UBC Community and Partners Publications

Bottom-up, global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches. Chuenpagdee, Ratana; Liguori, Lisa; Palomares, Maria L.D.; Pauly, Daniel 2006

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
FCRR_2006_14-8.pdf [ 2.53MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0074761.json
JSON-LD: 1.0074761+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0074761.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0074761+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0074761+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0074761+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0074761 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0074761.txt
Citation
1.0074761.ris

Full Text

  ISSN 1198-6727  Fisheries Centre Research Reports  2006 Volume 14 Number 8     Bottom-Up, Global Estimates of Small-Scale Marine Fisheries Catches     Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Canada   Bottom-Up, Global Estimates of Small-Scale Marine Fisheries Catches     By  Ratana Chuenpagdee, Lisa Liguori, Maria L.D. Palomares and Daniel Pauly                   Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(8) 105 pages © published 2006 by  The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia  2202 Main Mall Vancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4       ISSN 1198-6727   Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(8) 2006   BOTTOM-UP, GLOBAL ESTIMATES OF SMALL-SCALE  MARINE FISHERIES CATCHES   By   Ratana Chuenpagdee, Lisa Liguori, Maria L.D. Palomares and Daniel Pauly   CONTENTS  DIRECTOR’S FOREWORD ....................................................................................................................................... 1 PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................................... 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................6 MATERIALS AND METHODS..................................................................................................................................8 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 10 Definitions of small-scale fisheries ............................................................................................................ 10 Estimation of catches, fishers and boat numbers .......................................................................................11 DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 Data reliability and estimation challenges................................................................................................. 12 Improving the estimates............................................................................................................................. 13 Small-scale fisheries in global and regional contexts ................................................................................ 13 Women in fisheries..................................................................................................................................... 14 Traditional participation........................................................................................................................ 14 New roles and emerging markets .......................................................................................................... 15 Decision-making, resource management and advocacy ....................................................................... 15 The post-harvest sector.......................................................................................................................... 16 Research gaps......................................................................................................................................... 16 Policy implications and next steps ..............................................................................................................17 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 19 APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................22 Appendix A : Country summaries ..............................................................................................................22 Appendix B : List of references used in summaries...................................................................................94       A Research Report from the Fisheries Centre at UBC 105 pages © Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2006   FISHERIES CENTRE RESEARCH REPORTS ARE ABSTRACTED IN THE FAO AQUATIC SCIENCES AND FISHERIES ABSTRACTS (ASFA) ISSN 1198-6727   Global Estimates of Small-Scale Marine Fisheries, Chuenpagdee et al. 1 DIRECTOR’S FOREWORD Working on small-scale fisheries often means being torn between two opposites. On one end are those who think that this is a waste of time because, "after all, industrial fisheries in the South and the North provide the bulk of the fish" [a true, and typical, quote, from an author who shall remain unnamed]. This standpoint seems to be justified because for most countries the official statistics do not identify small-scale fisheries, suggesting such catch, if any, is negligible. At the other end are cultural anthropologists and other social scientists, asserting in thesis after thesis and paper after paper that small-scale fisheries are important in the villages they studied, but numbers on catch, fishing effort and other metrics cannot be given, because everything is so complex. Indeed, one is often told by social scientists that catches are not the issue, but instead the catching itself, and the culture that develops around it. The first line of these arguments will be perceived as being correct as long as hard numbers are missing which would document in a compelling fashion that small-scale fisheries, rather than being marginal activities conducted by marginal people, are a vibrant part of the rural economy of numerous countries, providing livelihood to millions of people, besides increasingly feeding into national and international markets. The second line of arguments, while central to the discipline of, e.g., cultural anthropology, indirectly contributes to the marginalization of small-scale fisheries. In the excitement of documenting unique aspects of the maritime culture they study, and of describing its specialized systems of resource use, the larger context is often ignored, and the small-scale fishers and their families are not seen as actors on the national or international stage. Both of these lines of arguments can be overcome by making the case that small-scale fisheries, rather than being a marginal sub-sector, represent, in most countries, most of the people working in fisheries, and generating nearly half of the fish and invertebrate catch, often of high values, destined for human consumption. The numbers assembled in this report support such a case. Moreover, because they use far less fuel energy than industrial fisheries per tonne of fish landed, small- scale fisheries may point to, or even be, the future of fisheries in a world economy shaped by high fuel cost. The conclusions of this report are tentative, however, because the database upon which they are based covers the world very unevenly. This can be addressed by exposing the content of this database to a wide audience, from which the complements and corrections will emerge that will make this database more complete and reliable, and, hopefully, more useful.  Daniel Pauly Director Fisheries Centre, UBC 09 October 2006    Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 2 PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The development of a small-scale fisheries (SSF) database was initiated by the Sea Around Us Project to complement the Project’s coverage of the world’s marine fisheries, which initially relied on ‘official’ (mainly FAO) data (see www.seaaroundus.org). This was prompted by a suspicion, now verified, that these official data generally do not account, or at least not fully, for SSF catches, with all that it implies for evaluating the role of SSF for selected countries, or globally. Here, therefore, FAO provided only the starting point, in the form of its ‘Country Profiles’ (http://www.fao.org/fi/fcp/fcp.asp). The data therein were complemented with independent data from hardcopy documents and internet sources. Various assumptions about data homogeneity were made in estimating SSF catches and number of fishers, including the use of ‘inshore fishing area’ as a limit for SSF. Countries were also categorized based on their Human Development Index (HDI), and all estimates for countries were computed within the same HDI categories. The estimates of SSF catches and number of fishers presented in this report are a first attempt to provide, on a global basis, quantitative data on SSF that can then be used in fisheries management and policy debates. The SSF database that resulted from this effort will, from January 2007, be available as part of the website of the Sea Around Us Project, and regularly updated. The Sea Around Us Project, devoted to documenting and mitigating the effect of fishing on global marine ecosystems, was initiated and is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, U.S.A. Ratana Chuenpagdee also acknowledges support from the EU-funded INCOFISH project on ‘Integrating multiple demands in coastal zones, with an emphasis on fisheries and aquatic resources’ (Project # INCO 003739). We thank Adrian Kitchingman, Dirk Zeller and other members of the Sea Around Us Project for useful inputs, and Grace Coronado and Elijah Laxamana for their programming support, as well as the numerous colleagues who contributed information to the database.   Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Small-scale fisheries (SSF) are known to employ the majority of world fishers and to provide food and livelihoods to a vast number of people living in coastal areas. Yet, information about SSF is scarce and scattered. For example, it is usually not known whether national statistics on landings that countries report annually to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO) include the catches of their SSF. The consequences of this omission for policy-making are immense, given that FAO maintains the only worldwide database of official fisheries statistics. The reason for the dubious statistics is that, compared to the large-scale fisheries sector, information about SSF is more difficult to obtain, due to the multitude, and often remoteness, of SSF landing sites, not to mention the decentralized nature of their post-harvest and marketing activities. These SSF characteristics and the general lack of economic and political power among small-scale fishing communities contribute to marginalization of this sector and hinder our efforts to understand their dynamics. Thus, research on SSF focuses largely on cultural anthropology, or generic community-level issues, such as reducing poverty, securing food, maintaining livelihoods, in addition to specific issues such as mitigating persistent conflicts with large-scale fisheries. Still, the social, cultural, economic and livelihood importance of SSF to the majority of fishers are rarely reflected in national fisheries development policies, which tend to emphasize large-scale, industrial fisheries. In many cases, the prospect of export earning outweighs income generation in and for small fishing communities. Overall, SSF are marginalized. The SSF work of the Sea Around Us Project, hosted at the Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, aims to mitigate, as far as possible, the effects of this marginalization. One major way this is done is by estimating and disseminating more realistic estimates of the catches of SSF, by countries. This work pertains to individual countries; it is very detailed and hence time-consuming. This report is also part of the effort toward helping put SSF at the center stage of fisheries research, and covers the whole world, albeit more superficially than through our country-level analyses. It aims to provide bottom-up (national) estimates of SSF catches and related statistics for each maritime country, and then aggregate them at the global level. These data, which are made available here, and which will be online from January 2007 through the website of the Sea Around Us Project (www.seaaroundus.org), will allow dealing with SSF at the same scale as large-scale fisheries, and thus enable more complete analyses of fisheries than has been possible to date. To further inform debates about SSF, we provide, besides catch data, national definition of SSF, gears used, catch composition, number of fishers, number of boats and involvement of women and children, from sources such as FAO Fisheries Country Profiles (www.fao.org/fi/fcp/fcp.asp) and other reports and documents. The database contains information about SSF in 140 coastal countries; about 60 % of the information is from non-FAO sources. About 70 % of the countries characterize their SSF using boat size, with the most common categories being less than 10, 12 or 15 m, or between 5-7 m in length. Other characteristics used are Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT), engine size and types of gear. Overall, despite the uniqueness of SSF in each location, demarcations between small-scale and large-scale fisheries are generally similar. More importantly, there are sufficient commonalities among countries in how they define and characterize SSF that it is possible to generate data for countries without information from those with data, based on consistent rules. Data on catches are available for 60 % of the countries included in the database. Global catch, based thereon, is calculated using the following procedures: • Countries are categorized into three groups according to their ‘Human Development Index’ (HDI; developed by the UN). The HDI measures a country’s status in terms of life expectancy, educational attainment of its citizens and adjusted real income, more appropriate for SSF estimates than gross domestic product (GDP), often used for grouping countries and their fisheries. Grouping of countries by HDI is done such that available data are averaged within groups of similar countries (or strata), and computation for missing values (i.e., their replacement by within-strata averages) is performed for countries within the same HDI categories. Of the 140 countries, there are 43 countries in high, 76 in medium and 21 in low HDI category.  Executive summary 4 • We assume that small-scale fishing in each country takes place within its ‘inshore fishing areas’ (IFA), defined as shelf area ranging from shoreline to 50 km in distance or 200 m in depth, whichever comes first. These limits are selected on the assumptions that small-scale fishers usually (a) perform day trips (a few hours sailing, a few hours fishing, and a few hours sailing back), and hence are limited in terms of how far from shore they can operate, and (b) do not fish in very deep waters, except in areas where the shelf is very narrow (e.g., around oceanic islands), and therefore are restricted to on-shelf waters and resources.  • Catch per km2 (of IFA) is then calculated for countries with catch data, and the average within HDI strata is used to estimate catches for countries without data. Number of fishers and number of boats are estimated in similar fashion. Global estimates of catch, number of fishers and number of boats are then summed within and between strata. Our global estimate of SSF catches, pertaining to the year 2000, is 21 million t per year, by nearly 12 million small-scale fishers. On average, this means an annual catch of 1.8 t per fisher. Catch per fisher varies greatly, however, between countries, and ranges from 0.85 t in low HDI countries, and 1.4 t in medium HDI countries, to 6.7 t per year in high HDI countries. The estimates of annual catch per boat have a similar structure, i.e., 5.2 t per boat in low HDI countries, 9.3 t per boat in medium HDI countries, and 17 t per boat in high HDI countries. It is unclear at present whether the global marine catch can simply be added to the official (FAO) global catch of 64 million t in the year 2000, as some of this catch may already be included in FAO statistics. Thus, three possible scenarios may be considered here: all, none or some of these SSF catches were included in the global FAO statistics. This implies that SSF can contribute to between 25 %, in the case where none were included, and 33 %, if all were included. Any of these estimates represents a very significant contribution to total marine catches, suggesting that policies directed explicitly at sustaining SSF are needed, particularly when considering that they involve about 12 million fishers (compared to half a million people in large-scale fishing). Overcoming the marginalization of SSF requires that their contribution to global fisheries catches, and the number of people involved in the sector, are properly incorporated into the decision-making process.   Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 5   BOTTOM-UP, GLOBAL ESTIMATES OF SMALL-SCALE MARINE FISHERIES CATCHESa   Ratana Chuenpagdee Department of Geography, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada; Email: ratanac@mun.ca Lisa Liguori Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Email: liguori@interchange.ubc.ca Maria L.D. Palomares The Sea Around Us Project, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Email: m.palomares@fisheries.ubc.ca Daniel Pauly The Sea Around Us Project, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Email: d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.ca                                                   a Cite as: Chuenpagdee, R., Liguori, L., Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D., 2006. Bottom-up, Global Estimates of Small-Scale Marine Fisheries Catches. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(8). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 105 pp.  Introduction 6 INTRODUCTION Studies on the historical development of fisheries reveal that marine resources around the world are heavily exploited, with many instances of stock collapses and drastic changes in ecosystems (e.g., Jackson et al., 2001; Pauly and Maclean, 2003; Myers and Worm, 2003; Butcher, 2004). Such consequences have direct impacts on the vast majority of people who depend on fisheries, notably small-scale fishers and their families. For many, fisheries are critical sources of food and income. Alternative employment options are often limited and may not be desirable given traditional and cultural ties to the sea and fishing livelihoods. The disparity in dependency on fisheries resources and the importance of livelihoods among fishing stakeholders need to be recognized. In other words, it is no longer sufficient to discuss issues, concerns and challenges in fisheries without being sector- and scale-specific. Small- and large-scale fisheries generally co-exist in many parts of the world, and the extent of their interactions and conflicts depends on the relative scale and intensity of their operations (Pauly, 1997). The ecosystem impact of small- and large-scale fisheries also differs, depending on gears used (Chuenpagdee et al., 2003) and overall fishing effort. For example, industrial bottom trawling, covering a large area of a country’s continental shelf and extracting large amount of catches, is likely to have a greater impact on the ecosystem than setting of small inshore traps. It could be argued, however, that one large-scale fishing vessel may be less destructive than many small-scale fishing boats. Further, some small-scale fishing methods can be very destructive, such as dynamite and cyanide fishing, practiced illegally in many developing countries, e.g., of Southeast Asia (Saeger, 1993) or Africa (Vakily, 1993). Thus, ecosystem deterioration and overfishing can result from both large-scale and small-scale fisheries (World Bank et al., 1991). Indeed, a worldwide comparative analysis of these two sectors is urgently required to assess these and other related issues. Most of the research and systematic data collection efforts have been focused on industrial fishing in developed and developing countries. As a consequence, a large body of information and knowledge about the large-scale sector exists, to the extent that common complaints about “lack of data” as the reason for ineffective management measures leading to overfishing are now largely unjustified. The same cannot be said about SSF. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), for example, coordinates and publishes fisheries statistics, such as landings from capture fisheries by species (and species groups), from member countries on an annual basis. However, the statistics reported by member countries to FAO often do not include catches from subsistence and artisanal fishing, which make up the bulk of SSF. This also applies to recreational fisheries, which may also be considered small- scale. Many studies of SSF have been conducted, but they tended to emphasize the social and cultural aspects of small-scale fishing, and generally attempted to capture their unique situations at particular locations (Pauly, 2006a). Information about SSF at a country level is rare, one important exception being the fisheries country profiles published by FAO (www.fao.org/fi/fcp/fcp.asp; also available through www.seaaroundus.org), which attempt to provide a description of the large and small fishing sectors of most maritime countries. Researchers and scientists working in SSF, however, do not always appreciate such broad generalizations, claiming that natural and social systems are ‘too complex’, and that each small-scale fishing community is distinctively different from others. Another common view is that SSF are so different between countries that global, or even regional, definitions and comparisons are impossible, again implying uniqueness for each individual fishery. The problem with these notions, which often appear convincing at first sight, is that in effect they tend to further marginalize SSF, which are already disadvantaged by their physical, socio-economic, political and cultural remoteness from urban centers (Pauly, 1997). Small-scale fishing communities in developing countries often operate in areas located away from political power and interests. They generally lack landing facilities and other infrastructure and direct access to markets. Compared with the large-scale industrialized fishery sector, the small-scale sector usually receives far less support (e.g., subsidies) from the governments (see contributions in Sumaila and Pauly, 2006). Also the lower economic status of small- scale fishers marginalizes them further, and undermines the political power, that, in democracies, their numbers would imply.  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 7 At the onset, an attempt to counter this marginalization of SSF would include an amount of research, and a data collection effort, comparable to that devoted to large-scale fisheries to enable aggregation of catches of similar magnitude. This would help not only to provide a quantitative framework for the sociological and anthropological work performed so far (Pauly, 2006a), but also to allow for comparative analysis of social and economic contributions of the two sectors, as well as their relative impacts on marine and coastal ecosystems. This report reframes the research on SSF presented by outlining a quantitative approach for deriving global estimates of their catches and number of fishers based on data in the FAO country profiles and other literature, with countries stratified by the UN human development index (HDI). We first describe the database and methodological framework used in data collection and analysis. Next, we explain the procedures and assumptions underlying our estimates. Results are presented in the following section. We then discuss challenges faced in data collection and ways to improve the estimates. Recognizing the important roles that women and children play in SSF, we include a discussion about gender issues. A small-scale fisheries profile for each country is included as an appendix to the report (Appendix A), together with the reference(s) used (Appendix B). The following sections describe the iterative approach we have developed to achieve this, and our preliminary results. We conclude with a discussion which emphasizes the next iterations, where the locale-specific knowledge embedded in the primary and gray literature will be used to improve the database (soon to be part of the Sea Around Us Project website, www.seaaroundus.org), and the results based thereon.   Materials and methods 8 MATERIALS AND METHODS Small-scale fisheries are sometimes described as subsistence and artisanal, with fishers using traditional and simple gears, some without a boat and some with non-powered boats. These fisheries normally contribute food for household consumption, with a small amount of catches used for barter or trade. In other instances, SSF involve use of modern gears and boats with outboard or inboard motors. They are considered commercial fisheries, as catches are landed and sold either by fishers or their family members at the market, or through marketing systems involving ‘middlemen’ (who are often women). Concerns regarding the definition of SSF are related to the wide range of fishing and marketing practices, framed in a great variety of cultural and political settings. Thus, a crucial step in our effort to standardize information about SSF was to review the various definitions used in all countries included in the database. This is best done by groups of countries, and hence we discuss first how we grouped the 140 maritime countriesa in the database into three different strata. The database is given the following features (see also Figure 1): First, all countries in the database with marine fisheries (140 in total) are placed into three groups according to their ‘Human Development Index’ (HDI). This index, developed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP, 2000), defines countries as high HDI (≥ 0.8), medium (0.5 ≤ HDI < 0.8), and low HDI (< 0.5). HDI measures a country’s status in terms of life expectancy, educational attainment of its citizens and adjusted real income, and is considered more appropriate for SSF estimates than gross domestic product (GDP), often used for ranking and grouping countries and their national fisheries. Grouping of countries by HDI was performed to enable improved estimation of missing data. Here, available data were averaged within groups of countries (‘strata’), the means forming the basis for estimation of missing values (i.e., their replacement by within-HDI category means). Overall, there were 43 countries in High-HDI (H-HDI), 76 in Medium-HDI (M-HDI) and 21 in Low-HDI (L-HDI). Estimate IFA for all countries (from Sea Around Us Project) Calculate average fisher/IFA and catch/IFA for each HDI Country data (catches, fishers, vessels) Calculate global estimates of fishers and catches Improved estimates using local data Apply rules to estimate global fisheries catches Country classified by HDI   Figure 1. Schematic diagram for global estimation of small-scale fisheries. The basic entries into the database are catch of SSF, number of small-scale fishers and number of vessels used by these fishers. As a general procedure, we initially used information from the most recent FAO fisheries country profile available on the FAO website. This data set, largely from the late 1990s to early 2000s, provided coverage of SSF in a consistent format across countries. When possible, the FAO data were then replaced by information from other online and published sources, if they were considered more reliable than the FAO profiles. Information about target species, gears used, and other special features of SSF for each country, particularly those related to women and children, was also captured.                                                  a We distinguished information on small-scale fisheries for the contiguous U.S., Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa and Guam. This brought the total number of cases (which we still refer to as ‘country’) from 137 to 140. This procedure, wherein a country or territory and its IFA are subdivided into smaller units, improves the precision and accuracy of the estimates, and will be performed for other countries in the future.  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 9 Next, we entered for each country an estimate of its ‘inshore fishing area’ (IFA), defined as the area of its shelf (and within its exclusive economic zone) ranging from the shoreline to 50 km offshore or 200 m depth, whichever comes first, based on a bathymetric map of the world ocean (NOAA, 2004). These limits were selected on the assumptions that small-scale fishers usually (a) perform day trips (a few hours sailing, a few hours fishing, and a few hours sailing back), and hence the limit in terms of distance from shore that they can travel to in a day; and (b) do not fish in very deep waters, except in areas where the shelf is very narrow (e.g., around oceanic islands), and hence are restricted to on-shelf (neritic) waters and resources. Global estimates of catches by HDI stratum were then obtained by (1) using available data by countries to compute within-strata estimates of mean catch per km2 of IFA; (2) multiplying these means by the country-specific values of IFA to obtain preliminary estimates of catch in countries without reported value; (3) aggregating catches (estimated or reported) across countries by strata. Note that this approach, which was applied in similar fashion to number of fishers and number of boats, implies that per stratum and global estimates emerge from summing a reasonably high number of largely independent products. Consequently, we can assume that underestimates in certain countries will compensate for overestimates in others (Sokal and Rohlf, 1995). Technically, this approach also allows for estimating formal confidence intervals for the global estimates (see below), although we have abstained here from dealing with issues of precision, given the systematic downward bias that occurs when dealing with SSF, particularly when fishing by women and children is considered. Estimates resulted from the current procedure, as reported here, are slightly different from those previously reported in Chuenpagdee and Pauly (in press). This is due partly to an inclusion of more non- FAO sources in the database and the improved estimation routine, particularly to reduce the outlier effect, as described below. While the estimation procedure will remain the same from this point onward, global estimate of SSF catches will be increasingly improved as new and more reliable data are added to the database.   Results 10 RESULTS DEFINITIONS OF SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES ‘Defining’ SSF is deemed by many to be impossible, for two reasons. One is the realization that what may be called small-scale in one situation may be large-scale in another (World Bank, 1991; FAO, 2005). The other reason, perhaps less justified, is that SSF are terribly ’complex‘ or ’different‘ from place to place. However, precise and all-encompassing definitions are not needed for the stratified approach employed here. Yet, it is interesting that our research shows the characterizations of SSF around the world to be largely uniform. Of the 140 countries included in the database, 70 % provide definition or characterization of their SSF, with about 65 % of these using boat sizes as a key factor. Most commonly, small-scale boats either 10, 12 or 15 m, or between 5-7 m in length (Table 1). Some countries use Gross Registered Tonnage (GRT) and/or engine size as key characteristics, while others describe small-scale fishing by the type(s) of gear used. To a lesser extent, small-scale fishing is defined by distance or depth where fishing takes place. Only a few countries refer to small-scale fishing by nature of activity, such as ‘subsistence’, ‘traditional’, etc. Often, several criteria are given to characterize SSF. The overall consistency found in the definitions and/or characterizations of SSF implies that there are sufficient commonalities among countries to enable a generalized approach, where data for missing countries are estimated based on countries with data.  Table 1.  Summary of definitions of small-scale fisheries.  Key features Common definition (range) Boat size between 5-7m; less than 10, 12 or 15m (2 to 24m) Boat GRT less than 10 GRT (3 to 50 GRT) Size of engine less than 60 HP; between 40-75 HP (15 to 400 HP) Boat type canoe, dinghy, non-motorized boat, wooden boat, boat with no deck, traditional boat Gear type coastal gathering, fishing on foot, beach seine, small ring net, handline, dive, traps Distance from shore between 5-9 km; within 13 km; upto 22 km Water depth less than 10, 50 or 100m depth Nature of activity subsistence, ethnic group, traditional, local, artisanal Number of crew 2-3; 5-6 Travel time 2-3 hours from landing sites  The terms ‘artisanal’ and ‘small-scale’ are often used interchangeably and they are sometimes referred to as a sub-group of coastal fisheries (Smith, 1979). Small-scale fisheries can also be a legal category, as in the case of Croatia, differentiating fisheries for subsistence purposes from commercial fishing for economic benefit (Croatia Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2004), or in the Philippines, where ‘municipal’, i.e., SSF using boats of less than 3 GRT, have exclusive access to waters within 15 km of the coastline (Luna et al., 2004). Generally, however, SSF are commercial fisheries. Even when they retain traditional aspects (e.g., artisanal fishers in Australia who are part of coastal or island ethnic groups using traditional methods), they are typically modernized, e.g., by outboard engines. On the other hand, the size of the boats may fall within the range typical of SSF; the fishing methods used disqualify them. An example of this is provided by India, where trawlers are not considered small-scale, despite fitting the size definition (Mathew, 2002), and by the Philippines, where ‘baby’ trawlers, of just about 3 GRT, are considered ‘municipal’ crafts, completely undermining the spirit of the legislation aiming to identify and privilege SSF (Pauly, 1982). Further, there are a few instances where other characteristics are used to refer to SSF. For example, Croatia and Ecuador reserve SSF for their citizens (Croatia Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2004; World Trade Organization, 2004). In Angola, SSF refer to the use of simple and reliable fishing technologies which, while efficient, have a small or negligible impact on the environment (Lankester, 2002).  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 11 ESTIMATION OF CATCHES, FISHERS AND BOAT NUMBERS The SSF catch for countries with this information missing was estimated based on an outlier-adjusted average catch·km-2 of IFA of the countries with this information and in the same HDI category, multiplied by their IFAs. Mean area catch rates were adjusted for the influence of potential outliers by excluding 10 % of the values with highest catch per area, and 10 % with lowest catch per area, before computing the average area catch rates by HDI category using the remaining 80 % of values. Considering all three HDI categories combined, global catches are estimated at 21 million t, with 58 % of the catch coming from M- HDI countries (Table 2). As may be seen, the IFA of low- HDI countries, essentially in the intertropical belt, are more productive than those of medium-, and high-HDI countries, which is due to the higher productivity of shallow, tropical waters (Longhurst and Pauly, 1987). This would not apply to deep waters, which, however, are not accessed by SSF. Fisher numbers were calculated as for catches, and led to our global estimate of 11.6 million fishers; Table 3 gives details on available data. As may be expected, fisher densities in the IFA increase from high- to low-HDI countries, presumably reflecting inverse income trends. Table 2. Estimates of catches SSF by HDI category and globally.  HDI category H-HDI M-HDI L-HDI Total Mean catch density (t/km2)  0.77 1.26 2.93 - Estimated catches (106 t) 7.2 12.1 1.5 20.9 Number of countries 43 76 21 140 Countries with data 18 38 19 75   Table 3. Estimates of small-scale fishers by HDI category and globally  HDI category H-HDI M-HDI L-HDI Total Mean fisher density (#/km2) 0.153 1.015 2.501 - Estimated # of fishers (106) 1.08 8.72 1.77 11.57 Number of countries 43 76 21 140 Countries with data 19 51 16 86   Table 4. Estimates of the number of small-scale fishing boats, by HDI category and globally  HDI category H-HDI M-HDI L-HDI Total Mean boat density (#/km2) 0.065 0.153 0.126 - Estimated # of boats (103) 420 1313 108 1842 Number of countries 43 76 21 140 Countries with data 19 51 16 86 Boat numbers were also calculated as for catches, and led to our global estimate of 1.84 million units; Table 4 summarizes the available data. Contrary to the results obtained with fishers per area and catch per area, there is no trend of boat per area and HDI. The most likely reason is that, in low-HDI countries, much small-scale fishing is done without boats.   Discussion 12 DISCUSSION DATA RELIABILITY AND ESTIMATION CHALLENGES Numerous challenges exist when estimating number of fishers per country. Even in cases where data are available, these numbers can be deceptive. Firstly, the number of registered fishers is not necessarily representative of the number of active fishers. For example, in Antigua Barbuda, the number of registered fishers in 2004 was 1,088, but the number of active fishers was only 699 (CARICOM, 2004). Secondly, counting fishers by country is problematic because fishers often migrate, especially in the context of seasonal fisheries. For instance, the lowest numbers of fishers and canoes are found in Moree, Ghana during the major fishing months of July-August, a major upwelling period. This is due to the fact that approximately 400 out of 600 canoes are operated by migrating fishers. At least 5,000 people migrate to other regions (mostly the Western region of Ghana, but also to international destinations like Côte d’Ivoire and Benin); when they return, the population of the port increases by 25 % (Marquette, 2002). While in several countries (e.g., Ecuador), small-scale fishing is reserved for citizens of that country; this is not always the case. One striking example is Gabon, where 75 % of fishers are foreigners (WRI, 2003). In Congo, the shark-fishing ban most seriously affected Beninese fishing communities living and fishing in Congo (WRI, 2003). Thus, studies conducted at different times of the year can produce drastically different results. Different limitations exist when estimating total catch associated with SSF. Often, subsistence and artisanal fishing is not monitored or regulated unless the species caught have a high commercial value. For example, in Palau, land crab catches are not monitored, even though these crabs represent an important food item (Matthews, 2002). In addition, the data collected often exclude fish sold directly to local markets and restaurants, and fish sold illegally across borders (Huitric, 2005). In Belize, the tourist industry, which boomed since 1980, increased the national market for lobster and conch. This new market pays prices that are competitive with those paid by cooperatives (historically known for keeping precise records of catch). As a result, an increasingly large amount of small-scale catch is unaccounted for in official statistics, which rely on the cooperatives for their data (Huitric, 2005). In addition to the difficulties involved with estimating unreported catch, official estimates can be equally unreliable. Managers may not update old statistical estimates. For example, in Fiji: “[t]he Fisheries Division estimates of subsistence catch are based on a 1979 small-scale fishing survey which covered only Viti Levu, and used the ability of a single respondent in each village to recall landings over the previous 12 months. For the past 22 years, the estimate of small-scale production for all of the Fiji Islands (the largest component of the domestic catch) has been made simply by adding 200 t of fish to the questionable 1979 figure” (Asian Development Bank, 2000). Other accounts of the essential unreliability of SSF statistics in the Pacific may be found in Zeller et al. (2005, 2006) Another key challenge in estimating the number of fishers is the fact that many estimates do not include women, especially those who work shore-based in inter-tidal zones or mangroves. While we stress the need for these fishers to be recognized, we also acknowledge that many women would not want their participation in fisheries to be reported for fear of further marginalization. For example, in Costa Rica, Chela Barquero Cortes was informed by social service organizations that if she continued to harvest shellfish from the mangroves (a locally stigmatized occupation) her adopted daughter would be removed from her care (pers. comm. to L. Liguori, 1999). Often, children also contribute a great deal to women’s catch, but these data are rarely collected by fisheries personnel or scientists (Kronen, 2002). Efforts to collect these data must be carefully considered, as fishing families may not want to share this information due to the risks involved. For example, international organizations such as the International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour specifically seek to remove children from positions of labor in coastal communities, e.g., in El Salvador (IPEC, 2004).    Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 13 IMPROVING THE ESTIMATES The estimates reported here are very preliminary and will require continual update and improvement. Firstly, efforts must be made to obtain information on the 40 % of countries for which currently no information is available, as well as to replace FAO data with those from local studies documented in the primary or report literature. These data should also be checked, verified and regularly updated. The SSF database is developed as an on-line tool to encourage users with better information to contribute their data. The auto-calculation routine with estimation algorithms is prepared as part of this on-line tool to enable easy updates. Further examination is needed on the various assumptions made in the procedure. For example, the most suitable ratio to use as a basis for the estimates needs to be determined. Alternatively, routines such as Monte-Carlo could be incorporated to evaluate sensitivity and uncertainty in all estimated outputs. Next, the database must be expanded to include catches taken by women and children, which are hardly ever included in national statistics. The current database shows that contributions by women and children could be substantial, particularly in terms of provision of food. Efforts are required to incorporate quantitative and qualitative information about this portion of catches and number of women and children involved. Thirdly, some published social science studies (anthropology, sociology, and economics) of SSF report information on their catch composition. These data, if available for several time periods, will be useful to determine the impact of SSF on their supporting ecosystems, e.g., by computing the changes in the mean trophic level of their catch (Pauly et al., 1998). Also, the data can be used to provide estimates of values of SSF, using the Sea Around Us Project price database (Sumaila et al., in press). Finally, periodic field surveys can be performed to check and verify all types of SSF data, both reported and estimates, and including data such as prices of SSF catches and involvement of women and children. SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES IN GLOBAL AND REGIONAL CONTEXTS Information about SSF provided in this report can be used to make comparisons with the large-scale sector, similar to the broad comparisons performed by Thompson and FAO (1988) and Pauly (2006a). For example, the number of crew on large-scale fishing vessels reported therein is about half a million, while our estimates suggest that there are nearly 12 million small-scale fishers in the world. When considering fishing activity in terms of food efficiency, almost all SSF catches are used for human consumption, as opposed to only 57 % in the case of large-scale fishing (Pauly, 1997; 2006a). The contribution of SSF to human food security is therefore greater than that of the large-scale sector; similar analyses can be made for fuel efficiency or return on investment. Thus, the catch per tonne of fuel consumed in small-scale fishing is 4-5 times higher than for large-scale fishing, and the number of fishers employed per $ 1 million investment in fishing vessels is at least 100 times higher in small-scale than in large-scale fisheries (Pauly, 1997; 2006a). An investigation is needed to determine the extent to which SSF catches are included in the national statistics of landings within the exclusive economic zone. Three scenarios are possible, i.e., that all, none or a portion of SSF catches have already been included in the annual statistics. Table 5 shows that the contribution of SSF catches ranges from 28 %, in case none of the estimated SSF catches is currently included in the total landings, to 39 % when all have been included. Using the mid-point (50 % inclusion), it could be hypothesized that between one quarter to one third of global marine fisheries catches comes from SSF (Table 5). Table 5. Estimates of the contribution of small-scale fisheries catches to global landings according to three possible scenarios.  Scenario Assumption Global Landings (million t) % SSF catches 1 All small-scale fisheries catches are included in national landings 64 33 2 None of the small-scale fisheries catches are included in national landings 85 25 3 Half of small-scale fisheries catches are included in national landings 77 27  Discussion 14 Detailed rules will have to be devised to infer whether SSF catches are included in the FAO catches of different countries. For countries known to report ‘zero catches’ in SSF, our estimates should be added to FAO catches, since small scale fishing occurs in all maritime countries, whether or not government officials went to the beaches to record their catches. On the other hand, in cases where SSF catches are roughly equal to the non-identified catches (e.g., the frequently reported ‘miscellaneous’ or ‘other species’), then they might have been included in the FAO statistics. Furthermore, some countries do not report catches of boats below a certain size. In most cases, the entire estimate of the small-scale catch of these countries will have to be added to the FAO-based global catch estimates for marine fisheries. Regional analysis of SSF can provide insightful information for policy making. The estimates reported here show that the majority of fishers and catches are from M-HDI countries. Among these, 55 % of fishers are from the Asia-Pacific region, contributing about 47 % of catches (Table 6). Catch per fisher ratio for these countries are lowest at 1.4 t per year. Dealing with the implications of such large number requires further work. Table 6. Regional breakdown of SSF catches and fishers  in medium HDI countries  Region # Fishers (million) Catches (million t) # Countries Africa 0.59 1.44 20 America/Caribbean 1.02 1.95 22 Asia/Pacific 4.81 5.64 17 Europe/Near East 2.30 3.07 17 Total 8.72 12.10 76 WOMEN IN FISHERIES Traditional participation Contrary to widespread belief, the participation of women and children in global fisheries extends far beyond the realm of processing and marketing. Many take active roles in catching fish and coastal invertebrates, in addition to contributing directly to fisheries as workers, organizers and managers in fishing based households (Neis, 2005). In some sectors, women and children are responsible for the majority of the catch, e.g., reef gleaning in Southeast Asia and the Pacific (Chapman, 1987), gathering of estuarine bivalves and other invertebrates in West and East Africa (Williams, 2002) and in South and Central America (Gammage, 2004). Including these catches will not only add substantially to the reported quantities, but also highlight a protein and income source so far largely neglected in accounts of the coastal economies. Women’s contributions in SSF include their participation in fishing, the gleaning of molluscs and crustaceans, marketing, bait preparation, gear maintenance, gathering and cultivating seaweed and algae, and fish processing, i.e., filleting, smoking, salting and/or drying (ICSF, 2002a). Women play critical roles in both traditional and emerging fisheries. They have been integral in shaping well-established systems of customary governance as well as developing new networks to address changing circumstances. Women’s traditional participation in fishing has been noted in many countries. For example, in 1987, total fish yield supplied by female fishers in the Gulf of Papua New Guinea accounted for 25 to 50 % of total yield (Kronen, 2002). In Samoa, approximately 18 % of all village fishers are female. These women contribute around 23 % of the total weight of seafood. Because women collect the majority of marine bivalves and other invertebrates in Samoa, it is estimated that they provide 20 % of the per capita seafood consumption of 71 kg per year, consisting of 44 kg of fresh fish, 13 kg of invertebrates and seaweed, and 14 kg of canned fish (Lambeth, 2001). In Tonga, women catch finfish as well as shellfish, and their gear choices are largely determined by access and availability, as opposed to gender taboos, since women and men have similar fishing skills and ecological knowledge (Kronen and Vunisea, 2005). Many factors influence traditional participation of women in fisheries. Working near the shore with minimal gear allows women to balance fishing with other duties and expenses. In the state of Bahia, Brazil, approximately 20,000 women harvest shellfish for sale. This is due to both positive logistical and socio- cultural reasons for their traditional participation in shellfish collection, and negative reasons; women, in Brazil, were forbidden by law to participate in other fisheries. Only collection of shellfish or algae was permissible until 1988, when a Presidential Act abolished the ban on female labour in fisheries. Even without legal constraints, women’s presence onboard a boat is considered bad luck in Brazil (Diegues,  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 15 2002), and in many countries in Central and South America (Gavaldon and Berdugo, 2004). In Germany, while the physical nature of fishing is the most commonly cited barrier for women entering the fisheries sector, it is important to note that the sea-going fishery does not meet the social aspirations of most women (European Commission, 2002). In Brazil, the situation has changed notably in recent years and, in several states of the North and the Northeast, women work with their families in small-scale fishing (Diegues, 2002). Socio-economic hardship in coastal areas has also been linked to women’s increasing participation in fish capture in several countries in Africa and other regions of the world (Williams et al., 2005). New roles and emerging markets Even in countries where women’s participation in fishing is not traditional, there are areas where women have become active participants. In Bangladesh, fishing was an activity traditionally reserved for Hindu males, with the exception of some widows and older women in the southern part of the country. In 1996, fishing was the second most important occupation outside the agricultural sector, yet only 3 % of working women fished (Sultana et al., 2002). However, women actively participate in both fishing and in resource management, e.g., in Goakhola Hatiara where about 8 % of women describe themselves as fulltime fishers (but 68 % fish for 5 to 6 hours a day) and 56 % describe themselves as part-time fishers. The remainder fish for subsistence purposes. Women fish with hook and line (88 %), gill net (4 %), cast net (4 %) and traps (4 %) (Sultana et al., 2002). Women’s participation in these fisheries is relatively recent: 56 % of these women have been fishing for less than 10 years, 40 % have fished for more than a decade, and only 4 % have fished for more than 20 years (Sultana et al., 2002). New markets have also allowed women to gain access to coastal resources. Aquaculture has created a demand for shrimp fry and many women, regardless of religion, age and marital status, now catch shrimp fry, e.g., along the coast of Bangladesh. Women and children comprise 80 % of the workforce in shrimp fry collection (Sultana et al., 2002). In addition, commercial prawn (Machrobrachium rosenbergii) farmers created a new market when they sought an alternative to high-priced commercial feed. Women transferred their traditional knowledge of snail collection and snail-breaking, a well-established practice used for duck feed, to supply this new market with inexpensive snail meat (Sultana et al., 2002). Decision-making, resource management and advocacy In addition to their participation in traditional and emerging fisheries, women are increasingly taking positions of leadership in fishing associations. Greek women do not tend to have separate fishing co- operatives, but instead are members of fishers' co-operatives and unions (European Commission, 2002). In Finland, women have also been elected as presidents of fishing cooperatives (European Commission, 2003). In Argentina, several women are active participants in the fishers’ association of Puerto Madryn (Elias et al., 2005) and in the state of Pará, Brazil, over 10 % of registered guild members are women (Diegues, 2002). When ‘colônias’ have admitted women, integration has allowed for a reconsideration of traditional roles and the exchange of new ideas and perspectives. In Brazil, women seeking alternatives to traditional associations like ‘colônias’ have created their own associations and many women hold highly respected positions within them (Diegues, 2002). In Ecuador, women are active members of local co- operatives and hold high positions even at the national level (ICSF, 2002a). In some countries such as Ireland, women’s associations have been well established for decades. In the early 1960s, the association ‘Mna Na Mara’ (Women of the Sea) was created by women to establish contacts and solidarity amongst fishers’ wives. Today, with 130 members, the association addresses pressing fisheries issues (e.g., training, psychological support for families in grief, making information accessible to young people, and addressing safety concerns). One current project involves language courses to help members branch out into an international network (European Commission, 2003). In the Netherlands, ‘VinVis’ was created in 2000 as an independent Dutch network to bring together women who were concerned about fisheries and fishing communities. Members share experiences from diverse fishing trades, discuss the changing roles of fishers’ wives, and take part in public meetings. Members of this network have established an increasing number of contacts with fishers’ wives from other countries in Europe. According to members, because fishers' wives are onshore, they are in a much better position than their husbands to defend the interests of the fishery sector (European Commission, 2002).   Discussion 16 Many cases suggest that women’s concerns are being increasingly recognized. In France, wives of owner- skippers can participate in an official scheme for ‘co-working spouses’ giving them the right to a pension and maternity leave (European Commission, 2003). Interestingly, while many studies focus on equity and gender roles in fisheries in Asia, Africa, South and Central America, and Europe, studies addressing these issues in the USA or Canada are much less common (see, e.g., Neis and Grzetic, 2000). The post harvest sector In addition to the roles some women play in fishing, advocacy, and decision-making, their participation in the post-harvest sector is notable in almost every country. Examination of women’s roles in the post- harvest sector and other shore-based activities is critical for food security, poverty alleviation and sustainable livelihoods of fishing communities at large, as recognized in Cambodia where the post-harvest fisheries sector is very much under-represented in the development policies and plans of most countries. The boundaries between the sector and other economic activities (such as trade, agriculture, transport and credit) are often unclear and this makes it difficult to fit activities in the sector into a clear sectoral framework. But the integration with areas such as women’s affairs, food security, and poverty reduction, makes it especially important as a focus for development. (Department of Fisheries Cambodia, 2004). Cambodia’s Department of Fisheries has recently taken action to support the Cambodian Women in Fisheries Network in order to reverse historical patterns excluding women from decision-making in development initiatives (Matics, 2005). West African examples of fish processors and traders illustrate the importance of women’s roles in (a) the business aspect of SSF and (b) defining the rules of resource access and management. Women are very influential in small scale fishing businesses due to their abilities to influence capture fisheries through the introduction of new technology, credit, financed gear, and encouraging exploitation of certain species. In this sense, women greatly influence capture fisheries in Western Africa even when they do not fish. In fact, according to the ICSF (2002b), in this region, female traders and processors provide the most reliable funding system in existence. Processors and traders in West Africa also reveal women’s contribution to the social and ecological resilience of SSF. For example, in Moree, Ghana, women play major organizational and leadership roles, both within the community and in satellite fishing communities where fishers migrate. According to Marquette et al. (2002), “resilient institutions for fishery management exist locally and are exported and recreated in migrant communities,” which “refutes the assumption that fishers have open and free access to common property resources.” An elected Moree ‘fish queen’ (as well as the chief of the fishers) represents migrants in relation to the host community and resolves conflicts that arise. Because local (not migrant) women are generally fish traders and sellers; these wholesalers are very important contacts for migrant fishers. Recognizing the leadership roles of women in this complex social system and their contributions to mediating conflict and competition help to explain how migrant fishers and members of host communities develop mutually beneficial relationships. In most cases, the work is economically advantageous for both migrants and locals. In addition, traditional and emerging fisheries management institutions such as these serve to protect coastal resources in Ghana (Marquette et al., 2002). In this case, women’s influential roles could easily be overlooked if researchers are not conscious of informal rules of resource use and dynamic hierarchies of power within groups. Research gaps Frequently, fisheries research fails to acknowledge the many ways in which women “maintain the social, cultural and economic fabric of the fishing community” (ICSF, 2002a). In part, women’s participation in fisheries is not sufficiently recognized because coastal fisheries do not fit neatly into existing categories. For example, in San Felipe, Yucatan (Mexico), members of a women’s fishing cooperative cannot be officially recognized as ‘fishers’ because their primary target species is listed as a community resource not designated for commercialization outside the port (Gavaldon and Berdugo, 2004). Although these women work in a small-scale fishery and sell their harvest as bait in the economically valuable octopus fishery, they are not legally eligible for government assistance (e.g., funding to repair gear or boats destroyed in a hurricane) as are members of men’s fishing cooperatives. Similarly, shellfish collectors in Spain are not well served by official definitions of fishing. ‘Mariscadoras’ collect shellfish on foot along the foreshore and, in Galicia, 90 % of the 5,900 people participating in this fishery are women. In 2001, they collected 6,500 t of shellfish, or the equivalent of 47 million Euros (European Commission 2003). Mariscadoras are well-organized and have worked collectively to develop their fishery around the long-term sustainability of  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 17 coastal resources (Pintos, 2005). However, the fishery is not recognized at the European level because only two sectors are officially listed: fisheries and aquaculture. According to mariscadora Dolores Bermudez, “The mariscadoras belong to neither fisheries nor aquaculture. We are somewhere between the two" (European Commission, 2003). Bermudez notes that approximately 50 % of the women in this fishery are over age 50 and suffer health problems as a result of their work (European Commission, 2003). The lack of attention to the roles that women play means that both positive and negative consequences of their actions are often overlooked. For example, in Tonga, reef gleaners smash corals (with knives, iron poles and hammers) to find shells. They use traditional methods, including poisons from sea cucumbers and plants to stun fish, which may also affect other organisms. In Fiji, women pour bleach, pesticides, and fertilizers into streams to catch freshwater prawns (Matthews, 2002). These practices have not been officially recognized; however, fisheries and conservation department personnel acknowledge serious threats related to women’s destructive fishing practices. These practices may remain undocumented because women’s needs and harvest activities are usually the focus of separate offices and agencies, not integrated into overall fisheries development programs (Matthews, 2002). Several studies do exist, but communication between disciplines is very poor. Thus, “one problem is that most fisheries social science research is descriptive [and] the research style and reporting language of the social scientists do not naturally endear them to fisheries managers” (Johannes et al., 1993). Better communication of research results and greater efforts to utilize research outside the conventional fisheries literature will broaden our understanding of women’s changing roles in global fisheries. As emphasized by Neis and Maneschy (2005), discussion about fisheries should go beyond overfishing and failed management to include issues related to food security, occupational health, social equality and human rights, as well as trade liberalization, all of which link closely with gender. In short, learning the many aspects about women in fisheries and integrating gender in the discussion about fisheries and globalization is essential to address today’s fisheries crises (see example in Neis et al, 2005). POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND NEXT STEPS Information about the number of small-scale fishers and their catches reveals the social and economic importance of this sector. These estimates suggest a high level of dependency of millions of people on fisheries resources for millions of people. Another important factor is that income generated from this sector is likely to stay at the local level, and contribute to local well-being (Sen, 1999). All of these issues need to be taken into consideration when developing fisheries policies. Further, it should be noted that small-scale fishers are highly vulnerable to policy decisions, given that the majority of them are from countries with a medium and low HDI. Careful assessment of social and economic ramifications of fisheries policies is required to support and sustain livelihoods of these fishers. The SSF database presented here was developed to enable more systematic data collection and to provide a framework to assess the importance of SSF relative to global fisheries. It aims to encourage data sharing and to enhance knowledge about those aspects of SSF that can be analyzed comparatively. Aside from this report, where most of the content of the database is presented (see Appendices A and B), this database will be made available (from January 2007) as a component of the Sea Around Us Project website (www.searoundus.org). In the process, features not explicitly dealt with here, e.g., the species composition of the catches, and their market values will be added progressively. Also, fields such as the fraction of SSF catches included in fisheries statistics will be filled in for all countries, and the number of countries with estimated catches and/or related statistics will be reduced. One result is that the assumptions made for filling the gaps in this database, and their underlying assumption of homogeneity, will become less important as the more empirical, country-specific data are entered. Therefore, we urge interested colleagues to alert us of quantitative data on catches, and related statistics that could be used to complement or correct the entries in this database. More importantly, by putting information about SSF in a widely accessible website, we hope to encourage a debate and data exchange about a hitherto marginal sector of the fisheries. Finally, the database, as part of the Sea Around Us Project website will evolve to contain data types not previously discussed, of which we see the following three as the most important: 1. Presently, the data entered cover the 1990s to 2000s. This will be complemented, for each country, by catch and related record (or estimates) pertaining, for each country, to the  Discussion 18 1960s/1970s and the post-WWII/1950s periods, thus enabling trends (e.g., of catch/fisher) to be established; 2. Fisher and vessel numbers will be jointly used to derive a measure of small-scale fishing effort in ‘Horsepower-days’, as used elsewhere by the Sea Around Us Project. This will involve completing the occasional boat descriptions in the ‘Definition’ and ‘Remarks’ fields, converting boat length to engine power using empirical relationships, and adding to the estimated cumulative horsepower of the engines, where appropriate, the muscle power of the fishers themselves; and 3. Presently, only one ‘Remark’ field is provided to capture information typically collected by social scientists. In the spirit of the invitation in Pauly (2006b), the Sea Around Us Project will provide more on request by social scientists who consider this database a suitable vehicle for structured qualitative data, and perhaps also photos and papers in PDF format, on the world’s small-scale fisheries.    Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 19 REFERENCES Asian Development Bank, 2000. The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacific Island Countries [accessed through www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Contribution_Fisheries_Pacific_Economies]. Butcher, J.G., 2004. The Closing of the Frontier: A History of the Marine Fisheries of Southeast Asia c. 1850-2000. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore. Chapman, M.D., 1987. Women’s fishing in Oceania. Human Ecol. 15(3), 267-288. Chuenpagdee, R., Morgan, L.E., Maxwell, S.M., Norse, E.A., Pauly, D., 2003. Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in the U.S. waters. Frontiers Ecol. Environ. 10(1), 517-524. Chuenpagdee, R., Pauly, D. (in press). Small is beautiful? A database approach for global assessment of small-scale fisheries: preliminary results and hypotheses. In: The Fourth World Fisheries Congress Conference Proceedings, Vancouver, Canada. May 2-6, 2004, pp. 587-595. The American Fisheries Society. Diegues, A.C., 2002. Sea Tenure, Traditional Knowledge and Management Among Brazilian Artisanal Fishermen. NUPAUB. Research Center on Population and Wetlands. University of Sao Paulo. CARICOM, 2004. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism. Profile: Antigua Barbuda [accessed through www.caricom- fisheries.com/members/antigua.asp]. Cambodia Department of Fisheries, 2004. Post-Harvest Fisheries and Poverty in Cambodia. The Cambodia Post-Harvest Fisheries Livelihoods Project [accessed through www.ex.ac.uk/imm/Cambodia%20policy%20%20PH%20flyer%202004.pdf]. Croatia Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2004. Chapter 8: Fisheries Legislation. p. 1-39. [accessed through www.vlada.hr/sakoni/mei/Ch08/Ch08.pdf]. Des Rochers, K., 2002. Introduction. In: Secretariat of the Pacific Community Women in Fisheries Information Bulletin, No 11, pp. 1- 2. European Commission, 2002. Summary of the report The Role of Women in Fisheries, a condensed version of the study The Role of Women in Fisheries. DG Fisheries, European Commission. MacAlister Elliott and Partners, Ltd. European Commission, 2003. Women in fisheries: an unnoticed role. Fishing in Europe (July) No. 17. Directorate-General for Fisheries of the European Commission, Brussels. FAO, 2005. Increasing the Contribution of Small-Scale Fisheries to Poverty Alleviation and Food Security. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries. No. 10. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Gammage, S., 2004. The tattered net of statistics. In: Kumar, K.G. (ed.), Gender Agenda – Women in Fisheries: a Collection of Articles from SAMUDRA Report. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF). India, pp. 36-40. Gavaldon, A., Berdugo, J., 2004. Gender relations in a coastal village of Yucatan, Mexico. Paper presented at the International Congress Society for Human Ecology: Tourism, Travel and Transport. Session: Gender and fisheries, within livelihoods, towards sustainability. Huitric, M., 2005. Lobster and conch fisheries of Belize: a history of sequential exploitation. Ecol. Soc. 10 (1), 21. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), 2002a. Gender and Coastal Fishing Communities in Latin America. Workshop proceedings, Prainha do Canto Verde, Ceara, Brazil. 10-15 June, 2000. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, Chennai, India. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), 2002b. Report of the Study on Problems and Prospects of Artisanal Fish Trade in West Africa. Workshop proceedings, Centre Social, Derklé, Dakar, Sénégal 30 May to 1 June 2001. International Collective in Support of Fishworkers; Collectif National des Pecheurs Artisanaux du Senegal (CNPS); Centre de Recherches pour le Developpment des Technologies Intermediairies de Pêche (CREDETIP). International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC), 2004. IPEC Country Profile: El Salvador. International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour accessed through www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/ipec/timebound/salvador.pdf. Jackson, J.B., Kirby, M.X., Berger, W.H., Bjorndal, K.A., Rotsford, L.W., Bourque, B.J., Cooke, R., Estes, J.A., Hughes, T.P., Kidwell, S., Lange, C.B., Lenihan, H.S., Pandolfi, J.M., Peterson, C.H., Steneck, R.S., Tegner, M.J., Warner, R.R., 2001. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293, 629-638. Johannes, R.E., Ruddle, K., Hividing, E., 1993. The Value Today of Traditional Management and Knowledge of Coastal Marine Resources in Oceania. In: Workshop on People Society and Pacific Islands Fisheries Development and Management: Selected Papers. Inshore Fisheries Research Project Technical Document No. 5, SPC. Kronen, M., 2002. Socioeconomic status of fisherwomen. In: Secretariat of Pacific Communities Women in Fisheries Bulletin Number 11. Kronen, M., Vunisea, A., 2005. Women in two Pacific island fisheries and aquaculture. In: Williams, S.B., Hotchet-Kibongui, A., Nauen, C. (eds.), Gender Fisheries and Aquaculture: Social Capital and Knowledge for the Transition to Sustainable Use of Aquatic Ecosystems. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report Number 16. Brussels, pp. 13. Lankester, K., 2002. The EU-Angola Fisheries Agreement and Fisheries in Angola [accessed through www.panda.org/downloads/marine/Angola_Fishing_brief.doc].  References 20 Lambeth, L., 2001. Secretariat of the Pacific Communities Women in Fisheries Information Bulletin. Number 8, 2-13. Longhurst, A., Pauly, D., 1987. Ecology of Tropical Oceans. Academic Press, San Diego. Luna, C., Silvestre, G., Green, S., Carreon, M., White, A., 2004. Profiling the status of Philippines marine fisheries: a general introduction and overview. In: Department of Agriculture – Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (eds.), In Turbulent Seas: the Status of Philippines Marine Fisheries. Coastal Resource Management Project, Cebu City, Philippines. Marquette, C.M., Koranteng, K.A., Overå, R., Bortei-Doku Aryeetey, E., 2002. Small-scale fisheries, population dynamics, and resource use in Africa: The case of Moree, Ghana. Ambio 31(4). Matics, K.I., 2005. Gender in fisheries and aquaculture: Initiatives in the Mekong Region. In: Williams, S.B., Hotchet-Kibongui, A., Nauen, C. (eds.), Gender fisheries and aquaculture: Social capital and knowledge for the transition to sustainable use of aquatic ecosystems. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report Number 16. Brussels, pp. 16-17. Mathew, S., 2002. Small-scale fisheries management in India: need for a paradigm shift. In: Seilert, H.E.W. (ed.), Interactive Mechanisms for Small-scale Fisheries Management. Report of the Regional Consultation. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2002/10. Matthews, E., 2002. Integrating women’s subsistence fishing into Pacific fisheries and conservation programmes. In: Secretariat of Pacific Communities Women in Fisheries Bulletin Number 11, pp. 13-15. Myers, R.A., Worm, B., 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423, 280-283. Neis, B., 2005. Introduction. In: Neis, B, Binkley, M., Gerrard, S., Cristina, M. (eds.), Changing Tides: Gender, Fisheries and Globalization. Fernwood Publishing, Nova Scotia, pp. 1-13. Neis, B, Binkley, M., Gerrard, S., Cristina, M. (eds.), 2005. Changing Tides: Gender, Fisheries and Globalization. Fernwood Publishing, Nova Scotia. Neis, B., Grzetic, B., 2000. From Fishplant to Nickle Mining: Policy Implications, Policy Development, and the Determinants of Women’s Health in an Environment of Work Restructuring within Fisheries and from Fisheries to Mining/smelting in Newfoundland, St. John’s, Memorial University of Newfoundland. Neis, B., Maneschy, M.C., 2005. Moving forward. In: Neis, B, Binkley, M., Gerrard, S., Cristina, M. (eds.), Changing Tides: Gender, Fisheries and Globalization. Fernwood Publishing, Nova Scotia, pp. 245-257. NOAA, 2004. ETOPO2-2Minute Gridded Relief Data [accessed through www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/fliers/01mgg04.html]. Pauly, D., 1982. History and present status of the fisheries. In: Pauly, D., Mines, A.N. (eds.), Small-scale Fisheries of San Miguel Bay, Philippines: Biology and Stock Assessment. ICLARM Technical Report 7, pp. 95-124. International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Pauly, D., 2006a. Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with emphasis on developing countries, and some implications for the social sciences. Maritime Studies (MAST) 4(2), 7-22. Pauly, D., 1997. Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality, marginalization and some implications for fisheries management. In: Pikitch, E.K., Huppert, D.D., Sissenwine, M.P. (eds.), Global Trends: Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society Symposium 20, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 40-49. Pauly, D., 2006b. Rejoinder: towards consilience in small-scale fisheries research. Maritime Studies (MAST) 4(2), 47-51. Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., Torres Jr., F.C., 1998. Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279, 860-863. Pauly, D., Maclean, J., 2003. In A Perfect Ocean. Washington, D.C: Island Press. Pintos, B.M., 2005. Galician women change strategy. In: Williams, S.B., Hotchet-Kibongui, A., Nauen, C. (eds.), Gender fisheries and aquaculture: Social capital and knowledge for the transition to sustainable use of aquatic ecosystems. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report No. 16., pp. 16-17. Brussels. Saeger, J., 1993. The Samar Sea: a decade of devastation. NAGA, the ICLARM Quarterly 16(4), 4-6. International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Sen, A., 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press, U.K. Smith, I., 1979. A Research Framework for Traditional Fisheries. ICLARM Studies and Reviews 2. International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Sokal, R.R., Rohlf, F.J., 1995. Biometry: the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 3rd edition. W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, USA. Sultana, P., Thompson, P.M., Ahmed, M., 2002. Women-led Fisheries Management: A Case Study from Bangladesh. Global Symposium on Women in Fisheries [accessed through www.worldfishcenter.org/Pubs/Wif/wifglobal/wifg_asia_bangladesh_study.pdf]. Sumaila, U.R., Marsden, D., Watson, R., Pauly, D., 2005. Global ex-vessel fish price database: construction, spatial and temporal applications. Fisheries Centre Working Paper #2005-01. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada. Sumaila, U.R., Pauly, D. (eds.), 2006. Catching more bait: a bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(6). Fisheries Centre, the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 21 Thompson, D., FAO, 1988. The world’s two marine fishing industries – how they compare. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly 11(3), 17. International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. UNDP, 2000. Human Development Report 2000. United Nations Development Programme. Oxford University Press, New York. Vakily, M., 1993. Dynamite fishing in Sierra Leone. NAGA, the ICLARM Quarterly. 16(4), 7-9. International Centre for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Manila, Philippines. Williams, S.B., 2002. Making each and every African fisher count: women do fish. In: Proceedings of the Global Symposium on Women in Fisheries, pp. 145-154. WorldFish Center, Penang, Malaysia. Williams, S.B., Hotchet-Kibongui, A., Nauen, C., 2005. Gender fisheries and aquaculture: social capital and knowledge for the transition to sustainable use of aquatic ecosystems. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Report Number 16. European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. World Bank, 1991. Small-Scale Fisheries: Research Needs, World Bank Technical Paper Number 152, Fisheries Series, World Bank Publications, Washington DC. World Resources Institute (WRI), 2003. How important is small-scale fishing? Chapter 5. In: Fishing for Answers: Making Sense of the Global Fish Crisis [accessed through pdf.wri.org/fishanswer_chapter05.pdf]. World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA. World Trade Organization, 2004. Trade Policy Review Ecuador, p. 14-25 [accessed through www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/s148-2_e.doc]. Zeller, D., Booth, S., Craig, P., Pauly, D., 2006. Reconstruction of coral reef fisheries catches in American Samoa, 1950 – 2002. Coral Reefs 25, 144-152. Zeller, D., Booth, S., Pauly, D. 2005. Reconstruction of coral reef- and bottom fisheries catches for U.S. Flag Islands in the Western Pacific, 1950-2002. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, Honolulu.   Appendix A 22 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: COUNTRY SUMMARIES OF THE SMALL-SCALE FISHERIES DATABASE AS OF SEPTEMBER 2006.      Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 23      Appendix A 24     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 25      Appendix A 26      Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 27      Appendix A 28      Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 29     Appendix A 30     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 31     Appendix A 32     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 33     Appendix A 34     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 35     Appendix A 36     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 37     Appendix A 38     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 39     Appendix A 40     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 41     Appendix A 42       Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 43      Appendix A 44     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 45     Appendix A 46     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 47     Appendix A 48     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 49     Appendix A 50     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 51     Appendix A 52     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 53     Appendix A 54     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 55     Appendix A 56     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 57     Appendix A 58     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 59     Appendix A 60     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 61     Appendix A 62     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 63     Appendix A 64     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 65     Appendix A 66     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 67     Appendix A 68     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 69     Appendix A 70     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 71     Appendix A 72     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 73     Appendix A 74     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 75     Appendix A 76     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 77     Appendix A 78     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 79     Appendix A 80     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 81     Appendix A 82     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 83     Appendix A 84     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 85     Appendix A 86     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 87     Appendix A 88     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 89     Appendix A 90     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 91     Appendix A 92     Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 93     Appendix B 94 APPENDIX B: REFERENCES USED IN APPENDIX A  1 Abdoulhalik, M.F., 1996. Marine Science Country Profiles for Comores. Report prepared for IOC/UNESCO and WIOMSA. 2 Abdulqader, E.A.A., 2001. The GCC Spanish mackerel fisheries monitoring program. In: Goddard, S., Al-Oufi, H., McIlwain J., Claereboudt, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Fisheries, Aquaculture and Environment in the NW Indian Ocean, Sultanate of Oman, pp. 49-55 [www.squ.edu.om/agr/depts/msf/reports/procConf/]. 3 Abu Talib, A., Alias, M., 1997. Status of Fisheries in Malaysia- An Overview. In: Silvestre, G., Pauly, D. (eds), Status and Management of Tropical Coastal Fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 53. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines, pp. 47-61. 4 ADB 1999. Fiji. The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacific Island Countries. Asian Development Bank [www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Contribution_Fisheries_Pacific_Economies] 5 ADB 2002. Appendix 2: Papua New Guinea. The Contribution of Fisheries to the Economies of Pacific Island Countries. Asian Development Bank [www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Contribution_Fisheries_Pacific_Economies] 6 Alarcón Urbistondo, J.A. 2000. Inventario de la Pesca Artesanal en España Mediterránea. FAO, COPEMED, Instituto Espanol de Oceanografia 7 Amorim, P., Duarte, G., Guerra, M. Morato, T., Stobberup, K.A. 2004. Preliminary Ecopath model of the Guinea-Bissau continental shelf ecosystem (NW Africa). In: Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D. (eds.), West African Marine Ecosystems Fisheries Centre Research Reports 12(7), pp. 95-112. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada [www.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/reports/report12_7.php]. 8 Anon 2003. Fish and the fishing industry in peril. Editor's Desk, Tierramérica [www.tierramerica.net/2003/0922/]. 9 Anon 2003. Modernization programme for the fish industry. Eurofish Magazine, Issue 2 / 2003, April [www.globefish.org/]. 10 Anon 2005. Artisanal fisheries promoted in Angola. Afrol News [www.afrol.com/articles/]. 11 ASEAN 2005. Country profile - Brunei. Fisheries potential. Fisheries Dept, Brunei Darussalam [www.aseanindia.net]. 12 Bah, T.S. 2001. Incursions by industrial trawlers into Guinea's coastal zone at last a sigh of relief from the small-scale fishers of Bongolon. RTG - Conakry, Guinea [www.sflp.org/eng/007/pub1/103.htm]. 13 Baldeo, R., (in prep.). Profile of coastal fisheries from Latin America and the Caribbean – Grenada. In: Salas, S. Chuenpagdee, R., Seijo, J.C., and Charles, A. (eds.), Coastal Fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean: A synthesis of fisheries, assessment, and management. 14 Barut, N.C., Santos, M.D., Garces, L.R. 1997. Overview of Philippine Marine Fisheries. In: Silvestre, G., Pauly, D. (eds.), Status and Management of Tropical Coastal Fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 53, pp. 62-71. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines. 15 Bennett, E. 2001. The challenges of managing small-scale fisheries in West Africa. Analytical Appendix 2, Final Technical Report, The Management of Conflict in Tropical Fisheries, CEMARE R7334 [www.fmsp.org.uk].  16 Berachi, I.G. 2003. Bioeconomic Analysis of Artisanal Marine Fisheries of Tanzania (Mainland). Masters thesis. University of Tromso, Norway [www.nfh.uit.no/dok/IFM/thesis/isaac2003.pdf]. 355 Burke, L., Maidens, J., 2004. Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean. World Resources Institute, USA [pdf.wri.org/reefs_caribbean_full.pdf]. 17 Cahill, M., Martland, S. 1993. Women in the Newfoundland fishery. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ottawa (Canada), 28 p. 18 California Department of Fish and Game 2004. Status of the California Sheephead Stock for 2004. California Department of Fish and Game [www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd]. 22/23 CARICOM 2005. [www.caricom-fisheries.com]. 19 CARICOM, 1999. Dominica. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism [www.caricom- fisheries.com/members/dominica.asp; NOTE : website was accessed in 2004 and has been updated since estimates were made]. 20 CARICOM, 2001. St. Kitts and Nevis [www.caricom-fisheries.com/members/stkitts.asp]; St. Lucia [www.caricom-fisheries.com/members/stlucia.asp]; St. Vincent [www.caricom- fisheries.com/members/stvincent.asp]. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (NOTE : websites were accessed in 2004 and has been updated since estimates were made). 21 CARICOM, 2002. Guyana [www.caricom-fisheries.com/members/guyana.asp]. Caribbean Regional Fisheries  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 95 Mechanism (NOTE : websites were accessed in 2004 and has been updated since estimates were made). 29 CARICOM, 2005. EU/Caribbean ACP States Cooperation in Fisheries. Prepared for the Workshop on the Future of the EU-ACP Countries Fisheries Relations, Brussels, Belgium April 7-9, 2003. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism, Belize [www.cta.int/events2003/fisheries/Haughton-EN.doc]. 25 Castillo, A., Lessios, H. A. 2001. Lobster fishery by the Kuna Indians in the San Blas region of Panama (Kuna Yala). Crustaceana, 74(5), 459-475. 26 Caton, A., McLoughlin, K. 2005. Fisheries Status Report 2004: Status of Fish Stocks Managed by the Australian Government. Bureau of Rural Sciences. Australian Government, 243 p. [www.affashop.gov.au]. 27 CMFRI ND. Marine Fisheries in India - Socio-economic Profile. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochi, India. 28 CONAPESCA 2001. Anuario Estadístico de Pesca 2001. CONAPESCA/SAGARPA México. 30 De Boucherville Baissac, P. (undated). Country Profile: Mauritius. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association. 31 De Leiva, I., Busuttil, C., Darmanin, M., Camilleri, M. 1998. Artisanal Fisheries in the Western Mediterranean: Malta Fisheries. The Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture of Malta. PROJECT: FAO COPEMED. 32 Defeo, O., Puig, P., (in prepr.). Coastal fisheries profile of Latin America and the Caribbean: Uruguay. In: Salas, S. Chuenpagdee, R., Seijo, J.C., and Charles, A. (eds.), Coastal Fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean: A synthesis of fisheries, assessment, and management. 33 Demba, K. 1999. The Programme: Improvement of post harvest utilisation of artisanal fish catches in West Africa. A forum for exchange and business opportunities for small economic operators. Mars Bulletin 12(1), 19-21 [europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/publications]. 34 Departamento de Comisiones Legislativas 2004. Ley de Pesca Y Acuicultura Informe Sobre la Redacción Final del Texto Aprobado en Primer Debate. 5 de agosto de 2004. Expediente Nº 15.065. Segunda  Legislatura (Del 1° de mayo de 2003 al 30 de abril de 2004 Primer Período De Sesiones Extraordinarias (Del 1° al 31 de agosto de 2004) Departamento de Comisiones Legislativas Comisión Permanente Especial de Redacción la Asamblea Legislativa de la República de Costa Rica [www.internationalwildlifelaw.org/ley_pesca_primer_debate.pdf]. 35 DFO, 2002. Fisheries Statistics 2002. Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 36 Diegues, A.C. 2002. Sea Tenure, Traditional Knowledge and Management Among Brazilian Artisanal Fishermen. NUPAUB. Research Center on Population and Wetlands. Sao Paulo [www.usp.br/nupaub/english/icsfoct.doc]. 37 Directorate of Fisheries Policies, 2001. Albania Fishing Fleet preliminary analysis (2001) Tirana 17-23, Nov. 2001. Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration, Albania [www.dfishery.gov.al/Statistical%20analysis1.pdf].  38 EarthTrends, 2003. Coastal and Marine Ecosystems: Lebanon. EarthTrends Country Profiles [earthtrends.wri.org].  41 Egypt State Information Service, 1995. Summary: the Mediterranean sea forum. In: Proceedings of the Barcelona Conference of November 1995. 42 Elías I., Carozza, C., Di Giácomo E.E, Isla, M.S., Orensanz, J.M., Parma, A.M., Pereiro, R.C., Perier, M.R., Perrotta, R.G., Ré, M.E., Ruarte, C., (in prep.). Profile of Coastal Fisheries from Latin American and the Caribbean - Argentina. In: Salas, S. Chuenpagdee, R., Seijo, J.C., and Charles, A. (eds.), Coastal Fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean: A synthesis of fisheries, assessment, and management. 40 European Commission, 2003. Women in Fisheries: An Unnoticed Role. Fishing in Europe No. 17 (July). Directorate-General for Fisheries of the European Commission, Brussels [ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/magaz/fishing/mag17_en.pdf]. 45 FAO 1993. FAO Country Profile: Israel. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 46 FAO 1994. FAO Country Profile: Sao Tome and Principe. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 47 FAO 1995. FAO Country Profile: Maldives. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 48 FAO 1997. FAO Country Profile: Gambia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 49 FAO 1997. FAO Country Profile: Germany. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 50 FAO 1997. FAO Country Profile: Guinea Bissau. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 51 FAO 1997. FAO Country Profile: Iraq. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 52 FAO 1997. FAO Country Profile: Mauritania. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 53 FAO 1997. FAO Country Profile: Senegal. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.  Appendix B 96 54 FAO 1998. FAO Country Profile: Bahamas. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 55 FAO 1998. FAO Country Profile: India. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 56 FAO 1998. FAO Country Profile: Indonesia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 57 FAO 1998. FAO Country Profile: Madagascar. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 58 FAO 1998. FAO Country Profile: Oman. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 59 FAO 1998. FAO Country Profile: Poland. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 60 FAO 1998. FAO Country Profile: Portugal. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 61 FAO 1998. FAO Country Profile: Slovenia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 62 FAO 1998. FAO Country Profile: Sri Lanka. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 63 FAO 1998. FAO Country Profile: Sweden. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 64 FAO 1999. FAO Country Profile: Bangladesh. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 65 FAO 1999. FAO Country Profile: Fiji. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 66 FAO 1999. FAO Country Profile: Guatemala. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 67 FAO 1999. FAO Country Profile: Samoa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 68 FAO 1999. FAO Country Profile: Togo. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 69 FAO 1999. FAO Country Profile: Vanuatu. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 70 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Algeria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 71 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Bulgaria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 72 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Congo Republic. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 73 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Dominica. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 74 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Honduras. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 75 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Morocco. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 76 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Namibia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 77 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Netherlands. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 78 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Panama. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 79 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Philippines. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 80 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Qatar. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 81 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Sierra Leone. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 82 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Solomon Islands. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 83 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Spain. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 84 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: St Kitts and Nevis. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 85 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: St Lucia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 86 FAO 2000. FAO Country Profile: Suriname. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 87 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Bahrain. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 88 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Brazil. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 89 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Cape Verde. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 90 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Colombia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 91 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Denmark. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 92 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Djibouti. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 93 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Ecuador. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 94 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Finland. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 97 96 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Guinea Bissau. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 95 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Guinea. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 97 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Jordan. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 98 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Mexico. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 99 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Mozambique. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 100 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Myanmar. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 101 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Nicaragua. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 102 FAO 2001. FAO Country Profile: Ukraine. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 103 FAO 2002. FAO Country Profile: Barbados. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 104 FAO 2002. FAO Country Profile: France. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 105 FAO 2002. FAO Country Profile: Gabon. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 106 FAO 2002. FAO Country Profile: Nicaragua. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 107 FAO 2002. FAO Country Profile: Russian Federation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 108 FAO 2002. FAO Country Profile: Senegal. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 109 FAO 2002. FAO Country Profile: St. Vincent. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 110 FAO 2002. FAO Country Profile: Sudan. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 111 FAO 2002. FAO Country Profile: United Arab Emirates. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 113 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Australia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 114 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Belgium. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 115 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Cuba. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 116 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: El Salvador. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 117 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Equatorial Guinea. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 118 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Ghana. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 119 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Iran. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 120 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Japan. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 121 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Kuwait. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 122 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Latvia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 123 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: New Zealand. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 124 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Saudi Arabia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 125 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Tunisia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 126 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: UK. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 127 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: Ukraine. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 128 FAO 2003. FAO Country Profile: United Arab Emirates. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 112 FAO 2003. Information on Fisheries Management in the United Mexican States. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome [www.fao.org/fi/fcp/en/MEX/body.htm]. 129 FAO 2004. FAO Country Profile: Angola. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 130 FAO 2004. FAO Country Profile: Estonia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 131 FAO 2004. FAO Country Profile: Georgia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 132 FAO 2004. FAO Country Profile: United Kingdom. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.  Appendix B 98 133 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Albania. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 134 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Algeria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 135 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Antigua and Barbuda. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 136 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Argentina. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 137 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Australia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 138 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Bahrain. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 139 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Barbados. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 140 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Belgium. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 141 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Belize. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 142 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Brazil. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 143 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Bulgaria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 144 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Cambodia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 145 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Cameroon. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 146 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Canada. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 147 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: China Main. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 148 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Colombia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 149 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Congo Democratic Rep. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 150 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Congo Republic. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 151 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Costa Rica. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 152 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Côte d'Ivoire. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 153 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Cuba. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 154 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Cyprus. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 155 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Denmark. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 156 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Djibouti. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 157 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Dominica. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 158 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Dominican Republic. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 159 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Ecuador. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 160 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Egypt. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 161 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: El Salvador. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 162 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Equatorial Guinea. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 163 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Eritrea. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 164 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Estonia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 165 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Fiji. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 166 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Finland. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 167 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: France. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 168 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Georgia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 169 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Germany. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 170 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Grenada. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 171 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Guatemala. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 172 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Guyana. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 358 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Haiti. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 99 173 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Honduras. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 174 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Iceland. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 175 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: India. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 176 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Indonesia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 177 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Iran. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 178 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Iraq. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 179 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Ireland. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 180 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Israel. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 181 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Italy. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 182 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Japan. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 183 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Jordan. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 184 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Kenya. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 185 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Korea Republic. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 186 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Kuwait. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 187 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Latvia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 188 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Libya. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 189 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Lithuania. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 190 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Malaysia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 191 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Maldives. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 192 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Mauritius. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 193 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Mexico. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 194 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Mozambique. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 195 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Myanmar. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 196 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Namibia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 197 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Netherlands. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 198 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: New Zealand. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 199 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Nicaragua. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 200 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Nigeria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 201 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Norway. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 202 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Oman. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 203 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Pakistan. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 204 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Panama. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 205 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Papua New Guinea. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 206 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Peru. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 207 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Philippines. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 208 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Poland. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.  209 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Portugal. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 210 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Qatar. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 211 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Romania. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 212 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Russian Federation. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 213 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Samoa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.  Appendix B 100 214 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Sao Tome and Principe. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 215 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Saudi Arabia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 216 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Seychelles. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 217 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Sierra Leone. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 218 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Solomon Islands. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 219 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: South Africa. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 220 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Sri Lanka. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 221 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: St. Kitts and Nevis. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 222 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: St. Lucia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 223 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: St. Vincent. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 224 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Sudan. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 225 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Suriname. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 226 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Sweden. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 227 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Syria. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 228 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Tanzania. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 229 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Togo. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 230 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Trinidad and Tobago. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 231 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Tunisia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 232 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Turkey. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 234 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Ukraine. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 235 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: United Arab Republic. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 233 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: United Kingdom. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 236 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Uruguay. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 237 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Vanuatu. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 238 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Venezuela. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 239 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Viet Nam. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 240 FAO 2005. FAO Country Profile: Yemen. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 241 FAO 2005. Information on Fisheries Management in Jamaica. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 242 Feidi, I., 1998. Fisheries development in the Arab World. In: Albert, J., Bernhardsson, M., Kenna, R. (eds), Transformation of Middle Eastern Natural Environments: Legacies and Lessons. Bulletin Series No. 103, pp. 388-406. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Connecticut [www.yale.edu/environment/publications/bulletin/103pdfs/103feidi.pdf]. 243 FIGIS, 2002. Fisheries Country Profile of Antigua and Barbuda. Country Profile Fact Sheet. Fisheries Global Information System. FIPP October 2001, updated 2002 [www.fao.org/figis/servlet/static?dom=country&xml=fims_ag.xml] 244 Fisheries Department, 2005. General Information. Ministry of Industry and Primary Resources. Government of Brunei Darussalam [www.fisheries.gov.bn/introduction.htm] 349 FMAM, 2003. Aprovechamiento sostenible de la piangua (Anadara tuberculosa y Anadara similis) en el manglar de Purruja, Golfito. Informe de Evaluacion Cualitativa. Programa de Pequeñas Donaciones, Costa Rica [www.nu.or.cr/gef/pdf/periodo-2003/piangua.pdf]. 245 Fong, G., 1994. Case study of traditional marine management system: Sasa village, Macuata Province, Fiji. Field Report 94/1, Forum Fisheries Agency, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Paris.  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 101 246 Frontier-Madagascar, 2003. Fin-fish resource use: artisanal fisheries of Beheloka. Frontier-Madagascar Environmental Research Report 11. Society for Environmental Exploration, UK and the Institute of Marine Sciences, University of Toliara, Madagascar [www.reefbase.org/References/ref_literature.asp?ID=21513&searchactive=yes&Submit=search]. 247 Green, S., White, A., Flores, J.Carreon III, M., Asuncion, S., 2003. Philippine Fisheries in Crisis: A Framework for Management. Coastal Resource Management Project of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Cebu City, Philippines, 77 pp. [pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNACU789.pdf] 248 Guerra, A., Marín, G., 2002. Biology and fishery of the lebranche, Mugil liza, in the Unare Lagoon, Anzoategui State, Venezuela. Zootecnia Tropical, 20(3), 287-305. 249 Habteyonas, M.Z., Scrimgeour, F. 2003. An economic analysis of artisanal fisheries in Eritrea: identifying the constraints. In: Proceedings of the New Zealand Association of Economists Conference. 25-27 June 2003 [www.nzae.org.nz/conferences/2003/34-SCRIMGEOUR-report.DOC]. 250 Hap, N., Seng, L., Chuenpagdee, R. 2006. Synopsis on Socioeconomics and Livelihood Values of Tonlé Sap Lake Fisheries. Inland Fisheries Research and Development Institute (IFREDI), Phnom Penh, Cambodia [www.ifredi.org]. 251 Herrera, A., Betancourt, L., Silva, M., Lamelas, P., Melo, A., (in prep.). Coastal Fisheries Profile of Latin America and the Caribbean: Dominican Republic. In: Salas, S. Chuenpagdee, R., Seijo, J.C., and Charles, A. (eds.), Coastal Fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean: A synthesis of fisheries, assessment, and management. 252 Herrera-Ulloa, A., Oro-Marcos, G., (in prep.). Coastal Fisheries Profile of Latin America and the Caribbean: Costa Rica. In: Salas, S. Chuenpagdee, R., Seijo, J.C., and Charles, A. (eds.), Coastal Fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean: A synthesis of fisheries, assessment, and management. 253 ICM 2005. Lebanon. National ICM Profiles. Integrated Ocean and Coastal Management. The Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands [www.globaloceans.org]. 254 ICSF 2000. Proposals. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Gender and Coastal Fishing Communities in Latin America, Ceara, Brazil, 10 to 15 June 2000, pp. 13-15. International Collective In Support of Fishworkers. 255 Immanuel, S.Pillai, V.N., Vivekanandan, E., Kurup, K.N. and Srinath, M. 2003. A preliminary assessment of the coastal fishery resources in India: socioeconomic and bioeconomic perspective. In: Silvestre, G.T, Garces, L.R., Stobutzki, I., Ahmed, M., Valmonte-Santos, R.A., Luna, C.Z., Lachica-Aliño, L., Munro, P., Christensen, V., Pauly, D. (eds.), Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67, pp. 439-478. 256 INFOFISH 2000. Country profile: Solomon Islands. INFOFISH [www.infofish.org]. 258 INFOFISH 2002. Country Profile: Papua New Guinea. INFOFISH [www.infofish.org]. 259 INFOFISH 2005. Croatian Fishery.. Eurofish. INFORFISH Network [http://www.eurofish.dk/indexSub.php?id=3100]. 257 INFOFISH, 2002. Country Profile: Pakistan. INFOFISH [www.infofish.org]. 260 INFOPECHE, 1999. Country Profile: Gambia. INFOPECHE [www.globefish.org/]. 261 INFOPECHE, 1999. Country Profile: Ghana. INFOPECHE  [www.globefish.org/]. 262 INFOPECHE, 2002. Country Profile: Eritrea. INFOPECHE  [www.globefish.org/]. 263 INFOPECHE, 2005. Country Profile: Guinea-Bissau. INFOPECHE  [www.globefish.org/].  264 Information Services Department, 2005. Hong Kong: The Facts. Agriculture and Fisheries. Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government [www.info.gov.hk/hkfacts/afd-e.pdf]. 265 INFOSAMAK, 1997. Republic of Iraq: Fisheries Data. Centre for Marketing Information & Advisory Services For Fishery Products in the Arab Region [www.infosamak.org/english/]. 266 INFOSAMAK, 1998. Republic of Iraq: Fisheries Data. Centre for Marketing Information & Advisory Services For Fishery Products in the Arab Region [www.infosamak.org/english/]. 267 INFOSAMAK, 2005. Country Profile: Algeria. Centre for Marketing Information & Advisory Services For Fishery Products in the Arab Region [www.infosamak.org/english/]. 268 INFOSAMAK, 2005. Country Profile: Bahrain. Centre for Marketing Information & Advisory Services For Fishery Products in the Arab Region [www.infosamak.org/english/]. 269 Institute of Island Studies, 2003. Artisanal fisheries: the importance of advancing interdisciplinary research into small scale, inshore and riverine fisheries. University of Prince Edward Island [www.upei.ca/islandstudies/pacific/importan.htm] 270 IPEC, 2001. Country Profile: El Salvador. Time Bound Programmes. International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour [www.ilo.org/public/english/standards/ipec/themes/timebound/downloads/salvador.pdf]. 271/272/273 IPFC, 1994. Socio economic issues in coastal fisheries management. Proceedings of the IPFC Symposium held in conjunction with the Twenty-fourth Session of IPFC, Bangkok, Thailand, November 23-26 1993. RAPA  Appendix B 102 Publication: 1994/8. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAPA), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok. 274 Islam, Md. Shahidul, 2003. Perspectives of the coastal and marine fisheries of the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh. Ocean and Coastal Management 46(8), 763-796. 275 Iwakiri, S., 1983. Mataqali of the sea: a study of the customary right on reef and lagoon in Fiji, the South Pacific. Kagoshima University, Kagoshima. 277 Jalil Álvarez, A. 2003. Estudio sobre el Impacto Socioeconómico de la Pesca Artesanal en los Estados Miembros de la Comisión Permanente del Pacífico. Comision Permanente del Pacifico Sur (CPPS) Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Peru. 276 JICA, 2002. Dominican Republic: Small-scale fishery development plan in the Samana Area. In: Annual Evaluation Report 2002, Chapter 3. Terminal Evaluation, Section IV. Latin America and the Caribbean. Japan International Cooperation Agency, pp. 302-303 [www.jica.go.jp/english/evaluation/reports/pdf/2002_0156.pdf]. 279 Johnsen, J.P. 2002. "Fiskeren fra veidemann til "advokat". In: Almås, R., Haugen, M.S., Johnsen, J.P. (red.), Bygdeforskning gjennom 20 år. Trondhei: Tapir Akademisk Forlag, pp. 91-109. 278/280 Jovel, R., 2005. Final Report. El Salvador: Gender Country Profile. Japan International Cooperation Agency [http://www.jica.go.jp/global/genwid/report/pdf/e04els.pdf].  281 Karlsdóttir, A., 2005. Iceland. In: Sloan, L. (ed.), Women's participation in decision making processes in Arctic fisheries resource management. Forlaget Nora, Norway, pp. 61-79 [www.nali.gl/2005/docs/]. 282 Kaymaram, F., Rostami, D. 1995. Forecasting and Management of Artisanal Tuna Fisheries in Iranian Waters by Use of Time Series. Iranian Fisheries Research and Training Organisation [www.iotc.org/files/proceedings/1995/ec/IOTC-1995-EC602-08.pdf]. 283 Khan, M.G., Alamgir, M., Sada, M.N. 1997. The coastal fisheries of Bangladesh. In: Silvestre, G.T, Garces, L.R., Stobutzki, I., Ahmed, M., Valmonte-Santos, R.A., Luna, C.Z., Lachica-Aliño, L., Munro, P., Christensen, V., Pauly, D. (eds.), Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67, pp. 63-82. 284 Khan, S. M., Haqu, M.S. 2003. A socioeconomic and bioeconomic analysis of coastal fisheries of Bangladesh. In: Silvestre, G.T, Garces, L.R., Stobutzki, I., Ahmed, M., Valmonte-Santos, R.A., Luna, C.Z., Lachica-Aliño, L., Munro, P., Christensen, V., Pauly, D. (eds.), Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67, pp. 387-438.  285 Kinch, J., Bagita, J. 2003. Women in fisheries in Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea: Past initiatives, present situation and future possibilities. SPC Women in Fisheries Information Bulletin #12 (May 2003), pp. 32-37 [http://www.spc.int/coastfish/News/WIF/WIF12/Kinch.pdf]. 286 Kong, A. 2004. The Consideration of Socio-Economic and Demographic Concerns in Fisheries and Coastal Area Management and Planning in Jamaica. A caste study. Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism, (August 2004). 287 Kunatuba, P. 1983. A report on the traditional fisheries of Fiji. Institute of Marine Resources Technical Report, Suva. 354 Kura, Y., Revenga, C., Hoshino, E., Mock, G. 2004. How important is small-scale fishing? In: Chapter 5: Fishing for Answers: Making Sense of the Global Fish Crisis. World Resources Institute, USA, pp. 35-42 [pdf.wri.org/fishanswer_fulltext.pdf]. 288 Kyprianou, H. 2001. Bibliography on Gender and Fisheries(1990-2001). FAO Fisheries Department [http://mujeres.infopesca.org/pdf/art006.PDF]. 289 Lambeth, L., Hanchard, B., Aslin, H., Fay-Sauni, L. Tuara, P., Rochers, K.D., Vunisea, A., 2001. An Overview of the Involvement of Women in Fisheries Activities in Oceania.  290 Lamboef, M., Abdallah, A.B., Amer, A., Turki, A., El-Gushti, A., Fituri, A. El-Srif, E., Shugman, E., Ghebli, H., Coppola, R., Germoni, A., Spinelli, M,. 1994. Artisanal Fisheries in Libya: Census of Fishing Vessels and Inventory of Artisanal Fishing. FAO COPEMED MBRC, pp. 7-34. 291 Lankester 2002. The EU-Angola Fisheries Agreement and Fisheries in Angola. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 292 Lawrence, M., Mohiddin, H. 2004. Djibouti Livelihood Profiles. USAID FEWS NET Project. 293 Lee, J.R. 2005. Trade and Environment Database (TED): Africa Cases. The Mandala Project, School of International Studies, American University, Washington DC. 294 Linden, O., Lundin, C.J., 1996. Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Tanzania. Proceedings of the National Workshop, May 1995, Zanzibar. The World Bank and SIDA-SAREC, Stockholm. 295 Linton, D., Smith, R. Alcolado, P., Hanson, C., Edwards, P., Estrada, R., Fisher, T., Fernandez, R. G., Geraldes, F., Mccoy, C., Vaughan, D., Voegeli, V., Warner, G., and Wiener, J., 2002. Status of Coral Reefs in the Northern Caribbean and Atlantic Node of the GCRMN. In: Wilkinson, C. (ed.), Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2002. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia, pp. 284-292.  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 103 296 Long, N. 2002. Small-Scale Fisheries Management in Vietnam. In: Seilert, H.E.W. (ed.), Interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management: Report of the regional consultation. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2002/10, pp. 80-84. 39/43 MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd., 2002. Annex V. Country Studies: Denmark. In: The Role of Women in the Fisheries Sector. Final Report 1443/R/03/D. Directorate-General for Fisheries of the European Commission, Brussels [ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/studies/women/]. 44 MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd., 2002. Summary of the report on “The Role of Women in the Fisheries Sector”. Final Report 1443/R/03/D, pp.3-31 [ec.europa.eu/fisheries/publications/studies/women/summary_en.pdf]. 24 Mahon, R., 2002. Adaptation of Fisheries and Fishing Communities to the Impacts of Climate Change in the CARICOM Region.. Prepared for the CARICOM Fisheries Unit, Belize City, Belize, as input to the planning process for the project Mainstreaming Adaptation [www.oas.org/macc/Docs/FisheriesIssues.doc]. 297 Maldeniya, R., 1997. The Coastal Fisheries of Sri Lanka: Resource Exploitation and Management. In: Silvestre, G., Pauly, D. (eds.), Status and Management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 53. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines, pp. 72-84. 298 Mathew, S., 2002. Small-scale Fisheries Management in India: Need for a paradigm shift. In: Seilert, H.E.W. (ed.), Interactive Mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management: Report of the regional consultation. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, pp. 38-41. 299 Mathiesen, C., 2004. Analytical framework for studying fishers’ behaviour and adaptation strategies. In: Myers, H. and Reschny, J. (eds.), Beyond boom and bust in the Circumpolar North. Circumpolar Arctic Social Sciences Ph.D. Network. UBC Press, Prince George [www.ifm.dk/reports/116.pdf]. 300 McConney, P., (in prep.). Coastal Fisheries Profile of Latin America and the Caribbean: Reef fish, pelagic fish and sea urchin coastal fisheries in Barbados. In: Salas, S. Chuenpagdee, R., Seijo, J.C., and Charles, A. (eds.), Coastal Fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean: A synthesis of fisheries, assessment, and management. 301 McConney, P., Mahon, R., Pomeroy, R., 2003. Belize Case Study: Fisheries Advisory Board in the Context of Integrated Coastal Management. Caribbean Conservation Association. 327 McElroy, J.L., Albuquerque, K. de, 1997. Community and NGO initiatives in coastal conservation: lessons from Antigua and Barbuda.. Caribbean Geography 8(1), 18-31. 302 Mendy, A.B., 1999. National Report – The Gambia. [64.95.130.5/Training/CountryReports/Dakar/Gambia.htm] 303 MFRDMD Online, 2005. Home page of the Marine Fishery Resources Development and Management Department. Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center [www.mfrdmd.org.my/index-seaf.html]. 304 Mhara, B.I., 1999. Irish Inshore Fisheries Sector, Review & Recommendations, May 1999. Irish Sea Fisheries Board. 305 MIDEPLAN 1998. Total catches according to fleet type, from 1991- 1997. Costa Rica Ministerio de Planificación Nacional y Política Económica (MIDEPLAN) and Sistema de Indicadores sobre Desarrollo Sostenible [www.mideplan.go.cr/pnd/diagnosticos/diagnostico-AMB.HTM] 306 Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan 2003. Number of Marine Fishery Enterprises: Japan. Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. 307 Ministry of Fisheries 2000. Responsible Fisheries. Information Centre of the Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries 308 Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries 2005. 2005 Statistical Year Book of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.  309 Mochii, A., Guard, M. and Horril, C. 1998. Tanzania Coastal Zone. Cited in: Berachi, I.G. Bioeconomic Analysis of Artisanal Marine Fisheries of Tanzania (Mainland). Masters thesis. Department of Economics Norwegian College of Fishery Science University of Tromsø, Norway, pp. 1-36. 310 Mohammed et al., (in prep.). Coastal Fisheries Profile of Latin America and the Caribbean: Trinidad and Tobago. . In: Salas, S. Chuenpagdee, R., Seijo, J.C., Charles, A. (eds.), Coastal Fisheries of Latin America and the Caribbean: A synthesis of fisheries, assessment, and management. 311 Museo Marino de Magarita 2000. Las Pesquerias, 2000. Esciencia No. 8, Ano 4. Fundacion Polar, Venezuela 312 National Devlopment Secretariat of Guyana 2000. Guyana National Development Strategy 2001-2010. National Devlopment Secretariat of Guyana, Chapter 13. 313 Njie, M., Mikkola, H. 2001. A Fisheries Co-management Case Study from The Gambia. The ICLARM Quarterly, Vol. 24, Nos. 3 & 4. July-December 2001. 314 NOAA 1993. A review of interactions between Hawaii's fisheries and protected species. Fisheries of Hawaii and U.S.-associated Pacific Islands. 315 NOAA 2000. Fishing Industry: China. China-U.S. Project [www.lib.noaa.gov/china/]. 316 OECD 2002. Country Note on National Fisheries Management Systems – Italy [www.oecd.org/dataoecd/10/29/34429640.pdf]..   Appendix B 104 317 Office of the United States Trade Representative, 2005. Dominican Republic - Central America - United States Free Trade Agreement. ANNEX I: Dominican Republic Schedule [www.sice.oas.org/Trade/CAFTA/CAFTADR_e/CAFTADRin_e.asp]. 318 Payet, R., 2001. Illegal Fishing in Seychelles: A Review of its Implications for a Small Island Developing State Rondolph Payet, Seychelles Fishing Authority. Presented: International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF) and International Ocean Institute, India, pp. 1-10. 319 PERSGA, 2002. Strategic Action Programme for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Status of the Living Marine Resources in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden and Their Management. Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, pp. 1-145. 320 Pimoljinda, J., 2002. Small-Scale Fisheries Management in Thailand. In: Seilert, H.E.W. (ed.), Interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management: Report of the regional consultation. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2002/10, pp. 80-84. 321 POMCCI, 2001. Business Opportunity in Papua New Guinea Fishing Sector [www.pomcci.org.pg/hiri2001/PNGFisheries.doc].  322 Potts, A.C., Thomas, A.D., Nichols, E., 2002. An economic and social assessment of the flyingfish (pelagic) fishery of Trinidad and Tobago. In: FAO/Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission. Report of of the second meeting of the WECAFC Ad Hoc Flyingfish Working Group of the Eastern Caribbean. Bridgetown, Barbados, 8-12 January, 2001. FAO Fisheries Report No. 670. 323 Priyono, B.E., 2003. Economic and Bioeconomic Analysis of Coastal Resources in Central and Northern Java, Indonesia. In: Silvestre, G.T, Garces, L.R., Stobutzki, I., Ahmed, M., Valmonte-Santos, R.A., Luna, C.Z., Lachica-Aliño, L., Munro, P., Christensen, V., Pauly, D.  (eds.), Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67, pp. 479- 516. 324 Priyono, B.E., Sumiono, B., 1997. The Marine Fisheries of Indonesia, with Emphasis on the Coastal Demersal Stocks of the Sunda Shelf. In: Silvestre, G., Pauly, D. (eds), Status and Management of Tropical Coastal Fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 53. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines, pp. 38-46. 325 Ravuvu, A., 1983. Vaka i taukei: the Fijian way of life. Institute of Pacific Studies, Suva. 326 Republic of Cyprus Planning Bureau, 2004. Single Programming Document for the Fisheries Sector 2004- 2006, Republic of Cyprus [www.planning.gov.cy/planning/Planning.nsf/PubFiles/SPD+FISHERIES/$FILE/SPD_fisheries_final.pdf ].  328 Sayas, J.P., Papadopoulos, A.J., Kasimis, C., 1999. Coastal Areas, Islands and the Fisheries Sector in Greece: Some Remarks Regarding Marginal Fishing Communities. Paper presented in the First INDICCO Workshop, University of Seville, Seville, Spain, pp. 7-15. 329/340 SFLP, 2002. Integrating small scale fisheries into poverty reduction planning for West Africa. Report of the Consultation. November, 2002. Sustainable Fisheries Livelihoods Programme, Benin. 331/332 SFP, 2000. What's happening outside the region. SPC Women-in-Fisheries Information Bulletin No. 8 [www.spc.int/coastfish/News/WIF/WIF8/WIF8.htm]. 333 Shah, N.J., (undated). Marine Science Country Profiles: Seychelles. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association. IOCINCWIO-IV/Inf.6 [www.wiomsa.org/download/Seychelles.pdf+Marine+Science+Country+Profiles:+Seychelles&hl=en&gl=u s&ct=clnk&cd=1] 334 Simm, M., Jenson, M., 2002. Ministry of Agriculture Fishing and Fish Hatcheries.  335 SPC, 2002. SPC Women in Fisheries. Secretariat of the Pacific Community Fisheries Information Bulletin No. 11 [www.spc.org.nc/coastfish/News/WIF/WIF11/WIF11.htm] 336 Ssentongo, G.W., Njock, J.C., 1987. Marine Fishery Resources of Cameroon: A Review of Exploited Stocks. FAO Programme for the Development of Fisheries in the Eastern Atlantic. Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic [www.fao.org/docrep/003/S4639E/S4639E00.HTM]. 337 Stergiou, K., Moutopoulos, D., Krassas, G., 2004. Body Size Overlap in Industrial and Artisanal Fisheries for Five Commericial Fish Species in the Mediterranean Sea. Scientia Marina 68 (1), 179-188. 338 Stoffle, R.W. 2001. When fish is water: food security and fish in a coastal community in the Dominican Republic. In: McGoodwin, J.R. (ed.), Understanding the Cultures of Fishing Communities: A Key to Fisheries Management and Food Security. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations; FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 401, pp. 219-245 [www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y1290E/y1290e0h.htm#bm17]. 339 Sultana, P., Thompson, P.M., Ahmed, M. 2002. Women-Led Fisheries Management : A Case Study from Bangladesh. Global Symposium on Women in Fisheries. ICLARM-The World Fish Center, Malaysia and Bangladesh, pp. 89-96 [www.worldfishcenter.org/Pubs/Wif/wifglobal/wifg_asia_bangladesh_study.pdf]. 330 Sustainable Fisheries Livelihood Programme 2005. HIV/AIDS prevention in Benin and Congo: small-scale fisheries communities a priority. SFLP Bull. 12. 341 Symes, D.G., 2001. Inshore Fisheries Management.. Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands.  Global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches, Chuenpagdee, R. et al. 105 342 The Mandala Projects, 1996. Angola's Depleted Fish Stocks Case Issue. Trade and Environment Database. American University. The School of International Service, Washington, D.C. [www.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/angfish.htm]. 343 Thuoc, P., Long, N., 2002. Overview of the Coastal Fisheries of Vietnam. In: Silvestre, G., Pauly, D. (eds.), Status and Management of tropical coastal fisheries in Asia. ICLARM Conference Proceedings 53. ICLARM, Manila, Philippines, pp. 96-106. 344 Try, I., Vansereyvuth, S., Somony T., 2002. Small-Scale Fisheries Management in Cambodia. In: Seilert, H.E.W. (ed.), Interactive mechanisms for small-scale fisheries management: Report of the regional consultation. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand. RAP Publication 2002/10, pp. 30-37. 345 UN 2005. Maldives, Annex 9: Fisheries Sector. World Bank Report, pp. 1-5. [www.un.int/maldives/Wpr;d%20Bank%20Report%20-%20A9.pdf] 346 UNEP, 1998. Marine finfish and shellfish. In: Eastern Africa Atlas of Coastal Resources. A project of the United Nations Environment Programme with the support of the Government of Belgium. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 55-63 [www.unep.org/eafatlas/tbke.htm]. 347 UNESCO, 2000. Environment and development in coastal regions and in small islands. A platform for action for the sustainable management of mangroves in the Gulf of Fonseca. Action 3. Bring Women and Communities into Decisionmaking [www.unesco.org/csi/wise/fonseca1.htm]. 348 United Fishermen of Alaska, 2005. Subsistence Management Information [www.subsistmgtinfo.org].  350 USAID, 2004. The Iraq Marshlands Restoration Program. United State Aid for International Development. 351 Veitayaki, J. 1995. Fisheries Development in Fiji: the Quest for Sustainability. Ocean Resources Management Program, Institute of Pacific Studies, Suva. 352 Villegas, L., 2002. FAO Description of the Fisheries Survey in the Bahamas.  353 Walker B.L.E., 2001. Sisterhood and Seine-Nets: Engendering Development and Conservation in Ghana’s Marine Fishery. The Professional Geographer, Volume 53, Number 2. pp. 160-177. 356 Yahaya, J. 2001. Women in small-scale fisheries in Malaysia. In: Williams, M.J., Nandeesha, M.C., Corral, V.P., Tech, E., Choo, P.S. (eds.), International Symposium on Women in Asian Fisheries., pp. 99-109 [www.worldfishcenter.org/cms/list_article.aspx?catID=39&ddlID=126]. 357 Zeller, D., Booth, S., Craig, P., Pauly, D., 2006. Reconstruction of coral reef fisheries catches in American Samoa, 1950-2002. Coral Reefs 25, 144-152.      

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 51 17
Canada 45 14
United Kingdom 22 6
Mexico 11 2
Bulgaria 8 0
Australia 7 1
China 6 10
Brazil 5 0
Madagascar 5 0
India 5 1
Indonesia 4 0
Germany 4 4
Hong Kong 4 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 76 23
Vancouver 23 2
New Haven 7 1
London 5 3
Mountain View 5 0
Drobak 4 0
Ashburn 3 0
Honolulu 3 1
Central District 3 0
Durham 3 0
Shanghai 3 0
Rome 3 0
Las Vegas 3 1

{[{ 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.37052.1-0074761/manifest

Comment

Related Items