UBC Community, Partners, and Alumni Publications

Evaluations of compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Pitcher, Tony; Kalikoski, Daniela; Pramod, Ganapathiraju 2006

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
FCRR_2006_14-2.pdf [ 1.52MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0058147.json
JSON-LD: 1.0058147+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0058147.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0058147+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0058147+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0058147+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0058147 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0058147.txt
Citation
1.0058147.ris

Full Text

ISSN 1198-6727  Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries Fisheries Centre Research Reports 2006 Volume 14 Number 2  ISSN 1198-6727  Fisheries Centre Research Reports 2006 Volume 14 Number 2  Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries  Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada  EVALUATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAO (UN) CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES  Edited by Tony J. Pitcher, Daniela Kalikoski and Ganapathiraju Pramod  Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2) 1191 pages © published 2006 by The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2022 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4  ISSN 1198-672  F  ISHERIES  C  ENTRE  R  ESEARCH  R  EPORTS  V  OLUME  14 N  UMBER  2 2006  EVALUATIONS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAO (UN) CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES Edited by Tony J. Pitcher, Daniela Kalikoski and Ganapathiraju Pramod  CONTENTS  Page  Director’s Foreword.......................................................................................................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................4 .......................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION METHODS .......................................................................................................6 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 14 COUNTRY COMPLIANCE EVALUATION REPORTS .......................................................... 16  Angola Argentina Australia Bangladesh Brazil Canada Chile China Denmark Ecuador Egypt Faroes France Germany Ghana Iceland India Indonesia Iran Ireland Italy Japan Korea, North Korea, South Latvia Malaysia Mexico  Report Linked Page Pages Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ....................................... 17 14 Daniela Kalikoski, Marcelo Vasconcellos and Tony J. Pitcher ........... 18 18 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ........................................ 19 64 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ...................................... 20 17 Daniela Kalikoski and Marcelo Vasconcellos ...................................... 21 16 Tony J. Pitcher .....................................................................................22 16 Daniela Kalikoski, Marcelo Vasconcellos and Tony J. Pitcher ...........23 22 Jiahua Cheng, Wengui Cai, William Cheung, Tony J. Pitcher, Yajie Liu and Ganapathiraju Pramod .................................................24 19 Patricia Rojo-Diaz and Tony J. Pitcher................................................25 26 Daniela Kalikoski, Marcelo Vasconcellos and Tony J. Pitcher ...........26 14 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ........................................27 19 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ....................................... 28 26 Patricia Rojo-Diaz and Tony J. Pitcher................................................29 27 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ....................................... 30 22 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ........................................ 31 29 Divya Varkey and Tony J. Pitcher ........................................................32 26 Divya Varkey, Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ................33 28 Eny A. Buchary, Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod ............34 38 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ........................................35 17 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ........................................36 23 Ganapathiraju Pramod, Tony J. Pitcher and Chiara Piroddi..............37 44 Arata Izawa, Naobi Okayasu and Tony J. Pitcher .............................. 38 13 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ........................................39 11 Divya Varkey, Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ............... 40 24 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher ........................................ 41 15 Tony J. Pitcher ......................................................................................42 17 Daniela Kalikoski, Marcelo Vasconcellos and Tony J. Pitcher ...........43 15  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 2  Morocco Myanmar Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Norway Pakistan Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Russia Senegal South Africa Spain Sri Lanka Sweden Taiwan Thailand Turkey Ukraine UK USA Viet Nam Yemen  Patricia Rojo-Diaz, Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod .......44 Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod........................................ 45 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher........................................46 Patricia Rojo-Diaz and Tony J. Pitcher ............................................... 47 Divya Varkey, Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher................48 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher........................................49 Georg Skaret and Tony J. Pitcher ........................................................50 Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod.........................................51 Daniela Kalikoski, Marcelo Vasconcellos and Tony J. Pitcher ........... 52 Tony J. Pitcher...................................................................................... 53 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher........................................ 54 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher........................................ 55 Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod........................................ 56 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher........................................ 57 Ganapathiraju Pramod, Tony J. Pitcher and Patricia Rojo-Diaz ....... 58 Ganapathiraju Pramod, Tony Pitcher, Patricia Rojo-Diaz and Daniela Kalikoski .......................................................................... 59 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher........................................60 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher........................................ 61 Ganapathiraju Pramod, Divya Varkey and Tony J. Pitcher................ 62 Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod........................................ 63 Tony J. Pitcher......................................................................................64 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher........................................ 65 Ganapathiraju Pramod, Tony J. Pitcher and Patricia Rojo-Diaz .......66 Marcelo Vasconcellos, Daniela Kalikoski and Tony Pitcher............... 67 Tony J. Pitcher......................................................................................68 Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher........................................69  23 13 24 26 31 23 19 13 12 18 19 25 27 25 29 26 20 20 25 20 14 20 32 16 19 17  Copy editing: Janice Doyle, Tony Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod Suggested Citation: Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) (2006) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  A Research Report from the Sea Around Us Groups at the Fisheries Centre, UBC  and Fisheries Ecosystems Restoration Research in partnership with WWF,  the global conservation organization  Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2) 1192 pages © Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2006  F ISHERIES C ENTRE R ESEARCH R EPORTS ARE A BSTRACTED IN THE FAO A QUATIC S CIENCES AND F ISHERIES A BSTRACTS (ASFA) ISSN 1198-6727  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 3  DIRECTOR’S FOREWORD It is true that we have a global fisheries crisis, but it is equally true that we already have the tools to understand its causes and overcome it. One of the elements of this toolkit is the Food and Agriculture Organization (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, launched in 1995 and endorsed by all of FAO’s member states. The Code, a mixture of high principles and common sense, is now very widespread and available in several languages other than English, and can be seen as a self-help guide for governments interested in moving their fisheries toward sustainability. The code is voluntary, but it is unclear whether it being voluntary has made its implementation in the field more or less difficult. Had it been obligatory, its language would certainly not have been as clear as it is. Indeed, this clarity of language is what makes it possible to tell whether countries are complying with its various elements. In this report, Professor Tony Pitcher and his team have assessed how the various FAO member countries are performing with regards to implementing the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, a decade after it was launched. They do not cover all maritime countries of the world, but the countries they cover represent over 96% of the world catch. The assessment covers Article 7 on Fishery Management, to many the veritable core of the Code. To this end, they relied on an immense body of literature, and the judgment of independent experts, who helped verify their evaluation for most of the countries. As such, this study represents a valuable review of the status of world fisheries. Moreover, by using numerous criteria to assess countries’ performance, Dr Pitcher and his co-authors have obtained robust results, not likely to be overthrown in future re-assessments. This document, thus, will be crucial in future attempts to rank countries in terms of their performance in managing and conserving the resources in their EEZ, as reflected in many ways by compliance with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Thus, for example, we will have to consider whether countries subsidize their fisheries in spite of their resource being in decline (not explicit in the Code, but implicit in Code clauses 7.2.2; 7.6.3; 12.9), whether they adequately protect threatened marine mammals, birds, seabirds, or any other marine animal occurring in their EEZ (Code clauses 7.2.2, 7.2.3. 7.6.9), and whether they have set up adequate no-take managed areas (Code clause 7.6.9). This will contribute to a balanced evaluation of the way countries manage the whole of their EEZ, and not only the fisheries therein. In the meantime, however, I congratulate Tony Pitcher, Ganapathiraju Pramod and Daniela Kalikoski for an extremely original, rigorous and useful assessment of countries’ performance on implementing the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Dr Daniel Pauly Director, Fisheries Centre  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 4  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report presents evaluations of the compliance of 53 countries (strictly, marine fisheries jurisdictions) representing over 96% of the reported world fish catch, with Article 7, covering Fisheries Management, of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, originally agreed by members of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and published in 1995. Evaluations are based on an adaptation of a previously-published rapid appraisal scheme of 44 questions, each scored on a scale of zero to ten according to pre-set guidelines. Scores less than 4/10 signify ‘fail’ grades, while scores of 7/10 and over are regarded as showing good compliance. Scores have been based on cited published and unpublished literature and on the views of experts: some 2475 references have been consulted in the course of the work, which has taken three years. Each country evaluation is authored by members from the scoring team and in some cases includes external experts. Each evaluation has been subjected to a rigorous scoring protocol involving a series of cross-checks by the scoring team. In addition, many of the evaluations have been validated by external experts familiar with the country concerned (33/53 in January 2007). The 44 questions in the evaluations are divided in two parts, the first representing the intentions of a country to follow the Code, the second part assessing the actual performance achieved. Six evaluation fields, deriving from the themes of the 52 clauses in the Code text, cover management objectives (9 questions), regulatory framework (7 questions); precautionary approach (9 questions); the regulation of stocks, fleets and fishing gears (7 questions); social and economic factors (6 questions); and monitoring, control and surveillance (MSC) (6 questions). Overall results in each of these six fields for each country are expressed as a kite diagram. Each score has been given an uncertainty range that may be employed in any analysis of the results. A graphical score profile, including uncertainty, is presented for each country. The authors are aware that omissions and errors of interpretation may still remain for some countries. An open protocol has therefore been adopted for all country compliance evaluations, and the team remains open at any time to comments, corrections, adjustments or opinions that may be used to improve the accuracy of the evaluations. The 53 country reports comprise over 1170 pages and are published as links to web-based files [available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/ or at http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct, and also linked from country pages at www.seaaorundus.org]. In this way, the country evaluations are ‘living documents’ that may change with time when modified or new material comes to light. A comparative analysis of the results from these Code compliance reports will be published elsewhere. Tony J. Pitcher, Daniela Kalikoski and Ganapathiraju Pramod Vancouver and Rome, February 2007  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 5  INTRODUCTION Stimulated in 1993 by the dismal state of some of the world’s most valuable fisheries (Doulman 1998) and published after all-nation agreement in 1995, the Food and Agriculture Organization (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (the Code, or CCRF) (FAO 1995) was designed to ensure the benefits of fisheries for future generations by encouraging responsible fishing practices. The ten objectives of the CCRF, succinctly listed in Article 2, are admirably clear in scope and intention. The Code’s overall goal is intrinsically linked to food security for the world’s poor and to sustainable economic benefits. It was evident to those who drafted the Code that fundamental structural changes to the ways in which fisheries operate were required if the benefits to human society of fisheries were to be sustainable, an observation that has been echoed by many others concerned with fisheries (e.g., Pauly et al. 2002; Pitcher 2001; Pitcher and Pauly 1998). This report presents evaluations of the compliance of the marine fisheries of 53 countries with the requirements of Article 7 of the Code. These countries represent about 96% of the annual world fish catch. The FAO Code of Conduct is a voluntary agreement with no legal force in international law, but its scope and depth are far greater than the legal instruments which have been successfully negotiated, such as the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Reading the Code, despite a somewhat legal language, its profundity and scope are striking. Most fisheries experts agree that the Code itself is a fine piece of work and its widespread and meaningful implementation would likely solve most of the world’s grave fisheries problems. Most nations belonging to FAO agree, and a surprisingly large amount of the national fisheries laws drafted since the Code’s publication reflect in large measure many of its recommendations, and this is a solid indicator of the Code’s success and influence. But has CCRF had an effect in practice? And, after ten years, what is the situation like? Which countries exhibit good or poor compliance with the Code, and does this differ among its many different parts? Reporting to the Committee on Fisheries (COFI), FAO is mandated to monitor progress, and assist with implementation of the Code (Article 4.2.1). This requirement implies that there is, or should be, a reasonably objective way of evaluating compliance of a State’s fishery regulations and actions with the Code, although the Code itself provides no details as to how compliance should be monitored. Progress in the evaluation of compliance with the Code has been slow, with only sixteen case studies noted by COFI in February 2003 (FAO 2003), a procedure of reporting that is biennial (Caddy 2007). By 2007, only 37% (70 countries) of FAO’s members had responded to a questionnaire about progress in compliance with the Code (COFI 2007). However, in this material, compliance is subjectively assessed by the countries themselves and this leads to some revealing anomalies. For example, while 90% of the responding member states considered themselves to be in conformity with the Code, 25% stated that there were no fishery management plans at all in their jurisdiction (COFI 2007). The same Article 4.2 includes a requirement to monitor the effects of the implementation of the Code on fisheries, a much larger task that has been interpreted in a wide sense as the evaluation of sustainability indicators (FAO 1999). However, by no means all sustainability indicators, 1  ARTICLE 4 - IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND UPDATING. 4.2 FAO, in accordance with its role within the United Nations system, will monitor the application and implementation of the Code and its effects on fisheries and the Secretariat will report accordingly to the Committee on Fisheries (COFI). All States, whether members or non-members of FAO, as well as relevant international organizations, whether governmental or non-governmental, should actively cooperate with FAO in this work.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 6  particularly those in the economic and stock assessment areas, are covered explicitly by the Code, or by various more recent commentaries (e.g., FAO 1999). Therefore, while such ongoing research work on indicators is undoubtedly of great value, it is not sufficiently robust, nor is it explicitly linked with the agreed text of the Code, to be able to measure compliance, except in a very general fashion. Unfortunately, much of the detail contained in the body of the Code is written in a way that makes a systematic scoring of compliance difficult. While some clauses relate to very specific points, others cover almost every fishery management device ever invented, and, in addition, many items are repeated in both introductory and summary material, even within individual Articles. It has been noted several times that it seems hard to use the clauses of the Code as they stand in a quantitative evaluation (e.g., Pitcher 1999), and this may have inhibited attempts at evaluating compliance objectively. One recent method that attempts to cover the Code’s individual clauses is based on earlier work on reference points and the traffic light approach (Caddy 2001, 2005, 2007; Caddy and Agnew 2004). This work also employs the ‘amoeba’ approach (Wefering et al. 2000, Laane and Peters 1995; ten Brink et al. 1991) and provides “resource of questions that can be integrated into monitoring approaches for Articles 7, 8, 10 and 12 in specific fisheries applications”, is broader than the Code itself as “questions may be supplemented by others of interest to specific local fisheries, and … questionnaires may be completed by the local or national groups of stakeholders most involved with fisheries decision-making” (Caddy, pers. comm.). “Questionnaires also include addressing subsequent concerns that arose after the Code was agreed upon in 1995, notably ecosystem management, fisheries co-management and stock recovery strategies, derived from the Guidelines to the Code and from the fisheries literature” (Caddy 2007). The Caddy approach is essentially based on the answers to a series of questionnaires (often at local workshops, e.g., Caddy et al. 2005) where evaluations of performance are provided by local stakeholders (examples are provided in Caddy 2007 from Guaymas, Gulf of California, Mexico and from Hawaiian pelagic longline fisheries). Clearly, this can generate most valuable information with a strong local provenance, and this procedure may encourage the possibility of action to remediate any deficiencies. For the present analysis, however, we needed a faster method to be able to cover evaluations among more than 50 countries in a reasonable time and with a comparable degree and level of scrutiny. Article 7 on Fisheries Management is central to the Code of Conduct for capture fisheries, and was ranked as a top priority along with aquaculture by countries responding to FAO’s Code of Conduct questionnaire (COFI 2007). Compliance with Article 7’s requirements is both necessary and sufficient for sustainable, equitable, secure and responsible fisheries that are in balance with the biodiversity and abundance of natural marine ecosystems. Therefore, in this work we have adapted a rapid appraisal technique focussed on Article 7 (Fishery Management) previously published by FAO (Pitcher 1999). The schema lists the essence of each of the Code’s issues and themes whilst retaining the same overall balance of emphasis among the clauses and identifying all of its detailed management procedures. This material is subsumed into 44 questions drawn directly from the text of the Code, each of which is scored on a scale of zero to ten to indicate degree of compliance. Only those features that are explicitly mentioned in the Code are used, and each question is explicitly related to specific clauses or parts of a clause. The 44 questions are grouped into six evaluation fields and each includes a measure of uncertainty deriving from the scoring process. A small modification to Article 7.7.5 is introduced to include a stronger question on re-flagging (taken in fact from Article 8). Further details are presented in the Methods section. In order to express the dual aims of Article 4.2 (see footnote above), the indicators have been split roughly equally into scores in the first three evaluation fields that express the intended effects of the implementation of fishing regulations (‘Intentions’), and scores in the latter three  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 7  evaluation fields that express the actual effects of those regulations on fisheries (‘Actions’). This work does not set out to cover Article 8 (Fishing Operations); Article 9 (Aquaculture); Article 10 (Coastal Zone Management); Article 11 (Post-harvest and Trade); or Article 12 (Fisheries Research). It is evident from some FAO documents that countries reporting on progress in achieving compliance with the Code may endeavour to distract attention from failures in fisheries management covered by Article 7 by filing long reports with much documentation on issues covered in other Articles such as research, trade, post-harvest treatment and aquaculture. Evaluation techniques that take these other Articles fully into account have been developed by Caddy (2007, and see above). Although we cover only Article 7 here, these compliance evaluations can be regarded as implicitly taking into account Article 5, covering the Special Requirements of Developing Countries, and also Article 6, which sets out the general principles of the Code of Conduct.  METHODS COMPLIANCE SCORE QUESTIONS Article 7 contains eight sections; but since the first section is introductory and the last contains only one financial clause, Article 7 may in effect be divided into six sections, each of which is evaluated separately in this analysis. These sections are Objectives; Framework; Precaution; Stocks, Fleets and Gear; Socio-economics; and Monitoring, Control and Surveillance. The first three of these sections (‘evaluation fields’) roughly correspond to the intentions of a state in ensuring compliance with the Code. The final three sections can be taken as measuring the effectiveness of compliance in practice. Table 1 lists the 44 questions and score guidelines used in scoring compliance with the Code; questions in each of the six fields vary between 6 and 9. Table 1 also shows the fixed reference points along with the principal and subsidiary Code clauses that are captured by each attribute (Pitcher 1999). Table 1. Rapid appraisal scheme for of compliance with Article 7 of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, covering six evaluation fields of fisheries management in 44 questions. Specific clauses in the Code are indicated. Each question is scored on a scale of 0 to 10: 0 to 4 represent ‘fail’ scores; 7 and above are considered as ‘good’ scores. Sources of information that justify each score should be explicitly provided. Note that non-integer, intermediate scoring is encouraged where small differences among the fisheries evaluated can be justified. Relevant features additional to the criteria in these guidelines are taken into account in assigning final scores, for example where scores fall just short of pass grade (e.g., 3.5/10), but where such adjustments are made, sources of information should be carefully cited. For each question, a best estimate and an upper and lower range to the score is assigned. (Modified from Pitcher 1999.) Evaluation Field 1: Management Objectives Scores Intentions Of Management  Reference Points Attributes Worst Best 0 10 1 Are formal reference points for the fish stock in this fishery identified using best science available? No (0); partially (5); completely (10). 2 Is present fleet capacity calculated and are there plans to reduce it? 0 10 No (0); calculated (3.5); target capacity defined (7); planned measures to reduce capacity (10). NOTE: fishing capacity may be measured simply, as in numbers of vessels, or in a complex fashion, for example as true catching power. Within each grade,  Code Clauses Main Other 7.2.1 7.1.1 7.2.2  7.1.8  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 8  bonus points may be given for more accurate complex measures. 3  4  5 6  7 8  9  0  10  7.2.2  7.1.2  0  10  7.2.2  7.2.3  Does the management plan aim to restore depleted stocks in this fishery? No (0); slowly (5); rapidly (10). Are human impacts (pollution, waste) on the fishery habitat identified? No (0); partially identified (3.5); identified and plan includes measures to mitigate (7); complete mitigation in plan (10). Is fishing gear mandated by the management plan to avoid bycatch of non-target species, environmental and habitat damage? No (0); in part (5); totally (10). Are ecosystem linkages with this fishery made explicit in the management plan? No (0); identified (3.5); made fully explicit (7); & adverse ecosystem impacts minimised (10).  0  10  7.2.2  7.1.1  0  10  7.2.2  7.2.1  0  10  7.2.2  7.4.2  0  10  7.2.3  7.3.1  Are environmental influences on this fishery made explicit in the management plan? No (0); identified (3.5); made fully explicit (7); & adverse impacts minimised (10).  0  10  7.2.3  7.2.1  Are small scale fishers considered in plan? No (0); considered but not consulted (2.5); consulted informally (5); institutional structures for ongoing consultation (7.5); plus extra points if smallscale fisher's opinions are often included in plans. (max 10). Impacts of fishery on biodiversity allowed for in plan? No (0); some impacts assessed (3.5); most impacts assessed and mitigated (7); full impacts mitigated in management plan (10).  Evaluation Field 2: Framework (Data & Procedures) Scores Ways Intentions Are Implemented  Reference Points Attributes Worst Best 0 10 1 Are total & complete removals from this stock over the whole stock area and over whole life cycle accounted for in assessment? No (0); somewhat (3.5); mostly with a few omissions (7); almost completely (10). 2 Are management measures compatible with those of other 0 10 jurisdictions concerned with this stock? No (0); in part (5); almost completely (10). (Score 10 if not applicable to this fishery, but eliminate attribute if not applicable to any other fisheries in analysis). 3 Does the management plan have clearly stated long-term 0 10 objectives? No (0); in part (5); absolutely clear (10). 4  5  6  Are all the stakeholders in this fishery resource identified and considered? No, only government interests (0); score two for each group represented: large-scale industry, small-scale fishers, recreational fishers, local communities, conservation and public watchdog groups (Max = 10). (Score 2 for any one group that genuinely does not apply; Score 1 for any group only partially considered). Are data, management processes and decision-making open and transparent, including any international aspects? No, closed except to management (0); informed only when necessary (2.5); regularly consulted (5); participation in decisions (7.5); full co-management in decision-making (10). Are timely, complete and reliable statistics collected and verified? No (0); collected partially (2); collected almost completely (4); timely - add 1 if available in less than 1 year, add 2 if 6 months (6); add 2 if there are attempts at verification (8); add additional 1 to 2 if almost totally satisfactory verification (10).  Code Clauses Main Other 7.3.1 7.4.2  7.3.2  7.1.3  7.3.3  7.1.1  0  10  7.1.2  7.1.6  0  10  7.1.9  7.1.6  0  10  7.4.4  7.1.4  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 9  7  Are social, economic and institutional factors related to sustainability evaluated with data? No (0); score one or two points for each, plus up to additional 2 points for interdisciplinary analysis (10)  0  10  Evaluation Field 3: Precautionary Approach Scores Precautionary Intentions And Actions  Reference Points Attributes Worst Best 1 Is precaution explicitly enshrined in legislation, or is precaution 0 10 implicitly applied to management of the fisheries? No (0); implicit in some regulations or actions of the country (1-4); explicit in legislation, and partially applied in management (5-8); almost fully applied in regulations (9-10). 2 Is uncertainty, including lack of appropriate information, 0 10 quantified and used to reduce fishing that might otherwise occur? No (0); in part (3.5); a great deal (7); add 1-3 points for degree of quantification of uncertainty (10). 3 Are stock-specific target reference points estimated and employed? 0 10 No (0); simple targets estimated (3.5); estimated and employed (7); almost totally satisfactory (10). Quality of targets is included in the evaluation: full statistical stock analysis gains bonus points while simple MSY or ‘Gulland formula’ calculations get less credit. 0 10 4 Are stock-specific limit reference points estimated and employed? No (0); estimated (3.5); actively employed (7); working almost totally satisfactorily (10). 5 Are there viable contingency plans to restrict fishing in the event of 0 10 an environmental emergency? No (0); plan exists (3.5); a good plan with clearly identified rapid-acting triggers exists (7); almost completely satisfactory plan with triggers in place, and defined ways to validate trigger data (10). 6 Are there viable contingency plans to restrict fishing in the event of 0 10 an unforeseen emergency caused by excess fishing? No (0); plan exists (3.5);a good plan with clearly identified rapid-acting triggers exists (7); almost completely satisfactory plan and triggers in place, and defined ways to validate trigger data (10). 0 10 7 Are management instruments under continuous review? No (0); infrequently and informal review (3.5); formal review (7); formal review every year (10). 0 10 8 Are no-take areas of sufficient size to work, established, policed and monitored? Add up to one two points for effective monitoring; add up to two points for effective enforcement. None (0); no-take areas less than 1% of EEZ (2); 1-5% of EEZ (4); >5% (6). 9  Are plans in place to restrict fishing if species linked through the ecosystem (predators, prey or competitors) to the target(s) of this fishery become threatened? Add up to two points for effective monitoring of potentially endangered species; add up to two points for effective enforcement. No plans (0); informal plans (2); formal plans in place (4); tested with models or simulations (6).  0  10  7.4.5  7.4.2  Code Clauses Main Other 7.5.1  7.5.1  7.4.3  7.5.3  7.2.1  7.5.3  7.2.1  7.5.5  7.5.5  7.6.8  7.1.4  7.6.9  7.2.2  7.2.3  Evaluation Field 4: Stocks, fleets and gear Scores Results Of Management  Reference Points Attributes Worst Best 1 Is excess fleet capacity being reduced? Scored on a graduated scale 0 10 from: no (0); mainly measures aimed at avoiding an increase in capacity (3.5); measures actually aimed at capacity reduction (5); effective capacity reduction measures (7); completely effectively  Code Clauses Main Other 7.6.3 7.2.2  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 10  (10). 2  3  4  5 6  7  Are fishing methods known to be harmful to habitats, to create bycatch problems, or whose high fishing capacity is difficult to control, being phased out? Score on a graduated scale from: no (0); partial phasing out (5); substantial, effective and monitored plans for phasing out (10). To gain maximum score in a category, all harmful gear types should be covered. Is by-catch of non-target species minimised? No, there are serious problems with by-catch (0); some attempts to assess and reduce by -catch (2); by-catch is estimated and reduction of by-catch is a priority (4); by-catch is very low or greatly reduced in this fishery (6). Score up to 2 extra points for gear that reduces by-catch (newly-introduced gear, or existing gear). Score up to an extra 2 points if by-catch reduction gear is mandatory Are discards minimised? No (0); some attempt to reduce discards (2); discards reduced or very small (4); discards almost nonexistent or completely under control (6). Reduction of discards through utilising all the catch can count for categories 1 and 2. Score up to an extra 2 points if discards are effectively reported. Score an extra 2 points if discards are legally banned. Is the gear designed to minimise ghost fishing if lost? No (0); partially (5); effectively (10). (Score 10 for gear that cannot be lost, or cannot catch fish if lost). Is the fishing of juveniles and spawners restricted to safe levels? No (0); a little (2); partially (4); almost completely satisfactorily (6). Add up to 2 points for effective monitoring of under-age fish and spawners. Add up to 2 points for effective enforcement of restrictions on under-age fish and spawners. Are depleted stocks being rebuilt? Score on a graduated scale from; no (0); the intention is to rebuild, but it is not effective (2.5); some attempts at rebuilding with limited success in some stocks (5); some effective rebuilding of most depleted stocks (7.5); completely satisfactory rebuilding of all depleted stocks (10).  0  10  7.6.3  7.2.2  0  10  7.6.9  7.2.3  0  10  7.6.9  7.2.3  0  10  7.6.9  7.2.2  0  10  7.6.9  7.2.2  0  10  7.6.10 7.2.2  Evaluation Field 5: Social & Economic Scores Results Of Management  Reference Points Attributes Worst Best 1 Is the fishery managed so as to minimise conflict among different 0 10 sectors? No (0); partially (5); almost completely effective (10). 2 3 4  5  6  Code Clauses main 7.6.5  other 7.1.9  Are Indigenous Peoples rights and needs being met? No (0); established and partially met (5); almost fully respected (10). (Score 5 if no Indigenous People present) Are the needs of local fishing communities being met? No (0); identified and partially met (5); almost completely met (10). When a change to the management of the fishery is made, is its cost-effectiveness evaluated? No (0); evaluated, but little modification of change (5); plans are modified according to the results (10). When a change to the management of the fishery is made, is its social impact evaluated? No (0); evaluated, but little modification (5); plans are always modified according to the results (10).  0  10  7.6.6  7.4.5  0  10  7.6.6  7.1.6  0  10  7.6.7  7.2.2  0  10  7.6.7  7.4.2  Is funding for the research, observers and MCS programme for this fishery obtained by cost recovery from the industry? No (0); up to 30% (2); 30 - 50% (4); 50 - 70%; (6) 70 - 90% (8); more than 90% (10).  0  10  7.7.4  7.4.3  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 11  Evaluation Field 6: Monitoring, Control & Surveillance (MCS) Scores Results Of Management  Reference Points Attributes Worst Best 1 On a scale of 0 to 10, how effective is the observer scheme? No 0 10 scheme (0) to almost fully effective (10). 2 On a scale of 0 to 10, how effective is the catch inspection scheme? 0 10 No scheme (0) to almost fully effective (10). 3 On a scale of 0 to 10, how effective is the vessel monitoring 0 10 scheme? No scheme (0) to almost fully effective (10). 4 Are vessels fishing illegally in the area of this fishery? No (0); 10 0 occasionally (2.5); often (5); a great deal - half as much as legal vessels (7.5); almost as much as, or more than legal vessels (10). If no information is available, score 10. Note reverse direction of this question: this is allowed for in all analyses. 5 How effective is control of access in stopping illegal fishing? Not at 0 10 all effective (0), to almost fully effective (10). 6  Are vessels that really derive from this jurisdiction re-flagged in States of Convenience to avoid reporting or other fishery regulations. Never (0), sometimes (1-5), often (6-7), practice is very common (8-10). Note reverse direction of this question: this is allowed for in all analyses.  10  0  Code Clauses Main Other 7.7.3 7.1.7 7.7.3  7.4.4  7.7.3  7.4.4  7.7.5  7.7.1  7.6.2  7.8.1  7.7.5  8  The questions for code compliance shown in Table 1 are designed, as far as possible, to be answered in a reasonably objective fashion, although it is inevitable that some scores will differ among different respondents partly on account of differences in interpretation, as discussed by Caddy (2000, 1996). Hence, some specific guidelines for attributes that determine scores on a scale of zero to ten are given in Table 1. Sources of information that justify each score are provided explicitly in the country evaluations; upper and lower score ranges have been adjusted to indicate the degree of uncertainty in assigning scores. Initial scores were improved first by means of within-team reviews, and secondly with external validation procedures, as described below. Thirdly, by assigning an upper score range, representing the maximum possible for a particular question and country, and a lower score range, representing the minimum possible out of ten, scoring uncertainty is made explicit and may later be used in any overall analysis of the results. CHOICE AND SCORING OF COUNTRIES The selected 53 countries analysed for compliance with the Code correspond to the fishing jurisdictions that take roughly 96% of the reported world catch. Some evaluations are not strictly for countries; we chose independent fisheries jurisdictions that are reported separately in the FAO statistics. The evaluations attempt to take into account activities in all of the overseas territories and the high seas for which the country is responsible. The countries are listed together with their reported catches in 1999 in Table 2. Scoring The Countries A great variety of information was used in scoring the 44 questions for each country: in total therefore, this work reports the results of 2332 separate analyses including; national legislation, international treaties (taken from the Sea Around Us project database: www.seaaroundus.org), country synopses from FAO, reports to FAO and by NGOs, websites of national fisheries agencies, NGO websites, a great deal of other published and ‘grey’ literature, and information  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 12  from fisheries experts. In all, over 2400 references were consulted. The questions for code compliance shown in Table 1 are designed, as far as possible, to be answered in a reasonably objective fashion, although it is inevitable that some scores will differ among different respondents partly on account of differences in interpretation, as discussed by Caddy (1996). Hence, the guidelines for scoring on a scale of zero to ten are given in Table 1. Scores were improved through the within-team reviews and external validation procedures, described below. Thirdly, scoring uncertainty is explicit and maybe used in overall analysis of the results. Table 2. List of countries (jurisdictions) evaluated for compliance with Article 7 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible fisheries. Table shows 1999 reported marine catch in tonnes (rounded), catch rank, percentage of world total, jurisdictions validated external to the scoring team, number of pages in each report and number of references consulted. Jurisdiction Angola Argentina Australia Bangladesh Brazil Canada Chile China Denmark Ecuador Egypt Faeroes France Germany Ghana Iceland India Indonesia Iran Ireland Italy Korea, North Korea, South Japan Latvia Malaysia Mexico Morocco Myanmar Namibia Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Norway Pakistan Peru Philippines Poland Portugal Russia Senegal South Africa  1999 Catch, tonnes 170,000 1,013,000 237,000 310,000 518,000 977,000 4,989,000 14,552,000 1,404,000 497,000 153,000 359,000 586,000 214,000 418,000 1,736,000 2,776,000 3,621,000 244,000 280,000 288,000 190,000 2,100,000 5,101,000 124,000 1,240,000 1,106,000 743,000 759,000 298,000 512,000 592,000 316,000 2,619,000 475,000 8,391,000 1,725,000 217,000 208,000 3,828,000 376,000 588,000  % World Total 0.2 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 1.2 5.9 17.3 1.7 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.5 2.1 3.3 4.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 2.5 6.1 0.1 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.4 3.1 0.6 10.0 2.1 0.3 0.2 4.6 0.4 0.7  Rank 51 20 46 40 29 21 4 1 14 31 52 37 27 48 33 12 8 7 45 43 42 50 11 3 56 15 18 24 23 41 30 25 39 10 32 2 13 47 49 6 35 26  External Validation Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated  Pages 14 18 64 17 16 16 22 19 26 14 19 26 27 22 29 26 28 38 17 23 44 11 24 13 15 17 15 23 13 24 26 31 23 19 13 12 18 19 25 27 25 29  References Cited 22 23 179 19 45 47 29 62 46 12 65 48 65 58 39 64 73 114 20 59 99 9 40 17 33 34 34 64 22 81 52 93 66 47 16 9 34 52 55 30 42 56  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 13  Spain Sri Lanka Sweden Taiwan Thailand Turkey Ukraine UK USA Viet Nam Yemen TOTAL  1,180,000 263,000 349,000 1,099,000 2,656,000 523,000 397,000 882,000 4,691,000 1,217,000 124,000  1.4 0.3 0.4 1.3 3.2 0.6 0.5 1.1 5.6 1.4 0.1  17 44 38 19 9 28 34 22 5 16 55  Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated Validated  26 20 20 25 20 14 20 32 16 19 17  54 44 44 41 44 24 27 51 13 32 28  83,981,000  96  53  33  1192  2476  A formal scoring protocol was employed to try to obtain the most accurate scores possible for each of the 44 questions. Following the assembly of preliminary documents, each country was first scored by one of our five primary scorers, based on the relevant published FAO country synopsis and as much other published material as could be located. Particular attention at this stage was given to defining the minimum and maximum possible scores for each question, while some scores were left blank where information has not yet been located. Extensive documentary material, reference lists and draft text to support the precision of the scores was then assembled. In the next step, two or more members of the scoring team reviewed and adjusted the evaluation, using their own knowledge, reading of the documentary material and sources. The draft country evaluation was then sent back to the primary scorer for review and a third attempt to find missing information. The updated version was checked again by the team, and then uploaded to the open project website (ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct) so that at this stage the country evaluation became available for any external scrutiny and comment. For example, requests for comments by in-country experts were made at the FAO COFI meeting in 2005. At the time of writing (December 2006), 20 of the country compliance analyses remain at this stage, while 33 of them have proceeded to the next stage that of external validation by independent experts. A number of external validations are in still in progress. The country scorecards have been sent to fisheries experts within the country (or in some cases, experts known to be familiar with the country) for validation and comment. Some of the validators have been independent fisheries experts, while in some cases individuals within a country’s national fisheries agency helped with a validation. Validators who do not wish to remain anonymous are named on the country score sheets and are herewith acknowledged in this report, but we have respected any requests for anonymity. For validating one or more country evaluations we would like to thank: Cameron Ainsworth, A.K. Armah, R. Baird, S. Brajgeet K. Bhathal, Eny Buchary, Wengui Cai, Guillermo Cañete, S.K. Chakraborty, Jiahua Cheng, Wai Lung Cheung, Shelley Clarke, Kevern Cochrane, Helen Davies, East China Sea Institute Staff, Karim Erzini, Maren Esmark, Fabio Fiorentino, Katia Freire, Raul Garcia, Gewrmana Garofalo, Michele Gristina, Ndiaga Gueye, Benoit Guerin, Khaled Hariri, Paul Hart, Ray Hilborn, Trevor Hutton, Dave Japp, K.A. Koranteng, Rajeev Kumar, Hector Lozano, Yajie Liu, Robert Mather, Sahar Mehanna, M. Moazzamm, Lobo Orensanz, Ana Parma, Daniel Pauly, Lida Pet-Soede, Keith Probert, K. Quaatey, Jakup Reinert, Liudmilla Shchegoleva, Vassily Spiridonov, James Scandol, Keith Symington, Rashid Sumaila, Sergi Tudela, Pablo Trujillo, Nathan Walker, Simon Waterfield, Dirk Zeller and eight anonymous validators. In addition, country scores and texts have been updated whenever new information became available, for example a report of world status of the use of flags of convenience. This has happened frequently over the past three years that the scoring process has taken.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 14  The scores achieved in this way are based on the best available information about the fisheries management practice of each country, using publications, reports, and expert contacts in the target countries as far as possible. Nevertheless, with so many different countries and questions, it is inevitable that some omissions, errors or misinterpretation of data may have arisen. Therefore an open protocol was adopted for all of the country compliance evaluations. The most recent versions of the country score sheets are maintained on an open FTP website (ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/ or they can be accessed via www.seaaroundus.org), and the team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. The evaluations of each country are therefore ‘living documents’ and may change with time. Each country document therefore includes the statement; This evaluation of compliance with Article 7 (Fishery Management) of the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing (FAO 1995) is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. Using a wide range of cited source material, the document represents the best attempt by the authors at presenting a fair and objective evaluation of compliance using 44 questions derived from the Code. Questions are divided into six evaluation fields, (Management Objectives; Framework (data & procedures); Precautionary Approach; Stocks, Fleets and Gear; Social and Economic factors, and Monitoring, Control and Surveillance): the derivation of the 44 questions is described in Pitcher (1999). The first three fields cover intentions of a country’s legislation to adhere to the Code; while the last three evaluation fields are intended to rate actual performance. Full details of the methods are published in Pitcher, Kalikoski and Pramod (2006). This evaluation has been subjected to several internal cross-checks and, where stated, has been validated by experts familiar with the country concerned. Uncertainty in assigning each score is shown explicitly. However, the authors are aware that omissions and errors of interpretation may still remain for some countries. An open protocol has therefore been adopted for all country compliance evaluations, and the team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. For some countries (e.g., Myanmar) finding and accessing relevant information was highly problematic and challenging. Usually, this problem was associated with poor Code compliance scores, especially for issues such as the implementation of limit reference points, precaution, and illegal fishing. In some countries, very helpful websites have been set up by the national fisheries agency (e.g., New Zealand, Iceland, Canada), which may supplement meagre published material (e.g., Malaysia), or can help make sense of an already voluminous fisheries literature (e.g., Philippines – a fisheries agency website with music!). It is also not surprising that, for some countries, even after using a multi-lingual scoring team, some serious language difficulties were encountered. Here the process was aided by several national fisheries experts in drawing up the country reports2. The country compliance evaluations In total the country compliance evaluations comprise over 1170 pages and entailed consultation of over 2470 published references and sources (see Table 2 for the values for each country), and took the best part of 3 years to complete. Each country evaluation is authored by members of the team. The published report contains links to the individual country evaluations and score sheets, which may also be downloaded from the web (ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct, or from www.seaaroundus.org). The links lead to the latest version of each country evaluation document and, as noted above, all of this material is 2 We especially thank for evaluations in local languages; for China, Jiahua Cheng, Wengui Cai, Wai Lung Cheung and Yajie Liu (also for translation of the document); for Norway, Georg Skaret; for Russia, Vassily Spiridonov and Liudmila Shchegoleva; and for Japan, Arata Izawa and Naobi Okayasu.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 15  openly available for query and comment. A comparative analysis of these Code compliance evaluations will be published elsewhere.  REFERENCES Caddy, J.F. (1996) A checklist for fisheries resource management issues seen from the perspective of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circular 917: 22p. Caddy, J.F. (2000) Viewpoint: The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries as a basis for evaluating fisheries research: a suggested operational procedure. Fisheries Research 48: 205-211. Caddy, J.F. (2005) The potential use of indicators, reference points and the traffic light convention for managing Black Sea fisheries. Paper presented at the GFCM/SAC Workshop on Reference Points for Mediterranean Fisheries, Rome, Italy, 20-21 April 2004.Genereral Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean, Studies and Reviews. (in press). Caddy, J.F. (2007) The Code of Conduct as a diagnostic tool in support of fisheries management. FAO Fisheries Technical Report (in press). Caddy, J.F. and Agnew, D. (2004) An overview of recent global experience with recovery plans for depleted marine resources and suggested guidelines for recovery planning. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 14: 43–112. Caddy, J.F., Cisneros-Mata, M.A., Rodríguez-Valencia, J.A., and Berkes, F. (2005) Desarrollo de un Código de Conducta para la Pesca y Acuacultura Sustentables en el Golfo de California. Reporte de Taller de Trabajo. WWF-México, Programa Golfo de California. 44 p. COFI (Committee On Fisheries, FAO) (2007) Progress in the implementation of the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, related International Plans of Action and strategy. Twentyseventh Session Rome, Italy, 5 - 9 March 2007. COFI/2007/2. 13pp. Doulman, D. (1998) The Code of Conduct for Responsible fisheries: the requirement for structural change and adjustments in the fisheries sector. [FAO Website]. FAO (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO, Rome, 41pp. FAO (1999) The development and use of Indicators for sustainable development of marine capture fisheries. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No 8, Rome, 79pp. Laane, W.E.M. and Peters, J.S. (1993) Ecological objectives for management purposes: applying the amoeba approach. J. Aquatic Health 2: 277—286. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Guénette, S., Pitcher, T.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walters, C.J., Watson, R. and Zeller, D. (2002) Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418: 689-695. Pitcher, T.J. (2001) Fisheries Managed to Rebuild Ecosystems: Reconstructing the Past to Salvage The Future. Ecological Applications 11(2): 601-617. Pitcher, T.J. and Pauly, D. (1998) Rebuilding ecosystems, not sustainability, as the proper goal of fishery management. Pages 311-329 in Pitcher, T.J. Hart, P.J.B. and Pauly, D. (eds) Reinventing Fisheries Management, Chapman and Hall, London. 435pp. Pitcher, T.J. (1999) Rapfish, A Rapid Appraisal Technique For Fisheries, And Its Application To The Code Of Conduct For Responsible Fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 947: 47pp. Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) (2006) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp. Ten Brink, B.J.E., Hoeper, S.H. and Colijn, F (1991) A quantitative method for description and assessment of ecosystems: the AMOEBA approach. Mar. Poll. Bull. 23: 265—270. Wefering, F.M., Danielson, L.E. and White, N.M. (2000) Using the AMOEBA approach to measure progress toward ecosystem sustainability within a shellfish restoration project in North Carolina. Ecological Modelling 130: 157-166.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 16  COUNTRY COMPLIANCE EVALUATION REPORTS For each of the 53 countries (strictly, fishery jurisdictions) in this report the summary page shows a graphical representation of the compliance score profile for the 44 evaluation questions, grouped into six fields. Average scores for each the six fields are shown in a kite diagram, which also indicates fail and good grades. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in each country compliance document. Each page in this report is linked electronically to the latest full version of the country’s compliance report at: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF or the individual files are available from the same website, or from http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 17  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Angola with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Angola  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 14-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Angola-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Suggested citation: Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Angola with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 14 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 18  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Argentina with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Daniela Kalikoski, Marcelo Vasconcellos and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Argentina  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 18-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Argentina-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Suggested citation: Kalikoski, D., Vasconcellos, M. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Angola with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 18 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 19  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Australia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Australia  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 64-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Australia-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Australia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 64 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 20  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Bangladesh with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Bangladesh  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 17-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Bangladesh-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Bangladesh with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 17 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 21  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Brazil with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Daniela Kalikoski and Marcelo Vasconcellos  Code Compliance Kite  Brazil  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 16-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Brazil-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Kalikoski, D. and Vasconcellos, M. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Brazil with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 16 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 22  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Canada with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Canada  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 16-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Canada-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Canada with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 16 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 23  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Chile with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Daniela Kalikoski, Marcelo Vasconcellos and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Chile  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 22-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Chile-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Kalikoski, D., Vasconcellos, M. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Chile with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 22 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 24  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of China with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Jiahua Cheng, Wengui Cai, William Cheung, Tony J. Pitcher, Yajie Liu and Ganapathiraju Pramod  Code Compliance Kite  China  2 Framework  3 Precaution  1 Objectives  4 Stocks&Gear  6 MCS  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 19-page document, which is an English translation of an original Chinese document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/China-CCRF-eng.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Cheng, J., Cai, W., Cheung, W., Pitcher, T.J., Liu, Y. and Pramod, G. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of China with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 19 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 25  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Denmark with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Patricia Rojo-Diaz and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Denmark  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  4 Stocks&Gear  6 MCS  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 26-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Denmark-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Rojo-Diaz, P. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Denmark with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 26 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 26  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Ecuador with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Daniela Kalikoski, Marcelo Vasconcellos and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Ecuador  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 14-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Ecuador-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Kalikoski, D., Vasconcellos, M. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Ecuador with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 14 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 27  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Egypt with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Egypt  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 19-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Egypt-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Egypt with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 19 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 28  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of The Faroes with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Faroes  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 26-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Faroes-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of the Faroes with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 26 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 29  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of France with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Patricia Rojo-Diaz and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  France  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 27-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/France-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Rojo-Diaz, P. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of France with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 27 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 30  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Germany with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Germany  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 22-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Germany-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Germany with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 22 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 31  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Ghana with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Ghana  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 29-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Ghana-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Ghana with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 29 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 32  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Iceland with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Divya Varkey and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Iceland  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 26-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Iceland-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Varkey, D. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Iceland with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 26 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 33  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of India with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Divya Varkey, Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  India  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 28-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/India-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Varkey, D., Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of India with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 28 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 34  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Indonesia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Eny A. Buchary, Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod  Code Compliance Kite  Indonesia  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 37-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Indonesia-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct  Buchary, E.A., Pitcher, T.J. and Pramod, G. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Indonesia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 37 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 35  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Iran with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Iran  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 17-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Iran-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Iran with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 17 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 36  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Ireland with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Ireland  2 Framework  3 Precaution  1 Objectives  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 23-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Ireland-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Ireland with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 23 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 37  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Italy with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod, Tony J. Pitcher and Chiara Piroddi  Code Compliance Kite  Italy  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 44-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Italy-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G., Pitcher, T.J. and Piroddi, C. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Italy with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 44 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 38  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Japan with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Arata Izawa, Naobi Okayasu and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Japan  2 Framework  3 Precaution  1 Objectives  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 13-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Japan-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Izawa, A., Okayasu, N. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Japan with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 13 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 39  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of North Korea with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  North Korea  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 11-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/KoreaN-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of North Korea with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 11 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 40  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of South Korea with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Divya Varkey, Pramod Ganapathiraju and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  South Korea  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 24-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/KoreaS-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Varkey, D., Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of South Korea with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 24 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 41  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Latvia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Latvia  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 15-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Latvia-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Latvia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 15 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 42  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Malaysia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Malaysia  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 17-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Malaysia-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Malaysia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 17 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 43  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Mexico with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Daniela Kalikoski, Marcelo Vasconcellos and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Mexico  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 15-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Mexico-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Kalikoski, D., Vasconcellos, M. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Mexico with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 15 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 44  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Morocco with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Patricia Rojo-Diaz, Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod  Code Compliance Kite  Morocco  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 23-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Morocco-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Rojo-Diaz, P. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Morocco with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 23 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 45  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Myanmar with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod  Code Compliance Kite  Myanmar  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 13-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Myanmar-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pitcher, T.J. and Pramod, G. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Myanmar with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 13 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 46  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Namibia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Namibia  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 24-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Namibia-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Namibia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 24 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 47  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of The Netherlands with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Patricia Rojo-Diaz and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Netherlands  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 26-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Netherlands-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Rojo-Diaz, P. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Netherlands with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 26 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 48  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of New Zealand with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Divya Varkey, Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  New_Zealand  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  5 Soc&Econ  Link to full 31-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/NewZealand-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Varkey, D., Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of New Zealand with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 31 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 49  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Nigeria with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Nigeria  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 23-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Nigeria-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Nigeria with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 23 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 50  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Norway with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Georg Skaret and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Norway  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 19-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Norway-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Skaret, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Norway with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 19 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 51  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Pakistan with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod  Code Compliance Kite  Pakistan  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 13-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Pakistan-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pitcher, T.J. and Pramod, G. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Pakistan with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 13 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 52  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Peru with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Daniela Kalikoski, Marcelo Vasconcellos and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Peru  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 12-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Peru-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Kalikoski, D., Vasconcellos, M. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Peru with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 12 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 53  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Philippines with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Philippines  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  5 Soc&Econ  Link to full 18-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Philippines-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Philippines with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 18 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 54  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Poland with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Poland  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 19-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Poland-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Poland with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 19 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 55  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Portugal with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Portugal  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 25-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Portugal-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Portugal with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 25 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 56  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Russia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod  Code Compliance Kite  Russia  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  5 Soc&Econ  Link to full 27-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Russia-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pitcher, T.J. and Pramod, G. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Russia with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 27 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 57  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Senegal with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Senegal  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 25-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Senegal-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Senegal with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 25 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 58  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of South Africa with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod, Tony J. Pitcher and Patricia Rojo-Diaz  Code Compliance Kite  South Africa  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 29-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/SouthAfrica-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G., Pitcher, T.J. and Rojo-Diaz, P. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of South Africa with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 29 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 59  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Spain with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod, Tony J. Pitcher, Patricia Rojo-Diaz and Daniela Kalikoski  Code Compliance Kite  Spain  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  5 Soc&Econ  Link to full 26-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Spain-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G., Pitcher, T.J., Rojo-Diaz, P. and Kalikoski, D. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Spain with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 26 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 60  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Sri Lanka with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Sri Lanka  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 20-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/SriLanka-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Sri Lanka with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 20 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 61  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Sweden with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Sweden  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 20-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Sweden-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Sweden with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 20 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 62  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Taiwan with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod, Divya Varkey and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Taiwan  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 25-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Taiwan-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G., Varkey, D. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Taiwan with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 25 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 63  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Thailand with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Tony J. Pitcher and Ganapathiraju Pramod  Code Compliance Kite  Thailand  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 20-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Thailand-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pitcher, T.J. and Pramod, G. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Thailand with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 20 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 64  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Turkey with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Turkey  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  4 Stocks&Gear  6 MCS  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 14-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Turkey-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Turkey with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 14 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 65  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of the United Kingdom with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod, Tony J. Pitcher and Patricia Rojo-Diaz  Code Compliance Kite  UK  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 32-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/UnitedKingdom-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G., Pitcher, T.J. and Rojo-Diaz, P. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of the United Kingdom with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 32 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 66  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Ukraine with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Ukraine  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 20-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Ukraine-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Ukraine with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 20 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 67  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of the USA with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Marcelo Vasconcellos, Daniela Kalikoski and Tony Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  USA  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 16-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/USA-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Vasconcellos, M., Kalikoski, D. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of the USA with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 16 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 68  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Viet Nam with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Vietnam  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 19-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Vietnam-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Viet Nam with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 19 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Fisheries Centre Research Rep1orts 14(2), 2006, Page 69  An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Yemen with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing by Ganapathiraju Pramod and Tony J. Pitcher  Code Compliance Kite  Yemen  2 Framework  1 Objectives  3 Precaution  6 MCS  4 Stocks&Gear  5 Soc&Econ  The evaluation kite diagram to the left shows the overall scores for each of the six evaluation fields in relation to good scores (green shading) and fail scores (red shading). Fields 1 to 3 (top) express intentions, while fields 4 to 6 (lower) cover implementation. A full score profile covering the 44 evaluation questions is provided in the country compliance document. Note that this country evaluation is a ‘living document’ and may change with time. The team remains open at any time to comments, corrections or adjustments. Please see full document for details.  Link to full 17-page document: ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct/CountriesCodePDF/Yemen-CCRF.pdf The country file is also available at ftp://ftp.fisheries.ubc.ca/CodeConduct or http://public.box.net/CodeofConduct Pramod, G. and Pitcher, T.J. (2006) An Estimation of Compliance of the Fisheries of Yemen with Article 7 (Fisheries Management) of the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing. 17 pages in Pitcher, T.J., Kalikoski, D. and Pramod, G. (eds) Evaluations of Compliance with the FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(2): 1192pp.  Compliance with the Code of Conduct, Page 70  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Germany 22 10
China 22 18
United States 22 9
Canada 18 1
Iran 12 0
India 12 0
Norway 11 1
New Zealand 8 0
France 5 0
Japan 4 0
Spain 4 6
Italy 3 0
Russia 3 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 62 15
Beijing 16 0
Vancouver 14 0
Shenzhen 6 18
Ashburn 6 0
Gandia 4 4
Jersey City 4 0
Tromsdalen 4 1
Hamburg 3 0
Tromsø 3 0
Ho Chi Minh City 3 0
Redmond 3 4
Redditch 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.37052.1-0058147/manifest

Comment

Related Items