlement on Tortola, farming cotton and tobacco. In 1640, Spain attacked Tortola and killed the Dutch. Subsequently, the British Virgin Islands came under British control in 1672 and have remained so ever since.From 1925 to about 1950, the economic activities in the BVI involved small-scale agriculture, fishing, charcoal production and livestock rearing. From 1950 to 1960, tourism developed on the neighbouring US Virgin Islands (USVI). However, the development of tourism in BVI did not take place until about 1967, with the advent of constitutional reform and establishment of a ministerial government in BVI.2 Eventually, with resorts and hotels being built to accommodate visitors, many immigrants from surrounding islands arrived to work in BVI in the construction and service sectors. Today, tourism and international financial services are the leading economic activities and per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is approximately $20,000 US. The rapid population growth, particularly in the last ten years in which the population grew by 47%, has had a marked impact on the development of BVI.3 For instance, the growth of total acreage of developed land on both Tortola and Virgin Gorda is 5 times greater today than in the mid 1970s.The fisheries of the BVI are small-scale, multi-gear and multi-species (Alimoso and Overing 1996). The fisheries can be divided into three sectors: a near-shore fishery, the offshore pelagic longline fishery and the recreational fishery (Anon. 2003). However, fishers derive subsistence benefits too, as some portion of catches are retained by fishers for 1 Cite as: Ramdeen, R., Harper, S., Zylich, K. and Zeller, D. (2014) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for the British Virgin Islands (1950-2010). pp. 9-16. In: Zylich, K., Zeller, D., Ang, M. and Pauly, D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].2 http://www.dpu.gov.vg/ [accessed September 10th, 2012]3 http://www.dpu.gov.vg/ [accessed August 10th, 2012]Figure 1.  Map showing the British Virgin Islands with line demarcating EEZ. 10their families. Traps are the predominant gear used to catch lobster, as well as other shallow water reef species, e.g., doctor fish (Acanthurus chirurgus) and yellow-tail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus). Haul seines, handlines and diving are also employed by the near-shore fishery. The offshore pelagic fishery targets tuna (Scombridae), dolphin fish (Corryphaenidae) and wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) by longlining. Like the USVI recreational fishery, fishers in the BVI use rod and reel, handline, spearfishing, free diving, scuba diving and cast netting (Jennings 1992; Mateo 1999) to exploit a variety of species. However all billfishes are strictly catch and release in the BVI.In the past, approximately half of the annual catch from the near-shore artisanal fleet was exported directly to USVI due to better pricing and marketing arrangements (CDB 1980). For example, in the late 1970s fishers from Anegada would sell processed fish to USVI vendors, who would collect the products in an airplane twice weekly (CDB 1980). Even though an export market existed, the locally retained catches were not sufficient to satisfy local and tourist demand in BVI, therefore, seafood products were also imported to supply the local market. There are no trade data in the FAO database for BVI or USVI; however, other sources reveal the level of seafood imports into the islands. For instance, according to an appraisal of the fisheries sector in the BVI in the mid 1970s, approximately 60 t∙year-1 of seafood products were imported between 1974-1976 (CDB 1980).Formal fisheries management in the BVI is less than twenty five years old and routine catch data collection at the Government Fishing Complex in Road Town in Tortola started in November 2001 (Mills et al. 2005). However only 25% of all fishers market their catches at this site, while the remaining 75% of fishers market their catch in the countryside (Alimoso and Overing 1996). Thus, fisheries data collection does not encompass all landing sites in Tortola, nor those of Jost van Dyke, Virgin Gorda and Anegada. Presently, data are collected by log-books, which are distributed to every licensed fisher on the main islands. Fishers record catches by species and return books to the fisheries office in Tortola once a month (A. Pickering, pers. comm., Conservation and Fisheries Department, September, 12th 2012). The catches submitted by the Department of Conservation and Fisheries to the FAO reportedly consist solely of catches made by the offshore pelagic longline fishery, while data from the near-shore trap fisheries is not submitted to the FAO (A. Pickering, pers. comm., Conservation and Fisheries Department, September, 12th, 2012). Furthermore, FAO landings data for the BVI consist of both reported and estimated catches. Catch estimates are provided by the FAO when countries do not report any fisheries statistics for a given year (Garibaldi 2012). For the years 1976-1982 and 2005-2010, landings were estimated by the FAO. Despite the deficiency in data collection and reporting, implementation of regulations, monitoring and enforcement seem exceptional in the BVI. Spearfishing using SCUBA is not permitted in the BVI, charters must obtain licenses for recreational fishing and fines for illegal fishing can be up to US$15,000, and compliance seems high. In 2003, there were several cases of the USVI fishing illegally in the BVI. Penalties included detainment of a commercial fishing vessel, a fine of US$11,000 and jail time.4 Unfortunately, historically catch data from this illegal foreign fishery were not available (Walters 1984) and the situation has not changed in present time.Like many other Caribbean islands, the economy of the BVI is very dependent on the marine and coastal environment and its resources, and the tourism sector in particular. Lack of comprehensive fisheries catch data is hampering fisheries management in the BVI, as without reliable time series catch or effort data, it is difficult to make an informed analysis of the state of the fisheries resources. The fisheries of the BVI have been reported on by Peacock (1975), Klausing (1978), CDB (1980), Alimoso and Overing (1996), Pomeroy (1999) and Franklin (2007). Through review of all available fisheries literature (published and unpublished), we establish the level of fishing in the BVI for the period 1950-2010 in order to create a more accurate picture of the total catches in these islands.methodsUsing information on the number of fishers from various sources (see below), together with catch per unit effort information from Klausing (1978), we reconstruct the total small-scale catches from the artisanal near-shore fishery from 1950-2010 in the BVI. No estimates of hand-line catches or haul seine catches were available; thus we conservatively assumed our reconstruction based on trap catch, effort and total number of fishers accounted for all near-shore catches. Since catches from the offshore pelagic longline fishery are captured by the current data collection system, we extracted these catches from the FAO dataset and assumed no unreported catches from this sector. Further, in 2003, reported landings were 2,771 t, which is double of that reported in the year before and after. Since we found no information to explain this sudden rise in catches, we did not accept the FAO reported value and instead used our own reconstructed total which was lower and assumed no unreported catches in this year. Finally we applied a minimal recreational catch per tourist to estimate catches made by the recreational sector. It should be noted that the FAO baseline was adjusted for one year, 2003, as detailed in the results section below.4  www.stthomassource.com [Accessed 2 October, 2012] Table 1.   Data sources used to estimate number of fishers in the BVI.Year No. active fishers Source1950 98 Assumption baseda1978 151 Klausing (1978)1991 280 Alimoso and Overing (1996)1999 374 Pomeroy (1999)2010 410 Assumption basedba Based on a proportion of fishers to total population of 0.014 in 1978.b Based on the proportion of fishers to total population of 0.022 in 1999.British Virgin Islands - Ramdeen et al. 11Small-scale fisheriesDetails on the number of fishers were obtained from various sources for the years 1978, 1991 and 1999 (Table 1). Taking the proportion of fishers within the population as a ratio, and using direct linear interpolation between anchor points in 1978, 1991 and 1999, we estimated the population of fishers operating on the islands from 1950-2010 (Figure 2). For the period 1950-1978, we used the ratio of fishers to total population in 1978 (0.014) as a constant. Similarly, for the period 1999-2010, we used the ratio of fishers to total population in 1999 (0.022) as a constant.Near-shore fisheryKlausing (1978) conducted a feasibility study for medium-scale fisheries in the BVI in 1975, as part of a United Nations funded project. He described the current effort of the near-shore trap fishery as 50 fishing weeks per year, 3 fishing days per week, 15 trap hauls per day and 5 lbs of catch per trap, giving a rate of 5.11 t∙fisher-1∙year-1. Assuming this rate remained constant, we combined this rate with the number of fishers, and estimated the catches from BVI’s near-shore fishery as:Catch = # fishers x 5.11 t·fisher-1·year-1Since it is known that fishers take home a portion of their catch (Anon. 2003), we assumed some proportion of our reconstructed catches to be part of subsistence catches. To assign small-scale catches to artisanal and subsistence sectors, it was assumed that in 1950, 70% of near-shore catches were from the subsistence sector and 30% were from the artisanal sector. In 2010, it was assumed that 30% of catches were attributed to the subsistence sector and 70% to the artisanal sector. A linear interpolation was done between these two years to derive an assignment by sector for the entire 1950-2010 time-period.Offshore longline fisheryThe offshore pelagic longline fishery is limited to a few active boats (Franklin 2007). Catches from this sector are reported to the FAO under the present data collection system (A. Pickering, pers. comm., Conservation and Fisheries Department, September, 12th, 2012). As such, we relied on the FAO data to represent catches for this sector. We assumed no unreported catch component for this sector. Kelleher (2005) describes discards from small-scale longline fisheries in the range of 7.5%–15%, thus taking 10% of the total offshore catches we reconstructed the discards associated with this sector.Recreational fisheryDuring the 1975 assessment of BVI fisheries, Klausing (1978) conservatively assumed catches from the recreational sector were 23 t for that year. Assuming the recreational sector is comprised mainly of tourists, we divided this catch of 23 t by the number of stop-over tourists in the BVI5 in 1975 to get an average per capita recreational catch rate of 0.001 t∙tourist-1∙year-1. Assuming conservatively that this rate remained constant, we combined this with the number of annual stop-over tourists (Figure 3), to estimate catches from BVI’s recreational sector for the period 1950-2010.5  Caribbean Tourism Organisation website: http://www.onecaribbean.org/ [Accessed September 11th, 2012]01002003004005001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Number of fishers YearTable 2.   Derived taxonomic breakdown for the near-shore fisheries of British Virgin Islands.Percentage compositionFamily 1950 2010Balistidae 2.00 2.30Carangidae 1.20 2.30Carcharhinidae 0.04 0.02Centropomidae 0.90 0.50Clupeidae 0.60 2.30Exocotidae 0.40 0.50Gereidae 0.40 4.60Haeumulidae 18.50 4.60Holocentridae 0.50 2.30Labridae 1.00 2.30Lobster 8.30 7.30Lutjanidae 1.20 7.30Lutjanus analis 1.50 2.30Lutjanus synagris 2.90 2.30Lutjanus vivanus 12.70 6.90Ocyurus chrysurus 3.90 23.90Miscellaneous marine fishes 4.80 4.60Mullidae 7.10 6.90Octopus 0.90 2.30Ostraciidae 0.60 3.70Scaridae 8.30 4.60Scombridae (Mackerels) 3.30 0.05Serranidae 11.30 0.50Shellfish, whelks 0.80 4.60Sparidae 0.90 0.50Sphyraenidae 1.00 0.50Strombidae 4.90 0.30Figure 2.  Time-series of the number of fishers in the British Virgin Islands during the period 1950-2010 (anchor points represented by solid points on graph).Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV12Taxonomic composition of catchesIsland specific quantitative catch composition data for the near-shore were unavailable in the BVI fisheries literature accessed for this study. FAO data for BVI consists of 15 taxonomic groups from 13 families. A detailed breakdown of catches from Puerto Rico in the year 1975 was presented in the appraisal report on the fisheries of the BVI (CDB 1980). We applied the Puerto Rico catch breakdown to the year 1950 and took the average FAO breakdown for 2001-2010 and applied it to the year 2010. Given that the FAO breakdown only consisted of 13 families, whereas the Puerto Rico breakdown included 26 families, we further disaggregated the FAO breakdown based on our knowledge of changes in herbivores on Caribbean coral reefs and popularity of certain reef fishes in diets. The assumed and derived taxonomic breakdown of the catch can be seen in Table 2.resultsReconstructed catches from the near-shore fishery totalled just under 69,000 t for the BVI during the period 1950-2010. Catches from the offshore fishery totalled 400 t from its start in 1994 to 2010. The discards from this sector were estimated at approximately 40 t for the same period. Reconstructed catches from the recreational sector in BVI amounted to slightly over 1,800 t for the full time period (Figure 4a).The increase in reported landings in 2001 coincides with the year in which systematic data collection began (Figure 4a). Except for the year 2003, reported landings for BVI fluctuated between 100 and 1,200 t·year-1, with annual reported landings averaging 507 t∙year-1. In 2003, reported landings were 2,058 t, which is double of that reported in the year before and after. Since we found no information to explain this sudden and short-lived spike in reported landings, we did not accept the FAO record for 2003. Thus there were no obvious unreported catches in this year. Total unreported catches for the period 1950-2010 were estimated at slightly over 40,900 t, with average annual unreported catches of approximately 670 t∙year-1 (Figure 4).Catches from the subsistence sector were estimated at 17,800 t from 1950-2010, while those from the artisanal sector were estimated at 51,600 t for the same period (Figure 4a). Total reconstructed catches for the BVI for the period 1950-2010 were estimated to be just over 71,000 t, which is 2.3 times the reported landings of 30,272 t as presented by the FAO on behalf of BVI.00.51.01.52.02.5Nearshore artisanalSupplied to FAOSubsistenceRecreationalOffshore artisanala)00.51.01.52.02.51950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearStrombus spp.Lutjanus vivianusSerranidaeMullidaeScaridaeLutjanidaeHaemulidaeOcyurus chrysurusPanulirus argusOthersb)01002003004001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Tourist Population (x103 )YearFigure 3.  Stop-over tourist population for the British Virgin Islands during the period 1950-2010.Figure 4.  Reconstructed total catches for the British Virgin Islands; a) by sector with FAO reported landings shown as an overlaid line graph; and b) by taxa, with ‘Others’ consisting of 20 additional taxonomic groups.British Virgin Islands - Ramdeen et al. 13Catches were dominated by reef species such Ocyurus chrysurus (yellowtail snapper 14%) and Lutjanus vivanus (silk snapper 9%), with ‘other lutjanids’ comprising 4% of total catches. Grunts (Haemulidae 11%) and groupers (Serranidae 6%) were also important in catches, as were goatfish (Mullidae 6%) and parrotfish (Scaridae 6%). Catches of marine invertebrates such as Panulirus argus (10%) and Strombus gigas (3%) were common. The 30% ‘Others’ category was comprised of 10 demersal families, 8 pelagic families, miscellaneous marine fishes, and miscellaneous marine invertebrates (Figure 4b).discussionA report by the Development Planning Unit of the Ministry of Finance stated that fishing contributed 2.5% to the GDP of the BVI in 1988. However, this report failed to indicate that fish provided a valuable protein source to the local population (Anon. 2003) and was likely based on reported landings only. Despite the economic and cultural significance of marine fisheries to these islands, fisheries administration is lagging, with less than 25 years of formal fisheries management in the BVI (Mills et al. 2005). On the other hand, there have been major improvements since routine data collection began in 2001 (Mills et al. 2005). This is illustrated by the steep increase in FAO reported landings in the later period. Furthermore, surveillance and enforcement of fisheries legislation is routinely conducted in the BVI. All fishers must have valid licenses to fish, and monitoring and enforcement is routine, while illegal fishing is being combated with fines up to US$15,000 (A. Pickering, pers. comm., Conservation and Fisheries Department, September, 12th 2012).Despite increased vigilance in monitoring and enforcement, our reconstructed catches were 2.3 times higher than those reported to the FAO over the 1950-2010 time period, and for the most recent decade the discrepancy was still 940 t∙year-1 (or 65%). Our study of total reconstructed catches for the BVI contains under-reported catches from the near-shore fishery, which is the major fishing sector in the islands (CDB 1980; Alimoso and Overing 1996), as well as unreported catches from a popular recreational sector. To what extent mis- or under-reporting occurs also in the offshore pelagic sector could not be determined in the present study, but it is likely. Furthermore the discards from this sector should not be overlooked.There seems to be some distrust by the Conservation and Fisheries Department, which collects near-shore catch data but treats it as confidential, and does not report it to the FAO. Such withholding of data on a public resource is surprising and should be rectified by the responsible authorities. In addition, catches from the recreational sector are not being captured by the present data collection system. Reconstructed recreational catches amounted to approximately 1,800 t for the period 1950-2010. Thus, the impact of tourists is being underestimated. This should be of particular concern for islands such as the BVI, where tourist populations are an order of magnitude greater than local resident populations, and where tourist experience is a major economic factor.Data reported by the FAO on behalf of the BVI were presented in 13 taxonomic categories. Reconstructed catches were disaggregated into 26 families, which is a major improvement over the reported data. Given that no quantitative catch composition data were available, our reconstruction is the best representation of likely total catches made in the BVI at present. With greater transparency from and some targeted investigations by the Conservation and Fisheries Office, these estimates could be improved upon.acknowledgementsThis work was completed as part of Sea Around Us, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. We are grateful to Mr. Pickering of the Conservation and Fisheries Department, for his assistance in understanding the fisheries sector of British Virgin Islands. We would also like to thank Ms. Jeanel Georges for her help in accessing documents at the Caribbean Development Bank in Barbados.reFerencesAlimoso S and Overing J (1996) Artisanal fisheries and resource management in the British Virgin Islands. In 44th Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Charleston, South Carolina, USA. 297-305 p.Anon. (2003) Report of the CFU/FAO fisheries statistics and data management workshop. University of the West. Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados, 10–22 March 2003. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. 41 p.CDB (1980) Appraisal report on the fisheries of the British Virgin Island. Caribbean Development Bank, Bridgetown, Barbados. 43 p.Franklin G (2007) Determination of the socio-economic importance of the lobster fishery of the British Virgin Islands. CERMES Technical Report 8, UWI, CaveHill, Barbados. 59 p.Garibaldi L (2012) The FAO global capture production database: A six-decade effort to catch the trend. Marine Policy 36: 760-768.Jennings CA (1992) Survey of non-charter boat recreational fishing in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Bulletin of Marine Science 50: 342-351.Kelleher MK (2005) Discards in the world’s marine fisheries: An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 470, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. xix+131 p.Klausing JH (1978) Feasibility study for a medium scale industry. UNIDO.Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV14Mateo I (1999) Annual report of recreational fishery assessment project F-8-9 Job 7: Angler telephone household survey. Division of Fish and Wildlife, DPNR, Government of the U.S., Virgin Islands. 2-10 p.Mills AP, Eristhee N and Llewellyn A (2005) GIS in Fisheries Management in the British Virgin Islands: Issues and Practicalities. In Proceedings of the Fifty Six Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Fort Pierce, Florida, USA. 395-410 p.Peacock NA (1975) Marine resources of the British Virgin Islands. BVI Conservation and Fisheries Department, British Virgin Islands.Pomeroy R (1999) Economic Analysis of the British Virgin Islands Commercial Fishing Industry. ICLARM Caribbean Eastern Pacific Office and Conservation and Fisheries Department.Walters R (1984) Status of artisanal fisheries in the British Virgin Islands: problems of development. In 36 Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Miami, Florida USA. 27-30 p.British Virgin Islands - Ramdeen et al. 15Appendix Table A1.  FAO landings vs. reconstructed total catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector for the British Virgin Islands, 1950-2010.Year FAO landings Reconstructed total catch Nearshore artisanal Offshore artisanal Subsistence Recreational1950 100 505 221 - 283 11951 100 515 227 - 287 11952 100 525 233 - 291 11953 200 534 307 - 226 11954 200 544 312 - 231 21955 200 554 317 - 235 21956 200 564 323 - 239 21957 300 573 394 - 177 21958 300 583 399 - 181 21959 300 593 405 - 186 21960 300 602 410 - 190 31961 400 612 478 - 131 31962 400 622 483 - 136 31963 400 632 488 - 140 31964 400 641 494 - 145 31965 400 651 499 - 149 31966 400 661 505 - 153 41967 300 671 452 - 215 41968 300 681 458 - 218 51969 300 693 465 - 221 71970 300 704 472 - 224 81971 300 715 478 - 227 101972 300 727 485 - 229 121973 300 738 492 - 232 141974 306 750 503 - 231 161975 318 761 517 - 227 181976 330 772 530 - 223 191977 340 784 543 - 220 211978 350 795 555 - 217 231979 360 848 588 - 235 251980 370 900 622 - 252 271981 380 953 656 - 269 281982 390 1,005 690 - 285 301983 407 1,058 729 - 297 321984 470 1,111 789 - 287 341985 520 1,163 844 - 283 361986 543 1,216 886 - 292 381987 565 1,268 928 - 301 391988 582 1,321 968 - 312 411989 615 1,373 1,016 - 315 431990 624 1,426 1,053 - 328 451991 634 1,479 1,091 - 340 471992 453 1,540 1,056 - 436 491993 343 1,602 1,052 - 500 501994 470 1,764 1,211 91 501 521995 532 1,766 1,242 36 470 541996 506 1,882 1,310 85 516 561997 105 1,872 1,154 20 660 581998 116 1,928 1,203 15 666 591999 115 1,996 1,256 20 679 612000 45 1,997 1,241 4 693 632001 837 2,032 1,561 19 406 652002 1,062 2,054 1,661 22 326 672003 2,058 2,059 1,732 10 258 692004 1,262 2,078 1,754 10 253 702005 1,300 2,095 1,783 9 241 722006 1,309 2,127 1,809 18 242 762007 1,250 2,137 1,801 12 259 772008 1,200 2,148 1,800 9 273 742009 1,200 2,157 1,818 9 273 662010 1,200 2,178 1,836 9 272 71Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV16Appendix Table A2.  Reconstructed total catch (in tonnes) by major taxa for British Virgin Islands, 1950-2010. ‘Others’ contain 26 additional taxonomic categories. Year Ocyurus chrysurus Haemulidae Panulirus argus Lutjanus vivanus Serranidae Mullidae Scaridae Lutjanidae Strombus spp. Others1950 19 93 42 64 57 36 42 29 25 991951 21 94 42 65 57 36 42 30 25 1021952 23 95 43 66 58 37 43 31 25 1051953 24 96 44 67 58 38 44 31 26 1071954 25 97 45 68 59 38 44 32 26 1101955 27 98 45 68 59 39 45 33 26 1131956 29 99 46 69 60 40 45 34 26 1161957 28 101 47 71 61 40 46 34 27 1171958 30 102 48 72 62 41 47 35 27 1201959 31 103 49 72 62 42 47 36 27 1231960 33 104 49 73 62 42 48 37 27 1261961 27 89 142 62 53 36 41 31 23 1071962 29 90 142 63 54 37 41 32 24 1101963 30 91 143 64 54 37 42 33 24 1121964 32 92 144 65 55 38 43 34 24 1151965 34 93 145 66 55 39 43 35 24 1181966 35 94 145 67 56 39 44 36 24 1211967 47 109 54 79 64 47 51 44 28 1471968 49 109 55 79 64 48 52 45 28 1511969 51 110 56 80 64 48 52 47 28 1561970 53 110 56 81 64 49 53 48 28 1611971 56 111 57 81 64 50 53 49 28 1661972 58 111 58 82 64 50 54 50 28 1721973 60 111 59 82 64 51 54 51 28 1771974 62 107 82 80 62 50 52 51 27 1771975 63 108 83 81 62 51 53 52 27 1811976 65 108 88 81 62 51 53 52 27 1851977 66 109 89 82 62 52 54 53 27 1891978 68 109 94 82 62 52 54 54 27 1931979 75 115 98 87 65 55 57 59 28 2081980 83 120 102 92 68 59 60 63 30 2241981 90 125 111 96 69 62 63 68 31 2391982 99 130 114 101 72 66 66 73 32 2551983 106 133 127 104 74 69 68 77 32 2681984 108 141 137 110 78 72 72 79 34 2791985 112 148 147 115 82 75 75 83 36 2911986 119 153 153 119 85 78 78 87 37 3061987 127 158 160 124 87 81 81 91 38 3211988 135 162 166 128 89 85 84 96 39 3371989 142 168 174 132 92 88 87 100 40 3511990 151 171 178 136 93 92 90 106 41 3681991 161 172 196 139 93 94 91 110 41 3821992 201 162 179 139 82 100 91 126 36 4251993 231 157 168 140 76 105 92 139 34 4601994 236 138 201 128 73 99 85 190 60 5531995 237 167 153 147 93 109 97 164 79 5191996 262 152 148 142 138 110 93 158 85 5931997 340 137 137 144 53 121 95 184 32 6281998 359 137 141 146 54 124 97 194 32 6441999 378 137 144 150 53 129 99 201 31 6742000 389 136 147 152 47 133 101 208 27 6582001 356 167 250 150 87 113 99 208 46 5552002 352 181 291 154 98 110 101 160 51 5552003 469 141 236 121 89 88 80 262 42 5322004 509 179 162 148 95 103 97 204 50 5312005 481 190 170 155 101 107 102 208 53 5302006 488 189 171 155 100 108 102 211 53 5502007 485 187 169 157 97 111 103 213 50 5642008 482 187 168 160 95 115 105 216 47 5742009 489 185 169 160 94 116 105 219 46 5732010 496 184 170 160 92 117 105 222 46 586Chagos - Zeller and Pauly 17reconstruction oF domestic Fisheries catches in  the chagos archiPelago: 1950-20101Dirk Zeller and Daniel PaulySea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, V6T 1Z4, Canadad.zeller@fisheries.ubc.ca  ; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.ca abstractThe British Indian Ocean Territory (at the centre of which is the Chagos Archipelago) covers 640,000 km2 in the central Indian Ocean, halfway between Indonesia and Madagascar. Most islands were used for copra farming from the late 1700s to about 1970 when the plantations were closed and the people moved to Mauritius and the Seychelles. At that time, the largest atoll, Diego Garcia, was turned into an American/British ‘Joint Defense and Naval Support Facility’. In April 2010, the U.K. declared the entire EEZ of the Chagos Archipelago a ‘no-take’ marine reserve. This history is reflected in the catch history, with original Chagossian subsistence catch estimated at 90 t·year-1 for the early 1950s, which declined to zero in 1972; and a recreational fishery by British and US military personnel, which started in 1973 and grew to 100 t·year-1 in the 2000s. Thus, reconstructed domestic catches were likely around 12 times higher then reported data suggest for this time period. These catches, however, are relatively low compared to the large pelagic catches reported as taken by large-scale foreign fleets from these waters, which were reported as over 20,000 t in 2004/2005, and an unknown, but potentially significant illegal catch. These large pelagic catches taken from the same waters by either foreign vessels through licensed access agreements, or illegally, are not considered here. The transition in domestic fisheries from subsistence to recreational documented here will have implied a radical change in targets, from medium-sized reef fish and invertebrates to trophy-type fishes, i.e., larger reef fishes and reef-associated pelagic fish. The diversity of fish in the Chagos Archipelago is now in principle protected from fishing. Given the technology available to the current residents of the Chagos Archipelago, there is a good chance that the ‘no-take’ part of the Chagos marine reserve can be enforced against would-be illegal fishers.introductionThe British Indian Ocean Territory is 640,000 km2, containing the Chagos Archipelago at its centre (Figure 1). The latter contains over 60,000 km2 of shallow limestone, including 5 islanded atolls and a greater number of submerged banks and reefs. It was farmed for copra from the late 1700s. Two atolls ceased this activity in the 1930s, the remainder finally closing around 1970, having had persistent financial problems and declining product quality, and because of cold war politics requiring that one atoll, Diego Garcia, becoming a Naval Support Facility.Occupation during plantation times was possible because of imported staple foods, the protein being produced locally, mainly through fishing and hunting for sea turtles and birds. The present military facility fishes recreationally, but food is generally imported. Diego Garcia’s main island contains approximately half of the total landmass – there are about 54 other islands in the other atolls.During the early days of the British Indian Ocean Territory there was no formal fisheries protection, and an unknown quantity of fish would have been taken; most islands had poachers’ camps on them when fisheries protection or regulation began in the late 1990s. From then and until the creation of a large no-take MPA in 2010, fisheries (mostly for tuna) were licensed. All legal fishing ceased in late 2010.1 Cite as: Zeller, D. and Pauly, D. (2014) Reconstruction of domestic fisheries catches in the Chagos Archipelago: 1950-2010. pp. 17-24  In: Zylich, K., Zeller, D., Ang, M. and Pauly, D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and shelf waters to 200 m depth for the British Indian Ocean Territory. Shown also is the location of Diego Garcia, currently a US/British military installation. 18methodsSubsistence fishingInformation on the human population in the Chagos Archipelago (excluding Diego Garcia’s military installation as of 1972) was obtained from Wenban Smith (2012). Population data were interpolated for years between years of data to derive a population time series from 1950 to 1972 when all civilian residents were evacuated as part of the UK-US agreement (Table 1).As this civilian population was directly associated with copra plantations in the Archipelago, and hence were largely employed on a cash basis, there was likely a smaller reliance on subsistence fishing compared to other nearby atoll societies, such as the Maldives. The companies were Mauritian or Seychellois, and supplied food staples to their workers. They fished for the protein. Thus, we assumed the Chagos civilian population had a per capita subsistence catch rate of half the estimated Maldives average per capita consumption rate of 161 kg·person-1·year-1  (Hemmings et al. 2014), i.e., 80 kg·person-1·year-1 (Table 1).Recreational fishingRecreational fishing occurs in the Chagos Archipelago only in relation to two opportunities: 1) the military personnel and civilian contractors working on the US military installation on the island of Diego Garcia; and 2) recreational yachts that stop off in the Chagos Archipelago during their transit of the Indian Ocean. As (2) consists of a relatively small number of boats with small crew and relatively short stays, we focused our estimation entirely on recreational fishing by personnel on Diego Garcia. Available data on the number of people stationed on Diego Garcia is difficult to obtain, as much relates to operational security by the US military and is thus not readily accessible. However, The CIA factbook states that in 2004 about 4,000 military personnel and civilian contractors were stationed on Diego Garcia.2 GlobalSecurity.org suggests that normally the island is home to about 1,700 military personnel and 1,500 civilian contractors, i.e., around 3,200 personnel.3 The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office indicates that in 2012, the population of Diego Garcia amounted to 2,800 personnel.4As construction of the military installation started in 1971 and major developments were completed by the early 1980s, we assumed zero military personnel or civilian contractors in 1971, increasing to 2,000 personnel by 1985 and remaining at that level to the year 2000. We then assumed an increase to 4,000 in 2001 lasting to 2009 (reflecting increased activities during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars), and a subsequent reduction to 2,800 in 2010 (Table 2).Data made available by the British Indian Ocean Territory authority within the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office indicated the level of recreational catches for some years. We converted these into hypothetical per capita recreational catch rates and applied these to the assumed personnel levels on Diego Garcia to derive a total time series of estimated recreational catches from 1972 to 2010 (Table 2).2  https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/io.html [Accessed: November 12, 2012]3  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/diego-garcia.htm [Accessed: November 12, 2012]4 http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/asia-oceania/british-indian-ocean-territory [Accessed: November 12, 2012]Table 1.  Subsistence fisheries data for the Chagos Archipelago, excluding the military installation on Diego Garcia, showing derived total subsistence catch for the civilian human population from 1950 to 1972 when the remaining civilians were evacuated. A per capita subsistence catch rate of 80 kg·person-1·year-1 was assumed throughout the time period, based on half the subsistence catch rate in the Maldives (Hemmings et al. 2014). A dash (-) indicates data interpolation.Year Human population1 Derived subsistence catch (t)1950 1,141 91.31951 1,121 89.71952 1,158 92.61953 1,106 88.51954 1,142 91.41955 1,028 82.21956-1957 - -1958 985 71.61959-1961 - -1962 747 59.81963 - -1964 993 79.41965-1966 - -1967 797 63.81968 807 64.61969 577 46.21970 680 54.41971 630 50.41972 0 0.01 Source: Wenban Smith (2012)Table 2.  Assumed and derived population (military personnel and civilian contractors), per capita recreational catch rates and total recreational catches on Diego Garcia, from first establishment of the military installation in 1972 to 2010. A dash (-) indicates data interpolation.Year Population Catch rate (kg·person-1·year-1) Catch (t)1971 0 0.0 0.01972 - 14.5a 2.11973-1984 - - -1985 2,000 - -1986-1997 2,000 - -2000 2,000 - 47.52001 4,000 24.1b 96.42002-2009 4,000 24.1 96.42010 2,800 24.1 67.5a Assumed per capita rate based on recreational catch of 28.9 t reported by the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office for latter years, here assumed to apply also as catch rate to 1972 b Based on recreational catch of 96.4 t reported by the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office.Chagos - Zeller and Pauly 19Subsistence and recreational catch compositionThe taxonomic composition for the local subsistence catches as derived in Table 1 was assumed to consist of reef and reef-associated species, as it was assumed that little if any subsistence fishing opportunity in pelagic waters existed. Likely, a substantial portion of subsistence seafood was sourced by women and children engaging in reef gleaning (Chapman 1987; Des Rochers 1992; Lambeth et al. 2002; Malm 2009; Harper et al. 2013), hence our assumed catch composition reflects this activity, which is generally defined by a predominance of invertebrates (Table 3).The taxonomic composition of the recreational catches was derived based on information in Zeller et al. (2005) which reconstructed recreational catches on Johnston Atoll in the Pacific, that also hosts US government installations with military personnel and civilian contractors (Table 3).The reconstructed catch data were reconciled with data reported on behalf of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) to the FAO, which consisted only of small tonnages of several species of scombrids and the miscellaneous category ‘marine fishes nei’.Foreign fishingForeign fishing in the waters of the Chagos Archipelago has occurred for a long time. These fisheries consist of mainly licensed fisheries for large pelagic species using industrial longline and purse seine gears, but also of un-monitored illegal fishing, e.g., by Sri Lankan vessels (Koldewey et al. 2010). Illegal catches were not estimated here, but could be significant and require urgent attention, estimation and public accounting by national and regional authorities (i.e., IOTC). Foreign, licensed large pelagic catches were deemed to be relatively well monitored and were all assumed to be reported landings. Information on catch levels by gear type are also presented in Koldewey et al. (2010), with clear indications that longline catches are dominated by Taiwanese and Japanese fleets, while purse seine catches are dominated by Spanish and French vessels. Here, we deem these catches to be reported as part of the FAO and IOTC datasets for the Western Indian Ocean area 51, and were not further considered. However, discarding by these gears, especially longline gears, can be significant, and also warrants closer attention and reporting by the national and regional management entities (i.e., IOTC).Mauritian fishers are also known to fish on banks within the EEZ of the Chagos Archipelago, at least until concerns about Somali piracy developed. Catches taken by Mauritian fishers within these waters have been estimated elsewhere (Boistol et al. 2011). These catches amount to a few hundred tonnes per year (Boistol et al. 2011), and were not detailed here.Table 3.  Assumed and derived taxonomic composition of subsistence and recreational fisheries catches in the Chagos Archipelago. Subsistence catches relate to the civilian population associated with copra plantations between 1950 and 1972, while recreational catches relate to military personnel and civilian contractors associated with the US military installation on Diego Garcia (from 1972 to 2010).Taxon Subsistence (%) Recreational (%)1Carangidae 15 25Scombridae - 25Lutjanidae 10 10Lethrinidae 10 -Serranidae 15 20Cephalpods 15 0Molluscs 15 0Crustaceans 15 0Others 5 201 Composition modified from Zeller et al. (2005).020406080100120SubsistenceRecreationalSupplied to FAOa)0204060801001201950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t)Yearb)ScombridaeSerranidaeOthersCarrangidaeInvertebratesLutjanidaeLethrinidaeFigure 2.  Reconstructed total domestic catches for the Chagos Archipelago/British Indian Ocean Territory, showing (a) estimated subsistence and recreational catches as stacked area graph, with reported data according to FAO overlaid as a line graph; and (b) total reconstructed catches by taxon. 20results and discussionThe catch reconstruction of what can be termed ‘domestic’ catches by Chagos Archipelago fisheries in the EEZ or EEZ-equivalent waters of the British Indian Ocean Territory (Figure 1) suggested that over 3,400 t were caught between 1950 and 2010, exclusively by subsistence and recreational fisheries. This contrasts with 286 t being reported by the UK on behalf of the British Indian Ocean Territory to the global community via FAO for the same time period (Figure 2a). Thus, total reconstructed domestic catches were likely around 12 times higher then reported data suggest for this time period.These catches, however, are low compared to the large pelagic catches reported as taken by large-scale fleets from these waters, which were reported as, for example, over 20,000 t in 2004/2005, and an unknown, but potentially significant illegal catch (Koldewey et al. 2010). These large pelagic catches taken from the same waters by foreign vessels through licensed access agreements, or illegally, are not considered here.5The present reconstruction clearly illustrates the fundamental shift from subsistence fishing by the former civilian employees associated with past plantation activities during the first two decades of the present time period, to exclusively recreational fishing by the military and civilian personnel on the only remaining inhabited island (Diego Garcia) over the more recent four decades. Subsistence catches were highest (around 90 t·year-1) at the start of the time period (early 1950s) when the largest number of employees still resided on the plantations (Figure 2a). Subsistence catches declined thereafter to 50-60 t·year-1 (Figure 2a), in line with the declining population associated with the demise of plantations in the Territory and in preparation of the de-population as part of the UK-US agreement to establish a military installation on Diego Garcia.With the arrival of military engineers and associated personnel, followed later by civilian contractors stationed on Diego Garcia, fishing emerged as a recreational activity for residents. This suggested a gradual increase in recreational catches from around 20 t·year-1 in the early 1980s to over 40 t·year-1 by the 1990s (Figure 2a). Based on the assumption that the number of personnel stationed on Diego Garcia increased substantially with the terrorist events of 2001 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we also estimated that recreational catches likely increased to around 90 t·year-1, before declining slightly at the end of the time period due to an assumed draw-down of personnel with the approaching end of US military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq (Figure 2a).Taxonomically, the reconstruction suggested that besides readily caught reef fishes such as serranids, lutjanids, lethrinids and reef-associated pelagic (e.g., carangids), invertebrates dominated early subsistence catches, mainly cephalopods, molluscs and crustaceans (Figure 2b). The taxonomic composition of catches changed with recreational fishing, which likely focused more on pelagic species (i.e., reef-associated scombrids and carangids), which are known as challenging species to land on recreational rod-and-reel gears (Figure 2b).acknowledgementsThis is a contribution from Sea Around Us, a collaboration between The University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. We thank Charles Sheppard (University of Warwick), Heather Koldewey and Matthew Gollock (Zoological Society of London) for data, information and feedback on the British Indian Ocean Territories.reFerencesBoistol L, Harper S, Booth S and Zeller D (2011) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Mauritius and its outer islands, 1950-2008. pp. 39-61. In: Harper S and Zeller D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19(4). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].Chapman MD (1987) Women’s fishing in Oceania. Human Ecology 15(3): 267-288.Des Rochers K (1992) Women’s fishing on Kosrae: A description of past and present methods. Micronesia 25(1): 1-22.Harper S, Zeller D, Hauzer M, Sumaila UR and Pauly D (2013) Women and fisheries: contribution to food security and local economies. Marine Policy 39: 56-63.Hemmings M, Harper S and Zeller D (2014) Reconstruction of total marine catches for the Maldives: 1950-2008. pp. 107-120. In: Zylich, K., Zeller, D., Ang, M. and Pauly, D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].Koldewey H, Curnick D, Harding S, Harrison L and Gollock M (2010) Potential benefits to fisheries and biodiversity of the Chagos Archipelago/British Indian Ocean Territory as a no-take marine reserve. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60: 1906-1915.Lambeth L, Hanchard B, Aslin H, Fay-Sauni L, Tauara P, Rochers KD and Vunisea A (2002) An overview of the involvment of women in fisheries activities in Oceania. pp. 127-142 In Williams MJ, Chao NH, Choo PS, Matics K, Nandeesha MC, Sheriff M, Siason I, Tech E and Wong JMC (eds.), Global Symposium on Women in Fisheries Kaohsiuug, Taiwan.5  Sea Around Us is reconstructing global large pelagic catches through a separate process, and the information on this topic derived through the present research, including the information on tuna catches in BIOT presented by Koldewey et al. (2010) will be incorporated in this separate process. Chagos - Zeller and Pauly 21Malm T (2009) Women of the coral gardens: the significance of marine gathering in Tonga. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 25: 2-15.Wenban Smith N (2012) Population of the Chagos, 1820-1973. Chagos News 39. 18-22 p.Zeller D, Booth S and Pauly D (2005) Reconstruction of coral reef- and bottom-fisheries catches for U.S. flag island areas in the Western Pacific, 1950 to 2002. Report to the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu. 110 p. 22Appendix Table A1.  FAO landings vs. reconstructed total catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector, for Chagos Archipelago, 1950-2010.Year FAO landings Reconstructed total catch Recreational Subsistence1950 - 91 - 911951 - 90 - 901952 - 93 - 931953 - 88 - 881954 - 91 - 911955 - 82 - 821956 - 79 - 791957 - 75 - 751958 - 72 - 721959 - 69 - 691960 - 66 - 661961 - 63 - 631962 - 60 - 601963 - 70 - 701964 - 79 - 791965 - 74 - 741966 - 69 - 691967 - 64 - 641968 - 65 - 651969 - 46 - 461970 0.25 54 - 541971 0.25 50 - 501972 0.25 2 2 -1973 0.25 4 4 -1974 0.25 6 6 -1975 0.25 9 9 -1976 0.25 11 11 -1977 0.25 14 14 -1978 0.25 16 16 -1979 0.25 19 19 -1980 0.25 22 22 -1981 0.25 25 25 -1982 0.25 28 28 -1983 0.25 31 31 -1984 0.25 34 34 -1985 0.25 38 38 -1986 0.25 38 38 -1987 0.25 39 39 -1988 0.25 40 40 -1989 0.25 40 40 -1990 0.25 41 41 -1991 0.25 42 42 -1992 0.25 42 42 -1993 0.25 43 43 -1994 0.25 44 44 -1995 0.25 44 44 -1996 0.25 45 45 -1997 0.25 46 46 -1998 0.25 46 46 -1999 0.25 47 47 -2000 0.25 48 48 -2001 0.25 96 96 -2002 28.50 101 101 -2003 28.50 101 101 -2004 28.50 101 101 -2005 28.50 101 101 -2006 21.50 96 96 -2007 24.50 97 97 -2008 34.75 96 96 -2009 43.25 96 96 -2010 40.50 77 77 -Chagos - Zeller and Pauly 23Appendix Table A2.  Reconstructed total catch (in tonnes) by all taxonomic group for Chagos Archipelago, 1950-2010.Year Carangidae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Marine fishes nei Scombridae Serranidae Invertebrates1950 14 9 9 5 - 14 411951 13 9 9 4 - 13 401952 14 9 9 5 - 14 421953 13 9 9 4 - 13 401954 14 9 9 5 - 14 411955 12 8 8 4 - 12 371956 12 8 8 4 - 12 351957 11 8 8 4 - 11 341958 11 7 7 4 - 11 321959 10 7 7 3 - 10 311960 10 7 7 3 - 10 301961 9 6 6 3 - 9 281962 9 6 6 3 - 9 271963 10 7 7 3 - 10 311964 12 8 8 4 - 12 361965 11 7 7 4 - 11 331966 10 7 7 3 - 10 311967 10 6 6 3 - 10 291968 10 6 6 3 - 10 291969 7 5 5 2 - 7 211970 8 5 5 3 - 8 241971 8 5 5 3 - 8 231972 1 - - - 1 - -1973 1 - - 1 1 1 -1974 2 - 1 1 2 1 -1975 2 - 1 2 2 2 -1976 3 - 1 2 3 2 -1977 3 - 1 3 3 3 -1978 4 - 2 3 4 3 -1979 5 - 2 4 5 4 -1980 6 - 2 4 6 4 -1981 6 - 2 5 6 5 -1982 7 - 3 6 7 6 -1983 8 - 3 6 8 6 -1984 9 - 3 7 9 7 -1985 9 - 4 8 9 8 -1986 10 - 4 8 10 8 -1987 10 - 4 8 10 8 -1988 10 - 4 8 10 8 -1989 10 - 4 8 10 8 -1990 10 - 4 8 10 8 -1991 10 - 4 8 10 8 -1992 11 - 4 8 11 8 -1993 11 - 4 9 11 9 -1994 11 - 4 9 11 9 -1995 11 - 4 9 11 9 -1996 11 - 4 9 11 9 -1997 11 - 5 9 11 9 -1998 12 - 5 9 12 9 -1999 12 - 5 9 12 9 -2000 12 - 5 10 12 10 -2001 24 - 10 19 24 19 -2002 24 - 10 19 28 19 -2003 24 - 10 19 28 19 -2004 24 - 10 19 28 19 -2005 24 - 10 19 28 19 -2006 24 - 10 19 24 19 -2007 24 - 10 19 24 19 -2008 24 - 10 19 24 19 -2009 24 - 10 19 24 19 -2010 17 - 7 14 27 14 - 24Cuba - Au et al. 25reconstruction oF total marine Fisheries catches For cuba (1950 – 2010)1Andrea Au, Kyrstn Zylich, and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canadaandrea_au@shaw.ca; k.zylich@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstractThe reconstructed total catch for Cuba (within Cuba’s EEZ) was estimated to be over 2.75 million t for the period 1950 to 2010. This is around 18 percent higher than the 2.33 million t reported by FAO on behalf of Cuba (although FAO data were adjusted to represent Cuban catches within the Cuban EEZ only). Reconstructed total catch including catch allocated to Caribbean waters outside the Cuban EEZ was estimated to be just over 3.15 million t, or 16% higher than the total landings reported for FAO area 31 on behalf of Cuba. These data include all reported commercial landings, as well as estimates of unreported catches generated from the artisanal, industrial, subsistence, and recreational sectors. Overall, catches within the EEZ peaked at over 76,700 t·year-1 in 1985 and have been declining ever since, with just under 28,500 t·year-1 in 2010. Present declines in marine catches are symptomatic of overexploitation and are of particular concern, as the fishing industry is a primary source of revenue and protein for thousands of Cubans.introductionCuba has increasingly been playing a larger role in the global seafood market as a producer of high-valued seafood (Adams et al. 2001; Baisre et al. 2003). While several policies have been introduced in recent years to address over-fishing, most of the Cuban fishery resources are considered fully- or over-exploited (Claro et al. 2001). The Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) is the most valuable target species, accounting for about 15% of total near-shore catches and 60-65% of the national income from fisheries products (Claro et al. 2001; Muñoz-Nuñez 2009). The shrimp fishery is the second most valuable fishery and accounts for over 85% of the total commercial catches (Baisre et al. 2003). The shrimp fishery targets mainly two species, the pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis) and white shrimp (P. schmitti). Until the 1990s, the majority of Cuban fisheries were government owned and managed. The Ministry of Fishing Industries (Ministerio de la Industria Pesquera, MIP) was the authority in charge of managing marine resource use and the only authorized purchaser of commercial catches from fishers (Claro et al. 2001; Claro et al. 2009). As a result, commercial landings and fishing effort have been fairly detailed and reliably recorded (Claro et al. 2009).The Cuban Archipelago is located in the northern Caribbean Sea, adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east (Figure 1). The mainland of Cuba is surrounded by four major groups of islands: Los Colorados, north-east of the Pinar del Rio Province; Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago, north of Matanzas, Villa Clara, Sancti Spirtus, Ciego de Avila and Camguey; Jardines de la Reina, south of Ciego de Avila and Camaguey; and Los Canarreos, south of Matanzas, Habana, and Pinar del Rio. The total land area is approximately 110,900 km² and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) covers an area of about 365,500 km² (www .seaaroundus.org, Figure 1). The coastline is marked by reefs, bays, keys and islets, while the southern coastline is dominated by swamps and lowlands. The country is divided into 14 provinces, 169 municipalities, and the Special Municipality of the Isle of Youth (www .cubadiplomatica.cu). As of 2010, the population of Cuba was over 11.2 million (WorldBank), with approximately a third of the population located along the coast. Major economic activities include the sugar agro-industry, tobacco harvest and manufacturing, nickel mining, tourism, and fishing.1 Cite as: Au, A., Zylich, K. and Zeller, D. (2014) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Cuba (1950-2009). pp. 25-32. In: Zylich, K., Zeller, D., Ang, M. and Pauly, D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  Cuban Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and shelf area (to 200 m depth). 26Prior to the 1960s, Cuban fisheries consisted mostly of small boats targeting near-shore, high-value species (Adams et al. 2001; Baisre et al. 2003). Support from the Soviet Union in the 1960-70s promoted the development of large, distant-water fleets that targeted low-valued stocks (Adams et al. 2001; Baisre et al. 2003). Cuban fisheries underwent a rapid growth phase which lasted until the end of the 1970s (Valle et al. 2011). The end of this period was marked by declines in several important commercial species in the finfish fishery (Claro et al. 2009). By the early 1990s, Cuban fishing efforts were curtailed as a result of the breakup of the Soviet Union (leading to an end of subsidies and cheap fuel supply) and stricter US embargo regulations (Adams et al. 2001; Baisre et al. 2003). This resulted in a reduction in distant-water landings and a return to focusing on near-shore, high-value finfish and shellfish (Adams et al. 2001; Baisre et al. 2003). In response to the economic crisis of the 1990s, the Cuban government initiated a series of reforms intended to improve efficiency and productivity of the fishing industry (Adams et al. 2001). This included an overall decentralization of the MIP and delegation of production activities to newly created Provincial Fishing Associations.An earlier reconstruction of Cuba’s commercial fisheries catches from 1950 to 1999 was undertaken by Baisre et al. (2003). Using national records obtained from the Cuban Ministry of Fishing Industries, and reported landings from FAO FISHSTAT (FAO area 31), the authors separated catches into ‘inshore’ (EEZ/shelf) and ‘offshore’ (area 31 outside of Cuban EEZ/shelf) components. In addition to this, national data on shrimp fisheries and studies on shrimp by-catch composition (Claro et al. 2001), were used to reassign a large portion of the ‘miscellaneous’ category ‘marine fishes nei’ to specific taxa. Overall, the reconstruction showed a rapid increase in commercial landings after 1959, peaking at 76,000 t·year-¹ in 1987. Since then, landings have declined, evidence of over-exploitation of marine resources (Claro et al. 2004). Using the database constructed by Baisre et al. (2003), FAO reported landings data, and additional information obtained from published reports, here we estimated total marine catches for Cuba from 1950 to 2010. Although tuna and other large pelagic species are targeted by large scale Cuban fisheries, the catch of these species was not considered in the original reconstruction and will not be considered here either. These large-pelagic catches will be addressed in a separate global report focusing specifically on large pelagic catches by ocean basin. Therefore, in this reconstruction the following 12 species were not considered: albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga), Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), Atlantic sailfish (Istiophorus albicans), Atlantic white marlin (Kajikia albida), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus), blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), little tunny (Atlantic black skipjack; Euthynnus alletteratus), skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares).methodsTotal marine catches in Cuba were estimated for the period 1950 to 2010. The original reconstruction by Baisre et al. (2003) was accepted as our starting point for the industrial and artisanal sectors with only minor adjustments made in order to meet the data definition requirements of Sea Around Us. We used FAO landings data (excluding the 12 large pelagic taxa) as our baseline for comparison and compared the database constructed by Baisre et al. (2003) (with our adjustments) to FAO data from 1950 to 1999. In order to extend the reconstruction to 2010, the average ratio of total reconstructed catch to reported FAO landings from 1997 to 1999 was applied to FAO landings from 2000 to 2010. Comparison of FAO landings data and information presented by Baisre et al. (2003) allowed us to calculate reported and unreported catches from industrial and artisanal fisheries. National records and FAO landings data do not account for catches generated by subsistence and recreational fisheries. Therefore, we used information from published reports, and assumption-based estimates to determine unreported catches generated by these sectors. Total marine catches in Cuba are equal to the sum of all reported and unreported catches from commercial, subsistence, and recreational fisheries.Inshore and offshore catchesBaisre et al. (2003) separated catches from 1950-1999 into inshore (EEZ) and offshore (area 31 outside of the Cuban EEZ) components using FAO data and national records. In order to extend this to the 2000-2010 period, we determined the ratio of catches inside/outside the EEZ for species with offshore catch components in 1999, and then applied this ratio to the total catches of these species for each year between 2000 and 2010.Industrial sectorThe Cuban industrial sector includes the shrimp fisheries and associated by-catch species. Catches which had been allocated outside of the EEZ by Baisre et al. (2003) were also considered to be part of the industrial catch, as artisanal vessels (by definition) do not fish beyond the EEZ boundaries. However, the vessels making these catches may be considered semi-industrial by Cuban standards. Baisre et al. (2003) suggested that the majority of shrimp by-catch is included in the FAO data as ‘marine fishes nei’, as such by-catch is used for fishmeal production. The previous reconstruction provides tonnages of by-catch for the period 1969-1999. The species composition of the shrimp by-catch is summarized in Claro et al. (2001) and was used to derive the taxonomic breakdown for the shrimp by-catch from 1969-1999.Cuba - Au et al. 27By-catch from 2000 to 2010To determine the by-catch for the 2000-2010 period, the ratio of by-catch to FAO shrimp landings in 1999 was applied to the FAO shrimp landings in the following years. The resulting by-catch values were subtracted from the FAO category ‘marine fishes nei’, and the remaining FAO ‘marine fishes nei’ catches were considered artisanal. The taxonomic breakdown of the by-catch was derived using the same species proportions applied to the 1969-1999 shrimp by-catch by Baisre et al. (2003).DiscardsWhile Baisre et al. (2003) assumed that all shrimp by-catch was retained, landed and used for fishmeal production, here we assumed that a small portion of by-catch was likely not retained but rather discarded. These likely consisted of small hard-shelled organisms (e.g., small crabs) and other invertebrates or damaged fishes not suitable for retention and fishmeal production. Hence, we applied a conservative 2% discard rate to shrimp landings for the entire time period, which was assigned to ‘Brachyura’, ‘marine invertebrates nei’ and ‘marine fishes nei’ in equal proportions.Taxonomic breakdown of the artisanal catch from 1950 to 2010A large portion of the reconstructed catch from 1950 to 1999 was attributed to the ‘marine fishes nei’ category. Therefore, we used the species composition of the total catch (excluding the shrimp and associated by-catch that was deemed to be reported) each year to reassign a significant portion of the ‘marine fishes nei’ catch to better taxonomic resolution (i.e., family, genus or species). For the 2000 to 2010 period, we reassigned a significant portion of the FAO ‘marine fishes nei’ category to specific taxonomic groups using the FAO species proportions excluding the shrimp and already disaggregated by-catch. The new artisanal species proportions were then used to derive the species composition of the unreported artisanal catch for the same period.Subsistence from 1950 to 2010Cuban population data were obtained from Populstat (www .populstat.info) for 1950 to 1959, and from the WorldBank (http://data.worldbank.org/country/cuba) for 1960 to 2010 (Figure 2). Total annual coastal population was determined by applying the percent coastal population to the total population for each year. Coastal population data were known for 1990, 2000, and 2010 (CIESIN 2012). The percentages of population living on the coast were interpolated between 1990, 2000 and 2010, and the 1990 anchor point was carried back, fixed, to 1950. From 1950 to 2010, we assumed a decrease in per capita subsistence seafood consumption, and linearly interpolated from an assumed 2 kg·person-1·yr-1 in 1950 to 1 kg·person-1·yr-1 in 2010. These rates were applied to the total coastal population to determine the total subsistence catch per year. The total subsistence catch was disaggregated at the family level using the artisanal family composition for the same period, excluding catch associated with the ‘Caribbean spiny lobster’ and ‘Stromboid conchs nei’.Cuban tourism and recreational fishing from 1950-2010There has been a rapid increase in tourist arrivals to Cuba since the late 1980s (Espino 2008). Recreational fishing is a popular attraction for tourists; however few attempts have been made to quantify the extent of recreational fishing in Cuba (Figueredo Martin et al. 2010). We estimated recreational catches based on the assumption that recreational fishers make up 20% of tourists arriving to Cuba. We then estimated the number of recreational fishers using available data on tourist arrivals from 1950 to 2010. Tourism data from 1950 to 1961 and 1990 to 2000 were based on estimates made by Jayawardena (2003). We assumed minimal tourist arrivals after the Cuban revolution in 1959, until around 1975 when efforts to promote the tourism industry renewed (Elliott and Neirotti 2008; Taylor and McGlynn 2009). Therefore, we set the number of recreational fishers to a very conservative zero from 1961 to 1975 and interpolated between 1975 and 1982. From 1982 to 1989 and 2001 to 2007, tourist arrivals were based on estimates made by Espino (2008). Tourist arrivals from 2008 to 2010 were obtained from the Cuban National Statistics Office (Anon. 2012). Finally, we assumed a recreational catch rate of 5 kg·recreational fisher-1·year-1 and assigned the estimated recreational catch to four fish families commonly associated with recreational catch: Serranidae (20%), Lutjanidae (30%), Haemulidae (20%), and Scombridae (30%).0246810121950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Population (x106 )YearFigure 2.  Population estimates for Cuba, 1950-2010.  28Catch-and-release has become an increasingly popular option for recreational fishers, especially if they fish in marine protected areas (Figueredo Martin et al. 2010). This method reduces the impact of recreational fishing on marine ecosystems and has been considered more economically and ecologically favorable compared to recreational fishing for consumption purposes. Catch-and-release is the only permitted form of fishing practiced in the Jardines de la Reina reserve. This is the largest marine reserve in the Caribbean and a popular destination for recreational fishers around the world (Figueredo Martin et al. 2010).resultsReconstructed total catch 1950-2010The reconstructed total marine catch for Cuba within Cuba’s EEZ waters is estimated to be over 2.75 million t over the 1950 to 2010 period. This is 18% higher than the amount reported by FAO (after adjustment for catches within the EEZ only; Figure 3a). Total reconstructed catch including catches allocated to outside the EEZ was estimated to be over 3.15 million t (i.e., 16% higher than the landings reported by FAO for area 31, but excluding the large pelagics).Reconstructed total catches within Cuba’s EEZ waters increased from over 10,000 t·year-1 in 1950 to a peak of 76,700 t·year-1 in 1985, and then declined to approximately 28,500 t·year-1 in 2010. Of the reconstructed catch, the artisanal sector constitutes 66% (1.8 million t), industrial 23% (644,500 t), subsistence 10% (268,400 t), and recreational 1% (almost 36,000 t; Figure 3a). The Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) was the largest contributor, accounting for nearly 21% (571,000 t) of the total catch. This was followed by Lutjanus synagris (5.6%), Elasmobranchii (5.0%), Haemulidae (4.9%), Penaeus duorarum (4.8%), and Crassostrea rhizophorae (4.1%; Figure 3b).Industrial shrimp fisheries and by-catchBeginning in the late 1960s, estimated industrial catch, including by-catch associated with the shrimp fisheries, increased rapidly to an average of nearly 28,000 t·year-1 in the late 1970s. Between 1969 and 1989, industrial catch totaled 488,000 t. By the early 1990s, industrial catch began to decline, reaching 1,000 t·year-1 in 2010.The total by-catch generated by the Cuban shrimp fisheries from 1969-2010 was about 442,300 t. Following 1969, recorded by-catch increased considerably to an average of almost 20,300 t·year-1 in the late 1970s. This was followed by a sharp drop to 13,750 t·year-1 in 1981 which then rose again to an average of 21,450 t·year-1 between 1983 and 1989. By-catch has significantly declined since the early 1990s, dropping to 265 t·year-1 in 2010. By-catch was largely composed of mojarras (Gerridae) including Eucinostomus spp. and Diapterus rhombeus, accounting for approximately 8% and 7%, respectively. In addition to this retained by-catch, we conservatively estimated a general discard of 3,345 t over the 1969 to 2010 time period (Figure 3a).Artisanal fisheriesReconstructed artisanal catch from 1950 to 2010 was just under 1.81 million t. Artisanal catch increased from less than 6,000 t·year-1 in 1950 to a peak of nearly 57,000 t·year-1 in 2000. Since the early 2000s, artisanal catches have rapidly declined to less than 21,400 t·year-1 in 2010. The Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) contributed to the majority of the total artisanal catch, accounting for over 571,300 t (31.7%) of the catch from 1950-2010. This was followed by Lutjanus synagris (7.6%), Elasmobranchii (6.4%), Crassostrea rhizophorae (6.3%), and Haemulidae (5.5%).020406080a)ArtisanalIndustrialSubsistenceRecreationalSupplied to FAODiscard0204060801950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 10³)Yearb)Panulirus argus Lutjanus synagrisPenaeus duorarum Crassostrea rhizophoraeElasmobranchiiHaemulidaeOthersFigure 3.  Reconstructed total catch by a) fisheries sector plus discards for Cuba (inside the Cuban EEZ) for 1950-2010. Note that data reported by FAO on behalf of Cuba are overlaid as line graph; and b) by major taxa with ‘others’ representing an additional 60 taxa.Cuba - Au et al. 29Subsistence fisheriesSubsistence catches increased gradually from around 3,640 t·year-1 in 1950 to a peak of nearly 5,000 t·year-1 in 1976. It has been on a gradual decline ever since, dropping back down to 3,600 t·year-1 in 2010. Subsistence catches were dominated by Lutjanidae (23%), followed by Serranidae (15%), Haemulidae (10.5%), and Clupeidae (9%). Over the entire time period, catches of Serranidae exhibited a significant decrease, falling from an average of around 1,200 t·year-1 in the 1950s to an average of 27 t·year-1 in the 2000s.Recreational fisheriesRecreational fishing averaged just over 200 t·year-1 from 1950-1959, dropping to a mere 4 t after the Cuban revolution. Recreational fishing was non-existent until the late 1970s, after which it increased gradually up until the 1990s. Following 1990, estimated catches increased rapidly to a maximum of 2,500 t·year-1 in 2010.discussionThe reconstructed total marine catches from 1950 – 2010 within the Cuban EEZ were estimated to be 18% higher than the amount reported by the FAO for the same time period. Our reconstruction demonstrates that, in general, commercial catches have been well reported to the FAO during this period (Figure 3a). Cuban marine catches follow a typical trend seen in many other fisheries, demonstrating a rapid growth phase followed by an over-exploited phase (Baisre et al. 2003). Trends in Cuba’s fisheries are largely tied to the changes to its socio-economic context and its evolving management strategies.Until the mid 1960s, there was relatively low demand for seafood products and Cuban marine resources were considered under-exploited (Claro et al. 2009). The period of rapid growth observed after the mid 1960s was largely fueled by economic support from the Soviet Union which promoted an increase in fishing effort and expansion of large-scale fisheries (Claro et al. 2009). Improvements to the organization and efficiency of the commercial fishery lead to a peak in total landings of over 76,700 t·year-1 in 1985 (Figure 3).Associated with the rapid expansion of the fishing industry was a decline in several key commercial species, including Caribbean spiny lobsters, Nassau groupers, lane snappers, grey snappers, and mullets (Claro et al. 2009; Valle et al. 2011). The Caribbean spiny lobster is the most valuable commercial fishery in Cuba and is currently considered fully-exploited (Valle et al. 2011). Several management measures were introduced in the 1980s to address over-fishing, including a reduction in commercial fishing effort and increasing the length of the closed season. Despite these measures, we estimated a decline of 39% in spiny lobster landings from its peak in 1985 to 2010.The decline in overall landings since the mid 1980s may be attributed to the combined effect of overfishing and habitat damage leading to a reduction in recruitment and population abundance since 1989 (Baisre et al. 2003; Puga et al. 2005). In addition to this, the end of economic support due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and tightening of US trade embargos largely impaired fishing effort after 1990. This led to reductions in commercial landings, especially also associated with distant-water fleets (Adams et al. 2001).Presently, there is a lack of information available regarding fishery removals by subsistence and recreational fishing in Cuba. Catches from subsistence and recreational fisheries as estimated here accounted for only 9.8% and 1.3%, respectively, of the reconstructed catch from 1950-2010. The majority of subsistence catch is sold on the black market or used for domestic consumption, therefore these catches are not typically reflected in government landings data (Claro et al. 2009). Recreational fishing quotas, gear restrictions, and licenses were not introduced by the MIP until 1997, along with the establishment of the National Office of Fish Inspection (ONIP) which manages license distribution and compliance. Using anecdotal information and fishing license data obtained from the ONIP, Claro et al. (2004) estimated recreational catches in the Archipelago Saban-Camagüey alone to be around 1,800 t for the year 2000, which is already slightly higher than our country-wide estimate of 1,770 t.conclusionThe Cuban fishing industry has undergone considerable change over the past 50 years as a result of changing political environments and management strategies. By taking into account unreported catches from both commercial and non-commercial small-scale fisheries, our reconstruction provides a more comprehensive account of total marine resource use in Cuba. Several of Cuba’s key commercial species are currently exploited at their maximum sustainable yield, and many are exhibiting signs of overfishing (Valle et al. 2011). Continued over-exploitation of marine resources will negatively impact the role of Cuban fisheries as a primary supplier of seafood to the global market and as a valuable source of domestic revenue and animal protein.acknowledgementsThe present study is a contribution of Sea Around Us, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. The funding support of the Rockefeller Foundation is greatly appreciated. 30reFerencesAdams C, Sanchez Vega P and Garcia Alvarez A (2001) An overview of the Cuban fishing industry and recent changes in management structure and objectives. pp. 1-7 In Johnston RS (ed.) Microbehavior and Macroresults: Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial Conference of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade, July 10-14, 2000, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET), Corvallis, USA.Anon. (2012) Anuario Estadístico de Cuba 2011 (Statistical Yearbook of Cuba 2011). Oficina Nacional de Estadística e Información, Havana, Cuba. Available at: http://www.one.cu/aec2011/esp/15_tabla_cuadro.htm [Accessed 21 August 2013].Baisre JA, Booth S and Zeller D (2003) Cuban fisheries catches within FAO area 31 (Western Central Atlantic): 1950–1999. pp. 133-139 In: Zeller D, Booth S, Mohammed E and Pauly D (eds.) From Mexico to Brazil: Central Atlantic fisheries catch trends and ecosystem models. Fisheries Centre Research Report 11(6), Vancouver.CIESIN (2012) National Aggregates of Geospatial Data Collection: Population, Landscape, And Climate Estimates, Version 3 (PLACE III). Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN)/Columbia University, Palisades, NY. Available at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/nagdc-population-landscape-climate-estimates-v3. [Accessed: Nov 21, 2012].Claro R, Baisre JA, Lindeman KC and García-Arteaga JP (2001) Cuban Fisheries: Historical Trends and Current Status. pp. 194-219 In Claro R, Lindeman KC and Parenti LR (eds.), Ecology of the Marine Fishes of Cuba. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.Claro R, García-Arteaga JP, Gobert B, Cantelar Ramos K, Valle Gómez SV and Pina Amargós F (2004) Situación actual de los recursos pesqueros del archipiélago Sabana-Camgüey, Cuba. Boletin de Investigaciones Marines y Costeras 33: 49-67.Claro R, Sadovy de Micheson Y, Lindeman KC and García-Cagide AR (2009) Historical analysis of Cuban commercial fishing effort and the effects of management interventions on important reef fishes from 1960-2005. Fisheries Research 99(1): 7-16.Elliott SM and Neirotti LD (2008) Challenges of tourism in a dynamic island destination: The case of Cuba. Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment 10(3): 375-402.Espino MD (2008) International tourism in Cuba: An update. pp. 130-137 In ASCE (ed.) Cuba in Transition. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE), Vol. 18, Miami.Figueredo Martin T, Pina Amargós F, Angulo Valdés J and Gómez Fernández R (2010) Pesca recreativa en Jardines de la Reina, Cuba: Caracterización y percepción sobre el estado de conservación del area. Revista de Investigaciones Marinas 31(2): 141-148.Jayawardena C (2003) Revolution to revolution: why is tourism booming in Cuba? International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 15(1): 52-58.Muñoz-Nuñez D (2009) The Caribbean spiny lobster fishery in Cuba: An approach to sustainable fishery management. M.Sc. thesis, University of Duke, Durham, USA. 97 p. Available at: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/10161/1008/Munoz-Nunez_MP-May2009.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed: August 22, 2013].Puga R, Vázquez SH, Martines JL and de León ME (2005) Bioeconomic modeling and risk assessment of the Cuban fishery for spiny lobster Panulirus argus. Fisheries Research 75: 149-163.Taylor LH and McGlynn L (2009) International tourism in Cuba: Can capitalism be used to save socialism? Futures 41(6): 405-413.Valle SV, Sosa M, Puga R, Font L and Duthit R (2011) Coastal fisheries of Cuba. pp. 155-174 In Salas S, Chuenpagdee R, Charles A and Seijo JC (eds.), Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 544, Rome.Cuba - Au et al. 31Appendix Table A1.  FAO landings vs. reconstructed total catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector with discards shown separately, for Cuba, 1950-2010.Year FAO landings Reconstructed total catch Industrial Artisanal Subsistence Recreational Discard1950 4,159 10,200 472 5,900 3,640 168 91951 5,758 9,600 351 5,410 3,690 189 71952 6,172 10,600 400 6,220 3,740 189 81953 4,591 11,400 1,020 6,400 3,750 192 201954 5,439 10,900 550 6,150 3,990 199 111955 7,266 11,600 900 6,370 4,080 214 181956 9,593 16,000 2,110 9,580 4,080 223 421957 13,204 17,600 1,990 11,210 4,130 272 401958 11,231 15,600 1,450 9,780 4,170 212 291959 14,258 18,700 718 13,540 4,210 180 141960 17,336 25,000 2,239 18,280 4,320 87 451961 18,244 24,500 1,744 18,370 4,370 4 351962 24,591 31,800 1,461 25,860 4,420 22 291963 23,157 32,000 1,830 25,610 4,480 - 371964 25,319 32,200 3,541 24,080 4,530 - 711965 26,234 33,300 1,874 26,810 4,590 - 371966 27,492 34,400 2,807 26,900 4,630 - 561967 32,271 37,000 2,690 29,580 4,670 - 541968 33,748 38,500 2,883 30,870 4,710 - 581969 38,466 43,300 5,461 33,010 4,750 - 881970 34,682 39,600 7,907 26,770 4,790 - 1101971 48,207 53,200 16,177 32,030 4,820 - 1321972 53,287 58,300 19,049 34,240 4,860 - 1781973 58,343 63,500 20,974 37,430 4,890 - 1801974 62,527 68,000 26,453 36,460 4,910 - 2141975 58,144 63,200 26,368 31,780 4,920 - 1821976 63,539 68,600 30,467 33,070 4,920 - 1861977 57,742 62,900 26,221 31,520 4,920 43 1541978 61,580 66,700 29,664 31,920 4,900 65 1521979 58,189 64,900 27,430 32,340 4,880 86 1401980 58,529 64,600 27,862 31,700 4,860 108 1131981 50,850 56,800 18,278 33,450 4,830 129 911982 59,487 66,000 21,943 38,960 4,790 151 1051983 65,107 70,600 25,749 39,790 4,760 174 901984 68,598 74,000 24,212 44,790 4,730 218 851985 71,381 76,700 26,361 45,330 4,710 243 961986 70,468 76,400 26,776 44,550 4,690 282 921987 69,920 75,600 25,988 44,510 4,680 294 951988 69,596 74,700 26,110 43,490 4,680 309 891989 66,980 72,000 25,573 41,410 4,670 326 661990 54,098 59,600 17,846 36,750 4,650 327 481991 53,756 59,700 16,705 37,880 4,620 415 571992 50,710 55,800 16,445 34,270 4,570 455 451993 39,821 45,200 12,568 27,530 4,530 544 551994 49,270 54,400 14,311 34,960 4,480 617 451995 47,912 53,400 11,635 36,570 4,430 763 371996 44,201 52,100 6,257 40,390 4,380 1,004 341997 46,632 60,700 4,190 51,020 4,320 1,170 401998 40,772 55,500 3,267 46,480 4,260 1,416 351999 47,090 60,200 4,002 50,290 4,200 1,603 592000 50,278 65,000 2,159 56,930 4,150 1,772 322001 35,816 48,000 2,017 40,060 4,100 1,775 302002 26,533 36,900 1,778 29,380 4,050 1,686 262003 26,959 37,600 1,967 29,690 4,010 1,900 292004 26,196 36,800 1,972 28,800 3,950 2,049 292005 23,085 33,400 2,150 24,950 3,900 2,319 322006 22,846 32,900 2,063 24,760 3,850 2,221 302007 22,866 32,800 631 26,240 3,790 2,152 92008 22,412 32,400 720 25,610 3,730 2,316 112009 22,387 32,400 809 25,490 3,660 2,405 122010 19,049 28,500 1,003 21,370 3,600 2,507 15 32Appendix Table A1.  Reconstructed total catches (in tonnes) by major taxonomic groups for Cuba, 1950-2010. ‘Others’ contain 55 additional taxonomic categories.Year Panulirus argusMiscellaneous marine fishes Lutjanus synagris Elasmobranchii Haemulidae Penaeus duorarum Crassostrea rhizophorae Others1950 588 14 1,001 1,390 423 - 571 6,2101951 539 99 758 1,572 610 - 401 5,7601952 583 91 1,014 1,534 571 - 449 6,4001953 518 37 963 1,407 446 - 877 7,1701954 559 25 747 1,416 539 - 763 6,8801955 671 20 692 1,625 616 - 748 7,2201956 4,158 47 662 1,458 732 - 471 8,5601957 5,456 162 589 715 913 - 636 9,3301958 4,488 102 367 692 1,194 - 505 8,3901959 6,789 64 413 1,583 751 - 533 8,6001960 7,190 14 1,112 1,451 993 - 1,630 12,5901961 8,291 3 1,292 306 901 - 1,632 12,1001962 8,409 438 2,545 1,971 1,765 - 2,806 14,2901963 8,225 530 2,052 1,689 2,249 - 3,078 14,6601964 7,257 412 2,199 1,424 2,454 - 2,639 16,2501965 9,816 304 2,232 1,500 2,118 - 2,973 14,6701966 9,788 363 2,620 1,094 2,186 - 3,107 15,6001967 9,046 411 4,393 1,195 3,540 - 3,455 15,3701968 9,551 312 3,699 2,929 3,890 - 2,507 15,9401969 11,780 454 4,523 2,735 3,937 3,100 2,763 14,4701970 8,053 549 3,097 2,261 3,186 3,900 3,684 15,4001971 9,958 2,496 4,617 2,804 3,097 4,700 3,828 24,1601972 10,605 3,335 4,522 2,433 3,558 6,200 3,797 27,2101973 10,942 5,318 5,240 2,783 2,599 6,300 3,475 32,1301974 11,633 4,736 5,282 3,432 2,744 7,500 2,202 35,2401975 9,304 3,856 4,438 3,220 3,295 6,400 3,184 33,4101976 10,623 4,725 3,962 2,785 3,203 6,500 2,219 39,3601977 7,738 4,197 3,715 3,192 2,351 5,400 2,145 38,3201978 11,309 5,243 2,694 2,811 2,411 5,300 2,355 39,8201979 11,717 4,775 2,680 2,469 2,520 4,900 2,890 37,7101980 11,681 5,459 2,220 2,800 2,654 3,940 2,224 39,1201981 11,697 3,504 1,973 3,629 2,534 3,170 2,661 31,1101982 13,133 4,519 2,507 3,606 2,455 3,670 3,124 37,4601983 12,787 6,204 2,921 3,662 2,429 3,150 2,773 42,8401984 15,247 6,819 3,232 3,570 2,686 2,960 3,256 43,0901985 16,213 6,922 2,988 3,472 2,636 3,370 3,025 45,0301986 14,248 7,319 3,040 3,252 2,550 4,140 3,062 46,1001987 15,401 7,112 3,294 3,331 2,700 4,740 2,642 43,4601988 14,128 7,141 3,160 2,909 2,570 4,450 2,934 44,5201989 13,163 6,704 3,111 2,973 2,992 3,280 2,730 43,7901990 9,861 6,116 2,705 2,571 2,876 2,380 2,667 36,5601991 12,259 5,839 2,460 1,813 2,535 2,860 2,545 35,2101992 11,581 5,649 2,283 1,978 2,485 2,260 1,896 33,3001993 10,240 3,696 1,786 1,325 1,984 2,740 1,438 25,7201994 11,888 4,914 2,609 2,007 3,013 2,230 1,407 31,2601995 11,484 4,365 2,709 1,946 3,187 1,850 2,301 29,9601996 11,662 3,949 2,456 2,659 2,655 1,710 2,350 28,5701997 12,448 9,379 3,495 2,826 2,458 2,000 2,814 34,7001998 12,878 7,882 3,621 2,563 2,129 1,730 3,121 29,4201999 14,171 12,299 2,523 2,299 2,426 2,940 2,709 33,0902000 12,696 12,546 3,609 4,042 2,354 1,590 - 40,7502001 10,362 4,218 2,910 4,006 2,063 1,480 - 27,1602002 11,035 1,184 2,569 3,770 1,952 1,310 - 16,2902003 8,453 4,897 1,744 2,215 2,536 1,450 - 21,1902004 11,696 3,390 1,358 1,032 2,529 1,450 - 18,7402005 9,270 3,862 1,122 1,038 2,135 1,580 - 18,2102006 7,024 3,872 1,821 1,638 2,089 1,520 - 18,8302007 7,614 4,276 2,010 1,631 1,820 460 - 19,2802008 8,717 2,894 2,514 1,584 1,451 530 - 17,5902009 6,459 3,614 1,993 1,564 1,822 600 - 19,9502010 6,265 1,065 2,165 1,022 1,747 740 - 16,560Dominica - Ramdeen et al. 33reconstruction oF total marine Fisheries catches For dominica (1950-2010)1Robin Ramdeen, Sarah Harper, and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada r.ramdeen@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.ca >abstractFisheries catch misreporting occurs world-wide, and Caribbean fisheries are no exception. Under-reporting catches may lead to erroneous expectations about trends and present or future resource levels, this must be addressed in order to create realistic national, regional or international policies. This report presents the reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches by Dominica for the period 1950-2010, which includes estimates of unreported small-scale fisheries catches. Reconstructed total domestic fisheries catches for the period 1950-2010 were estimated to be nearly 85,000 t, which is 1.8 times the official reported landings of 46,523 t as supplied to FAO. This substantially higher catch better reflects the historical importance of fisheries in meeting domestic food requirements, as well as the deficiency of the present accounting system.introductionThe Commonwealth of Dominica (referred to as ‘Dominica’ throughout this report) is located at 15 °18’ N and 61° 23’ W between the French islands of Guadeloupe (in the north) and Martinique (in the south) (Figure 1). It has an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of approximately 28,500 km2 (www .seaaroundus.org). The rich diversity of ecosystems and wildlife has earned Dominica the title “Nature Island of the Caribbean.” There are approximately 1,200 species of plants, 18 species of terrestrial mammals, 19 species of reptiles and the most diverse avifauna of the Lesser Antilles with 175 species of birds including two endemic parrots (Anon. 2001a). Originally settled by Caribs (Native Indians originating in South America) and visited by Christopher Columbus in 1493, Dominica went back and forth between French and British colonial rule for over a century (1627-1783; Honychurch 1995). In 1865, Dominica became a British crown colony and eventually gained independence from Britain in 1978. Since then, Dominica has experienced a relatively stable political history. The weather on the other hand, has been highly unstable. Between 1886 and 1996, Dominica experienced 59 tropical storms, of which 19 were hurricanes (Anon. 2008). These hurricanes have caused extensive damage to many of Dominica’s assets, including its fisheries sector: in 1979, Hurricane David almost entirely demolished the island’s fishing fleet; storms in 1996, 1997 and again in 1999 damaged coral reefs, seagrass beds, beach landing sites, and fisheries infrastructure, with estimated damages of EC$ 7.6 M (US$2.8 M; Anon. 2000).Human migration has been another major issue for this Eastern Caribbean island, both historically and at present. During the 1800s, many Dominicans emigrated to work in mines in Venezuela and French Guinea, and in the early 1900s to Panama to build the Canal. More recently, there have been two waves of migration from the island: from 1959 to 1962, with the majority of islanders settling in the United Kingdom, and from 1983 to 1992 to the United States. Lack of opportunity for education and employment is thought to be the major driving force behind this movement (Fontaine 2006).Economically, Dominica’s GDP per capita stands at 7,100 USD (2011 value; 73rd World position), which is approximately 2,000 USD less than the average GDP per capita of small Caribbean islands (www.data.worldbank.org). However, Dominica’s eco-tourism sector may offer a brighter future as it is a growing source of revenue. Tourists are indeed attracted by Dominica’s tall mountains, dense rainforests, fast-flowing rivers and waterfalls.Consequently, the Government is currently trying to revive the economic sector through promoting eco-tourism, along with developing an offshore banking sector.Traditionally, Dominica has relied on agriculture and fishing as a means of self-sustenance. In the early 1900s, leading export crops included lime, bananas and vanilla (Fentem 1960), but the agricultural sector regularly suffered from hurricane damage and labor shortages. Thus, Dominica has always been heavily reliant on imported food 1 Cite as: Ramdeen, R., Harper, S., and Zeller, D. (2014) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Dominica (1950-2010). pp. 33-42. In: Zylich, K., Zeller, D., Ang, M. and Pauly, D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  Extend of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Dominica. The inset map shows its location in the wider Caribbean region. 34commodities, including seafood, to meet domestic demand. The bulk of imported seafood products are in the form of salted cod from Canada (Mitchell and Gold 1983; Sebastien 2002; FAO 2011). Despite this trade reliance, small-scale fisheries in Dominica have always contributed to the food security of the island’s small population (Anon. 2006a), although it appears not to be accounted for in official statistics. Here, we consider small-scale fisheries to include three sectors: subsistence, artisanal, and recreational. Subsistence fishing refers to any fishing activity that is not aimed at generating an income but at supplying necessary daily food. Artisanal fishing is on the contrary carried out with the primary aim of “fish for money”, meaning that catches are usually being sold on local markets or exported. Recreational fishing refers to fishing where the main motivation is not consumption, trade or sale of the catch, but rather enjoyment.Fishing in Dominica is largely artisanal in nature (Mitchell and Gold 1983; FAO 2002) and has been a traditional occupation for coastal inhabitants (Honychurch 1995) with many fishers operating at a subsistence (Anderson and Mathes 1985) and artisanal level. A small recreational fishing sector has developed in the last decade due to the development of the tourism sector. The artisanal sector consists predominantly of part-time fishers who operate from motorized vessels, including dugout canoes up to 6 m in length, “keel” boats which range from 4-7 m and fiber reinforced plastic vessels (FAO 2002). This fishery is seasonal, with a high season from January to June when pelagic species such as flyingfish (Exocotidae), tuna (Thunnus spp.), dolphinfish (Corryphaena hippurus) and kingfish (Scomberomorus cavalla) are targeted with trolling, gillnets, hand lines and beach seines, and a low season from July to December, when demersal species are targeted with handlines and fishpots (Anderson and Mathes 1985).While there are minor reef and demersal fisheries, historically, pelagic species have been the major focus of the Dominican fisheries (FAO 1987). The island has a very narrow continental shelf, which drops very sharply into submarine valleys and canyons (FAO 2007). As a result, Dominica’s nearshore waters tend to be very deep, and demersal resources such as conch (Strombus gigas) and lobster (Panulirus argus) are very limited (Mitchell and Gold 1983; FAO 2007). Fish Aggregating Devices (FAD) were introduced in Dominica in 1987, to increase catches of large migratory pelagics. However, due to the lack of knowledge about selecting mooring sites and the cost of constructing FADs, it took several training sessions by the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture for FADs to catch on in Dominica (Anon. 2005).Nearshore fisheries resources are severely depleted in most Caribbean areas (Fanning et al. 2011) and the situation is no different in Dominica. By the mid-1980s, snappers (Lutjanidae), groupers (Serranidae), parrotfishes (Scaridae), grunts (Haemulidae) and squirrelfishes (Holocentridae) had already been overfished (Guiste and Gobert 1996) by locals and foreign fishers alike (Anderson and Mathes 1985). Illegal fishing is prevalent in Dominica, with local fishers complaining about competition from French fishers from Guadeloupe and Martinique operating without permission and using more advanced and efficient gears in Dominica’s EEZ (Brownell 1978). However, Dominican fishers are also guilty of fishing illegally outside their water, at Aves Island. Aves Island, also known as Bird island, is a bird sanctuary made mostly of sand and coral (Fontaine 2002). Located 140 miles west of Dominica, the island is indeed a Caribbean dependency of Venezuela who has a coastguard station there since 1979, and to our knowledge, there is no fishing agreement between Venezuela and Dominica.All catches of demersal and pelagic species are for local consumption (either for direct subsistence or sale at local markets), as there are no records of fish exports (Sebastien 2002; FAO 2011). Processing and marketing of catches is done by the fishers themselves, with few middlemen or vendors (Anderson and Mathes 1985). Cold storage facilities are often lacking at fishing centers and there is limited practice of drying and salting of fish (Goodwin et al. 1985). In 1997, the Roseau Fisheries Complex was established, with funding assistance from the Japanese Government, giving fishers a central market for dispersal of catches. Prior to this, fish was sold directly at landing sites (Anderson and Mathes 1985).The number of people actively involved in Caribbean fisheries was estimated to be approximately 505,00 in the 1990s (Fanning et al. 2011). Despite the importance of fisheries in providing employment and high quality protein for the Caribbean people, the small-scale nature of fishing operations earns the sector a low ranking on government agendas. It is therefore not surprising that fisheries data collection in Dominica only began in 19862 and covers only major landing sites and major species landed (Guiste et al. 1996). Thus, several components of total fisheries removals have not been recorded. This problem is widespread, as evidenced for example for the two neighboring islands of Guadeloupe and Martinique (Frotte et al. 2009a, 2009b).Using the approach as these authors, as described by Zeller et al. (2007), total marine fisheries catches for Dominica were reconstructed since 1950. We used the FAO Fish Stat database (FAO 2012) as reported catch baseline, as it offers the complete time series of official marine fisheries landings from 1950 to present. As this is based on national statistics supplied by each member country (Garibaldi 2012), its quality is dependent on the capacity of data collection within these countries. Due to weak institutional capacity, Dominica is one of the Caribbean islands which struggles with data collection, and therefore can only provide FAO with basic statistical data on its fishery sector. A thorough review of the Dominican fisheries literature (published and unpublished), complemented with local expert knowledge was therefore used to: (1) provide an improved, more realistic, estimate of total marine fisheries catches for Dominica for the period 1950-2010, and (2) improve the taxonomic breakdown of catches.2  However FAO FishStat show catches for Dominica beginning in the year 1950.Dominica - Ramdeen et al. 35methodsA regional nutrition survey by Adams (1992) provided a per capita fresh fish consumption rate which was combined with human population data for Dominica to independently reconstruct the likely total local demand for fresh fish from 1950 to 2010. Using tourism statistics on the number of stay-over tourists on the island, we estimated the tourist seafood demand from 1950 to 2010. Thus, combining local and visitor seafood demand we estimated total domestic marine fisheries extractions for Dominica from 1950-2010. Due to the lack of data, no estimate of sport-fishing was undertaken during this study.Human population, numbers of fishers and touristsHuman population data were extracted from the World Bank database (http://data.worldbank.org). Data were available for most years, and a linear interpolation was done to estimate the population in years with missing data: 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1979 (see Figure 2). This total human population time-series was then used to estimate the number of fishers (Figure 3). There were 300 part-time fishers in 1960 (Fentem 1960), 1,700 in 1975 (Mitchell and Gold 1983) and 1,800 in 2000 (Sebastien 2002). Direct linear interpolations were used between anchor points to estimate the population of part time fishers from 1960-2000. The ratio of part-time fishers within the total population for the years 1960 and 2000 were calculated and applied to the human population for the periods 1950-1959 and 2001-2010, respectively.Data on the number of stop-over tourists (travelers who stay on the island for more than a day) were available from the Caribbean Tourism Organization ( <www.onecaribbean.org>), the Ministry of Tourism in Dominica ( http:// ourism.gov.dm >) and a case study of tourism and development in the region (Bryden 1973). Data were available for 1961-1962, 1967-1968 and 1980-2010. However we assumed tourism started in 1950, so a direct linear interpolation was done to estimate the tourist population in years with missing data.Annual tourist population numbers were combined with data on the average length of stay of approximately 7 days (Anon. 2006b). Taken together with inferences about the frequency of seafood consumption (one serving of seafood per day) and a typical round weight serving proportion of 250 grams (determined by J. Adams regional household survey), we applied the following equation to estimate annual tourist seafood demand annually:Small-scale fisheriesTo independently estimate Dominica’s total small-scale fisheries catches, we multiplied annual population numbers by 20 kg fish∙person-1∙year-1, a regional fresh fish consumption rate from (Adams 1992). This consumption rate was derived from 623 randomly surveyed households in Trinidad, Tobago, St. Vincent, St. Lucia and Belize between September 1980 and June 1981. The respondents reported serving a 250 gram portion (round weight) of fish on average 1.7 times weekly. Locally, the Dominica Food and Nutrition Council carried out a national survey of domestic food consumption patterns in 1996. The document was accessed at the local library and only contained data on the frequency of fresh fish consumption, i.e., 45% of Dominicans report eating fresh fish 2-6 times per week (Anon. 2001b). Due to the lack of detailed information in the national study, we used the regional consumption estimate (Adams 1992) and assumed that consumption rates remained constant from 1950 to 2010.01020304050607080901950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Population (x103 )Year00.51.01.52.01950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Fisher Population (x103)YearFigure 3.  Number of part-time fishers in Dominica during the period 1950-2010. Solid points represent anchor points used for the interpolation (1960 from Fentem 1960; 1975 from Mitchell and Gold 1983; and 2000 from Sebastien 2002).Figure 2.  Local Dominican population (solid line) and number of stop-over tourist (dotted line). Note Hurricane David occurred in 1978. 36The Fisheries Division indicated that catch data recorded in the national database may include catches from subsistence, artisanal or -more dubiously- recreational3 sectors, i.e. catch data are not easily distinguishable by sector (Derrick Theophile, pers. comm., Dominica Fisheries Division, February 2012). Thus, we assumed that reported catches consist of a mix of artisanal and subsistence catches. To assign catches to artisanal and subsistence sectors, it was assumed that in 1950, 80% of catches were from the subsistence sector and 20% were from the artisanal sector. In 2010, 50% of catches were attributed to the subsistence sector and 50% to the artisanal sector. A linear interpolation was done between these two years to derive an assignment by sector for the entire 1950-2010 time-period.Taxonomic composition of catchesFisheries division data for 2000 provided a breakdown of total landings by 4 fishery types : reef, deep slope, coastal and offshore (Sebastien 2002; Table 1). Based on the regional popularity of the fish pot (Munro 1983; Mahon and Hunte 2001) we assumed that 75% of reef fishery catches were made with fish pots and assigned 25% to catches made by bottom nets. For deep slope fisheries, we assumed 100% of catches were made by lines. Thus, total reconstructed catches were disaggregated by 5 fishery types: pot, net, line, coastal pelagic and offshore pelagic.Using our knowledge on gear popularity in Dominica in the earlier and later time period, we derived a breakdown of total landings for 1950 and 2010. Given the popularity of pot fishing, hand lining and beach seining in the earlier time period (Mitchell and Gold 1983) we increased catches by these sectors in 1950, and assumed no offshore fishery was present back then. Therefore for 1950, landings by pot fishery were increased threefold to 36%, landings by nets were doubled to 8%, landings by hand lines were doubled to 12% and coastal pelagic landings were kept constant at 44%. Due to several developmental efforts in the past decade (Sebastien 2002; Anon. 2005), offshore fishing is becoming more prevalent today. Therefore in 2010, offshore pelagic landings were increased by 10% and coastal pelagic landings were decreased by 10%.Thus, three anchor points were established for 1950, 2000 and 2010 (Table 1). Using linear interpolation between 1950, 2000 and 2010, total reconstructed catches were divided into 5 fishery types, mentioned above, for the entire time period. Finally catches were disaggregated to the family level, by applying catch compositions by fishery type from Guiste’s island wide fisheries statistical analysis performed from 1990-1992 (Guiste et al. 1996) (Table 2).3  Recreational catches were briefly assessed by telephone-interviews with 2 of the 3 tour operators operating on the island. Catches from this sector were considered minimal and were therefore not specifically assessed in this study.Table 1.   Status of major fisheries in Dominica with anchor points for disaggregation of catches by fishery typeFishery type Percentage contribution (%)aGear allocation (%)bAnchor points (%)c1950 2010Reef fisheries 16 12 pots4 nets368124Deep slope fisheries 6 6 line 12 6Coastal pelagic fishery 44 44* 44 34Offshore pelagic fishery 34 34* 0 44a Based on Sebastien (2002).bAssumed allocation of catch by gear type in 2000 for use in taxonomic breakdown in relation to Guiste et al. (1996).c Percentage contribution of each fishery type based on assumptions of gear popularity in each period* Taxonomic breakdowns for coastal and offshore pelagic catches were not broken down by gear type. Table 2.   Taxonomic breakdown (in %) applied to reconstructed catches based on Guiste et al. (1996).Taxon Common name Pot Net Line Coastal OffshoreAcanthuridae Surgeonfishes 2.00 - - - -Balistidae Triggerfishes 3.00 - 9.00 - 9.00Belonidae Needlefish - - - 1.00 -Carangidae Jacks - 26.00 - 9.00 -Carcharhinidae Sharks - 4.00 - - -Clupeidae Sprats - - - 6.00 -Coryphaenidae Dolphin fish - - - - 32.00Exocotidae Flyingfish - - - - 21.00Ballyhoo - - - 60.00 -Haemulidae Grunts 3.00 25.00 - - -Holocentridae Squirrelfishes 9.00 12.00 6.00 - -Lutjanidae Snappers 12.00 12.00 45.00 - -Mullidae Goatfishes 8.00 7.00 - - -Muraenidae Eels 5.00 - - - -Scaridae Parrotfishes 8.00 - - - -Scombridae Big eyea - - - 0.04 0.26Blackfina - - - 0.88 5.72Skipjacka - - - 1.00 6.50Tuna like species neia - - - 0.16 1.04Yellowfina - - - 1.88 12.22Kingfish - - - - 6.00Mackarel - - - 17.00 -Serranidae Groupers 17.00 4.00 27.00 - -Miscellaneous Others 33.00 10.00 13.00 5.00 6.00a Guiste et al. (1996) provide a single ‘tuna’ category. The breakdown presented in this table is based on FAO data (1990-2010), i.e., the period for which Dominica reported tuna to FAO.Dominica - Ramdeen et al. 37resultsReconstructed small-scale catches from the artisanal sector amounted to approximately 30,300 t over the time period. Reconstructed catches from the subsistence sector in Dominica totaled 54,600 t for the period 1950-2010. Artisanal catches supplying the tourist market totaled 2,272 t for the period 1950-2010. With an average annual catch of 37 t ∙year-1 supplying this sector for the last decade.Dominica’s reconstructed total fisheries catches for the period 1950-2010 were estimated to be 84,900 t, which is 1.8 times the reported catch of 46,526 t as presented by the FAO on behalf of Dominica (Figure 4a). Reported landings fluctuate between a low of 400 t∙year-1 and a high of 1500 t∙year-1 over the period 1950-2010, with average annual reported landings of 765 t∙year-1. Total unreported catches for the period 1950-2010 were estimated at 38,415 t, with average annual unreported catches of 629 t∙year-1. There were no obvious unreported catches in three years: 1979, 1981 and 1982. The substantial decline in catches in 1979 was the result of damages from Hurricane David in August of that year (Goodwin et al. 1985; Anon. 2000, 2008). Thus FAO catch data were accepted as the best representation of total catches that year.Fisheries catches of Dominica were dominated by catches of ballyhoo (21% Hemiramphus brasiliensis) a small schooling coastal species which is commonly used as bait for catching the larger pelagic (LeGore 2007). Catches of larger migratory pelagics including ‘dorado’ or dolphin fish (Coryphaenidae 10%) and billfishes (Istiophoridae 5%) were important. Catches of smaller pelagics such as mackerel (Scombridae 14%), flyingfish (Exocotidae 3%) and triggerfish (Balistidae 3%) were also significant. Demersal species were also common, as was demonstrated by the importance of snappers (Lutjanidae 9%), groupers (Serranidae 8%) and squirrelfishes (Holocentridae 3%). The remainder of catches composed of 10 families and other unidentified fish species comprised 22% of the total reconstructed catch (Figure 4b).discussionTraditionally, Dominicans have relied on agriculture and fishing for their food and livelihoods. It is still regarded as one of the least developed islands in the region. Tourism is a major and growing income earner for this small island developing state, and the success of the sector is based on a healthy natural environment which includes a healthy marine ecosystem.Unfortunately, diminishing returns from agriculture on land in Dominica is transferring pressure to the sea, as is the case in Malthusian overfishing (Pauly 1994). The downturn in the banana industry resulting from Hurricane damage in the 1970s and insecure market prices in the 1990s caused farmers to move into the fishing industry as a primary source of income (Anon. 2006a). This trend possibly began even earlier, as we demonstrated the population of part-time fishers increased by a factor of 5 from 1960 to 1975. As more and more coastal inhabitants look to the sea for improved livelihoods, fishing pressure increases, as does the threat to marine biodiversity.Dominica’s total reconstructed fisheries catches for the period 1950-2010 were estimated to be nearly 85,000 t, which is 1.8 times the officially reported catch. The difference can be attributed to underreporting of small-scale fisheries, from both subsistence and artisanal sectors. This amount is substantial and shows that local fish products contribute significantly to the island’s dietary requirements, something that had previously been understated in a market analysis of the sector (Goodwin et al. 1985). Though tourism has declined due to the global economic crisis, catches supplying visitors are important and should not be overlooked.00.30.60.91.21.51.8ArtisanalSubsistenceSupplied to FAOa)00.30.60.91.21.51.81950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )YearHemiramphus brasiliensisSerranidae OthersCoryphaenidaeScombridaeExocetidaeHolocentridaeLutjanidaeCarangidae IstiophoridaeBallistidaeb)Figure 4.  Reconstructed total catch of Dominica, 1950 to 2010; a) by sector with FAO reported landings overlaid as a line graph; and b) by main taxa. Note Hurricane David occurred in 1978. 38Our reconstruction did not estimate catches made by French fishers in Dominica’s EEZ or recreational catches. Historically, the presence of French fishers (from Guadeloupe and Martinique) has been documented, but data on their effort and landings were not available (Mitchell and Gold 1983). Thus, total removals from Dominican waters are likely higher than our reconstructed estimates, which focused only on domestic catches, as foreign catches put additional pressure on local fisheries resources. The reconstruction of Dominica’s fisheries can be viewed as an improvement of the data submitted to the FAO in terms of both total catch and taxonomic resolution.acknowledgementsThis work was completed as part of Sea Around Us, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. We are grateful to Mr. Norman Norris, and Mr. Derrick Theophile of the Dominica Fisheries Division for their assistance in understanding the fisheries data collection of Dominica. We would like to thank Ms. Jeanel Georges for her help in accessing documents at the local library in Dominica.reFerencesAdams J (1992) Fish lovers of the Caribbean. Caribbean Studies 25(1/2): 1-10.Anderson A and Mathes H (1985) Report of the EEZ policy and planning mission to Dominica. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. 40 p.Anon. (2000) The commonwealth of Dominica’s first national report on the implementation of the United Nations convention to combat desertification. Environmental Coordinating Unit, Ministry of Agriculture, Environment and Planning, Roseau, Dominica. 34 p.Anon. (2001a) Biodiversity strategy and action plan 2001-2005. Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, Roseau, Dominica. 80 p.Anon. (2001b) Dominica food consumption pattern and lifestyle survey 1996. The Dominica Food and Nutrition Council (DFNC), Government of Dominica, Caribbean Food and Nutrition Institute, Dominica. 21 p.Anon. (2005) Dominica. Annual report: The contribution of IICA to the development of agriculture and rural communities. Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA). 18 p.Anon. (2006a) National report of Dominica in report of the second annual scientific meeting. CRFM Fisheries Report 1, Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago. 6 p.Anon. (2006b) Tourism master plan 2005-2015: Commonwealth of Dominican. CHL Consulting, London, UK. 23 p.Anon. (2008) Dominica. Country hazard profile. Pan-American Health Organisation (PAHO). Available at: http://www.disaster-info.net/socios_eng.htm [Accessed: February 22, 2012].Brownell W (1978) Extension training of artisanal fishermen and other fisheries personnel in the WECAF Region. Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC), Panama. 27 p.Bryden JM (1973) Tourism and Development: A case study of the Commonwealth Caribbean. Cambridge University Press, London. xii+236 p.Fanning L, Mahon R and McConney P (2011) Towards marine ecosystem-based management in the wider Caribbean. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. 425 p.FAO (1987) Report and proceedings of the expert consultation on shared fishery resources of the Lesser Antilles region. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. 278 p.FAO (2002) Dominica. Fishery and aquaculture country profiles.FAO (2007) Regional workshop on the monitoring and management of Queen conch, Strombus gigas. Kingston, Jamaica, 1–5 May 2006. FAO Fisheries Report No. 832, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. viii+174 p.FAO (2011) FishStatJ - Software for fishery statistical time series. v1.0.0. FAO (2012) Fishstat J V2.0.0. Fentem AD (1960) Commercial geography of Dominica. Department of Geography, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. 18 p.Fontaine, T. (2002) Aves Island a strategic island in the Caribbean Sea: Should Dominica stake a claim to the island? The Dominican. 1Fontaine T (2006) Tracing the diaspora’s involvement in the development of a nation: The case of Dominica. Project on the role of diasporas in developing the homeland. George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20 p.Frotte L, Harper S, Veitch L, Booth S and Zeller D (2009a) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Guadeloupe from 1950-2007. pp. 13-19 In Zeller D and Harper S (eds.), Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Frotte L, Harper S, Veitch L, Booth S and Zeller D (2009b) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Martinique, 1950-2007. pp. 21-26 In Zeller D and Harper S (eds.), Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports. University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Garibaldi L (2012) The FAO global capture production database: A six-decade effort to catch the trend. Marine Policy 36: 760-768.Goodwin M, Orbach M, Sandifer P and Towle E (1985) Fishery sector assessment: Antigua/Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St. Christopher/Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines. Island Resource Foundation, St.Thomas, U.S.V.I. ii+155 p.Dominica - Ramdeen et al. 39Guiste H and Gobert B (1996) The fisheries of the Scottshead/Soufriere marine reserve (Dominica). Institut Francais de recherche scientifique pour le developpement en cooperation ORSTOM Centre de Brest, France. 14 p.Guiste H, Gobert B and Domalain G (1996) Statistical analysis of the fisheries of Dominica (West Indies) 1990-1992. Institute Francaise de Recherche Scientifique pour le developpement en cooperation (ORSTOM) Centre de Brest, France. 78 p.Honychurch L (1995) The Dominica story. Macmillan Education Ltd., London. 318 p.LeGore S (2007) Bait fisheries serving the marine recreational fisheries of Puerto Rico. Department of Natural and Environmental Resources Marine Resources Division, San Juan, Puerto Rico. 130 p.Mahon R and Hunte W (2001) Trap mesh selectivity and the management of reef fishes. Fish and Fisheries 2: 356-375.Mitchell CL and Gold E (1983) Fisheries development in Dominica: An assessment of the new Law of the sea, implications and strategies. Dalhousie Ocean Studies Programme, Halifax, Canada. 88 p.Munro JL (1983) Caribbean coral reef fishery resources, A second edition of “The biology, ecology, exploitation and management fo Caribbean reef fishes: Scientific report of the ODA/UWI Fisheries ecology research project 1969-1973. University of the West Indies, Jamaica” edition. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. 276 p.Pauly D (1994) On Malthusian Overfishing. p. 112-117 In Pauly D (ed.), On the Sex of fish and the Gender of Scientists: A collection of essays in fisheries science. Chapman and Hall, London.Sebastien RD (2002) National report of the commonwealth of Dominica. pp. 27-34 In FAO and WECAFC (eds.), National reports and technical papers presented at the first meeting of the WECAFC ad hoc working group on the development of sustainable moored fish aggregating device fishing in the lesser Antilles. Le Robert, Martinique 8-11 October 2001. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for U.S. flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 11.  40Appendix Table A1.  FAO landings vs. reconstructed total catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector for Dominica, 1950-2010.Year FAO landings Reconstructed total catch Artisanal Subsistence1950 600 1,020 204 8161951 600 1,040 213 8271952 600 1,061 223 8381953 800 1,081 232 8491954 800 1,101 242 8591955 600 1,142 257 8851956 400 1,162 267 8951957 400 1,183 278 9051958 400 1,183 284 8991959 500 1,184 290 8941960 500 1,203 301 9021961 500 1,204 307 8971962 600 1,224 318 9061963 600 1,265 335 9301964 600 1,307 353 9541965 500 1,327 365 9621966 500 1,368 383 9851967 500 1,414 403 1,0111968 600 1,393 404 9891969 600 1,413 417 9961970 500 1,403 421 9821971 600 1,453 443 1,0101972 700 1,445 448 9971973 800 1,455 458 9971974 900 1,575 504 1,0711975 1,001 1,600 520 1,0801976 1,024 1,627 537 1,0901977 1,047 1,651 553 1,0981978 1,070 1,677 570 1,1071979 642 642 221 4211980 1,445 1,518 531 9871981 1,514 1,534 545 9891982 1,545 1,569 565 1,0041983 800 1,520 555 9651984 700 1,512 559 9531985 640 1,499 562 9371986 644 1,491 567 9241987 500 1,481 570 9111988 500 1,474 575 8991989 500 1,469 580 8891990 458 1,475 590 8851991 552 1,474 597 8771992 711 1,478 606 8721993 794 1,489 618 8711994 882 1,498 629 8691995 950 1,503 639 8641996 1,030 1,503 646 8571997 1,079 1,499 652 8471998 1,212 1,491 656 8351999 1,200 1,492 664 8282000 1,200 1,480 666 8142001 1,200 1,473 670 8032002 1,198 1,472 708 7642003 950 1,475 686 7892004 700 1,482 697 7852005 580 1,478 702 7762006 694 1,479 710 7692007 677 1,465 711 7542008 697 1,462 717 7452009 790 1,452 719 7332010 700 1,450 725 725Dominica - Ramdeen et al. 41Appendix Table A2.  Reconstructed total catch (in tonnes) by major taxa for Dominica, 1950-2010. ‘Others’ contain 10 additional taxonomic categories.Year Hemiramphidae Coryphenidae Lutjanidae Serranidae Scombridae Istiophoridae Thunnus spp. Holocentridae Exocoetidae Balistidae Other1950 202 26 168 144 - 32 7 58 - 35 3481951 208 28 168 144 - 34 9 58 1 36 3531952 215 30 168 144 1 36 11 59 3 36 3581953 203 42 187 159 1 22 9 59 4 41 3531954 210 44 187 159 2 24 11 60 5 41 3571955 239 38 170 147 3 43 17 61 7 38 3791956 261 31 152 133 3 60 23 62 8 35 3941957 267 34 153 134 4 61 25 62 10 36 3981958 268 36 151 132 4 62 27 61 11 36 3951959 261 43 157 137 5 54 27 60 13 38 3881960 267 46 157 137 5 56 29 61 14 39 3911961 268 49 155 135 6 56 31 60 16 39 3891962 267 56 163 142 6 50 32 60 17 41 3881963 279 60 164 143 7 54 35 62 19 42 3991964 290 64 166 145 8 58 38 63 22 44 4101965 303 62 158 139 9 68 43 63 24 43 4181966 314 65 159 140 10 71 46 64 26 44 4281967 326 70 161 142 11 75 50 65 28 45 4391968 315 77 164 144 12 68 50 63 30 46 4231969 322 80 163 144 13 70 53 63 32 47 4271970 326 78 153 135 13 77 56 62 33 46 4241971 334 88 162 143 14 74 59 63 36 49 4331972 328 96 165 145 15 66 59 62 37 50 4221973 327 105 169 149 16 59 59 62 39 52 4181974 354 119 182 161 17 61 66 66 45 57 4481975 358 129 187 166 18 56 68 66 47 59 4481976 366 135 187 166 19 56 71 66 50 60 4511977 373 141 187 166 20 57 75 66 53 61 4541978 381 147 187 167 21 57 78 66 55 62 4571979 140 72 83 74 6 - 27 25 22 27 1661980 332 168 186 168 20 17 67 57 54 62 3881981 336 176 187 169 22 14 69 57 56 63 3861982 346 184 186 169 24 17 73 57 59 64 3911983 357 139 145 131 24 70 84 55 59 55 4011984 359 135 137 124 25 79 87 54 60 54 3981985 358 133 132 118 25 82 90 52 61 53 3931986 357 136 128 116 27 84 91 51 63 53 3861987 357 129 119 107 28 93 95 50 64 52 3871988 355 131 116 105 31 97 96 49 65 51 3801989 353 133 113 102 36 99 97 47 66 51 3731990 321 114 96 86 169 107 92 42 61 45 3411991 328 127 100 90 138 107 94 42 64 48 3361992 320 136 100 91 172 96 91 40 64 48 3211993 324 146 101 93 166 94 93 40 66 49 3181994 319 151 99 92 191 92 92 38 67 49 3081995 326 162 100 94 172 90 94 38 69 50 3081996 337 175 102 98 135 86 97 38 73 52 3101997 337 181 100 96 136 84 97 37 74 52 3041998 337 193 99 98 136 73 96 36 75 52 2951999 275 156 77 76 374 81 81 28 62 42 2392000 294 182 49 55 375 77 97 21 76 42 2122001 288 185 49 55 295 142 101 21 79 43 2132002 200 341 35 38 380 147 75 15 58 32 1522003 233 299 43 43 269 171 97 19 73 40 1892004 259 277 50 47 199 155 117 22 86 47 2222005 238 198 48 43 300 167 117 22 85 46 2162006 215 317 44 40 239 177 109 20 80 43 1952007 203 306 43 39 261 174 108 19 80 43 1892008 190 259 41 37 285 222 107 19 79 42 1812009 180 337 40 37 262 187 104 18 78 41 1712010 187 336 43 39 216 183 114 19 85 45 184 42Dominican Republic - Van der Meer et al. 43reconstruction oF total marine Fisheries catches For the dominican rePublic (1950-2010)1Liesbeth van der Meer, Robin Ramdeen, Kyrstn Zylich, and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada l.meer@fisheries.ubc.ca; r.ramdeen@fisheries.ubc.ca; k.zylich@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstractThe reconstructed total catch for the Dominican Republic for the period 1950-2010 was estimated at almost 2.6 million tonnes, which is approximately 5.1 times the catch presented by the FAO on behalf of the Dominican Republic. Our study includes unreported catch estimates from the recreational and subsistence sectors. It also provides estimates of unreported artisanal catches satisfying tourist markets, such as hotels and restaurants. Better accounting of total fisheries extractions is urgently needed to better understand total resource use.introductionThe Dominican Republic shares the island of Hispaniola with Haiti. This popular tourist destination occupies 48,480 km2 and lies between 19° 00’ N latitude and to 70° 40’ W longitude in the Caribbean. The north coast borders the Atlantic Ocean and the south coast borders the Caribbean Sea (Figure 1). It has an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 269,285 km2 (www .seaaroundus.org).The Dominican Republic was first discovered by the Taino Indians, members of the larger Arawak group, who originated in the Orinoco-Amazon basin (Brown 1999). After being sighted in 1492 by Christopher Columbus, the first permanent European settlement was established in Santo Domingo, which is the Dominican Republic’s present capital. After 300 years of Spanish, French and Haitian interludes, the country became independent in 1821. However, Dominicans experienced internal strife with American and Spanish interventions, civil wars and dictatorships. The most violent era in the country’s history was almost certainly from 1930-1961, when Rafael Trujillo ruled the Dominican Republic with fear and violence. He was responsible for the deaths of thousands of Dominicans as well as Haitians; in the “Parsley Massacre” of 1937 he ordered the execution of all Haitians living along the border of the Dominican Republic. It wasn’t until 1978 that the Dominican Republic successfully moved towards representative democracy.Historically, the Dominican Republic exported sugar, coffee and tobacco. However, in recent years, the service sector has overtaken agriculture as the economy’s largest employer, which has been due to growth in telecommunications, tourism and free trade zones (OECD 2010). With a blend of European, African and native Taino cultures, and 1,400 km of coastline bordering the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, millions of tourists are attracted to the Dominican Republic each year. The Dominican tourist industry grew tremendously during the 1970s, thanks to the enactment of the Tourist Incentive Law in 1971, which provided investors a ten-year tax holiday (Malik 2001). Today, tourism accounts for 67% of its total GDP, followed by industry which accounts for 32%, of which agriculture contributes 11%. The Dominican Republic is the second largest country in the Caribbean after Cuba and has a population of 10 million people, with a tourist population that averages 4 million per year. Remittances from the US amount to about a tenth of the GDP, equivalent to almost half of exports and three-quarters of tourism receipts. However, the country suffers from marked income inequality; the poorest half of the population receives less than one-fifth of GDP, while the richest 10% enjoys nearly 40% of GDP (OECD 2010).Fishing is and has always been important for the people of the Dominican Republic. The fisheries of the Dominican Republic are mainly artisanal and multi-gear. Fishers target more than 300 species of fishes, crustaceans, molluscs and echinoderms. Although fishing accounts for approximately 0.5% of the Dominican Republic’s total GDP, fishing culture has a long history that has developed particularly rapidly in the last two decades (Herrera et al. 2011). 1 Cite as: Van der Meer, L., Ramdeen, R., Zylich, K. and Zeller, D. (2014) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for the Dominican Republic (1950-2009). pp. 43-54. In: Zylich, K., Zeller, D., Ang, M. and Pauly, D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  Map of the Dominican Republic with the black line demarcating the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). 44Approximately 8,600 fishers were enumerated to be operating from 3,252 boats in the 1990 census (Anon. 2004). Boats are typically small wooden or fiberglass dinghies with an outboard engine and crews of two (Silva 1994). Fishing is carried out with more than 20 different fishing gear types, such as gillnet, line, longline, nets, and traps. Considered mainly artisanal in nature, fishers have maintained their technologies and knowledge throughout the years with little external intervention (McGoodwin 2001). Fishers land catches at approximately 200 fish landing sites among the 16 different provinces, distributed along over 1,570 km of coastline. Mangroves run along the coast for around 240 km and are considered of great economic importance, as they provide a rich habitat for marine species. Coral reefs cover several hundred square kilometers (Spalding et al. 2001) and approximately 48 species have been identified.Marine species exploited in the Dominican Republic vary greatly within regions. Spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) is the most valued marine resource in the Dominican Republic (Anon. 2004). Also highly valuable, the queen conch (Strombus gigas) fishery represents 6-16% of the national fisheries value (Anon. 2004). The queen conch is linked to platform sea grass and algae areas located mostly in the south-eastern regions (Delgado et al. 1998). Small-scale fisheries also exploit shrimp. The shrimp fishery started in the early 1960s, when locals were forced to find alternative sources of income due to closures in train operations. White shrimp (Litopenaeus schmitti) is considered the prevalent species in this area and compromises 86% of total shrimp catch (Sang et al. 1997). Other shrimp species include pink shrimp (Farfatepenaeus durarum) and the Atlantic seabob (Xiphopenaeus kroyeri).The coastal reef fishery takes place on the entire Dominican Republic shelf up to 30 meters of depth; here, more than 100 species are caught, with the majority being snappers (Lutjanidae) and groupers (Serranidae). This fishery is considered small-scale and is mostly directed to the local market, with a high tourist demand. There is also a semi-industrial fleet that operates year round with longline and handline gears to target snapper. Pelagic fisheries are prevalent on the south coast, and the main species targeted are tunas, mackerel (Scomberomorus spp.) and Atlantic sailfish (Istiophorus albicans). This is a seasonal small-scale fishery, which has recently developed (Anon. 2004).Despite productive fishing grounds, and mechanised fishing fleets, fisheries production in the Dominican Republic has not been able to satisfy demand for seafood in the country. Thus, like many other Caribbean countries, the Dominican Republic imports seafood products, averaging 34,000 tonnes per year (Herrera et al. 2011). Most of the imported seafood is comprised of shrimp destined for touristic markets (Anon. 2010). The national data collection of the Dominican Republic consists of 282 registered inspectors, who gather data for inland and marine fisheries. Medley (2001) notes several problems in the data gathering process. First, the lack of training of the inspection personnel; second, that catch weight is estimated rather than measured directly; thirdly, that there is no systematic or standard practice implemented for the collection of data and inspection of vessel logbooks; finally, he also notes that statistical errors are not accounted for.It is widely recognised that catch statistics are fundamental and crucial to fisheries management (Pauly 1998). Fisheries catch data for the Dominican Republic are scattered and scarce. A fishery census conducted in 1990 contains the most updated information available (Medley 2001). This study aims to gather information on fisheries catches and fishing practices to reconstruct the Dominican Republic’s total fisheries catches for the period 1950-2010. The catch reconstruction method used here is based on the approach developed by Zeller et al. (2007) Using this well established methodology, we aim to improve the catch data both quantitatively and taxonomically.methodsHuman population and tourist populationLocal population statistics for the Dominican Republic were taken from Populstat2 for 1950-1960 and from the World Bank3 for 1960-2010 (Figure 2). Data on coastal population (Figure 2) with urban and rural distribution were taken from the Word Bank database and were used to calculate subsistence fisheries catches and seafood demand for the period 1950-2010.Data on the number of stop-over tourists (i.e., travelers who stay on the island for more than a day) were available from the Central Bank of the Dominican Republic.4 Data were available from 1978-2010, although it was assumed that tourism began in 1961 (the end of the unstable Trujillo era). Setting the tourist population at zero for 1960 and utilizing the data from 1978-2010, we applied direct linear interpolation to derive a time series of the number of stop-over tourists visiting the Dominican Republic from 1961-2010 (Figure 2).2  www.populstat.info [Accessed August 23, 2012]3  http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL [Accessed September 21, 2012]4  http://www.bancentral.gov.do/english/index-e.asp [Accessed July 7, 2012]0246810121950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Population (x 106 )YearTotal localCoastal localTouristFigure 2.  Total local population of the Dominican Republic (Populstat and World Bank statistics), local coastal population (WorldBank), and stop-over tourist population (Central Bank of Dominican Republic).Dominican Republic - Van der Meer et al. 45Artisanal fisheriesData on artisanal catches in the Dominican Republic were available for several years from various sources (Table 1). The most complete data series reported for artisanal fisheries in the Dominican Republic was found in Herrera et al. (2011), this time series included data from 1960 to 2009. Other sources, such as the ones mentioned in Table 1, were used to prove consistency. Using these data as anchor points and applying direct linear interpolation for the years with missing data, we derived a complete time series of artisanal catches for the study time period 1950-2010. The year 1960 was the first year where data were available, and we assumed a 40% increase in artisanal catches from 1950 to 1960. The reason for this is that the tourist boom started in 1960 increasing fish demand and coastal population.The data used for reconstruction purposes were national data reported by government statistics, and research thesis and NGO reports. The national data collection system captures about 60% of artisanal landings (Jeannette Mateo, pers. comm., Director of Fisheries Ministry of the Dominican Republic). Therefore, considering that 40% of the catches are not fully captured in the data collection system and standard error was not calculated in the weight of recorded catches, we applied a raising factor of 40% to the reported catch from 1950-2010.Subsistence fisheriesDetailed data regarding subsistence fishers in the Dominican Republic were available for the local community of Buen Hombre. Buen Hombre is a small coastal fishing and farming village of about one thousand people located on the north coast of the Dominican Republic near the Haitian border (Stoffle 2001). The study was conducted in 1989 contained weekly subsistence catch rates and catch distribution information. Stoffle et al. (1994) reported an average consumption per household of 2.75 kg per fishing trip. According to Jeannette Mateo (pers. comm., Director of Fisheries Ministry of the Dominican Republic), it would be realistic to assume that a household goes out on one fishing trip per week. Based on government census information,5 we assumed an average of 5 people per household, meaning each person consumes 0.55 kg·person-1·week-1 (i.e., subsistence consumption of 28.6 kg∙person-1∙year-1). This was applied to the rural coastal population from 1950-1989. For 2010, we assumed that subsistence catch rates were 30% lower (i.e., 20.02 kg∙person-1∙year-1) and thus interpolated the rate from 28.6 kg∙person-1∙year-1 in 1989 to 20.02 kg∙person-1∙year-1 in 2010 (Table 2).Urban population was assumed to be the population of Santo Domingo only, the capital of the Dominican Republic.6 The urban population in general is assumed to consume less seafood than the rural population, as they have more access to other protein sources. For the period 1950-1989, we assumed that the urban population had a seafood consumption rate of 20.02 kg∙person-1∙year-1 (i.e., 30% lower than the rate used for the coastal rural population). For the urban population in 2010, we decreased this subsistence consumption rate by an additional 30% to 14 kg∙person-1∙year-1 (Table 2). In addition, it is known that imported seafood accounts for 60% of total urban consumption (Herrera et al. 2011). We assume that imported seafood consumption started to become important in the 1960s after supermarkets became the main source of food distribution in urban Santo Domingo. Thus, we assumed that imported seafood gradually began to constitute a greater proportion of the urban population’s seafood consumption over the 1961-1980 time period, and this amount was removed for our calculations in order to establish domestically caught consumption. From 1950-1960, the consumption was stable at 20.02 kg∙person-1∙year-1. By 1970, 30% of consumption was satisfied by imported seafood, and by 1980, a further 30% came from imports (60% in total). From 1980 to 2010, the 60% of consumption that was attributed to imported seafood was kept constant and therefore our initially estimates were reduced by 60%.Using the time series of these rural and urban subsistence seafood consumption rates rural and urban population data, we estimated subsistence fisheries catches in the Dominican Republic for the period of 1950-2010.Industrial catchesThe industrial fishery of the Dominican Republic operates year-round and takes place on the ocean banks of La Navidad and La Plata, as well as other small banks in the south. The fleet is composed of boats with decks, diesel engines, and freezing equipment, while using longline and handline as the main fishing gears. These vessels carry between 5 and 25 crew members. The species caught by the industrial fleet were described by Arima (1997, 1999). Amongst the most abundant species reported as caught are Lutjanus vivanus, L. bucanella and Epinephelus mystacinus. Although this fleet shares taxonomic affinity with parts of the artisanal fisheries, their fishing is 5  www.one.gob.do [Accessed July 29th, 2012]6  Dominican Republic’s demographic data. Available at: www.datamonitor.com [Accessed: June 2013]Table 1.   Artisanal catch (tonnes) in the Dominican RepublicYear Artisanal catches (t) References1960 1,597 Herrera et al. (2011)1970 4,791 Herrera et al. (2011)1980 11,700 Colom et al. (1994)1991 13,232 Anon. (1995)2000 13,169 Mateo and Haughton (2004)2004 11,093 Anon. (2004)Table 2.  Anchor points for domestic subsistence seafood consumption rates for the urban and rural populations in the Dominican Republic. Interpolation was done between anchor points.Population Consumption rate (kg/person/year)1950 1989 2010Urban 20.02 8.0 5.60Rural 28.60 28.6 20.02 46completely separated since it is undertaken more than 90 miles from land, which makes it inaccessible to most artisanal fishers (Herrera et al. 2011). Arima (1999) estimates that 50% of the total catches reported for the species mentioned above are attributed to the industrial fleet. Since this is the only information we could access on industrial fisheries in the Dominican Republic, we assumed that it represented 50% of the commercial catches and that for the period 1950-2010 the total industrial catch was equal to the estimated tonnages of the artisanal catches of the taxonomic groups ‘Lutjanidae’ and ‘Epinephelus spp.’ Herrera et al. (2011) estimate that industrial fisheries account for only 1% of total catches in the Dominican Republic.Tourist sectorInvestigations were done to assess the seafood sources at hotels in the Dominican Republic, which serve both imported and local seafood products on their menus. It is common for fresh seafood catches to be delivered daily by fishers directly to the hotel. Due to the fact that in these instances, fishers bypass landing sites, seafood catches supplying the tourist markets (such as hotels, guest houses and restaurants) are not accounted for and these catches were reconstructed separately. Annual tourist population data (1961-2010) were combined with data on the average length of stay, which was approximately 8.9 days according to the Caribbean Tourism Organisation. Taken together with inferences about the frequency of fresh seafood consumption (i.e., one serving of fresh seafood per day) and a typical serving proportion of 100 g (round weight), we applied the following equation to estimate tourist seafood demand annually: Tourist seafood demand = # tourist days x average serving size x # servings/day In this way, we were able to reconstruct small-scale catches satisfying the tourist market from 1961 to 2010.Recreational sectorAccording to a global recreational study (Cisneros-Montemayor 2010), the number of recreational fishers in the Dominican Republic in 2003 was 19,863. Since sport fishing is an activity that is associated with tourism activities (Campos and Munoz-Roure 1987), we assumed all of these fishers were tourists. Therefore, by dividing the number of recreational fishers by the total number of stop-over tourists in 2003, we calculate the proportion of tourists who fish recreationally during their visit. We applied this rate of 0.006% constantly from 2003 to 2010. For the year 1961, we assumed a participation rate of 0.003% (half that of the later time period). Linearly interpolating between these two rates, we derived recreational fishing participation rates of the tourist population for the entire time period, 1961-2010. Assuming tourists are likely to participate in just one fishing tour during their stay of average 8.9 days7 and assuming a conservative catch of 4.5 kg·tourist-1·year-1, we estimate catches from this sector.Species compositionDetailed quantitative data for the taxonomic breakdown for all coastal regions of the Dominican Republic were found in PROPESCA reports for the years 1988 to 1990 and in a report by Appledoorn and Meyers (1993). In these sources, total daily catches by species were reported and classified for 12 months starting in November 1988 until November 1989. These catch amounts were turned into percentages. For all those species and families not mentioned in the above reports, but included in the FAO data, average proportions for the 1990-1995 period (the time period in which the FAO data had the greatest taxonomic disaggregation) were calculated and added to the percentage breakdown provided by the independent reports. Catches of Caribbean spiny lobster and queen conch fisheries have been (and continue to be) an important food source for locals but became even more important in the 1960s with the growth of the tourism sector (Melo and Herrera 2002). Taking the average proportional contribution of spiny lobster and queen conch to total catches in SERCM (Secretaria de estado del medio ambiente y recursos naturales [Secretariat of natural resources and environment]) catch data for 2000-2003, we then also added these two commercially important species to the breakdown. Overall proportions were re-scaled to 100% and applied constantly to the domestically consumed artisanal catches from 1950-2010 (Appendix Table A1). A slightly modified version of the artisanal breakdown (i.e., pooled to the family taxonomic level) was applied to the subsistence catches and artisanal catches for tourist consumption.Information regarding the species composition of the recreational fishery in the Dominican Republic was not available. However, it is known that marlins (Istiophoridae), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), and tunas (Scombridae) are commonly caught species in most marine recreational fisheries. We therefore assumed equal proportionality of 25% for each of these taxonomic groups.7  http://www.onecaribbean.org/ Dominican Republic - Van der Meer et al. 47resultsArtisanal catchesReconstructed artisanal catches (including those for tourist consumption) increased steadily from 1,900 t·year-1 in 1950 to 6,900 t·year-1 in 1964, after which a series of hurricanes devastated coastal villages for 3 years, causing landings to drop slightly. Catches peaked at 40,600 t·year-1 in 1993 and then due to a series of unfavorable events (the economic crisis in 1990, tropical storms hitting coastal regions at the end of 1993, hurricane Hortense in 1996 and Hurricane Georges in 1998), there was a decline in catches to almost 17,300 t·year-1 in 1998. Another peak was reached in 2002 with just over 32,500 t·year-1. The subsequent decline can be explained by the severe economic crisis that the Dominican Republic faced in 2003 (Figure 3a).8 Total reconstructed catches from this sector were estimated to be over 1 million tonnes, which accounts for 40.5% of total catches. Of the total artisanal catch, 94% is for domestic consumption, with the other 6% contributing to tourist consumption.Industrial catchesReconstructed industrial catches for the Dominican Republic increased fairly steadily from 300 t·year-1 in 1950 to 4,400 t·year-1 in 1986, with catches subsequently fluctuating until 1993. After 1993, industrial catches declined to a low of 1,800 t·year-1 in 1998. After a short period of increase to 3,500 t·year-1 in 2002, catches declined to 2,100 t·year-1 in 2003, where they remained relatively stable up to 2010 with 2,300 t·year-1 (Figure 3a). Total reconstructed catches for this sector amounted to 124,500 t for the period 1950-2010, accounting for 4.9% of total catches (Figure 3a).Subsistence catchesReconstructed subsistence catches for Dominican Republic increased steadily from 14,600 t·year-1 in 1950 to 25,600 t·year-1 in 2010 (Figure 3a). Total reconstructed catches for this sector amounted to just under 1.4 million t, which accounts for 55% of total reconstructed catches of the Dominican Republic (Figure 3a).Tourist seafood consumptionReconstructed seafood catches supplying tourist markets, such as hotel, guest houses and restaurants were estimated at 60,000 t for the period 1961-2010. This contributed about 2.4% to the total reconstructed catches.Recreational catchesReconstructed recreational catches for Dominican Republic were approximately 1,700 t from 1961-2010, accounting for only 0.07% of the total reconstructed catch (Figure 3a).Reconstructed total catchTotal landings as presented by FAO for the Dominican Republic were 600 t·year-1 in 1950, steadily increasing to a maximum of 19,058 t·year-1 in 1994 (Figure 3a). FAO reported landings for the period 1950-2010 amounted to 503,655 t. The reconstructed total catch for the Dominican Republic for the period 1950-2010 was estimated at just under 2.6 million t, which is approximately 5.1 times that supplied to FAO on behalf of the Dominican Republic.8  The Dominican Republic resolving the banking crisis and restoring growth, July 20, 2004. Cato Institute Foreign Policy Briefing visited on March, 2013 http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/fpb83.pdf020406080IndustrialSupplied to FAORecreationalSubsistenceArtisanala)0204060801950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103 )Yearb)OthersScaridaeCarangidaeScombridaeHaemulidaeLutjanidaeFigure 3.  Reconstructed total catch for the Dominican Republic, 1950-2010, a) by sector, compared with data reported to the FAO (overlaid as solid line graph), and b) by major taxonomic categories. The ‘others’ category includes 100 additional taxonomic groupings. 48Catch compositionFisheries catches of Dominican Republic were dominated by reef and demersal species such as grey and silk snapper (Lutjanidae, 18.4%) and caesar and small grunt (Haemulidae, 14.9%; Figure 3b). Queen conch and lobster increase their importance throughout time, due to expansion of export markets and tourism. Since fishers do not discard any of their catch the species composition presents a large pool of taxa, and thus the ‘others’ category in Figure 3b consists of 93 additional taxonomic groups, accounting for 46.5% of the catch.discussionThe Dominican Republic’s total catches from 1950-2010, as estimated in our reconstruction, were approximately 2.6 million t. Over the same period, FAO reported landings of only 503,656 tonnes on behalf of the Dominican Republic. Our reconstruction includes fisheries sectors that have been overlooked in other estimations, including catches from the subsistence fisheries in coastal regions and those from a popular recreational sector. Our reconstruction also improves what has been reported by the artisanal fisheries sector by filling in catches of several species that were previously recorded as zero; for instance, queen conch and Caribbean spiny lobster in the early time periods.The difficulty of estimating total catch in the Dominican Republic is due to the dispersed nature of landing sites, as well as the multitude of gear-types employed and taxa fished. The artisanal sector in the Dominican Republic has not changed its structure since the Taino Indians; in fact, historians have found little change in the gear used by today’s fishers (Chiappone 2001), although modern materials for lines and nets are being used. Thus, despite technological advances, the Dominican Republic’s artisanal and subsistence fishing sectors remain relatively traditional.In the Dominican Republic, fishes and invertebrates (lobster, conch) are critical marine resources, particularly for local communities. The most economically valuable species, specifically for tourist and export markets, are spiny lobster and queen conch. Thus, the importance of coral reef fisheries may not be so much in terms of absolute catch but in their contribution to the local income of fishers, who have few alternative opportunities for employment (Russ 1991).Queen conch has been a principal source of food for the inhabitants of the Caribbean since at least the Taino Indians (Brownell and Stevely 1981; Appledoorn and Meyers 1993). Conch was valued as a protein source, second only to finfish in native diets during the past century. Queen conch is heavily fished throughout much of the Dominican Republic and represents the second most valuable fishery after the spiny lobster (Richards and Bohnsack 1990). In addition to the meat, the colorful shell is often sold for ornamental purposes and was once used in the manufacture of lime and porcelain (Randall 1964). Fishers in the Dominican Republic use free diving for collection of conch, and is therefore performed by artisanal and subsistence fisheries. Snappers (Lutjanidae) are also important top level predators in coral reef ecosystems and are among the most important food fishes in the tropics and subtropics (Chiappone 2001).Catches from the subsistence sector contribute to the largest difference found in our reconstructed estimates, accounting for 55% of total catches in the period 1950-2010. Low level of development, widespread poverty, lack of basic services and infrastructure, and environmental degradation characterize the situation of many coastal communities. In these areas, large numbers of people depend on exploitation and commercialization of fisheries. In many cases, fisheries are their only source of livelihood (Mateo and Haughton 2004). Furthermore, a growing local and tourist population has increased the pressure on Dominican Republic’s fisheries resources to an unsustainable level. Despite bringing much needed foreign currency to the island, the tourism sector is impacting marine resources, both through seafood consumption as well as recreational fishing. Reconstructed seafood catches supplying tourist markets such as hotel, guest houses and restaurants were estimated at 60,000 t for the period 1961-2010. This made up about 2.4% of the total reconstructed catches and should not be overlooked.Recreational fishing is largely unreported globally. We estimated an average annual recreational fishing rate for tourists in the Dominican Republic of 35 t·year-1 since 1961. However, it was not possible to estimate recreational catches made by locals, though we know such a sector exists. Thus, it is mainly catches from the artisanal and industrial sectors that are being reported and even then only a few censuses have been conducted to determine the number of fishers. It is plainly evident that catches are missing from official reports, leaving fisheries managers with an incomplete picture of resource extraction, which can result in an overly optimistic analysis of fisheries’ status.Although assumptions were used to interpolate and infer fisheries catches, we believe that our estimate reflects more realistic levels of total catches than reported data alone (Zeller et al. 2007). Better accounting of total fisheries extractions is urgently needed to better understand total resource use. Given the difficulties in fisheries monitoring, especially subsistence fisheries, this can be best achieved through regular, albeit non-annual, surveys (Zeller et al. 2007).acknowledgementsThis is a contribution from Sea Around Us, a scientific collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.Dominican Republic - Van der Meer et al. 49reFerencesAnon. (1995) Reportes de PRODEPESCA-SUR: Contribuciones al conocimiento de las pesquerias en la República Dominicana. Secretaria de estado de Agricultura. Subsecretaria de Recursos Naturales. Proyecto de Promocion de la Pesca Costera Artesanal del Litoral Sur Vol. 2, PRODEPESCA. 102 p.Anon. (2004) Los recursos marinos de la República Dominicana. Subsecretaría de Estado de Recursos Costeros y Marinos/Secretaría de Estado de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SERCM/SEMARN), Santo Domingo. 144 p.Anon. (2010) Analisis de Mercado de la pesca maritime de la República Dominicana, caso asociacion de pesca Agustin Munoz de Perdenales. CEFINOSA (Fomento de la cooperacion para la inversion productive el la frontera de la República Dominicana y Haiti). Republica Dominicana. 48 p.Anon. (2012) Dominican Republics demographic data. Appledoorn R and Meyers S (1993) Puerto Rico and Hispaniola. pp. 99-158 In Marine fishery resources of the Antilles. Fao Fisheries Technical Papers 326.Arima S (1997) Relación sobre la operación de prueba de pesca (No. 2) Palangre vertical de fondo ensayado en el Guarionex. Mini-Proyecto en Centro de Entrenamiento y Desarrollo Pesquero.Arima S (1999) Informe mensual de las actividades de los barquitos del Mini-Proyecto.No. 21, Agencia de Cooperación Internacional de Japón (JICA).Brown IZ (1999) Culture and Customs of the Dominican Republic. Greenwood Publishers. 224 p.Brownell WN and Stevely JM (1981) The biology, fisheries,and management of the queen conch, Strombus gigas. Marine Fisheries Review 43: 1-12.Campos J and Munoz-Roure O (1987) Sportfishing: A complement to a balanced tourism program for the tropical Caribbean. In Proceedings of the thirty eighth annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Miami, FL. 684-687 p.Chiappone M (2001) Fisheries investigations and management implications in marine protected areas of the Caribbean: A case study of Parque Nacional del Este, Dominican Republic. The Nature Conservacy Caribean Division, Arlighton, Virginia. 180 p.Cisneros-Montemayor A (2010) The economic benefits of ecosystem-based marine recreation: Implications for management and policy. The University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 113 p.Colom R, Reye Z and Gil Y (1994) Censo comprensivo de la pesca costera de la República Dominicana. Reportes del Propescar-Sur 1. 45–77 p.Delgado GA, Chiappone M, Geraldes FX, Pugibet E, Sullivan KM, Torres RE and Vega M (1998) Abundance and size frequency of queen conch in relation to benthic community structure in Parque Nacional del Este, Dominican Republic. In Proceedings of the 50th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute, Merida, Mexico. 1-31 p.Herrera A, Betancourt L, Silva M, Lamelas P and Melo A (2011) Coastal fisheries of the Dominican Republic. pp. 175–217 In Salas S, Chuenpagdee R, Charles A and Seijo JC (eds.), Coastal fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 544. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.Malik BA (2001) Dominican Republic: The economy. In Chaplin MH (ed.), Dominican Republic and Haiti country studies, 3rd edition. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.Mateo J and Haughton MO (2004) A review of fisheries management in the Dominican Republic. In Proceedings of the 54th annual GCFI meetings. 90-102 p.McGoodwin J (2001) Understanding cultures of fishing communities, a key to fisheries management and food security. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 401, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. 287 p.Medley PA (2001) Review of the data collection and management systems of the marine fisheries in the Dominican Republic. 51 p.Melo A and Herrera A (2002) Datos pesqueros de la langosta espinosa Panulirus argus (Latreille, 1804) en la plataforma de Azua, República Dominicana. Revista Ciencia y Sociedad XXVII. 3, Universidad INTEC, Santo Domingo. 453–477 p.OECD (2010) Dominican Republic. pp. 233-236 In Latin American economic Outlook 2010. OECD Publishing.Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 11(2): 4.Randall J (1964) Contributions to the Biology of the queen conch, Strombus gigas. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean 14: 246-295.Richards WJ and Bohnsack JA (1990) The Caribbean Sea: A large marine ecosystem in crisis. pp. 44-53 In Sherman K, Alexander LM and Gold BD (eds.), Large marine ecosystems: Patterns, processes and yields. AAAS Press, Washington, DC.Russ G (1991) Coral reef fisheries: Effects and yields. pp. 601-636 In Sale PF (ed.), The Ecology of Fishes on Coral Reefs. Academic Press, New York.Sang L, León D, Silva M and King V (1997) Diversidad y composición de los desembarcos de la pesca artesanal en la región de Samaná. Centro para la Conservación y Ecodesarrollo de la Bahía de Samaná y su Entorno (CEBSE) Inc., Proyecto de Conservación y Manejo de la Biodiversidad en la Zona Costera de la República Dominicana GEF-PNUD/ONAPLAN. 345 p.Silva M (1994) Especies identificadas en las pesquerías costeras artesanales del Suroreste de la República Dominicana. Reportes del Propescar Sur 1. 1–36 p. 50Spalding M, Ravilious C and Green EP (2001) World atlas of coral reefs. United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, U.K. 424 p.Stoffle BW, Halmo D, Stoffle R and Burpee G (1994) Folk management and conservation ethics among small-scale fishers of Buen Hombre, Dominican Republic. pp. 115–138 In Dyer CL and McGoodwin JR (eds.), Folk management in the world’s fisheries: Lessons for modern fisheries management. University Press ofo Colorado, Colorado.Stoffle R (2001) When fish is water. Food Security and fish in a coastal community in the Dominican Republic. pp. 219-246 In Understanding the cultures of fishing communities. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 401. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome.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.Dominican Republic - Van der Meer et al. 51Appendix Table A1.  Taxonomic breakdown for the artisanal sector in the Dominican Republic. The breakdown was based on PRODESUR (South Branch of PRODEPESCA) and Appledoorn and Meyers (1993)Percentage composition Percentage compositionTaxon name 1950 2010 Taxon name 1950 2010Albula vulpes 0.37 0.37 Agonostomus monticola 0.01 0.01Anguilla rostrata 0.01 0.01 Mugilidae 0.23 0.23Anomura 0.01 0.01 Mullidae 3.96 1.00Aulostomidae 0.06 0.06 Muraenidae 0.56 0.56Balistidae 1.42 1.42 Mobula spp. 0.01 0.01Belonidae 0.41 0.41 Myliobatidae 0.13 0.13Brachyura 0.25 0.25 Octopus vulgaris 0.09 0.09Calappidae 0.08 0.08 Octopodidae 0.08 0.08Majidae 0.48 0.48 Ostraciidae 1.32 2.32Caranx crysos 0.31 0.31 Crassostrea rhizophorae 0.06 0.06Caranx spp. 0.31 0.31 Panulirus argus 1.26 1.26Seriola spp. 0.17 0.17 Palinuridae 1.91 1.91Trachinotus spp. 0.16 0.16 Pempheridae 0.37 0.37Carangidae 7.36 7.36 Penaeidae 0.31 0.31Carcharhinidae 2.02 2.02 Polynemidae 0.32 0.32Cassidae 0.20 0.20 Pomacanthidae 0.37 0.37Centropomus spp. 0.17 0.17 Pomacentridae 0.42 0.42Chaetodontidae 0.30 0.30 Priacanthidae 0.42 0.42Harengula spp. 0.18 0.18 Rajiformes 0.12 0.12Opisthonema oglinum 0.31 0.31 Scaridae 7.28 3.28Clupeidae 0.57 0.57 Cynoscion spp. 0.13 0.13Coryphaena hippurus 0.79 0.79 Acanthocybium solandri 0.99 0.99Crustacea 0.03 0.03 Katsuwonus pelamis 0.28 0.28Cyprinus carpio carpio 0.63 0.63 Scomberomorus cavalla 1.57 1.57Dasyatidae 0.39 0.39 Scomberomorus regalis 0.19 0.19Diodontidae 1.89 2.89 Thunnus alalunga 0.01 0.01Echeneidae 0.07 0.07 Thunnus albacares 0.11 0.11Exocoetidae 0.01 0.01 Thunnus atlanticus 0.31 0.31Fistulariidae 0.03 0.03 Thunnus thynnus 0.11 0.11Gempylidae 0.02 0.02 Scombridae 7.46 5.42Gerreidae 0.36 0.36 Scorpaenidae 0.06 0.06Ginglymostoma cirratum 0.07 0.07 Scyllaridae 0.16 0.16Ginglymostomatidae 3.81 3.81 Epinephelus morio 0.35 0.35Haemulidae 12.32 18.00 Epinephelus spp. 0.19 0.19Hemiramphidae 0.10 0.10 Serranidae 2.07 2.07Holocentridae 1.66 1.66 Archosargus rhomboidalis 0.01 0.01Istiophorus albicans 0.27 0.27 Calamus spp. 0.63 0.63Makaira nigricans 0.03 0.03 Sparidae 3.58 3.58Labridae 0.45 0.45 Sphyraena spp. 1.54 1.54Loligo spp. 0.07 0.07 Sphyraenidae 0.85 0.85Lutjanus purpureus 0.60 3.00 Sphyrnidae 0.64 0.64Ocyurus chrysurus 0.47 0.47 Strombus spp. 0.17 2.01Lutjanidae 15.57 11.00 Synodontidae 0.06 0.06Branchiostegus spp. 0.02 0.02 Triakidae 0.11 0.11Malacanthidae 0.02 0.02 Triglidae 0.02 0.02Mollusca 0.04 0.04 Urolophidae 0.15 0.15Monacanthidae 0.65 0.65 Xanthidae 0.34 0.34Miscellaneous marine fishes 3.16 4.81 52Appendix Table A2.  FAO landings vs. reconstructed total catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector, for the Dominican Republic, 1950-2010.Year FAO landings Reconstructed total catch Industrial Artisanal Subsistence Recreational1950 600 16,800 300 1,900 14,600 -1951 600 17,300 310 1,980 15,000 -1952 600 17,900 321 2,050 15,500 -1953 600 18,500 331 2,130 16,000 -1954 900 19,100 341 2,210 16,500 -1955 1,100 19,600 351 2,280 17,000 -1956 1,300 20,400 361 2,360 17,700 -1957 1,400 21,100 371 2,430 18,200 -1958 1,700 21,800 380 2,510 18,900 -1959 1,400 22,500 390 2,590 19,500 -1960 1,100 23,600 399 2,660 20,500 -1961 1,400 25,300 580 3,900 20,800 0.251962 1,400 27,000 759 5,140 21,100 0.521963 2,700 28,600 935 6,380 21,300 0.791964 3,702 29,400 1,006 6,910 21,500 1.081965 3,601 29,100 926 6,420 21,700 1.381966 2,901 28,500 829 5,800 21,900 1.701967 2,804 30,700 1,085 7,620 22,000 2.021968 4,202 31,400 1,149 8,120 22,100 2.361969 4,502 32,400 1,252 8,890 22,200 2.711970 5,002 31,600 1,137 8,150 22,300 3.071971 4,103 35,100 1,561 11,210 22,300 3.441972 4,602 39,500 2,088 15,030 22,400 3.831973 8,901 35,600 1,598 11,620 22,300 4.221974 6,448 34,200 1,430 10,500 22,300 4.631975 5,243 35,400 1,580 11,650 22,200 5.051976 6,390 31,000 1,048 7,860 22,100 5.311977 4,187 31,100 1,073 8,100 21,900 5.571978 4,431 34,100 1,451 10,920 21,800 5.831979 6,729 40,900 2,267 17,030 21,600 6.671980 8,032 43,800 2,628 19,840 21,300 7.591981 8,981 46,000 2,802 21,310 21,800 9.081982 11,391 51,200 3,343 25,520 22,300 9.821983 10,803 54,700 3,677 28,200 22,800 10.441984 12,783 58,300 4,006 30,920 23,400 11.871985 15,631 57,600 3,834 29,870 23,900 14.151986 16,087 63,300 4,405 34,500 24,400 16.251987 18,231 54,100 3,248 25,900 24,900 19.921988 11,421 65,100 4,403 35,210 25,400 25.011989 19,772 64,800 4,279 34,550 26,000 27.711990 18,189 58,200 3,480 28,540 26,100 30.091991 16,106 52,200 2,787 23,100 26,300 27.531992 11,816 71,900 4,934 40,540 26,400 33.541993 10,820 72,100 4,904 40,620 26,500 36.261994 19,058 60,600 3,586 30,330 26,600 39.331995 15,768 55,600 3,001 25,920 26,700 43.821996 12,606 57,100 3,122 27,190 26,700 48.141997 13,468 53,500 2,686 24,020 26,700 56.001998 9,076 45,900 1,841 17,260 26,700 59.231999 7,804 53,800 2,653 24,420 26,700 68.972000 10,828 54,000 2,623 24,600 26,700 78.322001 12,059 59,500 3,206 29,560 26,600 76.732002 15,159 62,700 3,544 32,540 26,600 75.752003 16,591 50,200 2,169 21,430 26,500 89.512004 12,243 50,200 2,153 21,560 26,400 94.102005 9,499 51,000 2,211 22,400 26,300 100.662006 11,045 51,500 2,232 22,940 26,200 108.142007 12,228 51,700 2,252 23,260 26,100 108.532008 13,674 51,900 2,271 23,560 25,900 108.542009 13,801 52,100 2,291 23,890 25,800 108.882010 14,140 52,300 2,310 24,320 25,600 112.49Dominican Republic - Van der Meer et al. 53Appendix Table A3.   Reconstructed total catch (in tonnes) by major taxa for the Dominican Republic, 1950-2010. ‘Others’ contain 93 additional taxonomic categories.Year Lutjanidae Haemulidae Scombridae Carangidae Scaridae Others1950 3,020 2,030 1,750 1,350 1,200 7,4401951 3,100 2,110 1,800 1,390 1,220 7,6601952 3,200 2,200 1,850 1,440 1,250 7,9301953 3,300 2,290 1,910 1,490 1,280 8,2001954 3,400 2,380 1,960 1,540 1,310 8,4901955 3,490 2,470 2,010 1,580 1,340 8,7401956 3,610 2,580 2,080 1,640 1,380 9,0801957 3,720 2,680 2,140 1,700 1,410 9,3901958 3,830 2,790 2,210 1,750 1,440 9,7201959 3,950 2,910 2,280 1,810 1,470 10,0501960 4,130 3,080 2,380 1,900 1,530 10,5701961 4,530 3,300 2,490 2,020 1,620 11,3301962 4,920 3,530 2,600 2,130 1,700 12,0901963 5,300 3,750 2,700 2,240 1,770 12,8501964 5,470 3,880 2,760 2,300 1,800 13,2301965 5,340 3,860 2,730 2,280 1,770 13,0801966 5,170 3,830 2,700 2,250 1,720 12,8501967 5,690 4,130 2,830 2,390 1,820 13,8701968 5,830 4,240 2,870 2,440 1,840 14,1901969 6,040 4,400 2,920 2,500 1,870 14,6501970 5,820 4,330 2,870 2,460 1,810 14,3101971 6,660 4,800 3,070 2,680 1,970 15,9401972 7,690 5,380 3,320 2,970 2,170 17,9401973 6,720 4,920 3,070 2,710 1,950 16,1801974 6,370 4,780 2,980 2,630 1,860 15,5901975 6,650 4,970 3,040 2,710 1,900 16,1701976 5,580 4,430 2,770 2,420 1,660 14,1601977 5,600 4,470 2,760 2,420 1,650 14,2301978 6,310 4,890 2,920 2,620 1,770 15,6501979 7,880 5,820 3,280 3,050 2,060 18,7901980 8,550 6,240 3,430 3,240 2,170 20,1801981 8,980 6,580 3,560 3,390 2,250 21,2101982 10,120 7,350 3,870 3,740 2,460 23,6901983 10,850 7,880 4,070 3,980 2,590 25,3701984 11,570 8,430 4,280 4,220 2,720 27,0701985 11,320 8,400 4,250 4,190 2,660 26,7801986 12,530 9,260 4,570 4,570 2,870 29,5101987 10,340 8,040 4,070 3,980 2,450 25,2001988 12,710 9,660 4,690 4,720 2,880 30,4301989 12,550 9,690 4,680 4,710 2,830 30,3501990 11,000 8,800 4,320 4,280 2,520 27,2501991 9,630 8,000 3,980 3,890 2,240 24,4401992 13,900 10,910 5,030 5,190 3,000 33,8701993 13,860 11,000 5,030 5,200 2,960 34,0101994 11,280 9,380 4,410 4,460 2,470 28,5501995 10,150 8,720 4,140 4,140 2,250 26,2301996 10,400 8,990 4,200 4,240 2,270 26,9601997 9,580 8,510 4,010 4,010 2,100 25,2801998 7,910 7,420 3,610 3,510 1,790 21,6401999 9,540 8,670 4,020 4,040 2,050 25,5202000 9,510 8,740 4,020 4,050 2,020 25,6202001 10,630 9,640 4,280 4,410 2,180 28,3402002 11,270 10,190 4,420 4,630 2,250 29,9702003 8,600 8,310 3,790 3,810 1,800 23,8902004 8,570 8,360 3,780 3,810 1,770 23,9502005 8,690 8,540 3,810 3,870 1,760 24,3702006 8,740 8,660 3,820 3,900 1,740 24,6302007 8,750 8,740 3,810 3,910 1,720 24,7802008 8,750 8,820 3,800 3,920 1,690 24,9002009 8,760 8,890 3,780 3,930 1,660 25,0302010 8,780 8,980 3,780 3,950 960 25,880 54Greenland - Booth and Knip 55the catch oF liVing marine resources around greenland From 1950 to 20101Shawn Booth and Danielle KnipSea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canadas.booth  @fisheries.ubc.ca; <d.knip@fisheries.ubc.ca abstractThe catches of marine living resources taken in Greenland’s waters are estimated from 1950 to 2010, including estimates of discards, unreported commercial catch and subsistence catch. Reconstructed total catch by Greenland in its own waters is just over 7 million t, which is around 30% higher than the 5.5 million t of landings reported by FAO and ICES on behalf of Greenland. The commercial fisheries make up the majority of the total catch, with the industrial sector representing 61% and the artisanal sector representing 37%. Unreported subsistence catches contribute 141,000 t to the time series and represent only 2% of the total catch. Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) is the most important species in the subsistence sector, representing 56% of that catch. The northern prawn (Pandalus borealis) represents 54% of the total reconstruction and is the greatest single species contribution. The discrepancies between the reported baseline and the reconstructed catch are mostly due to discards in the commercial fisheries, which represent 20% of the total reconstruction. Overall, Greenland’s catches in its own waters are estimated to have increased from 29,000 t in 1950 to 202,000 t in 2010, but this still only accounts for less than half the annual catch taken from Greenland waters due to large catches by foreign vessels. Together, catches reported by foreign vessels and the reconstructed domestic catches increased from approximately 208,000 t in 1950 to 482,000 t in 2010. The Marine Trophic Index for the foreign and domestic catches declined by 0.26 t∙trophic level per decade, and is the largest decline noted for this index due to the fishery changing from one primarily targeting Atlantic cod to one targeting shrimp. The mean maximum lengths of the marine living resources in the catch also declined with fisheries having a mean decline of 18.0 cm per decade, and a downward trend is noted for marine mammals and seabirds, as well. The catch of seals, narwhal and harbour porpoises has been increasing, but the catch of beluga whales has declined, and the population size is of concern. There has also been a steep decline in the number of seabirds caught since 1993 with an approximate 5-fold drop in the number of thick-billed murres caught.introductionGreenland is the third largest country in North America, and its coastline spans the Arctic Sea, the Northeast Atlantic and the Northwest Atlantic (Figure 1). Currently, Greenland’s economy is highly dependent upon commercial marine fisheries, mining, tourism, as well as transfer payments from Denmark. Being mainly an Inuit culture, there is also a high dependence on living marine resources including fish, marine mammals and seabirds for local consumption. Since 1950, the people of Greenland have shifted from a subsistence-based economy to a mixed economy, and as they have undergone this transition, there have also been changes in the use of living marine resources. Here, I use reported catches of fisheries, marine mammals, and seabirds and add estimates of unreported catches to examine the change in living marine resource use in Greenland from 1950 to 2010.2 Reported catches by foreign fishing fleets area also included because of their importance throughout the time period.Similar to Canada’s east coast, the commercial fishery switched from one concentrated on Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) to one primarily targeting northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) during the 1990s, as a result of overfishing and poor cod recruitment linked to decreasing ocean temperatures (Hamilton et al. 2003).Whaling of large cetaceans continues as part of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling program of the International Whaling Commission with minke whales being numerically most important. Small mammals, especially ringed seals (Pusa hispida), beluga (Delphinapterus leucas) and narwhal (Monodon monoceros) are culturally important, but the current population status of belugas within Greenland are of concern—the population is estimated to be 22% 1 Cite as: Booth, S. and Knip, D. (2014) The catch of living marine resources around Greenland from 1950-2010. pp. 55-72 In: Zylich, K., Zeller, D., Ang, M. and Pauly, D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].2  For database purposes of the Sea Around Us, marine mammal and seabird catches are not considered.Figure 1.  Exclusive Economic Zone (black line), and FAO areas (solid blue line), ICES areas (solid red line) and NAFO areas (purple lines) of Greenland. Greenland’s fisheries occur in NAFO area 1 within FAO area 21, and in ICES area XIV within FAO area 27. Currently no fisheries occur in the Arctic (FAO area 18). 56of the size it was in 1954 and they are no longer found in many areas where they were previously harvested (Alvarez-Flores and Heide-Jørgensen 2004). Several species of seabirds are still hunted and eggs are collected for personal use; this has detrimental effects on some seabird’s populations, such as thick-billed murres (Christensen 2001).Currently, fisheries and the fish processing sector account for approximately 92% of exports and 25% of employment, making it the key driving force of the economy (Anon. 2005). Greenland changed from a hunting economy, targeting mainly seals, to a fishing economy in the early 1900s, primarily targeting cod when it became apparent that hunting could no longer support the rapidly growing population (Mattox 1971). More recently, Greenland became reliant on earnings from the shrimp fishery. Cod became more abundant from 1917 due to increasing ocean water temperatures. However, this also adversely affected seal hunting because of changes in climatic conditions that affected the occurrence and extent of pack ice—seals are more abundant when there is heavy pack ice. The seal hunt off Newfoundland may also have decreased the numbers migrating to Greenland’s waters after the breeding season (Mattox 1971). More recent research has shown that the climatic conditions are linked to changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation Index and atmospheric pressure fields that affect recruitment and population levels of some of the main commercial species (Buch et al. 2004). Thus, over the past 100 years, there has been a transition from hunting to fishing, and then to shrimping because of human population growth, climatic fluctuations affecting marine animal populations, and overexploitation.In addition to reported catch, estimates of unreported catches of marine resources are included here, as they are not generally accounted for in reported statistics. The responsible and sustainable use of living marine resources is paramount for Greenland since it is the only renewable resource that it can depend on. The Marine Trophic Index (MTI) is used as an index to account for changes in the mean trophic level of fisheries landings through time (Pauly et al. 1998). In the case of Greenland, there should be a sharp signal because of the noted transitions in fisheries abundance and use. In order to note changes in the use of the other living marine resources used, we also look at the change in the mean maximum length of the resources used.methodsFisheries related data include reported landings from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES 2011), the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2012), and the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO 2011). Data from ICES are used for the east coast of Greenland, while for the west coast, FAO data are used. For foreign fleets fishing in the waters of West Greenland, NAFO data are used. Marine mammal data include reported data from a variety of publications, estimates of struck and lost animals, as well as unreported catches. For seabirds, we rely upon the reported catch data that have been collected since 1993—this is known to be an underestimate because it does not include illegal catches (Christensen 2001), or estimate of struck and lost birds.3Human population dataWe used human population data with regional consumption rates to estimate subsistence fisheries catches. Total population data for Greenland are available for the years 1951, 1956, and continuously since 1961, and also for each community since 1977 from Greenland’s national statistics office (Statistics Greenland 2011). We interpolated between years to estimate the human population for years with no data, and used the annual predicted change from 1951-1956 to estimate the total population in 1950. To estimate the population in each region for the pre-1977 period, we used data in Mattox (1971) who describes the population of west Greenland in 1960 and for all of Greenland in 1966. We assigned each community to its current municipality in order to estimate each municipality’s proportion of the total population in 1966. Since data for east and north Greenland are missing in 1960, we assumed that these areas represented the same proportion of the 1966 municipal population. We interpolated between the estimated proportions between 1960 and 1966, and to the ones reported in 1977. Prior to 1960, we assumed that each municipality’s proportion of Greenland’s total population was the same as in 1960.Commercial fisheriesCommercial fisheries in Greenland, as in other northern countries, are dependent on only a few species. Targeted fisheries include those for Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis), Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), beaked and golden redfish (Sebastes mentella, and S. norvegicus), capelin (Mallotus villosus), lumpfish (Cyclopterus lumpus), and arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). In the past, the salmon (Salmo salar) driftnet fishery was also of importance, but with the Atlantic-wide decline of this species, the Organization of Fishermen and Hunters in Greenland received monetary compensation and agreed to suspend the commercial fishery and only fish for subsistence purposes (Chase 2003). Two invertebrates, the Iceland scallop (Chlamys islandica) and queen crab (Chionoecetes opilio), are also targeted in directed fisheries. Main bycatch species from targeted fisheries include Greenland cod (Gadus ogac), wolffishes (Anarhichas lupus and A. minor), and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) from the cod directed fishery (ICES 2009). Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) was also treated as a bycatch species, although currently part of the longline fleet does target them occasionally (Riget and Boje 1988; ICES 2009), but total landings for this species are very low.3  For the purposes of the Sea Around Us and the global database of reconstructed fisheries catches, marine mammal and seabird data were not used.Greenland - Booth and Knip 57Fisheries landings data by weight are available from ICES and FAO for the period 1950-2010, but we treated the 2010 data as preliminary, and extend the data from 2009 forwards one year. These data were used as reported landings for all species, except for the fishery for Atlantic cod, northern shrimp, scallop, and wolffishes. For the Atlantic cod fishery, we relied on data provided by Horsted (2000) who provides a complete history of the fishery from 1911 to 1995; thereafter, we used the data reported by FAO and ICES. For shrimp, we relied on data from Hvingel (2001) who reviews the fishery from 1970 to 2001, and on the update from Arboe and Kingsley (2010). For the scallop fishery, we used data from Pedersen (1994) for 1984-1991 and Siegstad (2000) for 1999. For the wolffish fishery, we relied on data from Smidt (1981) for 1950 to 1979. Each of these studies has detailed accounts during the respective time periods. For salmon, data from ICES (Anon. 2010) are used because catches are reported from both coasts.The commercial fisheries in Greenland are reported as being caught in either ‘inshore’ or ‘offshore’ waters based on distance from shore and vessel size classes (Statistics Greenland 2011). Offshore vessels (75 GRT) can only operate in waters 3 nm from shore, whereas the inshore fleet (75 GRT) is largely confined to waters within 3 nm from shore; however, some of the larger vessels of the inshore fleet operate in the offshore areas. Here, for convenience, inshore fisheries are considered to be part of the small-scale artisanal fleet, and offshore is considered to be large-scale industrial. Catches taken by foreign vessels in Greenland’s waters (all deemed large-scale, industrial) are those reported to NAFO and ICES, and do not include estimates of unreported catches.Industrial and artisanal IUU catchesIllegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) commercial catches taken by Greenland include estimates from the Greenland shark (Somniosus microcephalus), arctic charr, and Atlantic halibut fisheries prior to them being reported to FAO or ICES, as well as some minor positive adjustments made to the reported data for Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and redfishes (Sebastes spp.). Export data from Mattox (1971) were used to estimate catches of arctic charr from 1950 to 1966, Atlantic halibut for 1953-1962, and Greenland shark from 1950-1969. Data are reported by ICES and FAO for arctic charr and Atlantic halibut in later years, but for Greenland shark, we assumed that the fishery ended in 1969 because the two main products, shark skins and liver oil, were in sharp decline by 1966, a result of low demand (Mattox 1971).DiscardsDiscards from both the industrial and artisanal sectors were estimated for all targeted fishery species. Discard rates were applied to the reported commercial landings of targeted species to estimate the amount of discards by weight (Table 1).Shrimp discards include those estimated from boat-based operations, and also from overpacking and quality discards at the processing plants (Hvingel 2003; Arboe and Kingsley 2010). Government regulations require that shrimp greater than 2 grams be kept, but in the offshore fleet, shrimp in this size-range are still discarded due to quality, while those less than this size are discarded due to value, and in some hauls can be as much as 50% (Lehmann and Degel 1991). Overpacking products led to an underestimate of the actual amount of shrimp sold, and quality discards are associated with inshore fisheries that land at processing plants, which discard low quality shrimp. Size-related discards in the offshore fisheries were reported to be 40% per year in 1990 (Lehmann and Degel 1991), 19% per year in 1991 and 14% per year in 1992 (Siegstad 1993), and discards due to low quality have been estimated to be 6% of the catch (Carlsson and Kanneworff 1992). We used the average of the first two years (29.8%) as the discard rate backwards in time to 1975 to estimate size-related discards for the offshore fleet. The large-scale commercial shrimp fishery was just starting in 1970, and so the discard rate is set to zero in 1969, and we interpolated to the value in 1975. After 2004, we used a discard rate of 6% per year to reflect the introduction of the mandatory use of sorting grids in 2002, and regulations concerned with overpacking (Appendix A1). Fish discards associated with the shrimp fishery are documented for 1977-2009 (Arboe and Kingsley 2010) and for 1950-1976 the average rate of fish discards for 1977 and 1978 was applied to the reported shrimp catches to estimate fish discards from the shrimp fishery.Table 1.   Discard rates applied to reported fisheries landings to estimate discards (by weight).Common name Discard rate Sector SourceArctic charr1 0.050 Artisanal and Industrial Kelleher (2005)Atlantic cod 0.304 Industrial Riget and Hovgård (1991) Atlantic cod 0.172 Artisanal Riget and Hovgård (1991); Kelleher (2005)Blue whiting2 0.013 Artisanal and Industrial Kelleher (2005)Capelin3 0.010 Artisanal and Industrial Kelleher (2005)Atlantic herring 0.100 Artisanal and Industrial Kelleher (2005)Greenland halibut4 0.033 Artisanal and Industrial Kelleher (2005)Iceland scallop5 0.264 Artisanal and Industrial Kelleher (2005);  Garcia et al. (2006)Lumpfish6 0.231 Artisanal and Industrial Kelleher (2005)Queen crab7 0.167 Artisanal and Industrial Kelleher (2005)Redfish8 0.077 Artisanal and Industrial Kelleher (2005)1 Discard rate as average of Norway’s coastal line caught fish and gillnet; 2 average of Norway and Iceland; 3 average of Norway’s pelagic trawl and purse seine rates, and Iceland’s purse seine rate; 4 average of Norway’s line and gillnet fleet; 5 average of Canada’s and Iceland’s dredge fisheries; 6 rate for Norway’s gillnet fleet; 7 rate for Canada’s pot fishery; 8 average of Canada’s and Iceland’s trawl fleets.  58Subsistence catchesSubsistence catches are estimated using fish consumption rates from community survey data, and extending these rates to other communities within the same region that lacked estimates (Table 2). Consumption rates for each region were combined with the human population data for each region to estimate yearly catches taken for subsistence purposes. The four regions were based on communities that had consumption data, and these coincide with northwest Greenland (NWG), central western Greenland (CWG), southern Greenland (SG), central eastern Greenland (SEG) and southeastern Greenland (SEG). Each community was placed in one of these regions to assign a consumption rate from available data and we assigned each community to its present municipality. The communities in the municipalities of Qaasuitsup and Sermersooq were split between regions (Appendix A2), whereas the communities in Kujalleq and Qeqqata form part of the southern Greenland region. We assumed that the catches estimated for subsistence purposes do not form part of the reported statistics since Horsted (2000) states that a non-registered component of the cod catch for local consumption should be added to the reported landings, and Mattox (1971) also states that reported catches until 1966 did not include the portion of the catch taken for home consumption.Marine mammal dataMarine mammal data include Greenland’s reported and unreported catches by number. Unreported catches include estimates of the number of animals in years when no data are reported for all of Greenland, and also unreported catches of narwhals for the community of Qaanaaq. Estimates of struck and lost animals that are shot, but not retrieved are also included as unreported catches. Reported data for seal species are taken from statistics provided to FAO, and data for the large whales are taken primarily from publications of the International Whaling Commission. For narwhals and belugas, data are reported in publications from the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (Heide-Jørgensen and Rosing-Asvid 2002; Heide-Jørgensen 2009).The number of bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus), harbour seals (Phoca vitulina), harp seals (Pagophilus groendlandicus), hooded seals (Cystophora cristata), and ringed seals (Pusa hispida) are reported in FAO statistics, but these records are incomplete, particularly during the early period. Data are reported for harp and hooded seals since 1954, ringed seals since 1969 and for bearded and harbour seals since 1970. The data gaps for bearded seal (1950-1965), harbour seal (1950, 1954-1968) and ringed seals (1950-1968) are taken from Kapel (1975). Stenson (2008) provides data on the number of harp seals taken in 1953 and 1952, and we used the same number (16,400) for 1950 and 1951. For hooded seals, a five-year average (861) from the first years of reported data (1954-1958) is used.Struck and lost rates are considered to represent a rate of the reported catch for each seal species. Struck and lost rates vary by species, and seasonally, due to weather and different sinking rates of seals after being shot (Anon. 2006). Struck and lost rates from 1950-2010 were 100% per year for bearded seals assuming 68% of the reported catch is taken by rifle, 14% per year for harbour seals using data from Alaska (Anon. 2003; Angliss and Outlaw 2006), 100% per year for hooded seals (Stenson 2008), and 17% per year for harp and ringed seals. Ringed seals are hunted primarily by rifle (68%), and, for harp seals, 34% of the full-time and leisure hunters report struck and lost seals, having a combined mean shot and lost rate of 0.22 (Anon. 2006). We assumed that 68% of the total annual catch for both species is by rifle with a shot and loss rate of 0.22∙year-1. Thus, unreported catches associated with struck and loss for harp and ringed seals were estimated as a ratio of the unreported fraction (0.22*0.66) to the reported fraction (1-(0.22*0.66)) to derive the rate of 17% per year.Blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus), sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), and northern bottlenose whales (Hyperoodon ampullatus) were taken in small numbers until 1976 with sperm whales being the most important. The numbers of animals taken each year are provided in Kapel (1979). We did not expand the reported statistics to account for struck and lost animals as we excluded these species from subsequent analysis. Bowhead (Balaena mysticetus), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) whales are taken under the jurisdiction of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling program of the IWC and catches including the number of struck and lost animals are reported by the IWC for the year 1985 onwards (IWC 2012). Prior to 1995, the numbers of fin whales taken are reported in Kapel (1979) for 1950-1976, and in the IWC white paper on the hunting of large whales in Greenland for 1977-1984 (Ugarte 2007). Humpback whale catch numbers are reported in Witting (2007) for the period 1950 to 1972, and also in Ugarte (2007) for 1973-1984. The catch of minke whales from 1950 to 1976 are reported in Kapel (1979), and we interpolated from the number of whales reported in 1976 to the reported number of whales in 1985 to estimate the catches in missing years.Table 2.   Community consumption rates used to estimate subsistence catches for Greenland (see text for details). Year Region Communities Consumption rate(kg·day-1)Source1953 CWG Disko Bay & Ilulissat 0.629 (Hansen et al. 2008)1996 CWG Disko Bay & Ilulissat 0.067 (Johansen et al. 2004)1976 NWG Uummanaq 0.090 (Hansen et al. 2008)1999 NWG Uummanaq 0.065 Deutch and Hansen (2003)2004 NWG Uummanaq 0.047 (Hansen et al. 2008)1987 NWG Qaanaaq 0.040 (Hansen et al. 2008)1978 SEG Tasiilaq 0.200 (Hansen et al. 2008)2001 SEG Tasiilaq 0.096 Deutch and Hansen (2003)2000 CEG Ittoqqortoormiit 0.038 Deutch and Hansen (2003)1953 SG Qaqortoq 0.191 (Hansen et al. 2008)2006 SG Narsaq 0.031 (Hansen et al. 2008)Greenland - Booth and Knip 59Smaller cetaceans including belugas (Delphinapterus leucas), narwhals (Monodon monoceros), killer whales (Orcinus orca), harbour porpoises (Phocoena phocoena), and pilot whales (Globicephala melas) are also hunted in Greenland. Belugas and narwhals have always been important culturally and account for the largest portion of catches. Beluga catches are rare on the east coast, and the belugas caught along this coast are believed to originate from the Svalbard population (Anon. 2000), and thus, here we only considered catches to occur along the west coast. Beluga whale catch statistics from 1954 to 1998 were reviewed by Heide-Jørgensen and Rosing-Asvid (2002) and we used the average of the medium and high option as the reported catch including the estimates of the number associated with ice entrapments and unreported catches. After 1999, we relied on reported catches from Statistics Greenland and estimate the unreported catches by using a three-year average ratio (0.15) of unreported catch to reported catch from the last three years of data (1996-1998) in Heide-Jørgensen and Rosing-Asvid (2002).Narwhal catch statistics for 1949 and 1954 to 2008 including reported and unreported data were reviewed by the Joint Working Group, with members from NAMMCO and the Canada/Greenland Joint Commission on Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga Scientific Working Group (Anon. 2009). We interpolated between catches in 1949 and 1954 to fill in the first few years of missing total catches, and after 1996 we used data from Greenland’s national statistical agency as reported catches (Statistics Greenland 2011). The community of Qaanaaq, on the northwestern coast of Greenland, reports no catches from 1950-1960, 1965-1973, and from 1985-1992 and, since it is an important community in terms of narwhal catches, we estimated the unreported catches for the missing time periods. In 1949 and 1961, Qaanaaq accounted for approximately 62% and 66% of the total narwhal catch, respectively. We used the average (64%) as the fraction of unreported catches to estimate the number of narwhals taken by Qaanaaq from 1954-1960 from the reported total. For 1965-1973, we interpolated between the proportion of the total catch reported in 1964 (0.88) and 1974 (0.51), to estimate Qaanaaq’s unreported catches. Similarly, for 1985-1992, we estimated unreported catches by interpolating between Qaanaaq’s proportions of the total catch between 1984 and 1993.Traditionally, harbour porpoises were taken in small amounts, but since the late 1990s catches have increased. Data concerning the catch are available for 1950, and from 1954 to 1992 (Teilmann and Dietz 1998), and for 1998 to 2009 (Statistics Greenland 2011). We interpolated between the reported catch amounts for years of missing data (1951-1953) to estimate catches in missing years. Pilot whales are irregularly reported in catch statistics with catches ranging between 2 and 365 whales∙year-1 for the period 1978-2009 with 9 years having no reported data. We considered pilot whales to be hunted every year, and use a five-year average (33 animals) taken from the first five years of reported data (1978-1982) to use as an estimate of the average yearly catch between 1950 and 1977. NAMMCO reports the number of pilot whales taken between 1978 and 1999, and Statistics Greenland (2011) reports the number of whales taken from 2000-2009. To fill in years of no reported data, we interpolated between reported catch numbers. Killer whales are reported for the period 1998 to 2009 (Statistics Greenland 2011), but catches are not extended backwards in time.Seabird dataSeabirds are part of the traditional Inuit diet, and are hunted extensively. Hunting data for seabird species have been collected since 1993 for thick-billed murres (Uria lomvia), common eider (Somateria mollissima), king eider (Somateria spectabilis), black guillemot (Cepphus grylle), little auk (Alle alle) and black-legged kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla). Data concerning the number of birds taken each year are available from Christensen (2001) for 1993 to 1996 and from Statistics Greenland (2011) for 1998-2009. We interpolated between the reported catch in 1996 and 1998 to estimate the catch of each species in 1997. Formerly, during the commercial salmon driftnet fishery, a large number of seabirds were caught as bycatch, leading to significant mortalities especially of thick-billed murres (Piatt and Reddin 1984), but these are not considered here.Ecosystem indicesThe Marine Trophic Index (MTI) is a metric used to estimate the changes in fisheries catches based on the mean trophic level of catches from marine ecosystems. The annual proportion of each species catches relative to the total catches is multiplied by the trophic level of the species, i.e.,MTI = ∑(Yik/Yk)*TLikwhere Yik represents the catch of species/group i in year k, Yk is the total annual catch, and TLik represents the trophic level of species/group i in year k. We used this metric for fisheries catches for each year to compute a time series of the MTI.We also estimated the mean maximum length of catches through time to reflect the changes in the size of catch through time. The mean maximum length of the catch can be defined as the annual proportion of each species catches relative to the total catches multiplied by the maximum length measurement of the species, i.e.,MML = ∑(Yik/Yk)*MLikwhere MLik represents the maximum length of species/group i in year k. We used standard length for fishes (Table A3; www .seaaroundus.org),4 carapace length for invertebrates (www .sealifebase.org)5 and the wingspan of seabirds (Table A4; www .bto.org).6 A mean maximum length for marine mammals is estimated from the mean weight (Trites and Pauly 1998) using length-weight relationships from SeaLifeBase (www .sealifebase.org). The mean maximum lengths from fisheries and those for marine mammals and seabirds are computed separately.4  http://www.seaaroundus.org [Accessed: June 2012]5  http://www.sealifebase.org [Accessed: June 2012]6  http://www.bto.org [Accessed: May 2012] 60resultsHuman populationThe human population of Greenland increased from approximately 23,000 people to 56,000 from 1950 to 2010 (Figure 2). The population growth was greatest from 1960 to 1970, increasing at approximately 4% per year, but has since slowed and from 2000-2010 it declined to 0.1% per year. The municipalities of Qaasuitsup and Sermersooq, where the capital Nuuk is located, have seen the greatest increase in population.Fisheries catchesTotal fisheries catches for Greenland’s domestic fishing fleet in its western and eastern waters, including reported landings and all unreported catches, exceeded 7 million t and were estimated to increase approximately 7-fold from over 29,000 t in 1950 to approximately 202,ooo t in 2010 (Figure 3a). Catches were dominated by northern shrimp and Atlantic cod (Figure 3b). From 1950 to 1979, Atlantic cod dominated, making up approximately 60% of the catches, but from 1980 onwards, Atlantic cod only represents 16% of the fisheries catches. Northern shrimp catches averaged 25% of the catches from 1950 to 1979, but increased in importance, accounting for approximately 63% of the catches from 1980 onwards. Greenland halibut is also important, averaging 5% of the total catches between 1950 and 1989, but increased afterwards to average 14% of the total catches between 1990-2010. All other taxa make up 11% of the total catches during 1950-2010. Catches are overwhelmingly taken in the waters of West Greenland (94%).Greenland’s commercial catch totalled 6.9 million t for the 1950 to 2010 period (Figure 3a). Until 1968, Greenland’s commercial fisheries were strictly small-scale artisanal, but by 1980 catches by the large-scale industrial fleet had reached 50% of the catch. In 1989, catches by the industrial fleet accounted for 68% of the commercial catch, and since then have averaged approximately 73%. Discards from the commercial fishery increased from 3,700 t in 1950 to 69,000 t in 1976, and since then have averaged 34,000 t∙year-1 from 1977-2010. Discards represent 21% of the reconstructed total catch, and were dominated by shrimp (72%).The unreported landings component of Greenland’s catches was estimated to decrease from 2,700 t in 1950 to approximately 800 t in 2010, and was dominated by Atlantic cod (47%). The majority of IUU came from subsistence fishing (78%), while 16% and 6% was represented by the artisanal and industrial sectors, respectively. IUU catches from commercial fisheries of Greenland shark were approximately 9,500 t from 1950 t0 1969. IUU catches of Atlantic halibut from 1953 to 1962 were estimated to be approximately 350 t and IUU catches of arctic charr from 1950-1964 were approximately 400 t. Subsistence catches were estimated to increase from about 2,600 t in 1950, peaking at approximately 3,500 t in 1969, and is currently estimated to be less than 1,000 t annually (Figure 3a). Consumption rates associated with subsistence fisheries catches fell from approximately 112 kg∙person∙year-1 in 1950 to 14 kg∙person∙year-1 in 2009.KujalleqQeqqataSermerssoqQaasuitsup605040302010001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Population (x10 )3Year050100150200250IndustrialArtisanalSubsistenceSupplied to FAO0501001502002501950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t X 103 )YearPandalidaeGadidaePleuronectidaeCyclopteridaeOsmeridaeAnarhichadidaeSebastidaeOthersFigure 3.  Reconstructed total catch of Greenland, during the period 1950-2010 (a) by sector with data as reported by FAO overlaid as line graph; and (b) by taxonomic group, others represent 10 other families.Figure 2.  Estimated total population of Greenland by municipality, 1950-2010.Greenland - Booth and Knip 61Marine mammal catchesUnreported catches of seals were higher in the 1950s and 1960s because of the limited amount of FAO data, but after this time the unreported catches are associated mainly with struck and lost animals (Figure 4a). Of the five species of seals, ringed seals and harp seals are the most important in catches accounting for, on average, 65% and 26% of the total catches, respectively (Figure 4b). Hooded and bearded seals account for approximately 7% and 1% respectively, and harbour seals comprise less than 1% of the catches. Unreported catches of seals from 1950-1968 average 86% of the total estimated catches, but decline afterwards to average 0.18 t∙year-1, although in 1986 unreported catches were estimated to be 79%. Seal catches are distributed more evenly than fisheries catches with the west coast accounting for, on average, 80% of the total estimated catches (Figure 4c).Blue, bottlenose and sperm whales catches from 1950 to 1973 (the last year of a reported catch) were reported to be 122 whales, with sperm whales being by far the most important at 110. We excluded these whales from further analysis and concentrate on the remaining marine mammals still targeted. For the remaining large whales, we relied on reported numbers, since the IWC Aboriginal Subsistence whaling statistics from 1985 onwards include struck and lost whales. Catches of bowhead, fin, humpback, and minke whales are dominated by minke whales, although from 1950-1957 fin whales and minke whales were taken in nearly equal numbers (Figure 5). Bowhead whales have only begun to be hunted again in the last two years with 3 individuals taken in 2009 and 2010. From 1950 to 1962, reported catches of large whales were estimated to average 50 individuals∙year-1, but reported numbers increased to average 200∙year-1 afterwards. Similar to fisheries catches, 95% of large whales are taken in the west.Small cetaceans (belugas, narwhals, killer whales, harbour porpoises, and pilot whales) have slowly increased over time (Figure 6a). Unreported catches of small cetaceans during the period from 1950-1995 were highly variable ranging from 4%-72%, but since 1996 have averaged only 0.02 t∙year-1 (Figure 6a). From 1950-1969, catches averaged 1,860 t∙year-1, increased to 2,402 t∙year-1 during 1970-1989, and since 1990 have averaged 3,091 t∙year-1. However, the composition of the catches through time has changed. Beluga whale catches have been declining in catches since the early 1980s. During the 1970s and 1980s catches averaged 1,039 t∙year-1, but have declined to 585 t∙year-1 since the 1990s (Figure 6b). Narwhal catches have increased in importance averaging 265 t∙year-1 from 1950-1969, 463 t∙year-1 from 1970-1989, and since 1990 have increased to 626 t∙year-1 (i.e., 100 t∙decade-1). Harbour porpoises have increased in importance, especially in the last decade. From 1950-1989, annual catches averaged 870 t∙year-1, increased slightly during 1990-1999 to 1,190 t∙year-1, but have nearly doubled that amount in the last decade rising to 2,277 t∙year-1. Estimated pilot whale catches average 33 t∙year-1 from 1950-1977, and for the remaining years catches fluctuate from a low of 2 t∙year-1 to a high of 365 t∙year-1. Killer whale catches from 1998 to present average 7 t∙year-1 with none reported in 2006 and a high of 26 taken in 2008. The area in which most small cetaceans are taken is not recorded, but for narwhal 88% of the annual average catch is taken in western waters.Ringed SealHarp SealBearded SealHooded SealWest GreenlandEast Greenlandr  seal sealRinged seals l250200150100500250200150100500Year1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 10 )a)b)c)3HumpbackFinMinkeCatch (t)4003503002502001501005001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearFigure 5.  Estimated large whale catches by species, during the period 1950-2010.Figure 4.  Estimated marine mammal catches (in t x 103), including (a) reported and unreported seal catches; (b) seal catches by species; (c) seal catches by coast. 62Seabird catchesSeabird data are limited, but catches have declined nearly 4-fold between 1993 and 2008, declining from approximately 450,000 birds in 1993 to approximately 114,000 in 2008 (Figure 7). Preliminary numbers for 2009 are just over 46,000 and this would indicate a 10-fold drop from the number reported in 1993. Thick-billed murres are the most important species, accounting for 50% of the catches, with eider being the next most important, averaging 16% of the reported total catches.7Ecosystem indicesThe MTI has decreased from 4.39 in 1950 to 3.26 in 2010, due mostly to the declining importance of Atlantic cod and the increasing importance of northern shrimp (Figure 8). The rate of decline is approximately 0.26∙trophic level∙decade-1. In order to exclude bottom-up effects (Caddy et al. 1998), the MTI was also calculated for species of trophic level 3.5 and above, and the decline in the MTI is then 0.07∙trophic level∙decade-1.The various length measurements of the catch have also decreased since 1950, although for marine mammals it is noticeable only after the moratorium on the hunting of large whales (Figure 6). The mean maximum length of estimated fisheries catches have declined from 149 cm in 1950 to 40 cm in 2010 (18 cm∙decade-1), and the average wingspan of seabird harvests have declined from 72 cm in 1963 to 65 cm. The mean maximum length of marine mammals have not declined significantly since 1950, but there is a slight trend downwards from 1976 (181 cm) to 2010 (169 cm).discussionThe decline  of the MTI in the Greenland fishery is the most dramatic case recorded so far (Table 3), and reflects a change in the fishery of one primarily targeting Atlantic cod to one primarily targeting shrimp. The recent collapse of Atlantic cod in Greenland waters is due in part to climatic forcing, but also due to overfishing. The profit of the fishery went to foreign countries’ fishing fleets prior to Greenland declaring its EEZ in 1977 when, from 1950 to 1976, the foreign fleets caught over 6 million t of cod in West Greenland waters, approximately 10 times the Greenland catch during the same period.The decline in the length of the catch is also indicative of an ecosystem that is moving towards smaller sized individuals. In fisheries, because size is related to trophic level, this is also a sign of fishing down marine food webs, but other living marine resources of the ecosystem are also moving towards one comprised of smaller individuals. Seabirds and marine mammals, in comparison to fish, have a relatively stable trophic level throughout their lives, whereas fish have trophic level changes as they grow and age (Cheung et al. 2007). Although here, we used one measure of trophic level for fish, the trophic level of fish would change 7  For the purposes of Sea Around Us and the global database of reconstructed fisheries catches, marine mammal and seabird data were not used.West GreenlandEast Greenland250200150100500Pilot whaleNarwhalBelugaHarbour porpoise012345Year1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010012345UnreportedReportedCatch (t x 10 )3Thick-billed murreEiderLittle aukBlack guillemotBlack-legged kittiwakeKing eider60050040030020010001993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009YearCatch (t X 10 )3Table 3.  The rate of decline in the Marine Trophic Index (MTI) for several marine ecosystems.Ecosystem Study Period MTI rate of change SourceGreenland 1950-2010 0.26 TL·decade-1 This studyCanada’s east coast 1950-mid 1997 0.16 TL·decade-1 (Pauly et al. 2001)Canada’s west coast 1900-mid 1996 0.03 TL·decade-1 (Pauly et al. 2001)Iceland 1950-2000 0.05 TL·decade-1 (Valtýsson and Pauly 2003)India 1950-2000 0.06 TL·decade-1 (Bhathal and Pauly 2008)Figure 7.  Reported catches of seabirds in Greenland from 1993-2010.Figure 6.  Estimated marine mammal catches (in t x 103), including (a) reported and unreported small cetacean catches; (b) small cetacean catches by species.Greenland - Booth and Knip 63through time, reflecting the change in size of the fish and therefore the diet composition; however it has been shown that this effect is small (Pauly et al. 2001). Including marine mammals and seabirds in the MTI dampens the decline, but it still declines as a result of the decline in the mean trophic level of fisheries landings.Fisheries, in the case of Greenland and other Arctic countries, are only one living marine resource that Inuit rely on. Ringed seals, belugas, and seabirds are also important in terms of subsistence use and therefore food security. After 1990, when the Atlantic cod had all but disappeared, Greenland halibut catches increased, but there was a significant increase in the catch of ringed and harp seals, and also of small whale species. Ringed seals and small whales are an important component of the diet of Greenlanders, and the decline of the beluga population since 1950 is of special concern.The economy of Greenland is presently reliant on export earnings from fisheries, particularly shrimp. However, the country must be resilient to changes to its marine ecosystems, given that the Arctic is most affected by climate change. The transition from cod to shrimp was also associated with social effects because of differences between communities’ abilities to adapt to shifts in marine resource distributions (Hamilton et al. 2003). As is the case for other Inuit, there is a high reliance on living marine resources for cultural, subsistence and economic use, and some of these marine populations will decline if global warming continues, adversely affecting food security for communities that are not able to adapt.acknowledgementsThis work was undertaken as part of Sea Around Us, a collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts.reFerencesAlvarez-Flores C and Heide-Jørgensen M (2004) A risk assessment of the sustainability of the harvest of beluga (Delphinapterus leucas (Pallas 1776)) in West Greenland. ICES Journal of Marine Science 61: 274-286.Angliss RP and Outlaw RB (2006) Alaska marine mammal stock asssessments, 2006. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-168. 244 p.Anon. (2000) Status of marine mammals in the North Atlantic: the beluga whale. North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, Trømso. 11 p.Anon. (2003) Marine Mammal Commission annual report to Congress 2002. Marine Mammal Commission, Bethesda, USA. 264 p.Anon. (2005) Country note on national fisheries management system-Greenland. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris. Available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/48/34431581.pdf [Accessed: March, 2012] 17 p.Anon. (2006) NAMMCO workshop to address the problems of “struck and lost” in seal, walrus, and whale hunting. North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission, Copenhagen. 78 p.Anon. (2009) Joint meeting of the NAMMCO scientific committee working group on the population status of narwhals and beluga in the North Atlantic and the Canada/Greenland joint commission on conservation and management of narwhal and beluga scientific working group.Winnipeg. 29 p.Anon. (2010) Extract of the Report of the Advisory Committee. North Atlantic salmon stocks, as reported to the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Copenhagen. 109 p.Arboe N and Kingsley M (2010) The fishery for northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) off West Greenland, 1970-2010. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), Sr. Andrews, Canada. 38 p.Bhathal B and Pauly D (2008) ‘Fishing down marine food webs’ and spatial expansion of coastal fisheries in India, 1950-2010. Fisheries Research 91: 26-34.Marine Mammals2001805.04.54.03.02.52.01960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Year19503.5Marine Trophic Indexy= -0.0261x + 55.351y = -0.0066x + 17.279YearMarine mammalsSeabirdsFisheriesLength (cm)2001801601401201008060402001950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Figure 9.  Changes in the mean maximum length measurement of catches of fisheries, marine mammals, and seabirds.Figure 8.  The decline in the Marine Trophic Index, 1950-2010. 64Buch E, Pedersen S and Ribergaard M (2004) Ecosystem variability in West Greenland waters. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 34(13-28).Caddy J, Csirke J, Garcia S and Grainger R (1998) How pervasive is “fishing down marine food webs?”. Science 282: 1383a.Carlsson D and Kanneworff P (1992) Estimate of shrimp discard from shrimp factory trawlers in Davis Strait and Denmark Strait in 1991. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), St. Andrews, Canada. 6 p.Chase S (2003) Closing the North American mixed stock commercial fishery for wild Atlantic salmon. Atlantic Salmon Federation, St. Andrews, Canada. 9 p.Cheung W, Watson R, Morato T, Pitcher T and Pauly D (2007) Intrinsic vulnerability in the global fish catch. Marine Ecology Progress Series 333: 1-12.Christensen T (2001) Seabird harvest in Greenland. pp. 22-37 In Denlinger L and Wohl K (eds.), Seabird harvest regimes in the circumpolar nations. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Technical Report No. 9, Akureyri, Iceland.Deutch B and Hansen JC (2003) AMAP Greenland and the Faroe Islands 1997-2001. Danish Cooperation for Environment in the Arctic, Danish Environmental Protection Agency, Copenhagen. 234 p.FAO (2012) Capture production: 1950-2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. Available at: www.fao.org. [Accessed: February 2012].Garcia E, Ragnarsson S and Eiríksson H (2006) Effects of scallop dredging on macrobenthic communities in west Iceland. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63: 434-443.Hamilton L, Brown B and Rasmussen R (2003) West Greenland’s cod-to-shrimp transition: local dimensions of climate change. Arctic 56(3): 271-282.Hansen JC, Deutch B and Odland J (2008) Dietary transition and contaminants in the Arctic: emphasis on Greenland. Circumpolar Health Supplements 2Laatupaino, Raahe, Finland.Heide-Jørgensen M (2009) Reconstructing catch statistics for narwhals in Greenland 1862 to 2008: a preliminary compilation. Joint Commission on Conservation and Management of Narwhal and Beluga, Winnipeg. 29 p.Heide-Jørgensen M and Rosing-Asvid A (2002) Catch statistics for belugas in West Greenland 1862 to 1999. North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission Scientific Publication 4: 127-142.Horsted S (2000) A review of the cod fisheries at Greenland, 1910-1995. Journal of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization 28: 112.Hvingel C (2001) The fishery for northern shrimp (Pandalus borealis) off West Greenland, 1970-2001. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), St. Andrews, Canada. 11 p.Hvingel C (2003) Correction of reported past catches of northern shirmp within the Greenland EEZ to conform to a revision of reporting practices. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), St. Andrews, Canada. 3 p.ICES (2009) Report of the North Western Working Group (NWWG). International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) 29 April–5 May, 2009, Copenhagen. 655 p.ICES (2011) Eurostat/ICES database on catch statistics. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Copenhagen. Available at: www.ices.dk/fish/CATChSTATISTICS.asp. [Accessed: February 2012].IWC (2012) Aboriginal subsistence whaling catches since 1985. International Whaling Commission (IWC), Cambridge, UK. Available at: www.iwcoffice.org. [Accessed: March 2012].Johansen P, Muir D, Asmund G and Riget F (2004) Human exposure to contaminants in the traditional Greenland diet. Science of the Total Environment 331: 189-206.Kapel F (1975) Recent research on seals and seal hunting in Greenland. pp. 462-478 In Ronald K (ed.), Biology of the seal: proceedings of a symposium held in Guelph 14-17 August 1972. Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer. Rapports et proces- verbaux des reunions, 169, Charlotteenlund Slot, Denmark.Kapel F (1979) Exploitation of large whales in West Greenland in the twentieth century. Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission 29: 197-214.Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome. 131 p.Lehmann K and Degel H (1991) An estimate of shrimp discard from shrimp factory trawlers in Davis Strait and Denmark Strait. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization )NAFO), St. Andrews, Canada. 11 p.Mattox W (1971) Fishing in West Greenland 1910-1966: the development of a new native industry. PhD thesis, McGill, Geography, Montreal. 850 p.NAFO (2011) Catch and effort 1960-2006 electronic database. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), Dartmouth, Canada. Available at: www.nafo.int. [Accessed: March 2012].Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard J, Froese R and Torres F (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279: 860-863.Pauly D, Palomares M, Froese R, Sa-a P, Vakily M, Preikshot D and Wallace S (2001) Fishing down Canadian aquatic food webs. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58: 51-62.Pedersen S (1994) Population parameters of the Iceland scallop (Chlamys islandica (Müller)) from West Greenland. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 16: 75-87.Piatt J and Reddin D (1984) Recent trends in the west Greenland salmon fishery, and implications for thick-billed murres. pp. 208-210 In Nettleship D, Sanger G and Springer P (eds.), Marine birds: their feeding ecology and commercial fisheries relationships. Proceedings of the Pacific Seabird Group Symposium, Seattle, Washington, 6-8- Jan. 1982. Canadian Wildlife Service Publication, Ottawa.Greenland - Booth and Knip 65Riget F and Boje J (1988) Mean length at age of Atlantic halibut (Hippoglossus hippoglossus) in West Greenland. Scientific Research Doucument 88/10, Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), St. Andrews, Canada. 4 p.Riget F and Hovgård H (1991) Observation on discarding in the West Greenland fishery in 1990. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), St. Andrews, Canada. 5 p.Siegstad H (1993) An estimate of shrimp discard from shrimp factory trawlers in Davis Strait 1992. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), St. Andrews, Canada. 8 p.Siegstad H (2000) Denmark/Greenland Research Report for 1999. Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO), St. Andrews, Canada. 5 p.Smidt E (1981) The wolffish fishery in West Greenland. NAFO Scientific Council Studies 1: 35-39.Statistics Greenland (2011) National population data. Statistics Greenland, Nuuk, Greenland. Available at: www.stat.gl. [Accessed: December 2011].Stenson G (2008) Recent catches of harp seals (Pagophilus groendlandicus) in the Northwest Atlantic. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2008/080, St. John’s, Canada. 31 p.Teilmann J and Dietz R (1998) Status of the harbour porpoise in Greenland. Polar Biology 19: 211-220.Trites A and Pauly D (1998) Estimating mean body masses of marine mammals from maximum body lengths. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 886-896.Ugarte F (2007) White paper on hunting of large whales in Greenland. International Whaling Commission report 59-ASW8, Cambridge, UK. 34 p.Witting L (2007) Population dynamics of humpback whales off West Greenland. International Whaling Commission report IWC/SC/MO7/AWMP5, Cambridge, UK. 30 p. 66Appendix Table A1.  Unreported discard rates of shrimp as a rate of reported landings. Unreported catches include estimates for boat-based discards, and overpacking and quality discards that are processor-based (see text for details).Year Large-scale Small-scale1950-1969 n.a. 0.0631970 0.310 0.3101971 0.365 0.3651972 0.691 0.6911973 1.085 1.0851974 1.993 1.9931975 4.705 4.7051976 6.588 6.5881977 3.153 3.1531978 2.861 2.8611979 1.447 1.4471980 0.796 0.7961981 0.638 0.6371982 0.599 0.5911983 0.598 0.5871984 0.547 0.5341985 0.509 0.4961986 0.549 0.5251987 0.511 0.4841988 0.563 0.5271989 0.558 0.5281990 0.580 0.5441991 0.401 0.3891992 0.364 0.3601993 0.271 0.2671994 0.274 0.2671995 0.199 0.1931996 0.310 0.3031997 0.388 0.3821998 0.291 0.2881999 0.285 0.2812000 0.249 0.2452001 0.320 0.3172002 0.525 0.5252003 0.859 0.8622004 0.073 0.0412005 0.073 0.0472006 0.072 0.0472007 0.070 0.0512008 0.065 0.0682009 0.061 0.0822010 0.061 0.082Greenland - Booth and Knip 67Appendix Table A2.  Communities located in the municipalities of Qaasuitsup and Sermersooq and the region they were assigned for estimating subsistence catches.Community Region1 Municipality Community Region1 MunicipalityAasiaat CWG Qaasuitsup Ukkusissat NWG QaasuitsupAkunnaaq CWG Qaasuitsup Upernavik NWG QaasuitsupIkamuit CWG Qaasuitsup Upernavik Kujalleq NWG QaasuitsupIllimanaq CWG Qaasuitsup Uummannaq NWG QaasuitsupIlimanaq CWG Qaasuitsup Attu SG QaasuitsupIlulissat CWG Qaasuitsup Iginniarfik SG QaasuitsupKangerluk CWG Qaasuitsup Ikerasaarsuk SG QaasuitsupKitsissuarsuit CWG Qaasuitsup Kangaatsiaq SG QaasuitsupOqaatsut CWG Qaasuitsup Niaqornaarsuk SG QaasuitsupQasigiannguit CWG Qaasuitsup Illoqqortoormuit CEG SermersooqQeqqertaq CWG Qaasuitsup Itterajivit CEG SermersooqQeqertarssuatsiaq CWG Qaasuitsup Nerlerit Inaar CEG SermersooqQwqertarsuaq CWG Qaasuitsup Sermiligaaq CEG SermersooqQeqertat CWG Qaasuitsup Uunarteq CEG SermersooqSaqqaq CWG Qaasuitsup Orsuiassuaq SEG SermersooqAappilattoq NWG Qaasuitsup Pikuillit SEG SermersooqDundas NWG Qaasuitsup Ikkateq SEG SermersooqIkersak NWG Qaasuitsup Isortoq SEG SermersooqIllorsuit NWG Qaasuitsup Kulusuk SEG SermersooqInnaarsuit NWG Qaasuitsup Kuumiut SEG SermersooqKangersuatsiaq NWG Qaasuitsup Narsalik SEG SermersooqKullorsuaq NWG Qaasuitsup Qernertuarsuit SEG SermersooqMaarmorilik NWG Qaasuitsup Tasiilaq SEG SermersooqMoriusaq NWG Qaasuitsup Timmiarmiut SEG SermersooqNaajaat NWG Qaasuitsup Tinit eqilaaq SEG SermersooqNiaqornat NWG Qaasuitsup Arsuk SG SermersooqNutaarmiut NWG Qaasuitsup Avigaat SG SermersooqNuugaatsiaq NWG Qaasuitsup Ivittuut SG SermersooqNuussuaq NWG Qaasuitsup Kangeq SG SermersooqQaanaaq NWG Qaasuitsup Kangerluarsoruseq SG SermersooqQaarsut NWG Qaasuitsup Kapisillit SG SermersooqQeqertarsuaq (Herbert Island) NWG Qaasuitsup Nuuk SG SermersooqSaattut NWG Qaasuitsup Paamiut SG SermersooqSavissivik NWG Qaasuitsup Qeqertarsuatsiaat SG SermersooqSiorapaluk NWG Qaasuitsup Qooqqut SG SermersooqTasiusaq NWG Qaasuitsup Qoornoq SG SermersooqTunugassoq NWG Qaasuitsup        - - -1 CWG: central western Greenland; NWG: northwest Greenland; SG: southern Greenland; CEG: central eastern Greenland;  SEG: southeastern Greenland) 68Appendix Table A3.  Trophic level (TL) and mean maximum standard length measurements of fisheries catches used for estimating changes in Greenland’s marine ecosystem from 1950-2010.Common name TL Length (cm) Common name TL Length (cm)Aesop shrimp 2.3 16 Lanternfishes 3.2 10American angler 4.5 102 Lemon sole 3.3 52American plaice 3.7 67 Ling 4.3 185Angler 4.5 200 Lumpfish 3.9 49Arctic charr 4.3 9 Megrim 4.2 49Argentines 3.3 52 Monkfishes 4.1 97Atlantic cod 4.4 150 Moras 4.0 280Atlantic halibut 4.5 219 Navaga 4.2 35Atlantic herring 3.2 45 Northern shortfin squid 4.0 27Atlantic horse mackerel 3.6 62 Northerm shrimp 2.5 14Atlantic mackerel 3.7 46 Northern wolffish 3.8 180Atlantic redfishes 3.9 60 Ocean perch 3.9 60Atlantic salmon 4.4 135 Ocean pout 3.4 54Atlantic wolffish 3.2 165 Onion-eye grenadier 4.5 82Baird’s slickhead 3.9 100 Orange roughy 4.3 58Beaked redfish 3.7 33 Pandalus shrimps 2.5 11Black dogfish 3.9 82 Piked digfish 4.3 106Black scabbardfish 4.5 110 Polar cod 3.1 35Blue ling 4.5 145 Pollack 4.2 115Blue skate 4.0 285 Porbeagle 4.5 227Blue whitnig 4.0 42 Portugese dogfish 4.4 99Bramble, sleeper, dogfish sharks 4.2 149 Queen crab 2.3 20Brill 3.8 62 Rabbit fish 3.8 101Capelin 3.2 18 Raja rays 3.8 117Common dab 3.3 40 Ratfishes 3.9 74Common sole 3.1 70 Rays, stingrays, mantas 3.8 135Dealfishes 4.5 278 Redfishes 3.9 60Deepwater rose shrimp 2.4 22 Roughhead grenadier 4.5 82Dogfish shark 4.3 130 Roundnose grenadier 3.5 106European conger 4.3 246 Ruffs, barrelfishes 3.9 150European flounder 3.2 50 Saithe 4.4 107European hake 4.4 130 Shagreen ray 3.5 98European plaice 3.3 100 Silvery lightfish 3.0 6European smelt 3.0 40 Skates 3.7 100Forkbeards 4.0 65 Spotted ratfish 4.0 74Golden redfish 4.0 87 Spotted wolffish 3.5 165Greater forkbeard 3.7 97 Tusk 4.0 98Greenland cod 3.6 65 White hake 4.2 115Greenland halibut 4.5 72 Whiting 4.4 63Greenland shark 4.2 606 Witch flounder 3.1 60Haddock 4.1 86 Wolffishes 3.5 136Iceland scallop 2.0 11       - - -Greenland - Booth and Knip 69Appendix Table A4.  Mean maximum length of marine mammals and the wingspan of seabirds used to estimate the change in lengths of catches from 1950 to 2010.Common Name Species Name Length (cm)Bearded seal Erignathus barbatus 260Beluga whale Delphinapterus leucas 270Bowhead whale Balaena mysticetus 2010Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus 2110Harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena 130Harbour seal Phoca vitulina 140Harp seal Pagophilus groendlandicus 150Hooded seal Cystophora cristata 260Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae 1330Killer whale Orcinus orca 480Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata 810Narwhal whale Monodon monoceros 270Pilot whale Globicephala melas 420Ringed seal Pusa hispida 170Black guillemot Cepphus grylle 55Black-legged kittiwake Rissa tridactyla 108Eider Somateria mollissima 94King eider Somateria spectabilis 94Little auk Alle alle 44Thick-billed murre Uria lomvia 67 70Appendix Table A5.  FAO and ICES landings vs. reconstructed total catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector with discards shown separately for Greenland, 1950-2010.Year FAO ICES Reconstructed total catch Industrial Artisanal Subsistence Discards1950 22,703 - 6,390 - 26,500 2,590 3,6901951 19,620 - 6,170 - 23,100 2,670 3,1701952 18,286 - 6,070 - 21,600 2,750 2,9201953 25,751 - 7,170 - 30,100 2,830 3,9501954 22,132 - 6,580 - 25,900 2,850 3,2701955 23,887 - 7,250 - 28,300 2,870 3,4601956 25,528 - 7,580 - 30,200 2,890 3,6901957 29,093 - 9,420 - 35,600 2,960 4,3101958 31,002 915 9,520 - 38,400 3,020 4,6901959 32,177 642 10,000 - 39,700 3,080 4,9601960 33,095 1,646 9,720 - 41,300 3,130 5,1001961 40,660 1,199 10,840 - 49,500 3,170 6,2701962 42,388 903 11,030 - 51,100 3,200 6,5201963 32,386 904 8,310 - 38,400 3,210 4,4701964 36,333 1,136 9,110 - 43,300 3,260 4,3501965 39,743 887 9,100 - 46,400 3,330 4,7801966 43,599 881 10,470 - 51,600 3,310 5,6101967 44,116 753 10,290 - 51,700 3,420 5,4401968 33,665 630 8,460 209 39,100 3,460 4,2701969 38,745 627 9,800 3,452 42,200 3,500 5,1601970 38,961 501 11,540 7,787 39,800 3,450 7,1301971 37,754 535 12,490 11,182 36,200 3,360 7,7501972 41,490 282 14,910 18,455 34,900 3,360 10,6301973 42,411 251 17,380 24,452 32,300 3,270 13,2001974 51,193 71 29,670 43,506 34,200 3,230 25,5801975 47,369 226 55,390 73,214 26,600 3,120 51,3001976 44,138 506 72,080 91,500 22,200 3,030 68,9401977 58,013 1,852 56,290 75,654 37,600 2,930 53,2001978 66,856 1,377 50,100 72,871 42,700 2,800 47,2001979 80,360 2,775 42,940 59,183 64,200 2,720 39,6801980 101,826 1,907 41,400 72,923 69,600 2,650 38,6201981 106,443 1,043 38,100 74,864 68,100 2,600 35,3701982 104,189 2,015 39,730 93,361 50,000 2,540 37,0501983 97,402 1,919 38,030 83,225 51,700 2,470 35,4901984 83,299 2,953 32,780 72,237 44,400 2,390 30,0101985 86,539 8,411 35,610 99,373 28,900 2,320 31,9201986 86,519 16,384 41,830 117,504 25,000 2,240 38,5501987 91,411 9,002 42,070 106,166 34,200 2,160 38,3101988 116,311 8,063 50,600 124,642 48,200 2,090 47,8401989 158,850 9,770 62,660 157,118 72,200 2,010 60,3001990 132,575 10,755 58,890 137,502 62,800 1,920 56,5801991 103,025 11,137 39,610 97,161 54,800 1,820 37,1001992 101,982 4,765 35,830 97,646 43,200 1,710 33,9901993 94,938 14,593 25,680 96,816 36,800 1,610 24,0501994 101,950 6,070 27,730 98,165 36,100 1,520 26,2101995 108,574 9,527 23,090 104,264 35,500 1,420 21,6401996 94,356 13,177 27,940 98,253 35,900 1,330 26,5901997 94,096 17,561 30,770 110,095 31,100 1,280 29,4701998 97,953 21,811 26,200 123,031 21,700 1,220 24,9701999 118,461 14,461 29,600 122,900 38,500 1,170 25,0902000 121,885 9,940 26,770 115,259 42,200 1,110 25,6602001 124,149 10,414 34,430 125,955 42,000 1,050 33,3802002 151,533 21,070 63,510 175,695 59,400 1,000 62,5002003 130,367 25,198 79,590 174,746 59,500 940 78,6402004 183,660 5,913 16,300 152,340 52,600 890 15,3902005 194,620 6,774 16,860 161,012 56,400 850 15,9902006 206,296 6,966 18,290 164,717 66,000 810 17,4002007 196,170 9,973 19,170 156,176 68,300 810 18,2702008 203,247 15,669 20,280 173,724 64,700 800 19,4002009 178,611 22,143 18,160 162,235 55,900 800 17,2702010 175,919 9,894 16,350 149,808 51,600 800 15,550Greenland - Booth and Knip 71Appendix Table A6.  Reconstructed total catch (in tonnes) by major taxa for Greenland, 1950-2010. ‘Others’ contain 27 additional families.Year Pandalidae Gadidae Pleuronectidae Cyclopteridae Osmeridae Anarhichadidae Sebastidae Others1950 319 26,400 1,080 89 118 852 119 1561951 319 22,900 1,100 92 121 745 123 3751952 319 21,200 1,120 95 125 889 127 4511953 425 28,200 1,260 97 129 2,233 130 4221954 425 23,600 1,300 98 130 2,568 131 4601955 425 24,900 1,390 99 131 3,655 132 4131956 531 26,400 1,690 99 131 3,636 133 4871957 744 30,800 1,390 102 134 4,639 236 4621958 744 33,100 2,060 104 137 4,142 306 8671959 956 34,900 2,130 106 140 3,244 376 9991960 1,903 35,400 2,330 108 142 2,969 445 1,1551961 2,704 43,100 2,150 109 144 2,451 492 1,5471962 3,573 44,400 2,260 110 145 1,862 281 1,6521963 3,550 30,200 3,480 111 146 2,617 316 1,1361964 4,006 29,000 3,530 112 4,188 2,238 372 3,1101965 5,367 31,500 3,900 115 1,798 3,430 419 3,1761966 5,715 37,000 3,400 114 1,523 2,633 444 4,0811967 5,995 35,200 2,650 700 3,927 2,861 332 3,5171968 5,955 27,100 2,380 981 359 3,974 295 1,7211969 7,164 30,900 2,290 1,164 336 3,520 299 3,5031970 11,045 26,700 2,010 1,816 3,312 2,864 330 2,9681971 12,207 26,200 1,950 1,107 2,646 2,771 479 3,4531972 12,668 30,900 3,820 620 2,088 3,621 399 2,5681973 16,967 25,000 5,620 186 3,395 4,340 1,353 3,2061974 30,656 30,500 5,100 155 3,653 5,898 2,563 2,4421975 55,850 31,100 4,710 224 1,187 5,834 1,552 2,5531976 74,198 27,500 4,480 247 617 5,068 2,965 1,6311977 61,802 39,600 7,090 635 459 3,146 1,234 2,1521978 50,696 54,000 7,010 1,588 427 2,296 803 1,4881979 49,361 64,300 6,180 1,051 387 2,269 377 2,1051980 64,560 64,000 6,410 2,271 405 4,143 1,343 2,0011981 58,851 70,300 7,140 2,395 262 3,434 605 2,5621982 64,905 65,000 6,740 3,105 223 2,902 405 2,6721983 63,669 60,400 5,240 3,021 411 2,430 611 1,5331984 64,099 36,800 7,420 3,992 1,188 1,710 1,194 2,6021985 80,731 23,500 10,190 595 1,106 1,923 7,497 5,0461986 98,910 16,000 9,550 310 1,276 1,844 12,607 4,2781987 97,779 28,500 9,520 90 536 1,543 928 3,6181988 93,419 68,000 8,020 313 229 1,995 361 2,6261989 97,232 121,400 8,410 269 325 1,105 255 2,2481990 108,977 80,100 9,320 94 370 802 405 2,1011991 102,224 34,700 11,160 258 258 467 421 4,2821992 110,829 11,200 13,490 201 203 273 1,374 5,0161993 97,109 5,400 14,880 358 11,359 237 1,245 4,5911994 101,549 5,300 19,390 765 716 178 1,555 6,2641995 98,105 5,400 19,360 600 1,948 122 3,924 11,7141996 94,170 4,000 21,320 570 7,314 121 1,167 6,7781997 88,648 3,600 25,380 1,468 12,342 133 1,221 9,6431998 89,932 2,900 23,850 2,679 17,142 92 1,281 8,1411999 101,544 3,300 41,020 3,803 1,958 85 3,985 6,8032000 107,347 2,500 26,060 1,529 73 111 5,303 15,6932001 113,897 3,700 21,620 3,995 1,831 107 3,269 20,5562002 161,605 6,200 27,100 7,233 13,682 201 3,537 16,5752003 156,866 6,500 30,000 8,130 19,387 443 639 13,1952004 144,999 7,000 31,220 10,165 310 364 712 11,1382005 156,054 8,400 31,690 11,972 383 539 1,143 8,0322006 158,602 13,200 35,420 12,308 77 802 2,975 8,1562007 149,387 20,100 33,010 10,862 524 917 2,451 8,0882008 157,865 27,900 35,510 7,950 177 1,267 3,906 4,6662009 143,622 15,100 37,060 8,583 222 1,207 7,143 6,0232010 131,967 14,300 31,730 10,642 127 1,235 5,065 7,084 72Iceland - Valtýsson 73reconstructing icelandic catches From 1950 to 20101Hreiðar Þór ValtýssonUniversity of Akureyri, Borgir v/Nordurslod, IS-600 Akureyri, Icelandhreidar@unak.is abstractMarine resources have always been important in Iceland and they have gradually become more and more so. During earlier centuries they were important as food for Icelanders, after the 14th century fish products, mainly dried cod also became important as export commodity. During the 19th century more species were added to the fisheries and technological advantages allowed increased catches and economic growth. This trend continued during the 20th century, when the mechanization of fisheries fueled the continuing growth of the economy. This domination of fisheries in the economy reached a zenith in 1949 when marine products were 97% of all exports. The fishing industry has continued to grow to the present, but its relative importance has declined as other industries have evolved and grown. The reported landings by the Icelandic fleets within the EEZ from 1950 to 2010 have ranged from 411,000 t·year-1 to 2,017,000 t·year-1. The most important species in term of value has nearly always been the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), but the highest catches have usually been from capelin (Mallotus villosus). Discards and unreported catches are estimated to have ranged from 3.3% to 6.7% of the reported landings. An overview is given on catches of all species reported by the Icelandic fleets.introductionThe purpose of this study is to account for the total extractions from Icelandic waters from 1950 to 2010. It is an update of previous work (Valtýsson 2002) incorporating more recent data and research. The catches, including discards and illegal, unreported and unregulated catch (IUU), is estimated for each and every species reported by the Icelandic fleets, split into large and small boats, and for as small a spatial scale as possible. The number of boats in the Icelandic fleets by size categories is also estimated. Catch statistics were gathered from as many sources as possible and they were compared to find possible errors.Icelandic watersIceland covers around 103,000 km2. It is the second largest island in Europe, slightly larger than Ireland but smaller than Great Britain. It is located just below the Arctic Circle (Figure 1). The country is highly volcanic, and uninhabitable glaciers, highlands and deserts cover a very large part of the interior. Vegetation only covers about 23% of the country. Iceland was first settled in the ninth century from the Nordic countries, chiefly Norway, but there was also a sizeable component from the British Islands (Helgason et al. 2000).The county was an independent republic until 1262; when after a civil war it entered into a union with the Norwegian monarchy. Gradually, Norway came under Danish rule and Iceland followed along. However, during this time, Iceland was fairly independent, ruled mostly by Icelandic laws, and the Icelandic parliament (Althing) was more or less operational from 930 to the present day. Since the 19th century, more independence was gradually gained and Iceland became a fully sovereign state in 1918, but shared a king with Denmark until 1944 when it became a republic.1 Cite as: Valtýsson, H. (2014) Reconstructing Icelandic catches from 1950-2010. pp. 73-88.  In: Zylich, K., Zeller, D., Ang, M. and Pauly, D. (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part IV. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 22(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198-6727].Figure 1.  Icelandic Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters showing shelf area (to 200 m depth) and ICES statistical areas. 74Most of the population lives along the coast, and the highest population density is now around the capital Reykjavík. The population of Iceland was 318,452 in 2011 (Statistics Iceland) and the population density is similar to Canada. Although Iceland is considered part of Europe, half of the country is geologically speaking on the North American continental plate. Iceland is not a member of the European Union (EU) but has close ties to the EU through the European Economic Area (EEA). In 2009, Iceland did submit an application for membership after a serious recession due to the collapse of its banks. This has proved controversial within the country and the most challenging part of the application is considered to be the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), as Iceland wants to have full control of its fishing grounds (Popescu and Poulsen 2012).The Icelandic EEZ borders Greenland in the west, Jan Mayen (Norwegian) in the north and Faroe Islands in the east. It borders two international high seas areas, the so-called ‘herring loophole’ in the northeast and the Mid-Atlantic high seas to the south (Figure 1). The total size of the EEZ is 758,000 km2 (Statistics Iceland) and the size of the continental shelf with less than 200 m deep is 109,000 km2 (www .seaaroundus.org, Figure 1)The ocean around Iceland includes the boundary between warm Atlantic waters in the south and colder polar waters from the north. The deeper waters are quite stable, and the temperature is less than 1°C north of Iceland and around 7°C south of Iceland. The surface waters average about 4°C north of Iceland and 8°C to the south, but are much more variable both inter- and intra-annually, depending on seasons and the strength of the currents. The Irminger current keeps the waters south and west of Iceland relatively warm. The current flows clockwise around the country but gradually cools off due to influence from the cold currents flowing in from the north.The productivity of Icelandic waters is moderately high, and the primary productivity on the Icelandic shelf has been estimated to be between 150-350 g C·m-2·yr-1, higher over the shelf than offshore. The total primary production is estimated to be around 55 million t C·year-1 (450 million t wet weight) on the continental shelf, but 122 million t within the entire EEZ (Þórðardóttir 1994; Guðmundsson et al. 2004).Iceland’s fisheries after WWIIAfter WWII, the Icelandic fishing fleet was old and worn out, as lost boats could not be replaced and spare parts were difficult to get during the war. However, funds were available to modernize the fleet. Furthermore, these funds were used to build processing plants and improve harbors. This meant that in 1950, at the beginning of the period under consideration here, the Icelandic fishing industry was technologically stronger than at any pervious time and the fleet was among the most modern in the world. Many of the trawlers were diesel powered and were equipped with fish finders and radars, equipment mostly invented during the war. The fisheries did also dominate the economy at that time; exports of fish products reached a peak of 97% of all exports in goods from Iceland in 1949.The fleet in 1950 consisted of 48 trawlers, 52 motor boats (other than trawlers) larger than 100 GRT, 487 motor boats between 12 and 100 GRT and 51 smaller than 12 GRT (Jónsson and Magnússon 1997). The composition of the fleet changed very little during the 1950s, except that open boats seem to have almost doubled in numbers. It is difficult to verify if this is reality or an artifact of better registration. The rowing boats had almost disappeared from a peak of 5,240 in 1885 to 209 in 1940 and only 5 in 1950. There were no sailing vessels left in 1950, the last one being phased out in 1927.The Icelandic fishing fleet continued to modernize rapidly during the 1950s, although the number of boats did not increase greatly. Modern trawlers continued to be built and the first motor boat made from steel arrived in 1955. Perhaps more importantly, purse seine boats begin experiments with fish finders in 1954 and power blocks in 1959, followed by rapid increases in herring catches. The Icelandic trawlers conducted minor distant water fisheries in the Barents Sea from 1950 to 1956 and on larger scale in Greenlandic waters from 1951.The 1960s saw further development of technology. Fish finders and power blocks became standard equipment for purse seiners, and sonars and radars for trawlers. However, the trawl fisheries began to decline, as the operational costs of these vessels was very high, and they were gradually pushed out from shallow water fishing grounds, as the gradual extension of the Iceland EEZ did also apply to Icelandic trawlers. The more economically efficient motor boats flourished until the collapse of the herring stocks in 1967. After the collapse of the herring, the Icelandic pelagic fleet temporarily fished for pelagic fishes in the North Sea, primarily herring and mackerel. Icelandic trawlers fished for cod and redfish in Greenlandic waters during this decade, but catches declined towards the end of the decade.The fleet composition changed considerably during the 1960s. The number of open boats is thought to have increased somewhat and the trawler fleet declined. The largest changes in the 1960s were in the decked motor boats, which increased in size. Some of the older sidewinder trawlers were also converted to purse seiners with the arrival of more efficient stern trawlers, and subsequently reclassified as decked motor boats. This classification is still used today when boats are registered, but the difference can be spurious. Many of today’s largest motor boats that are primarily fishing for pelagic species are in fact larger than most trawlers.As the foreign catches declined due to the extension of the EEZ during the 1970s, Icelandic catches increased. This increase was mostly due to two factors. Capelin fisheries increased after the herring stock collapse and soon surpassed the herring fisheries in catches. The second factor was the rapid modernization of the trawler fleet where about 22 old sidewinder trawlers in 1970 were by 1980 replaced by 86 new stern trawlers.The introduction of the Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system began in 1975 with individual ship quotas on the slowly recovering herring stocks. First use of rapid area closures was in 1977. This was to protect areas where by-catch of juveniles was high. The same year, a rudimentary effort control system was established for the trawlers where they could only target cod for a certain number of days per year, the other days they could target (‘scrape up’) other less valuable species, thus it was called the ‘scraping day system’.Iceland - Valtýsson 75Further limitations were set on the Icelandic fleet as the fishing capacity continued to grow. Individual catch quotas were set on capelin in 1980, and an effort based management system was established for trawlers in 1981. This proved unsuccessful and an individual quota system was established on the most important demersal stocks in 1984. This only applied to boats 10 GRT and larger. The quotas for each boat were based on the catch history the three previous years. Effort limitations were set on boats from 6 to 10 GTR in 1988.The number of stern trawlers continued to increase during the 1980s, and the first freezer trawler arrived in 1982. Number of trawlers reached a peak of 115 in 1989. The number of medium and large decked motor boats declined somewhat but most importantly the small boat sector more than doubled in numbers. This was largely driven by technological advances, as more cumbersome and slower timber boats were replaces by faster and lighter boats made of fiberglass. Another important new technology was the computerized jigging reels. This allowed one person to operate several handlines, and therefore multiplied the efficiency of the handline fleet. Icelandic boats fished almost exclusively in Icelandic waters during the 1980s.The 1990s were the first decade that management measures for the Icelandic fleet began to become truly effective. The last free fisheries in Iceland, for boats less than 6 GRT were abolished in 1990 as the small boat fleet had grown out of control. In 1991, all fisheries in Iceland were based on ITQs to limit the catch and size of the fleet. Boats less than 6 GRT could opt for an effort based system. As a consequence of more strict management measures, the fleet began to shrink again for most of this decade. The TAC for many species, most importantly cod, were for the first time severely restricted by the Ministry of Fisheries to reduce overfishing. This is the decade where the size of the cod stock reached its lowest point, but also the decade where it began to grow again (Sigurðsson and Magnússon 2012).As severe limits were set on fisheries for the most important Icelandic species, vessel operators began to look for alternative ways to use the boats. Many new species began to appear in landings, both because more species were retained and more were targeted. Examples of these are grenadiers, blue whiting, argentines, orange roughy, oceanic redfish, long rough dab, shagreen ray, starry ray, rabbit fish, sea urchin and whelk. For the same reason, Icelandic boats began again to fish in distant waters, trawlers went to the Barents Sea to fish for cod and to the Flemish cap off Canada to fish for northern shrimp. The pelagic boats went to the Norwegian Sea to fish for herring.The final remnants of the effort based management system for small boats was abolished in 2004, and a new system for the smallest boats was introduced in 2009, for the summer coastal fisheries. A special tax on fisheries, the fishing fee, was established in 2004. This fee was originally 6% of catch value minus operating cost but changed over time.During the 2000s, both trawlers and open boats declined in numbers while the decked motor boats increased in the early part but then continued to decline as well in the later part. A few new species appeared in the fisheries such as the silvery lightfish and sea cucumber, but most importantly the mackerel that was not fished at all in 2000, but by 2011, mackerel was the second most important species in Icelandic waters.On the whole, fisheries have been an extremely important part of the Icelandic economy through the centuries. During the 20th century, seafood exports have been 60-95% of total exports, the labour share in fisheries has been between 10-20% and the direct contribution to the GDP between 10-35%. It is thought that the importance of the fishing industry is even more important than official statistics reveal, as the fisheries directly affect other sectors of the economy (Agnarsson and Árnason 2007). The relative importance of fisheries has been declining in more recent decades, not due to decline in the fisheries but rather growth in other sectors.Foreign fisheries in Icelandic watersThe first references to distant water fisheries in Icelandic waters are of English boats in 1412 (Þór 2002). However, the beginning of the time period under consideration here was characterized by high foreign catches, reaching a peak of 868,190 t in 1955, about half of this was herring and a quarter cod. The largest foreign fishing countries were England in demersal fisheries, and Norway and Germany in herring fisheries. The first active steps in extending the Icelandic EEZ were in 1950, when the 4 nm fishery protection zone was declared off the north coast. This applied to all trawl and Danish seine fisheries (including Icelandic) and foreign herring fisheries. The fishery protection zone was extended to 4 nm all around Iceland in 1952. In 1958, the fishery protection zone was extended to 12 nm, pioneering the worldwide trend at that time to declare EEZs. This was followed by the first ‘Cod War’, as the British declared this to be illegal and activated the Royal Navy to protect the British trawlers.Despite the extension of the EEZ, foreign demersal catches continued to be high during the 1960s or at a similar level as the Icelandic fisheries. The foreign herring fisheries diminished in 1967 due to the collapse of the stocks. The 1970s were marked by a dramatic change in foreign catches as the Icelandic fishery protection zone was expanded in steps to 50 nm (1972) and 200 nm (1975), followed by the second and third ‘Cod Wars’. Foreign catches (mostly demersals) were about 300,000 t at the start of this decade, the beginning but had almost disappeared by the end of the 1970s.Foreign catches were low during the 1980s and 1990s. The only significant catches were by Norwegian boats on the shared capelin stock. Foreign demersal catches consisted mostly of Faroese and Norwegian bottom longliners allowed to continue fishing in Icelandic water and a few hundred tonnes by Belgian trawlers.Foreign catches in Icelandic waters were also negligible during the first decade of the 21st century, except for the shared pelagic stocks, with Faroese, Norwegian and Greenlandic boats fishing for capelin and Faroese boats fishing for blue whiting. Although the amounts were low, there was some revival of foreign demersal fisheries in Icelandic waters due to reciprocal fishing rights with the European Union. Faroese longliners also continued to fish demersal species in the Icelandic EEZ. 76Targeted speciesAbout 340 fish species have been recorded within the Icelandic EEZ (Jónsson and Pálsson 2006). Roughly half of these are demersal and the other half pelagic. About 25 of those species are of commercial importance, but only a handful dominate the catch. From these, only one species has until lately provided more than half of the export earnings from marine products, this is the cod. Another important species, the capelin, is of much lower value per kg, but has recently provided up to half of the total catch. In recent decades, total catches of all species have fluctuated between 1-2 million t·year-1 (Figure 2b).The main benthic feeding fish species, or groups, are haddock, wolffishes, skates and flatfishes. Most of these also eat other fishes, mostly capelin when available. The redfishes are common but both found in the demersal and pelagic zone, they feed mainly on zooplankton. Higher in the trophic level are the piscivorous fishes, dominated by cod in warmer waters and Greenland halibut in colder seas. Other species at this trophic level are mostly gadoids, such as saithe, whiting, tusk, and lings. A number of smaller or much rarer species are also found around Iceland, living in the shadow of these larger and more abundant species.Demersal fisheries usually target a seasonally changing mixture of codfish, flatfish and redfish species. Other species of commercial importance are wolffishes, monkfish and lumpsucker. A few species of sharks and skates are also fished but are of low economic importance. Many species are migratory, but most of the demersal species do not leave the Icelandic EEZ, the only substantial exception to this is the Greenland halibut that migrates from Greenlandic waters, through Icelandic to Faroese waters.The highest catches in Icelandic waters are from the few but abundant pelagic species. These fisheries are also characterized by large fluctuations, as the stock size and migration routes of these species can change dramatically. The herring is the most important species historically. After the collapse of the herring stocks in the 1960s, the Icelandic boats turned to capelin, previously virtually unfished. This fishery rapidly grew to around 1 million tonnes annually, in some years as much as for all other species in Icelandic waters combined. Three other pelagic fisheries have developed in Icelandic waters in recent years, all on international stocks. These are oceanic redfish, blue whiting and Atlantic mackerel.Another character of the pelagic species, as opposed to the demersal ones, is that their migration routes are much more extensive, making these ‘international’ and transboundary stocks. The pelagic fisheries are consequently spread over a wider area. The capelin fisheries are sometimes conducted far north of Iceland at the start of the spawning migration and then follow the spawning migration around Iceland. The fishery for the Atlanto-Scandian herring is mostly in the Norwegian Sea, northeast and east of Iceland, but can go all the way to the Barents Sea. This stock also used to provide a large part of the herring fisheries in Icelandic waters before 1967. The blue whiting fisheries are in international waters, as well as within the Icelandic EEZ, east and southeast of Iceland. In the last years, mackerel has made an appearance southwest of Iceland. Further west, over the Reykjanes Ridge, on the south western part of the EEZ and also outside it, considerable fisheries are conducted on oceanic redfish. The only commercial pelagic stock that only occurs over the Icelandic continental shelf is the Icelandic summer spawning herring. These fisheries are now exclusively carried out by vessels operating purse seines or pelagic trawls. Previously some quantities of herring were also fished with driftnets.There is a variety of invertebrate species found in Icelandic water whose numbers are not very well known. However, the species harvested are rather few in comparison to the fishes. Furthermore, invertebrate fisheries are characterized by instability and fluctuations. Fisheries for invertebrates began after the middle of the 20th century, initially mostly on northern prawn and Norway lobster. The only invertebrate to reach the top 10 list of commercial importance was the northern shrimp that was for a time the second most important marine species for the Icelandic fleet, but this fishery later collapsed. Other invertebrate species have been harvested sporadically. The only invertebrate fishery that has not been marked by this boom and bust cycle is the Norway lobster.Current fishing sectorsRecreational fisheriesRecreational fisheries are popular in Iceland, but are mostly conducted on trout and salmon in rivers and lakes. These are outside the scope of this report. These same species are in turn not the target of any substantial commercial fisheries today. However, recreational fisheries in the ocean have been growing in popularity. Tourists can go on organized trips to fish mainly for cod, and many Icelanders also own small boats that they use to go fishing on good days. However, one can argue that this is rather a subsistence fishery than recreational and is therefore included in the subsistence category. Thus, the recreational fisheries fall roughly into two classes and catch statistics are usually poor.1)        Freshwater fisheries for salmon, arctic char and brown trout. This sector is outside the scope of this study.2) Recreational marine fisheries for tourists. Several companies offer organized boat tours for tourists where they are provided with equipment and supervision. Each boat can only have 7 fishing rods and only 7 fishes are allowed during a trip. This catch is not registered but the boats need special licenses. Usually medium sized boats (10 GRT) are used. These primarily catch cod.Iceland - Valtýsson 77Subsistence fisheriesSubsistence fisheries are very difficult to discern from recreational fisheries. Some farmers fish for trout with gillnets in their own lakes or rivers. There is a mandatory reporting of this catch but it has not been monitored strictly, as the lakes are usually privately owned and it is the owner’s responsibility to manage. Many Icelanders own small boats that they use on good days to go fishing on the ocean. This is especially popular among retired fishers. In this case, one is only allowed to catch fish for personal consumption, not for selling the catch and only use non-mechanical fishing rods or handlines. Mainly cod fishes are targeted while other demersal species such as mackerels are the least sought after. Another aspect of subsistence catches is that fishers on commercial boats are also allowed to retain a small part of the catch for personal and crew consumption, either onboard or to take home. This can include many species but haddock is the most popular food fish in Iceland.3)  Subsistence fisheries by Icelanders. The primary species fished in these fisheries are cod and haddock. This is mostly fished on small boats, but also from larger boats and from the shore. This catch is not registered but is estimated here from domestic fish consumption.Small-scale, commercial fisheries (artisanal)There is a large sector of small boats in Iceland committed to commercial fisheries, defined here as the artisanal sector. The definition of “small boat’’ has changed with time and is variously based on length or weight, often 10 to 15 m or 6 to 15 GRT or GT. These boats use longlines, gillnet or handlines depending on season and area. There is an overlap between this sector and the recreational sector and the large boat sector. However, as opposed to the recreational and subsistence sectors, all the catch in the artisanal sector is reported and included in the country fisheries statistics. As opposed to the large boat sector that now has only one management regime (the ITQ system), there are and have been several management methods to manage the small boat fisheries. The sectors are described below, but note that individual boats can fall into several sectors depending on the season:4)  Tourist can rent boats with fishing gear and a quota. They can keep part of the catch for their own consumption (20 kg of fillets), but the rest goes to a fish market. This catch is included in the national catch statistics. Total catch was only 243 t of cod, 14 t of Atlantic wolffish and about 5 t of other species in 2010. Small boats are used.5) Sea angling associations have their own quota for sea angling competitions. To be able to participate, one has to be a member in Icelandic Sea angling association or European Federation of Sea Anglers. Special quotas are provided for these events and the catch is registered in the national catch statistics. Small or medium size commercial boats are usually used.6) Recently, a new system has been introduced for the small boats, intended to ease the transition from the recreational fisheries to the commercial fisheries. This is the summer coastal fishery. Essentially, all small boats with fishing licenses (everyone can have a fishing license given a few preconditions) can enter this fishery, even boats that are already in the other systems. The only preconditions are that the boats can only use one system each month. The boats need no quota for this system but there are strict regulations on the catch that can be fished each day, only 4 automated handlines are allowed on each boat, no other fishing gear can be used and so on. The system is effort based. A maximum quota is given for each region each month and when the quota has been reached, the fishery is closed for the rest of the month. This catch is registered and included in the country statistics. Licenses for coastal fisheries were 747 in 2010 and total catch was about 5,000 t of cod, 1,200 t saithe and 140 t other species.7) Lumpsucker fisheries are outside the fisheries management systems above. Lumpsuckers are fished for the roe in the spring when they migrate to very shallow waters to spawn. The fishery is only by small boats (no larger than 15 GT) that have a lumpsucker license. There is no cap on the catch but the season is limited, there is a limit on number of nets used and a limited number of lumpsucker licenses are available (349 in 2010). Thus, if one wants to enter the lumpsucker fishery, one has to buy the license from someone else that is leaving the fishery. This catch is registered and included in the country statistics.8) The most common system for commercial fishers on small boats is the ‘hook and longline quota system’ exclusively for the smaller boats. This is limited to boats smaller than 15 GT using only handlines or longlines. However, in essence this system is similar as the ‘large’ ITQ system described below.9) Many small boats are in the same ITQ system as the large boats (hence the overlap). In this system there is no limit on the size of the boat and virtually all fishing gear can be used. Transfer of quota within each quota system is allowed but not between systems. See description of this system below. For a summary of the above itemized fisheries components for Iceland, and their assignment to Sea Around Us fishing sectors see Table 1.Large-scale, commercial fisheries (industrial)The large boat commercial fleet (here labeled ‘industrial’ in contrast to the above ‘artisanal’) essentially operates under one system, item 9 described above. This is the ITQ system, where each species has a TAC decided by the  78Minister of Fisheries based on advice from the Marine Research Institute. The quota is divided among the fishing boats according to their quota share. This quota can then be traded. This fisheries management system has been largely successful in curbing the growth of the fishing fleet (Hoof, 2010).There are a few minor species that do not have a TAC. Anyone with a valid fishing license can fish for those. Through history, more and more species have received a TAC. As a new species has gained the attention of fishers, more and more of them have entered the fishery and finally the government has intervened and put the species under quota to prevent overfishing. The reverse has occurred, but is much rarer. A combination of low international prices, low stock size and high oil price rendered the offshore shrimp fisheries unprofitable, and the very limited quotas were not reached. The fishery was subsequently opened for all again.The items described above only apply for the last few years. When we go further back in time, the picture becomes more and more muddled as the fishery regime has changed considerably and differently for different sectors of the fleet. For a period, small boat fisheries were managed by an effort based system, further back the large boats were as well for a few years. Prior to that, the fishery was open access but with various fishing gear limitations and area restrictions.The commercial and artisanal fleets in 2012 can broadly be divided into 6 groups based on size and fishing gear used:•	 56 commercial trawlers that mostly use bottom trawls to fish for various demersal species, but also use pelagic trawls to fish oceanic redfish and mackerel. Some of these process the catch onboard (freezer trawlers).•	 23 commercial decked vessels larger than 1000 GT primarily fishing pelagic fishes. The largest boats in this class process the catch onboard.•	 200 commercial decked vessels ranging from 26 to 1000 GT. These are primarily fishing demersal fish species and invertebrates with various types of fishing gear. The large boats in this category mostly use longlines and trawls but the smaller ones gillnets, longlines and Danish seines.•	 243 decked vessels ranging from 11-25 GT primarily fishing for demersals with longlines. These can both be part of the commercial or artisanal sector.•	 312 decked vessels smaller than 11 GT primarily fishing for demersals with handlines and longlines. These are part of the artisanal sector.•	 856 undecked vessels primarily fishing for demersals with handlines and are part of the artisanal and subsis-tence sector.methodsNumber of boatsOfficial information on numbers of fishing boats have been published annually, first from 1966 to 1974 in Ægir (Anon. 1970), from 1975 to 1998 in Útvegur (Anon. 1978), and from 1999 to the present in Statistics Iceland (www .statice  .is). To supplement this, information on number of boats is also available in Bulletin Statistique des Pêches Maritimes from 1950 to 1978 (ICES 1903) and from Tölfræðihandbókin from 1950 to 1964 (Anon. 1967). See compilation of all information sources in Table 2.As the data sources above do not agree perfectly and give information in different size formats (Table 2), I had to reconstruct the number of boats and split these into small and large. I define small boats as boats less than 11 or 13 GRT (or later GT) depending on information available for each year. However, the Icelandic motor boat fleet has traditionally been split into open (or undecked) boats, decked boats and trawlers. Open boats clearly fall into the small boat category and trawlers into the large boat category. Decked boats, however, can range widely in size and can fall into both categories. There is no sharp boundary between large and small boats and all fleet sectors have changed considerably since 1950.Table 1.  Overview of current fisheries in Iceland.Item Type Species Fishing gear Boats In statistics Sector1 Freshwater Salmon and trout Fishing rods, gillnetsNone or small Only FAO Recreational2 Tourist Mostly cod, haddock and other demersalsFishing rods Small/ medium No Recreational3 Pers. consumptionMostly cod, haddock and other demersalsNon-mechanical handlines or fishing rodsNone or small no Subsistence4 Rent-a-boat Mostly cod, haddock and other demersalsHandlines or fishing rodsSmall Yes Artisanal5 Sea angling clubsMostly cod, haddock and other demersalsFishing rods Small/ medium Yes Artisanal6 Summer coastal Mostly cod, haddock and other demersalsHandlines Small Yes Artisanal7 Lumpsucker Lumpsucker Gillnets Small Yes Artisanal8 Hook and longlineMostly cod, haddock and other demersalsHandlines or longlinesSmall Yes Artisanal9 ITQ system All species Various All Yes Artisanal/ commercialIceland - Valtýsson 79Trying to compile the total number of Icelandic fishing boats and separate them into small and large boats was therefore a puzzle where some of the pieces were lost. The total numbers for decked boats and trawlers largely agree, but open boats are sometimes included and sometimes not. Furthermore, the size categories the boats are split into vary between periods (Table 2). Some approximations and assumptions had to be made to separate the small boats from the large prior to 1965. By far the most difficult class was the open boats prior to 1977.Currently all boats larger than 6 m have to be registered and it is safe to assume that the catch by unregistered boats (6 m) is negligible. It is also important to realize that all registered fishing boats are not necessarily participating in the fisheries. Some lie idle, some are only used in distant waters, while others, especially open boats, are primarily used as recreational vessels.In the analysis I use the number of open boats with registered catch. The data available on the actual numbers of open boats are too vague and these boats are often used for other purposes than fishing, or they might not be used at all. Data are available for both registered open boats and open boats fishing for a few years. From 1990 to 2001, about 69% of them did register some catch annually, but from 1969 to 1977 only 47% of them did register catch (Anon. 1978).For decked boats and trawlers, I use actual numbers registered, as most of these boats are fishing each year. After 1967, when reliable data are available, more than 97% of all registered trawlers or decked boats did register some catch annually (Anon. 1978; Jónsson and Magnússon 1997).In summary, the number of trawlers is accurate. The total number of decked boats should also be accurate, although how it is split between small, medium and large vessels is less clear. The largest uncertainties are on the decked boats, as the total numbers are not known for many years.Catch statisticsIn Iceland, it has been mandatory for boats to report catch since 1897 (Jónsson and Magnússon 1997). From 1942 to 1998, the Fisheries Association of Iceland was responsible for all fisheries statistics. Initially, they were published in the monthly periodical Ægir (Anon. 1970), and since 1976 in the annual report Útvegur (Anon. 1978). In 1999, Statistics Iceland took over the responsibility and all the information is now published online (www .statice  .is). These are the official sources, but information on catches is also available from other sources (see below), originating from the Fisheries Association and later Statistics Iceland. However, the sources do not all agree. Some have only catch in a given area (ICES, FAO or EEZ) while others have total catch for all areas. The general picture on total catch is often rather clear, but when one goes into finer scale details, the picture becomes murkier, especially with older data, less important species and highly migratory species.The apparently simple task to establish the baseline catch, before trying to estimate more complicated issues such as discards and illegal and unreported catches, was therefore challenging, as these are many species, many years, many areas and many sources. Furthermore, I try to split this catch into small spatial scale and into catch by small boats and large.The databases and information sources are listed below. In general, catch numbers from the ICES and NAFO databases were used until 1992, and data from Statistics Iceland thereafter. However, there were several exceptions as described in the subsequent species summary.Table 2.  Sentences for violation on the Fisheries Management Act.Year Felony Amount1998 Not weighting the catch 227 kg lobster tails2000 Not weighting the catch 1,110 kg ungutted cod2000 Not weighting the catch 45 kg cod fillets, 172 kg gutted cod, 30 kg haddock fillets, 5 kg halibut2000 Not weighting the catch 136 kg cod fillets2000 Not weighting the catch 121 kg cod fillets and 83 kg headless cod2002 Not weighting the catch 404 kg gutted headless cod2002 Not weighting the catch 324.4 kg cod2002 Wrongly identify catch Tusk disguised as wolffish2003 Discarding At least 53 cods2003 Wrongly identify catch Cod disguised as spotted wolfish and undersize cod2003 Wrongly identify catch Plaice disguised as American plaice and dab2004 Not weighting the catch 7,542 kg ungutted cod2005 Not weighting the catch 1,823 kg gutted cod, 73 kg dab, 741 kg plaice, 842 kg haddock and 16 kg cod fillets2005 Not weighting the catch 109 kg cod fillets, 53 kg plaice, 48 kg lemon sole, 5 kg monkfish2005 Not weighting the catch 431 kg ling2006 Not weighting the catch 6,030 kg ungutted cod2008 Not weighting the catch 200 kg haddock, 100 kg cod, 80 kg wolffish, 15-20 kg skate and 30 kg tusk2008 Wrongly weighting the catch 203 kg unidentified catch2009 Fishing without quota 83,823 kg gutted cod2009 Not weighting the catch 499 kg lobster tails, 20 kg gutted monkfish2010 Not weighting the catch 150 kg plaice2011 Not weighting the catch 2,335 kg unidentified catch2011 Not weighting the catch 7,968 kg unidentified catch2011 Not weighting the catch 1,055 kg monkfish 80FAOThis is the globally most significant database, as this is what is presented to the world as the Icelandic catch. The main drawback is the large areas used. All of the catch in Icelandic waters and most of the catch by Icelandic boats in foreign waters are in FAO area 27 (North-east Atlantic), but it is not possible to separate catch in Icelandic waters from catch in the North Sea or Barents Sea. Consequently, this database does not give any information on foreign catch in Icelandic waters or Icelandic catches in distant waters except outside FAO area 27. Nevertheless, this database is used as the baseline on the catch by the Icelandic fleet.ICESThe ICES database is also based on data provided by national governments. It provides data on all catches (not including aquaculture) in FAO area 27, but on a much smaller, more detailed spatial scale. This database has information on all catches in Icelandic waters and catch by the Icelandic fleet outside Icelandic waters (provided it is in FAO area 27).The database is nevertheless problematic, since it does not give information on catches by EEZs, but rather ICES statistical areas. This is not too much a problem for demersal species in Icelandic waters, where the vast majority of the catches are both within ICES area Va and within the Icelandic 200 nm EEZ (Figure 1). However, it is problematic for the migratory pelagic species that are fished further offshore , often along the outer edge of the EEZ, or beyond it in high seas waters or other countries’ EEZs. Almost all the Icelandic continental shelf is within ICES area Va, and almost all the area Va is within the Icelandic EEZ (Figure 1). However, the outer edges of the Icelandic EEZ stretch into ICES areas IIa2 (Norwegian Sea), Vb1b (Faroe Islands), XIIa4 (N Atlantic), XIVb2 (SE Greenland) and XIVa (NE Greenland).Bulletin Statistique des Pêches Maritimes (Bull. Stat.)These are annual reports published by ICES from 1905 to 1990, when they were replaced by the ICES electronic database. The numbers are generally the same as in the ICES database. However, the printed reports do give some additional information that is useful. For example, catch by ICES countries outside the ICES area is given in the reports from the 1950s. This is especially useful as the NAFO database only goes back to 1960.NAFOThe NAFO database is similar to the ICES database in terms of finer scale spatial resolution, but for FAO area 21 (NW Atlantic). This is valuable as it supplements the ICES database on Icelandic fisheries in distant waters, as Icelandic boats have fished extensively in West Greenlandic and Newfoundland waters. The drawback of this database is that information is only available since 1960.Statistics Iceland (http://www.statice.is/Statistics/Fisheries-and-agriculture)This is where official statistics on various aspects of the Icelandic economy are gathered and stored. It has extensive information on the Icelandic fisheries, such as export, processing, catch value, number of boats, number of people employed in the fishing industry, the economic performance of the fishing industry and of course information on catches. However, it is not easy to find information in the manner needed here, i.e., catch by Icelandic boats by areas, except after 1992. Furthermore, minor species are lumped together under ‘other demersals’, ‘flatfishes’, ‘pelagics’ or ‘shellfish’. Catch by fishing gear, boat type and month is available in this database after 1992.The Directorate of Fisheries (http://www.fiskistofa.is/veidar/aflaupplysingar)The Directorate is responsible for gathering information on all catches in Icelandic waters. Real time information is sent to the Directorate each time a boat lands its catch in an Icelandic port, or with special arrangements in foreign ports. All commercial landings in Iceland are weighted by government officials or in small harbors by government approved agents. The Directorate then sends this information to Statistics Iceland, where it is published after being revised. The data from the Directorate is therefore not the official Icelandic catch data, but rather its precursor. However, its value comes from the fact that it is updated in real time, and, more importantly for the present purpose, it includes all the minor species. The data from the Directorate is available on the web since 1993. Furthermore, information is also available from the Directorate on Icelandic catch on migratory pelagic species by EEZ.HagskinnaThis is a single publication from Statistics Iceland (Jónsson and Magnússon 1997) with compilation on various historical statistics in Iceland. It has information on catch by Icelandic boats on major species from 1898 to 1990. This provided supplementary information.Iceland - Valtýsson 81State of Marine Stocks in Icelandic Waters 2011/2012–Prospects for the Quota Year 2012/2013This publication is produced by the Marine Research Institute (MRI), and is the latest version of annual reports with analysis of the stock status of Icelandic fishing stocks. This provides total catch information on the most important commercial species. This is mostly used as supplementary information, but is the only reliable source of information on lumpsucker catch. It has also detailed information on redfish catch by stocks.Útvegur, annual reportsThese are the precursor of the data that is now provided in Statistics Iceland website. These reports provide excellent information on effort and catch by gear from 1977 to 1999, and also some information on total landings since 1968. These reports also provide information on various aspects of Icelandic fisheries, such as the size and capacity of the fishing fleet, effort by fishing gear, landings and catch value of the fishing fleet by fishing gear or port of landing. This is mostly used as supplementary data, but is particularly valuable for splitting the total catch between small and large boats.Catch by size categoryCatch by size category of boat is available from 1992 to the present day (Statistics Iceland). Total catch (not separated to species) by boat size is available from 1977 to 1991 (Anon. 1978), and this was split according to known species composition from 1992 to 2001. There is one problem with these data, they are available for all open boats but only decked boats smaller than 20 GRT (except for 1991), but in this analysis I use 10 GRT as the split point for small boats. I therefore assume that 50% of the 20 GRT catch is by boats smaller than 10 GRT. Catch by size category is not available before 1977, so I used catch per boat and species composition from 1977 to 1988 to estimate the catch from numbers of boats, assuming that catch per boat is the same for the entire period from 1950 to 1976.Unreported and unregulated catchUnreported landings of marine species fall into two categories (Table 1), operators that offer sea angling trips for tourists are allowed to catch a certain amount of fish that the tourists can keep. Cod is by far the most common species in these fisheries and I only assume that this applies to cod. There are plenty of assumptions when estimating these catches. The current numbers of operators with this license are 11, but a web search shows that 31 operators offer sea angling for tourists. This has been growing in popularity lately and can probably be linked to the approximately linear growth since 1995 of another marine based tourism, whale watching (Anon. 2011). I assume 30 operators in 2010, each taking 7 fishers, each catching 7 fishes per day, each fish weighting 2 kg and operating for 60 days a year = 176 t. A further assumption is that the number of operators declines by 2 each year back to zero in 1995.The other category is the fish Icelanders eat themselves. It can both be from small boat owners that fish for themselves and their family using small boats or from shore, as is allowed without reporting. This is at the border of recreational and subsistence fisheries, but is classified as subsistence fisheries here. Commercial fishers on larger boats can also retain some part of the catch to take home to their families or to eat onboard. A part of this is actually reported and is available as domestic consumption in Statistics Iceland. This has been 5,000 to 6,000 t·year-1 since 1992, and 98% of this is groundfishes and mostly haddock.I set out to compare this with estimates of actual fish consumption from consumption surveys. This could reveal a gap that should be the unreported catch described above. I first looked at the information from FAOSTAT. This does in fact show much larger seafood consumption in Iceland than Statistics Iceland indicates. For example FAO shows 27,917 t consumed in 2009 compared to 5,940 t in Statistics Iceland. However, Statistics Iceland shows that most of the consumption is demersal fishes while a very large part of the FAO information is crustaceans, pelagic fish and molluscs. While Icelanders eat these, the consumption should be much lower than for demersal fishes. Still, demersal fish consumption is higher in the FAO database than Statistics Iceland. One could assume that the difference is the unreported Icelandic catch for local consumption. However, there is another problem. When we go further back in time in the FAO database there is unrealistically high variability between categories. The FAO database has also been criticized for not being up to date, it shows an increase in fish consumption per capita, while the opposite is probably true (Steingrímsdóttir et al. 2002).Icelandic reports since 1990 (Steingrímsdóttir et al. 1991; Anon. 1999; Þorgeirsdóttir et al. 2011) usually show that each Icelander eats the equivalent of 45 kg of fish annually. Previously, they probably did eat more as elderly people eat much more fish. When converted to total live weight this is about 13,000 t·year-1 for the last decade. Part of this, or 50%, is reported in national statistics which leaves about 6,500 t·year-1 as unreported. I assume that the composition of this is the same as is available in national statistics and does not changes over time. It is very likely that consumption per capita is decreasing, but no information was available on how much of the catch for local consumption before 1990 was reported in national statistics. 82Illegal catchThere are always incentives to land the catch illegally to maximize the value of one’s quota, especially with the introduction of the ITQ system. It is the responsibility of the Directorate of Fisheries to enforce laws and regulations regarding fisheries management, monitor fishing activities and impose penalties for illegal catches. Onboard observer programs exist and regular landing sites monitoring exist also. As there are rather few landing ports in Iceland, this is perceived to be effective. To try to get a sense of the scope of illegal catches, I did a throughout scan of sentences since 1998 on violations on the fisheries management act (Table 3). Twenty four cases were successfully brought to justice over a 14 year period. Only one involved discarding. Three involved wrongly identifying catch, usually by disguising valuable fish with less valuable. One was about fishing without a quota, actually done in protest of the fisheries management system. Finally, 19 cases were for landing the catch illegally, that is not weighting and registering the catch. In total, this amounted to about 2.7 t·year-1 of illegally caught fish, mostly cod. This is of course miniscule compared to the total registered catch. As it is currently impossible to estimate how large percentage is caught breaking the laws this was not included in our catch database. Further studies on this are therefore recommended.Table 3.  Summary of discard rates used.Species Baseline (%) Notes SourceCod 5.5 Known discard rates or interpolations after 1990 Various, see textHaddock 5.5 Known discard rates or interpolations after 1987 Various, see textDemersal redfish 13.0 Includes S. marinus, S. mentella and S. viviparous Anon. (2001) Oceanic redfish 16.5 High due to external parasite Anon. (2001) Other demersals 5.5 Kelleher (2005) Capelin 1.5 Norwegian discard rate Kelleher (2005)Blue whiting 1.5 Norwegian discard rate Kelleher (2005)Other pelagics 2.0 Kelleher (2005)Shrimp 5.5 Norwegian discard rate Kelleher (2005)Norway lobster 35.0 Norwegian discard rate Kelleher (2005)Other invertebr. 5.5 - Kelleher (2005)Table 4.  Summary of information available on number of Icelandic fishing boats. tr = trawlers, db = decked boats, ob = open boats.Data source Period Data available Data typeHagskinna 1950-1966 Tr (side, stern), db (<100, >99), ob not available Tr fishing for more than 100 days/year, registered fishing boats1967-1976 and 1980Tr (side, stern), db (<100, >99), ob not available Boats with registered catch1977-1990 except 1980Tr (side, stern), db (<100, >99), ob Boats with registered catch1950-1990 Tr and db (<100, >99), ob not available Registered fishing boatsÆgir 1966-1974 Db (0-12 GRT, 13-25 GRT, 26-50 GRT, 51-100 GRT, 101-150 GRT, 151-200 GRT, 201-250 GRT, 251-300 GRT, >300 GRT), ob not availableRegistered fishing boatsÚtvegurinn 1975-1977 1980-1981Tr (<501 GRT and >500 GRT), db (0-12 GRT, 13-20 GRT, 21-50 GRT, 51-110 GRT, 111-200 GRT, 201-500 GRT, 501-800 GRT, >800 GRT), ob not availableRegistered fishing boats1978-1979 Tr (<501 GRT and >500 GRT), db (0-20 GRT, GRT, 21-50 GRT, 51-110 GRT, 111-200 GRT, 201-500 GRT, 501-800 GRT, >800 GRT), ob not availableRegistered fishing boats1982-1998 Tr (<501 GRT and >500 GRT), db (0-12 GRT, 13-20 GRT, 21-50 GRT, 51-110 GRT, 111-200 GRT, 201-500 GRT, 501-800 GRT, >800 GRT), obRegistered fishing boatsStatistics Iceland1999-2011 Tr (<1001 GT and >1000 GT), db (0-10GT, 11-25 GT, 26-100 GT, 101-300 GT, 301-500 GT, 501-1000 GT, >1000 GT), obRegistered fishing boatsBulletin Statistique1950-1959 Tr and db combined (0-30 GRT, 31-100 GRT, 100-500 GRT and >500 GRT), ob not availableBoats with registered catch1960-1961 Db and Tr (0-25 GRT, 26-50 GRT, 51-100 GRT, 101-150 GRT, 151-500 GRT, 501-900 GRT, 901-1800 GRT, >300 GRT), obBoats with registered catch1962-1963 Db and Tr (0-25 GRT, 26-50 GRT, 51-100 GRT, 101-150 GRT, 151-500 GRT, 501-900 GRT, 901-1800 GRT, >300 GRT), ob not availableBoats with registered catch1964-1974 Db and Tr (0-25 GRT, 26-50 GRT, 51-150 GRT, 151-500 GRT, 501-900 GRT, 901-1800 GRT, >300 GRT), ob not availableBoats with registered catch1975-1979 Db and Tr (0-25 GRT, 26-50 GRT, 51-100 GRT, 101-150 GRT, 151-500 GRT, >500 GRT, ob not availableBoats with registered catchTölfræði-handbók1950-1957 Tr, db (<13 and >12), ob Boats fishing in the month where numbers are highest1958-1961 Tr, db (<31 and >30), ob Boats fishing in the month where numbers are highest1960 Tr, db (<51 and >50), ob Boats fishing in the month where numbers are highest1950-1964 Tr, db Registered fishing boatsIceland - Valtýsson 83DiscardsDiscards are officially banned in Icelandic waters, but have been estimated to be 45,564 t·year-1 (Kelleher 2005) in 2001, or 2.3% of total catch. It has been claimed that ITQ systems, as used in Iceland, could encourage discards (Árnason 1994; Vestergaard 1996) and there were strong rumors that this might have happened in Icelandic fisheries after the introduction of the ITQ system. However, limited studies did indicate a discard rate of 5-6% for cod both before and after the ITQ system was established in 1984 (Anon. 1993; Valtýsson 2002). These studies were conducted in 1982, 1987 and 1990, but were not standardized. However, what these years had in common were very high catches. They did rank as the 4th, 3rd and 9th best years in Icelandic cod fisheries after 1950. Equally limited studies in the 1990s did indicate a much lower discard rate for cod of 0.4%. This year ranks as the 26th highest in Icelandic cod fisheries after 1950.This seems to indicate that discards are somewhat related to total catches, that is as the catches are higher the relative discards are higher. This is not illogical, as in times of bumper catches there might be a tendency to use the limited storage space in the boat only for the most valuable catch (i.e., high-grading). This is reinforced by the fact that discarding seems to have been introduced to Icelandic waters by English trawlers in the late 19th century. The trawlers only retained the most valuable part of the catch such as flatfishes and haddock and discarded the rest, most notably cod (Þór 2003). The boats had limited storage space, there was no lack of fish and the time sailing to and from the fishing grounds was long. Therefore, the incentive to discard to maximize the value in the hold must have been high. Later, these stories waned, indicating that discarding might have declined. This might also indicate a decline of several stocks due to heavy fishing. As this mostly happened before 1906, when reliable catch data became available from ICES, it is difficult to verify.Since 2001, there has been a marked improvement in discard monitoring, as there have been annual reports available on estimated discards by the Icelandic fleet (Pálsson et al. 2012) and back calculations for haddock to 1988 (Pálsson 2003). This is mostly for cod and haddock, but some estimates are also available for other species. These studies show low rates of discarding, averaging 0.9% by weight for cod and 2.0% for haddock. Discard rates for haddock seem to be about twice those for cod, but also fluctuate much more, from 0.8-22.3%, probably related to highly variable recruitment and thus amount of haddock in the catches (Pálsson 2003).It seems therefore that the discard rate has declined, at least since the 1980s. This might be because the fleet does not fish randomly and can, under pressure, fish quite selectively, therefore reducing discards. However, there has also gradually been a move within fisheries management to discourage discards. For example, 5% of demersal catch from any trip can be excluded from quota restrictions, as long as this part is sold on the fish market and part of the value goes to a fund dedicated to fisheries research. A limited number of one species can also be converted’’ to another, so if you have accidentally caught saithe that you do not have a quota for, but you have enough haddock quota one can deduce this from the haddock quota using a conversion factor called cod equivalents. In this factor, cod equals one and all other species are valued relative to cod. It is also possible to buy quota for a species after you have caught it. In addition to this there is an active system of real time area closures if a large proportion of undersize fish is in the area.Another aspect of discarding is low value species, mostly species that do not even have a TAC. Prime examples of these are long rough dab and starry ray that are fished in some amount as by-catch in most fishing gear. Fishers often don’t bother with retaining these as the value is very low compared to traditional demersals (Pitcher et al. 2002). Thus, actual total discard rates (in contrast to the target species discard rates mentioned above) may actually be higher. However, many species that have filled this category have lately been found to be valuable, a prime example of that is the monkfish, once thought to be as worthless as it is ugly but is now one of the most valuable species in Icelandic fisheries per kg. The ITQ system has actually encouraged fishers to retain these species, as they usually do not have a TAC (the monkfish has now). To discourage further discarding of these species, a by-catch bank was established in 1989 to buy non-traditional species for processing. This proved successful, as many new species began to appear in Icelandic catch statistics in the 1990s. The role of the by-catch bank has now been taken over by traditional fish markets.Based on studies on global discards (Kelleher 2005) and the examples mentioned above, the baseline discard rate for most demersal fishes and invertebrates was set at 5.5% and 2.0% for pelagic fishes. The exceptions are shown in Table 4. I assume that discard of cod was around 5.5% for all years prior to 1991. After 1991, known discard rates are used or numbers interpolated between known years. Similar applies to haddock, except that discards are known from 1988. Due to absence of other information, the discard rate for other demersal species is assumed to be 5.5% for all years. I acknowledge that the discard rate is probably lower for some species (for example the high value lemon sole and Greenland halibut) than for others (low value species such as dab and American plaice) but can only hope, until further information is available, that this cancels each other out. It is not possible to separate the estimated discard rate between large and small boats so the same rates were used for each class.resultsThe reconstructed catches for Iceland’s industrial, artisanal, subsistence and recreational fisheries within the EEZ were compared to ICES statistics and national data (Figure 2a). The database indicates that the reconstructed total catches by Iceland within its EEZ increased from 411,000 t in 1950 to a maximum of 2.02 million t in 1997, before subsequently declining to 903,000 t in 2010 (Figure 2a). The reconstructed total catch for Iceland for the period  841950-2010 was estimated around 69.2 million t which is 37% higher than the data reported by ICES  (50.6 million t; Figure 2a).The reconstructed total catch by sector was dominated by capelin (Mallotus villosus) and cod (Gadus morhua) which accounts for 38% and 34% of the catch respectively (Figure 2b). Herring (Clupeidea) contributed 11.4% of reconstructed total catch while Sebastidae totalled 6.3%. Blue whiting and invertebrate catches both contributed 2.4% each to the total reconstructed catches. The remaining 42 families were grouped into “Others” (3.6%).discussionSeveral aspects make Iceland different in terms of fisheries.1.      Northern location at the boundaries of cold and warm ocean currents causes high productivity in the ocean and large fish stocks.2.     Distance from other countries and especially a continental shelf isolated from other shelves means that most of the demersal stocks are in a single and local management unit. This simplifies management.3.  Northern location and extensive windswept uninhabitable highlands keep the population low. This means that local consumption is low and most of the catch is exported.4.         Iceland is an island and rather far away from main markets for its seafood products. This means that exports are rather easily monitored.5.        Iceland has a long history of literature and record keeping and fisheries data is therefore considered good.6.       These factors taken together contribute to the fact that Icelandic fisheries are considered to be well managed and catch numbers considered accurate. Although Icelanders eat plenty of fish, the low population size and high catches means that most of the catches are exported, and exports (especially from an island) are more easily monitored than local consumption. The low population size and high catches are also contributing to the fact that subsistence and recreational fisheries are low compared to commercial fisheries and estimates on these are inevitably more inaccurate than commercial catches. Discards for the same period are 3.54% of the reconstructed catch and the IUU catch 0.45%. The total amount of unreported catch has ranged from 3.3% to 6.7% of total catch throughout this period.The ICES database also reports many species fished in Icelandic waters that are not found there, or at least have not been found by scientist. This taxonomic mislabelling primarily applies to foreign fleets and therefore is outside the scope of this analysis. It may also represent deliberate spatial misreporting.I must stress that these estimates should not be looked as the final for unreported catch estimates, but rather as a baseline to build on further studies. Currently, there are rather good estimates on size based discards on the most important species, but species based discards assumed here are based on rather weak assumptions. For low value species, the discard rates here are probably too low, but they are probably too high for more valuable species. There are also uncertainties about the catch that is illegally landed without weighting it.acknowledgementI would like to thank Bjarni Eiríksson and Dagný Rut Haraldsdóttir for their assistance in gathering data for this report. Their work was funded by the University of Akureyri Research Fund.reFerencesAgnarsson S and Árnason R (2007) The role of the fishing industry in the Icelandic economy. pp. 239–256 In Advances in Fisheries Economics. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, U.K.Anon. (1967) Tölfræðihandbók [Statistical abstract of Iceland]. Flókkur 2, Statistical Bureau of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland. 110-119 p.00.51.01.52.0IndustrialSupplied to ICESSubsistenceRecreationalArtisanal00.51.01.52.01950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 106 )YearCapelinGadidaeClupeidaeOthersSebastidaeInvertebratesBlue whitingPleuronectidaea)b)Figure 2.  Reconstructed total catches for Iceland during the period 1950-2010 a) by sector with data reported by ICES overlaid as line graph; and b) by major families, “Others” represent 42 taxonomic categories.Iceland - Valtýsson 85Anon. (1970) Sjávarútvegurinn 1969-1976 [The fisheries 1968-1976]. pp. 63-70 In Ægir. Fisheries Association of Iceland.Anon. (1978) Útvegur 1977– 1997 [Fisheries statistics 1977-1997]. Fisheries Association of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.Anon. (1993) Nefnd um Mótun Sjávarútvegsstefnu–Skýrsla til Sjávarútvegsráðherra [A committee on the development of fishing industry–Report to the Minster of Fisheries]. Minstry of Fisheries, Reykjavík, Iceland. 173 p.Anon. (1999) Iceland in figures 1999-2000. Statistics Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland. 33 p.Anon. (2001) Auðlindanefnd álitsgerð [Report from the committee on natural resource management]. Prime Minister´s Office, Reykjavík, Iceland. 177 p.Anon. (2011) Tourism industry–Statistics 2010. Icelandic Travel Industry Association, Reykjavík, Iceland. 2 p.Árnason R (1994) On catch discarding in fisheries. Marine Resource Economics 9: 189-207.Guðmundsson K, Þórðardóttir and Pétursson G (2004) Computation of daily primary production in Icelandic waters; a comparison of two different approaches. Reports 106, Marine Research Institute, Reykjavík, Iceland. 23 p.Helgason A, Sigurðardóttir S, Gulcher JR, Ward R and Stefánsson K (2000) mtDNA and the origin of the Icelanders: deciphering signals of recent population history. American Journal of Human Genetics 66(3): 999-1016.ICES (1903) Bulletin statistique des pêches maritimes (No. 1-72). International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Copenhagen, Denmark.Jónsson G and Magnússon MS, editors (1997) Hagskinna–Icelandic historical statistics. Statistics Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland.Jónsson G and Pálsson J (2006) Íslenskir fiskar [Icelandic fishes].Reykjavík, Iceland.Kelleher MK (2005) Discards in the world´s marine fisheries: An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. xix+131 p.Pálsson ÓK (2003) A length-based analysis of haddock discards in Icelandic fisheries. Fisheries Research 59(3): 437-446.Pálsson ÓK, Björnsson H, Gísladóttir H, Jóhannesson G and Ottesen (2012) Mælingar á brottkasti þorsks og ýsu 2001-2010. [Discards of cod and haddock in the Icelandic demersal fisheries 2001-2010]. Fjölrit 160, Marine Research Institute. 5-14 p.Pitcher TJ, Watson R, Forrest R, Valtỳsson H and Guénette S (2002) Estimating illegal and unreported catches from marine ecosystems: a basis for change. Fish and Fisheries 3(4): 317-339.Popescu I and Poulsen K (2012) Icelandic fisheries: A review. European Parliament, Brussels, Belgium. 48 p.Sigurðsson and Magnússon Á (2012) State of marine stocks in Icelandic waters 2011/2012 [Prospects for the quota year 2012/2013]. Hafrannsóknir 163, Marine Research Institute, Reykjavik, Iceland. 186 p.Steingrímsdóttir L, Þorgeirsdóttir H and Ægisdóttir S (1991) Könnun á mataræði íslendinga 1990 [Survey on the feeding habits of Icelanders 1990]. Icelandic Nutritional Council, Reykjavík, Iceland.Steingrímsdóttir L, Þorgeirsdóttir H and Ólafsdóttir AS (2002) Hvað borða íslendingar? [What do Icelanders eat?]. Icelandic Nutritional Council, Reykjavík, Iceland. 101 p.Þór J (2002) Sjósókn og sjávarfang. Árabáta og skútuöld [Fisheries and seafood. Rowing and skútuöld]. Saga sjávarútvegs á Íslandi 1. bindi. Bókaútgáfan Hólar, Akureyri, Iceland. 243 p.Þór J (2003) Sjósókn og sjávarfang. Uppgangsár og barningaskeið [Fisheries and seafood. Uppgangsár and baby analyzes pace]. Saga sjávarútvegs á Íslandi 2. bindi. Bókaútgáfan Hólar, Akureyri, Iceland. 296 p.Þórðardóttir (1994) Plöntusvif og framleiðni í sjónum við Ísland [Productivity of phytoplankton in the ocean around Iceland]. pp. 65-88 In Íslendingar, hafið og auðlindir þess. Vísindafélag Íslendinga, Reykjavík, Iceland.Þorgeirsdóttir H, Valgeirsdóttir H, Gunnarsdóttir I, Gísladóttir E, Gunnarsdóttir BE, Þórsdóttir I and Steingrímsdóttir L (2011) Hvað borða íslendingar? [What do Icelanders eat?]. Directorate of Health, Reykjavík, Iceland. 118 p.Valtýsson H (2002) The sea around Icelanders: Catch history and discards in Icelandic waters. pp. 52-86 In. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 9(3). University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Vestergaard N (1996) Discard behavior, high grading and regulation. The case of Greenland shrimp fishery. Marine Resource Economics 11: 247-266. 86Appendix Table A1.  ICES vs. reconstructed total catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector with discards shown separately for Iceland, 1950-2010.Year ICES Reconstructed total catch Industrial Artisanal Subsistence Recreational Discards1950 383,423 417,000 381,000 8,010 3,180 - 24,7001951 427,053 475,000 434,000 8,350 3,250 - 28,7001952 384,963 464,000 426,000 9,440 3,300 - 26,1001953 434,603 490,000 449,000 11,800 3,360 - 26,1001954 435,868 510,000 466,000 11,090 3,440 - 29,4001955 449,871 553,000 505,000 11,260 3,520 - 33,0001956 493,042 577,000 532,000 10,110 3,600 - 31,3001957 467,354 551,000 508,000 9,960 3,670 - 29,4001958 481,815 638,000 584,000 11,870 3,760 - 37,9001959 553,461 695,000 639,000 13,820 3,830 - 38,2001960 544,991 631,000 579,000 14,290 3,920 - 32,9001961 681,457 745,000 695,000 15,660 4,000 - 30,2001962 821,220 868,000 814,000 17,920 4,080 - 31,4001963 763,175 820,000 764,000 19,210 4,150 - 33,3001964 955,093 1,013,000 952,000 19,700 4,220 - 37,1001965 1,009,265 1,244,000 1,179,000 19,820 4,300 - 40,6001966 885,282 1,284,000 1,220,000 20,530 4,370 - 39,0001967 505,721 935,000 877,000 21,190 4,450 - 32,3001968 470,261 633,000 578,000 21,910 4,520 - 27,9001969 642,202 726,000 666,000 23,260 4,570 - 32,1001970 686,724 772,000 707,000 26,820 4,600 - 33,8001971 622,953 723,000 658,000 28,560 4,620 - 31,8001972 670,738 763,000 700,000 27,570 4,680 - 31,0001973 851,312 952,000 882,000 31,680 4,760 - 33,6001974 884,056 990,000 923,000 26,620 4,820 - 35,2001975 910,367 1,040,000 968,000 30,360 4,890 - 36,7001976 945,313 1,041,000 965,000 32,270 4,940 - 38,9001977 1,355,354 1,432,000 1,350,000 31,800 4,980 - 44,6001978 1,488,023 1,616,000 1,534,000 28,660 5,010 - 48,1001979 1,559,340 1,707,000 1,618,000 28,580 5,060 - 54,5001980 1,428,789 1,578,000 1,484,000 32,840 5,120 - 56,5001981 1,326,728 1,511,000 1,409,000 37,240 5,170 - 59,4001982 668,845 845,000 762,000 27,410 5,230 - 50,0001983 705,149 894,000 814,000 26,840 5,310 - 48,2001984 1,416,743 1,600,000 1,497,000 40,940 5,380 - 56,3001985 1,580,861 1,747,000 1,640,000 43,760 5,420 - 58,1001986 1,564,863 1,724,000 1,611,000 48,280 5,460 - 59,3001987 1,536,901 1,703,000 1,580,000 56,360 5,500 - 61,4001988 1,657,015 1,825,000 1,705,000 50,760 5,580 - 63,0001989 1,403,428 1,573,000 1,448,000 60,610 5,680 - 58,7001990 1,414,083 1,570,000 1,449,000 60,340 5,720 - 55,8001991 956,066 1,119,000 1,014,000 45,580 5,770 - 54,4001992 1,474,767 1,645,000 1,517,000 60,720 5,850 - 60,8001993 1,238,935 1,787,000 1,664,000 56,930 5,910 - 60,5001994 925,187 1,631,000 1,490,000 73,670 5,970 - 61,4001995 874,051 1,687,000 1,547,000 70,460 6,020 - 63,8001996 1,303,235 2,132,000 1,995,000 65,770 6,040 - 65,4001997 1,421,906 2,284,000 2,142,000 67,590 6,080 24 68,5001998 834,881 1,745,000 1,616,000 69,090 6,140 35 54,6001999 797,357 1,795,000 1,671,000 65,920 6,210 47 51,6002000 953,163 2,044,000 1,913,000 68,700 6,290 59 55,7002001 975,341 2,038,000 1,912,000 71,090 6,390 71 48,9002002 1,149,955 2,191,000 2,069,000 64,670 6,460 82 50,9002003 82,226 2,038,000 1,921,000 59,670 6,500 94 49,9002004 101,148 1,773,000 1,669,000 55,200 6,550 106 41,9002005 111,212 1,712,000 1,616,000 46,580 6,620 118 42,8002006 112,074 1,362,000 1,278,000 40,650 6,760 129 36,3002007 150,815 1,429,000 1,357,000 27,940 6,940 141 37,0002008 228,582 1,321,000 1,252,000 25,990 7,110 153 35,7002009 261,822 1,174,000 1,106,000 27,780 7,200 165 33,0002010 173,662 1,099,000 1,030,000 30,640 7,160 176 30,900Iceland - Valtýsson 87Appendix Table A2.  Reconstructed total catch (in tonnes) by major taxa for Iceland, 1950-2010. ‘Others’ contain 42 additional taxonomic categories.Year Capelin Gadidae Clupeidae Sebastidae Blue whiting Invertebrates Pleuronectidae Others1950 - 247,000 61,700 82,400 - 11 6,710 13,0001951 - 239,000 86,500 109,900 - 12 7,850 14,4001952 - 302,000 32,700 50,000 - 12 4,040 22,5301953 - 328,000 70,900 37,200 - 12 1,950 23,3301954 - 366,000 48,200 32,600 - 12 1,450 15,8701955 - 371,000 53,600 37,000 - 853 940 15,7201956 - 361,000 103,200 38,100 - 1,096 2,010 17,9801957 - 317,000 117,700 31,600 - 529 4,970 23,8501958 - 349,000 109,600 23,100 - 1,788 2,630 25,4401959 - 347,000 186,300 22,500 - 4,010 3,290 20,4101960 - 373,000 139,200 23,000 - 4,639 7,290 29,7801961 - 320,000 332,400 17,400 - 3,731 9,500 30,6401962 - 309,000 487,700 14,900 - 4,076 8,930 31,0801963 1,100 319,000 404,400 25,800 - 7,674 6,580 33,8701964 8,800 375,000 555,300 20,500 - 5,483 8,240 22,2401965 50,500 333,000 602,300 26,800 - 6,149 10,170 21,1401966 126,800 300,000 438,700 18,800 - 6,540 9,700 19,8401967 98,600 279,000 96,200 20,200 - 5,409 7,810 27,2301968 79,300 320,000 28,100 28,000 - 5,901 8,390 31,4601969 173,200 396,000 24,000 27,500 - 8,556 19,370 31,7601970 194,600 427,000 16,800 27,000 - 12,663 18,230 31,0001971 185,600 369,000 12,100 33,000 - 16,863 14,880 32,0801972 281,100 336,000 300 30,500 643 19,053 12,100 30,1801973 448,200 357,000 300 30,000 2,936 16,405 8,120 36,3001974 469,200 375,000 1,300 31,500 4,414 12,413 8,560 28,3201975 467,700 392,000 13,600 37,000 1,316 11,226 7,530 29,6901976 456,700 426,000 17,500 38,500 8,921 14,626 9,230 35,4001977 821,400 464,000 29,500 31,800 10,765 15,727 18,390 31,5101978 966,800 467,000 38,100 37,700 27,649 20,797 18,650 30,9101979 978,000 514,000 46,000 70,400 14,445 22,228 24,750 31,6001980 771,200 567,000 54,300 78,900 4,627 23,653 36,410 36,7501981 652,100 614,000 40,300 105,500 4,880 22,566 21,750 39,1401982 13,500 548,000 57,700 130,100 - 25,712 38,140 30,2801983 135,500 443,000 60,100 138,800 5,990 33,131 40,730 36,0501984 880,500 415,000 50,800 122,400 107 46,562 46,290 38,4701985 1,008,300 455,000 50,400 103,300 - 46,893 49,500 33,1301986 911,500 508,000 67,100 97,200 - 57,761 50,290 32,0601987 822,200 540,000 77,000 99,200 - 58,624 67,570 38,4101988 924,900 538,000 94,700 106,300 - 49,166 76,610 34,5701989 668,100 530,000 103,000 107,800 5,052 41,493 81,260 36,2001990 704,100 524,000 95,700 107,900 - 45,729 57,360 35,5701991 262,300 492,000 90,900 119,300 - 53,152 58,090 43,4001992 809,700 420,000 127,700 124,200 - 64,462 54,780 43,9301993 955,100 393,000 120,200 135,100 - 71,901 59,190 40,0801994 763,900 322,000 136,000 130,200 - 88,362 54,150 36,6401995 726,300 303,000 123,900 111,000 375 91,546 55,520 36,6301996 1,196,700 297,000 104,300 100,300 460 89,266 53,900 38,0401997 1,339,000 307,000 75,800 104,600 10,581 95,457 46,670 38,5401998 761,300 332,000 104,900 126,600 69,871 79,044 30,620 44,7801999 714,200 351,000 98,900 113,800 102,910 47,672 31,720 41,1402000 905,800 326,000 103,800 127,500 156,838 38,499 30,830 39,3802001 931,800 319,000 109,200 88,400 224,957 43,851 34,510 38,9102002 1,094,800 310,000 97,700 118,800 197,446 51,884 37,300 40,2702003 685,800 325,000 156,400 121,400 273,670 43,25