UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Actual and perceived decline of fishery resources in Turkey and Cyprus : a history with emphasis on shifting… Ulman, Aylin 2014

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2014_november_ulman_aylin.pdf [ 2.64MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0135603.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0135603-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0135603-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0135603-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0135603-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0135603-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0135603-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0135603-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0135603.ris

Full Text

    ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED DECLINE OF FISHERY RESOURCES IN TURKEY AND CYPRUS: a HISTORY WITH EMPHASIS ON SHIFTING BASELINES  by   Aylin Ulman   B.A., The University of British Columbia, 2005       A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF    MASTER OF SCIENCE   in   THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Resource Management and Environmental Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)        October 2014        © Aylin Ulman, 2014 ii ABSTRACT  The FAO global statistics on fisheries catches is an important tool used to track overall patterns, as it represents the only global account of fisheries catch records from all member countries. However, the database is only as complete as the data sent to them by member countries, which often lack catch amounts from non-commercialized sectors.   The aim here for Chapters 2 and 3 were to comprehensively account for total fisheries removals for Turkey and Cyprus from 1950-2010, by estimating catches for previously unaccounted sectors, using best available data. It was found that the total reconstructed catch for Turkey was about 80% higher (33 million t) than the 18.4 million t reported to FAO during the period from 1950 to 2010. The total reconstructed catch for Cyprus was about 2.6 times higher (243,000 t) than the 93,200 t reported to FAO for Cyprus for the same period, which thus excluded catches from the north of the country from 1974 to 2010.   For Chapter 4, using total reconstructed catches and annual fleet dynamics statistics, total effort and Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) were calculated for Turkey as a whole, and each of its seas. Next, from field survey results from Turkey and Cyprus, each fisher’s ratio of initial to current CPUE and perceived change in resource abundance was computed for their career span, according to sector. Lastly, the two trends in ratio of initial to current CPUE and perceived change in resource abundance were compared to determine if ‘shifting baselines’ had occurred. For Turkey as a whole total effort increased by over 700% from 25 million kW days in 1967 to nearly 190 million kW days in 2010, while CPUE declined by about 380% from nearly 16 kg·kW-1·day-1 in 1967 to 4 kg·kW-1·day-1 in 2010. Shifted baselines were evident in all but two surveyed sectors (i.e., the bottom trawlers of Turkey, and artisanal fishers of South Cyprus). The artisanal and recreational sectors of Turkey experienced the most severe changes, with declines in CPUE of about 40 times since about 1950.     iii PREFACE  Daniel Pauly, my research supervisor helped to conceptualize each chapter and its associated methodology. With the exception of the bookend Chapter 1 and part of bookend Chapter 5, each chapter in this thesis has been prepared as a stand-alone manuscript. While all of the preliminary research and data acquisition was completed by myself, a few local scientists helped with some field data collection, and each co-authors’ share of the contributions are detailed below. All of the background research, data entry, analyses, and writing was completed by myself.   List of publications arising from work presented in the thesis:  Chapter 2. Turkish Reconstruction.  A version of Chapter 2 has been published.  Ulman A, Bekişoğlu Ş, Zengin M, Knudsen S, Ünal V, Mathews C, Harper S, Zeller D and Pauly D. 2013. From bonito to anchovy, a reconstruction of Turkey’s marine fish catches (1950-2010). Mediterranean Marine Science. 14(2): 309-342. The contributions of the co-authors were as follows: Şahin Bekişoğlu provided me with the raw fisheries catch data for Turkey from 1967-2010; Mustafa Zengin provided me with several unpublished discard rates from the Black Sea from his work and helped  to assign individual taxonomic groups according to sector; Stale Knudsen helped develop the history of fisheries section and provided useful comments on fisheries governance; Vahdet Ünal provided me with his study on recreational fishing in the Dardanelles and helped establish anchor points for the recreational fisheries; Christopher Mathews provided me with some recent unpublished work on the same topic to use as reference; and Sarah Harper, Dirk Zeller and Daniel Pauly provided guidance in establishing the necessary anchor points and with editing of the text.   iv Chapter 3. Cyprus Reconstruction.  A version of Chapter 3 has been published. Ulman A, Çiçek BA, Salihoglu I, Petrou A, Patsalidou M, Pauly D and Zeller D (2014). Unifying the catch data of a divided island: Cyprus's marine fisheries catches, 1950-2010. Environment, Development and Sustainability 16(4): 23. The contributions of the co-authors were as follows: Burak Çiçek surveyed 140 fishers from the artisanal sector in the Turkish north of the island for the study; Burak Çiçek and Ilkay Salihoglu both interviewed the Department of Fisheries in the north and delved into the historical fisheries archives for the study; Antonis Petrou and Maria Patsalidou provided some of the necessary raw data for the Greek south of the island, answered my queries and validated my assumptions. All of the data entry, data analyses, and write-up was done solely by myself. Dirk Zeller and Daniel Pauly advised on the methodology, and helped to organize and edit the manuscript.  Chapter 4. Evidence of declining catches and shifted baselines for Turkish and Cypriot fisheries.  A version of Chapter 4 has been submitted. Ulman A and Pauly D (submitted). Conveying memories into knowledge: Using history to reset the shifted baselines of Turkish and Cypriot fishers. I completed approximately 85% of the field surveys with local fishers, and completed all of the data analyses and the write-up myself. Dawit Tesfamichael, Ayana Johnson and Terre Satterfeld helped structure the survey design. Statistical advice was first provided by Rick White, managing director of SCARL, Department of Statistics, UBC. My supervisor Daniel Pauly also provided statistical advice and helped with the editing and sculpting of the manuscript.    v Chapter 5. Conclusion. Ulman, A. (2014). Urgent change in management measures required to save Turkish fisheries from collapse. Journal of Coastal Development, 17(1). DOI: 10.4303/1410-5217.1000386. This short communication piece was written solely by myself and was edited by Dirk Zeller. A portion of this manuscript was used in this conclusion.  Ethics The Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) from the University of British Columbia certificate number is H13-00012, and approved of the research conducted in Chapters 3 and 4.   vi TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... ii PREFACE ................................................................................................................ iii TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………………….………..vi LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... xi DEDICATION ......................................................................................................... xiii 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 The context .................................................................................................... 1 My connection ............................................................................................... 2 The study areas .............................................................................................. 3 The history ..................................................................................................... 8 The history of fishing .................................................................................... 12 The key fish stocks ....................................................................................... 30 Fisheries management ........................................................................................... 35 Turkey’s (lack of a defined) EEZ ............................................................ 37 Cyprus EEZ’s ......................................................................................... 38 Current issues impeding the fisheries .......................................................... 39 Fishing effort and overcapacity .................................................................... 41 Thesis goal and objectives ............................................................................ 47 2: TURKISH RECONSTRUCTION ................................................................... ......…..49 SYNOPSIS ..................................................................................................... 49 vii INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 50 METHODS .................................................................................................... 50 Officially reported landings .............................................................................. 51 Catches outside Turkish national waters ......................................................... 52 Taxonomic breakdown ..................................................................................... 53 RESULTS ....................................................................................................... 75 Total reconstructed catches............................................................................. 76 The Black Sea ..................................................................................................................... 76 Marmara Sea ..................................................................................................................... 78 Aegean Sea ........................................................................................................................ 80 The Levantine Sea .............................................................................................................. 82 Other catch adjustments ................................................................................. 84 DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 88 3: CYPRUS RECONSTRUCTION ............................................................................... 95 SYNOPSIS ..................................................................................................... 95 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 95 METHODS .................................................................................................... 96 Officially reported landings .............................................................................. 96 Unreported catches ......................................................................................... 98 RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 108 Reconstructed catch for the whole island ..................................................... 108 Reconstructed catch for the north ................................................................ 109 Reconstructed catch for the south ................................................................ 109 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 112 4: SHIFTING BASELINES OF TURKISH AND CYPRIOT FISHERIES ............................ 117 SYNOPSIS ................................................................................................... 117 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 117 viii Historical abundances from anecdotes ......................................................... 120 METHODS .................................................................................................. 124 Local data collection....................................................................................... 124 Total reconstructed catches........................................................................... 126 Total effort and CPUE for Turkey and by sea ................................................. 126 Observed change in CPUE .............................................................................. 128 Perceived change in abundance .................................................................... 129 Shifting baselines ........................................................................................... 129 Statistical analysis .......................................................................................... 130 RESULTS ..................................................................................................... 131 Total catches, effort and CPUE in Turkey and its seas ................................... 131 Observed change in CPUE vs. perceived change in resource abundance ..... 135 How to improve fisheries ............................................................................... 140 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 140 5: CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………………………..145 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 152 APPENDIX ........................................................................................................... 171      ix LIST OF TABLES  Table 1.1. Number of fishers and vessels engaging in commercial and recreational sectors in the north and south, 2010. ................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 2.1. Taxonomic allocation of recreational/subsistence catches (%) in Turkey, from 1950-2010. .... 64 Table 2.2. Discard rates applied to taxa from ............................................................................................ 66  bottom trawling on the Turkish Black Sea coast, 1950-2010. ............................................................ 66 Table 2.3. Discard rates (%) applied to taxa from bottom trawling in the ................................................. 67  Sea of Marmara and Aegean Seas, 1950-2010. .................................................................................. 67 Table 2.4. Discard rates (%) applied to bottom trawling in the Turkish Levantine coast, 1950-2010. ...... 68 Table 2.5. Discard rates (%) applied to highgrading for all seas, 1950-2010.a ........................................... 69 Table 2.6. Presents our criteria for scoring the quality of the .................................................................... 75  data used in this reconstruction for three separate time period. ...................................................... 75 Table 2.7. Results of ‘Other catch adjustments’ by taxon, tonnage, and year(s). ..................................... 84 Table 3.1. North: Locally reported artisanal catches (t) and estimated total catches for the north of Cyprus. ................................................................................................................................................ 99 Table 3.2. Categorization of the artisanal fishers in the north of Cyprusa. .............................................. 100 Table 3.3. North: Data on recreational fisheries (2007-2010)a ................................................................ 103 Table 3.4. Discard allocation. Industrial and artisanal sectors: North (1950-2010); South (1950-1973). 105 Table 3.5. Discard allocation. Artisanal (1974-2010) and industrial  sectors (1950-2010): South ........... 107 Table 3.6. Data sources, available time-series data, and data anchor points used for catch reconstruction of Cyprus. N=North; S=South; DAH=Department of Animal Husbandry, North; Department of Fisheries and Marine Research=DFMR. ............................................................................................ 108 Table 3.7. Discards of the invasive silver-cheek toadfish in the north and south of Cyprus (t). .............. 112 Table 4.1. Turkish fishing fleet characteristic, results from field 2013 survey. ........................................ 128 Table 4.2. Cyprus fishing fleet characteristics, results from 2013-2014 field survey. .............................. 128 Table 4.3. Shifting baselines (SB) associated variables for Turkey. .......................................................... 129 Table 4.4. Shifting baselines (SB) associated variables for Cyprus.. ......................................................... 130 Table 4.5. Interesting quotes fishers told to first-author. T=Turkey and C=Cyprus. ................................ 140 Table 4.6. Top 11 Methods thought by Turkish and Cypriot fishers to improve the status of fisheries .. 141 x LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1.1. Turkey and its four surrounding seas: the Black Sea, the Sea of Marmara, the Aegean Sea and the Levantine Sea. Also shown are cities and straits discussed in this chapter. .................................. 4 Figure 1.2. The island of Cyprus, showing the ‘Green Line’ which divides the north and the south, the capital city (Nicosia), and the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) in the north and south (light blue). ... 9 Figure 2.1. Reported FAO data compared to national TURKSTAT data, 1950-2010. ................................. 51 Figure 2.2. Total reconstructed catch compared to total reported catch, 1950-2010. ............................. 85 Figure 2.3. Total reconstructed catch by sector, 1950-2010. ..................................................................... 86 Figure 2.4. Total reconstructed catch by major species or taxa, from 1950-2010. .................................... 86 Figure 2.5. Fishery reported catches (t) in Turkey, total landings and anchovy and sprat, 1950-2010. .... 87 Figure 2.6. Discard components for Turkey, 1950-2010. ........................................................................... 88 Figure 2.7. The number of licensed commercial fishing vessels in Turkey, 1950-2010. ............................ 93 Figure 3.1. Total reconstructed catch for the island of Cyprus for 1950-2010, by a) fishing sectors plus discards; and b) major taxa, with the ‘Others’ category containing 56 additional taxa. ................. 110 Figure 3.2. Total reconstructed catch for a) the northern part of Cyprus by fishing sectors for 1950-2010; and b) for the southern part of Cyprus by fishing sectors for 1950-2010. ....................................... 111 Figure 4.1. Map of Turkey showing all survey sites, and the continental shelf in dark blue. .................. 125 Figure 4.2. Map of Cyprus showing all of the survey sites, the ‘Green Line’ and the continental shelf in dark blue. .......................................................................................................................................... 125 Figures 4.3.a-e. Total effort in Turkey (represented by secondary Y-axis and dotted line) and Total catch/effort (represented by primary Y-axis and solid line) for a) all of Turkey; b) Black Sea; c) Marmara Sea; d) Aegean Sea; and e) Levantine Sea. ....................................................................... 132 Figure 4.4a-h. Observed change in CPUE (left panels) and perceived change in CPUE (right panels) experienced by the fishers of Turkey, according to sector: a&b) recreational fishers; c&d) artisanal fishers; e&f) bottom trawl fishers; and g&h) purse seine fishers..................................................... 136 Figure 4.5a-h. Observed change in CPUE (left panels) and perceived change in CPUE (right panels) experienced by the fishers of Cyprus, according to sector: Relative change in fisheries (left panels) and perceived change in fisheries (right panels) for Cyprus: a&b) North Cyprus (recreational sector); c&d) North Cyprus (artisanal sector); e&f); South Cyprus (artisanal sector); g&h) Entire Cyprus (artisanal sector). .............................................................................................................................. 139 xi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I sincerely express gratitude to my supervisor, Daniel Pauly, for his thoughtful guidance, patience, and especially his wit, which made the Fisheries Centre a very enjoyable place to work. He not only granted me the most appropriate project, to study and document the change in the Turkish fisheries, but also took it upon himself to shape me into thinking and questioning the world as a scientist. I also thank Pew Charitable Trusts for funding my MSc research.  I also express extreme appreciation for both my committee members, Rashid Sumaila and William Cheung for their advice, positive outlooks and particularly, their inspiration. These three role models combined taught me that to make a difference, one must think outside the box, and also be quite daring.  I also thank my supervisor of the Sea Around Us, Dirk Zeller for his remarkable editing skills, and, of course, for his friendship.  As per classmates and co-workers, both old and new, I would like to sincerely thank Sarah Harper, Mathieu Colléter, Anna Schuhbauer, Vicky Lam, Claire Hornby, Yago Coll, Catarina Wor, Chiara Piroddi, Beau Doherty, Dana Miller, Dyhia Belhabib and Robin Ramdeen both for their academic inputs and supportive friendships.   For Chapter 2, I thank the following for their advice and feedback: Metin Ulman, Ali Çemal Gücü, Ismet Ulman, Uğuzhan Türkoğlu, Arif Safahi, Evgeny Pakhamov, Naciye Erdogan Saglam and also several Turkish colleagues who prefer to remain anonymous.  For Chapter 3, in addition to the co-authors, special thanks are given to Ercan Sinay (Department of Animal Husbandry, TNRC), a fisheries specialist who made relevant fisheries data available and is eager to improve upon the fisheries statistical system and its accountability, and Netice Yildiz for her assistance with the history of the island.  For Chapter 4, special thanks are given to those who helped accompany, advise or collect data: Ayşe Gazihan Akoğlu, Vasilis Andreou, Çihan Atahan, Burak Ali Çiçek, Papatya Hur, Ebrucan Kalecik,  Çetin xii Keskin, Antonis Petrou, Sezgin Tunca, Metin Ulman, Baba Yalçin and Tefik Yilmaz. We also thank Terre Satterfield, Katy Seto and Dawit Tesfamichael for their help with the survey design. In addition, the completed interviews and associated data were only made possible by the generosity and compassion of the fishers.  Lastly, I thank my father Metin Ulman for instilling on me his love and passion for the aquatic realm, and for sharing his distress about how some of us treat our planet. Special thanks are owed to both my parents, who sacrificed their early adulthood so that I had the freedom and the means to chase my passions.    xiii  DEDICATION    For my extended family, who share the same passion for the sea and all of its wonderful creatures.  1 1: INTRODUCTION   The context  Most fishers who have worked in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea for a long period of time would explain that the local fish stocks have been severely compromised, yet sources documenting these changes are rare. This is due in part to the lack of comprehensive (and hence accountable) fisheries statistics necessary to determine overall and individual trends in catches, a lack of interest from local fisheries scientists to understand or study how far from the natural baseline they have shifted, and a general unawareness of the public about the state of the marine ecosystem due to a lack of education in marine ecology.  Before the degree of change could be documented, two national fisheries catch reconstructions were first completed, one for Turkey (Chapter 2) and one for Cyprus (Chapter 3) for the 1950-2010 period to assess their total marine fishery extractions. To complete this task, fisheries removals for each sector were considered. The fisheries statistics voluntarily provided by member countries’ to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations are used to make inferences on global fisheries (FAO 2010, 2012; Garibaldi 2012). Nevertheless, for most countries, the catches from non-commercial sectors are missing from the data, causing the global statistics to underestimate total catches. The results of the catch reconstructions for both Turkey and Cyprus are now included in the Sea Around Us global database of marine catches (freely available at www.seaaroundus.org).  After having established a more accountable and comprehensive time-series of fisheries statistics for both Turkey and Cyprus, total CPUE was calculated for Turkey and for each sea, along with total effort to illustrate the potential decline in relative abundance of fisheries resources in the area; then fishers were 2 surveyed in Turkey and Cyprus to document their ratio of initial to current CPUE over their careers, and their perceived change in resource abundance (Chapter 4).  Next, the two trends were compared to determine if their baselines had shifted (i.e., if they were unaware of past changes to the ecosystem).   Shifting baselines refers to the phenomenon that as resource abundance gradually declines, each new fisher perceives the status of the marine ecosystem based on their personal experience during their fishing career. If each generation of fishers begins their career with an already compromised ecosystem, this can soon lead to a general unawareness of past changes, and hence rapidly declining resources and biodiversity loss can go unnoticed.  My connection  I have a unique connection which enabled me to focus on the key portions of this research. My father, Metin Ulman, was of the first generation of Turkish navy scuba divers circa 1955 which allowed him to be one of the first people to explore the pristine underwater realm of the Turkish Straits in the 1950s, a time well-before recreational snorkelling and scuba diving were introduced. Then, the Bosphorus contained a pristine ecosystem, turquoise as the Aegean Sea is now often with over 100 foot visibility. It was then blanketed with large mussels on each inch of the seafloor (Gürtürk 1972) which kept it clean, and was also graced with many incredible large pelagics such as swordfish (Xiphias gladius), and 25 kg bonitos (Sarda sarda), along with a plethora of invertebrates, which were then all too easily caught. My father was also an avid skin diver and fisher throughout his life which gained him a valued perspective of the change most others are unaware of. Metin Ulman was active in many aspects of this research, especially by passing down his stories, validating some early assumptions on the historical ecosystem, and introducing me to his fellow fishers from his hometown, most of whom were interviewed for Chapter 4. 3 The study areas  The FAO includes both Turkey and Cyprus in FAO statistical area 37 (Mediterranean and Black Seas), which is further divided into sub-areas: 37.3.1 (‘Aegean Sea’); 37.3.2 (eastern portion of the Mediterranean Sea, which included Cypriot waters and is here referred to as the ‘Levantine Sea’); 37.4 (‘Black Sea’) which is further divided into 37.4.1 (‘Marmara Sea’), 37.4.2 (the ‘Black Sea’ proper), and 37.4.3 (the ‘Sea of Azov’, not discussed here).   Turkey, by far has the largest inshore fishing area (IFA) in the Mediterranean and Black Seas with just over 56,520 km2, and Cyprus has an IFA of 3,113 km2 (www.seaaroundus.org). The IFA is defined as waters to 200 m in depth or 50 km distance from the coast, whichever comes first (Chuenpagdee et al. 2006). Turkey Turkey is a country spanning Europe and West Asia, whose shoreline touches three major seas: the Black Sea, the Aegean Sea and the Levantine Sea in the eastern Mediterranean, and one inland territorial sea, the Sea of Marmara (Figure 1.1).   4  Figure 1.1. Turkey and its four surrounding seas: the Black Sea, the Sea of Marmara, the Aegean Sea and the Levantine Sea. Also shown are cities and straits discussed in this chapter.  The Black Sea  An old connotation from the Ottoman language for either ‘great’ or ‘terrible’ (the latter possibly due to its roughness), is thought to give the Black Sea its name.  It could also be named for its great depths (over 2,200 meters) leading to very low visibility.  Others suggest the sea is named from ancient maps from the European Steppe people; wherein, the north compass which points to the sea, is black (King 2004). Aside from Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia also border and share the Black Sea. The uppermost 150 meters of the water column represent an area of great biological productivity, while the lower 90% of the basin, or depths below 100-150 m are naturally anoxic (very little or no dissolved oxygen), and have likely been anoxic since the Bosphorus (or possibly spillover from the Caspian Sea) inundated this basin. The influx of large amounts of freshwater from rivers (Danube, Dnieper, Dniester, etc.), raised the water level about 150 meters and created a lower density surface layer which inhibits mixing.  5 During the 1980s, the anoxic layer, the largest in the world, increased due to massive agricultural runoff from the eastern bloc countries (Kideys 2002) and also due to increased eutrophication from the many European rivers that drain central Europe, particularly the Danube, which emptied into the Black Sea. Nutrient input levels have decreased since the mid-1980s and the ecosystem has been showing some signs of recovery since the early 1990s. Another important feature of the Black Sea is the presence of a sharp thermocline; the surface temperature decreases up to 10°C in the mid-thermocline layer (Zengin 2006). This thermocline layer exists in summer at depths of 40-70 m and is beneficial in enhancing the growth of many small pelagic species such as anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus), sprat (Sprattus sprattus) and whiting [Merlangius merlangus] (Zengin and Knudsen 2006). This thermocline is, in part, responsible for making this Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) so productive for small pelagics.  At present, this sea has a low average salinity of 18 psu because there are many large rivers that flow into the Black Sea (such as the Danube), but only one way for the water to exit, and that is southwards via the Bosphorus Strait (`Istanbul Bogazi` in Turkish). In 2010, catches from the Black Sea represented 68% of total Turkish catches.  The Sea of Marmara including the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles  Beginning at the south-end of the Black Sea, the Bosphorus Strait has a two-layer flow: brackish water at the surface flows into the Mediterranean; and seawater enters along the bottom layer from the Sea of Marmara to the Black Sea, thus connecting the two seas. The Bosphorus, along with the Sea of Marmara and the Dardanelles connect ‘East’ to ‘West’, but also separate Europe from Asia (or Anatolia), with Asia to their ‘East’ and Europe to their ‘West’. Turkey, whose territory covers both sides of the Bosphorus is thus, with Russia, the only country that straddles both Europe and Asia. The 30 km long Bosphorus Strait (Figure 1.1) has always been of strategic and economic interest due to its unique position on an 6 important maritime trade route. The Bosphorus is the world’s most narrow strait, and is used intensely for shipping. The city of Istanbul, bustling with 17 million inhabitants, spans the southern half of the strait. The Bosphorus most likely also formed the same time as the Black Sea, between 5,000 and 8,000 years ago, due to rising sea levels (Zaitsev and Mamaev 1997).   The Sea of Marmara is Turkey’s small (only 11,350 km2 in area) inland sea, which also separates ‘Europe’ from ‘Asia’. Salinity increases to about 22 psu at the south end of this sea. The Marmara Sea was named after the Greek world for marble (i.e., marmaros), which has been mined from its islands since antiquity. In this report as well as in the official statistics, the catches of the Bosphorus Strait (Istanbul) and the Dardanelles are included in the catches of the Sea of Marmara. The Marmara Sea is the smallest of Turkey’s four seas, occupying only 4.5% of Turkey’s total fishing area. The Sea of Marmara differs from Turkey’s other seas in that it is entirely surrounded by heavy industry and population densities in Turkey. Boat traffic is also an issue since as many as 50,000 vessels each year travel through this sea to or from the Bosphorus.  South of Marmara Sea, the Dardanelles are another natural strait, roughly twice the length of the Bosphorus, which connect Marmara Sea to the Aegean Sea, and which together with the Bosphorus, make up the ‘Istanbul Straits System’. The Dardanelles, due to its narrow and winding nature, in combination with strong currents, is considered to be one of the most hazardous and dangerous waterways to navigate in the world. In 2010, this area provided 18% of Turkish marine fishery catches.     7 The Aegean Sea   From the south of the Dardanelles, the Aegean Sea begins and encompasses the west coast of Turkey to the Turkish city of Marmaris, on Turkey’s south-western coast. The Aegean Sea is located in the north-eastern Mediterranean (Figure 1.1). In contrast to the Black Sea, the Mediterranean is known as the ‘White Sea’ in Turkish, i.e., ‘Ak Deniz’ (King 2004). Greece lies to the north and west; and Turkey to the east. It includes over 1,400 islands, most of them belonging to Greece. The Turkish sector of the Aegean is very small and narrow, and varies in width from approximately 50 km in the north, to around 10- 15 km for the remainder. The Aegean Sea is known for its turquoise and clear waters due to its extremely low nutrient levels and, consequently, its low marine fishery catches. In 2010, the catches of the Aegean Sea represented less than 9% of Turkey’s total commercial fish catches.   The Levant Sea  Finally, the southern coast of Turkey, in the easternmost part of the Mediterranean, is also called the ‘Levantine Sea’, after the Levant Basin of which it is a part (Figure 1.1). The Turkish share of this sea consists of a narrow coastal strip which spans from the city of Marmaris in the west, to the Syrian border in the east. The continental shelf is between 50-200 m deep and only between 10-20 km wide, which is suitable for demersal fishing. From the Turkish city of Mersin, eastwards, the continental shelf widens to 80 km, which is called Iskenderun Bay, a popular fishing ground for bottom trawlers. The remainder of Turkey’s national waters in this area are very deep and only suitable for pelagic fisheries. Due to three rivers which bring terrigenous nutrients to the continental shelf area in south-eastern Turkey (the Seyhan, Ceyhan and Goksü), this portion of the basin used to be very abundant in terms of marine life 8 (Kosswig 1953); and Iskenderun Bay was perceived being a very productive fishing grounds in the early 1950s. In 2010, this sea represented 5% of Turkish total marine catches.CyprusCyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean after Sicily and Sardinia. Technically, the island is divided into three segments: The Republic of Cyprus, which has an internationally recognized government and is situated on the southern two-thirds of the land area; The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is situated on the northern third of the island; and the buffer zone controlled by the United Nations that separates the two sides.   For the purpose of this study, ‘north’ refers to the people and area north of the ‘Green Line’, while ‘south’ refers to the people and area south of the ‘Green Line’ (Figure 1.2). ‘United Cyprus’ is the term given to the period from 1950-1973 when the island was unified, after which the term ‘Two solitudes’ is used to represent the island’s period since its division.   The history  Turkey The first president of modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, established the republic of Turkey in 1923 and was responsible for transforming the country into a modern, western-style democratic nation-state. At the conclusion of Turkey’s war of independence in the 1920s, there was a re-settling of populations; notably, ethnic Greeks previously residing in Turkey and ethnic Turks previously residing in Greece, were forced to re-settle in Greece and Turkey, respectively.  9  Figure 1.2. The island of Cyprus, showing the ‘Green Line’ which divides the north and the south, the capital city (Nicosia), fishing ports in the biggest cities/towns, and the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) in the north and south (light blue) as assumed by the Sea Around Us project based on a basic, non-binding interpretation of fundamental UNCLOS principles, and the continental shelf (darker blue).  From 1950 to 2010, Turkey’s population grew from 21 million (www.turkstat.gov.tr) to 74 million people (www.tradingeconomics.com/turkey). Along with this massive population growth, an urbanization trend also occurred since the 1950s. In 1950, only about one fifth of the population lived in cities, while four fifths lived rurally (Keles 1982), but by 2010,  approximately 70% of the total population lived in a city. The bulk of Turkey’s population now lives either in Istanbul (which houses about 18% of the population) or coastally along the western shore1.                                                                         1 www.citypopulation.de/Turkey-Istanbul.html 10 Cyprus Cyprus had its earliest inhabitants arrive during the Neolithic period (the end of the Stone Age), known for the commencement of farming.  It was likely settled from the coastal areas of the Eastern Mediterranean, such as present-day Syria and Anatolia. Since then, several groups of people of different ethnic origins have settled. The island’s natural resources such as copper combined with the availability of arable land, attracted early farmers as well as with copper miners and processors to the island. Since Cyprus holds a strategic location in the eastern Mediterranean, it has been occupied by many major powers during its long history, such as Assyrians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Hittites, Achaeans, Romans, Byzantines, Crusaders, Turks and British. Ancient Greeks settled in Cyprus as early as the second millennia B.C., and legend has it that these were heroes from the Trojan War (Brown and Cattling 1986). St. Barnabas, originally a Jewish-Cypriot who guided St. Paul to Cyprus, is thought to have brought Christianity to the island in 45 A.D. (Hill 1949), while the first encounter of Cyprus with the Islamic religion began in 632 A.D. when the Arab invaders under Abu Bakr (according to Arab and Greek chronicles) presented themselves in Cyprus capturing the Byzantine city Salamis (Constantia) and converted the large basilica of St. Epiphanios into a mosque. Cyprus was under Ottoman rule from 1570-1878, during which time many Turks settled on the island (Gazioğlu 1990). In 1878, Cyprus came under British rule, which lasted until 1960.  On August 16, 1960, Cyprus became independent as ‘The Republic of Cyprus’. In 1963 tension and conflict arose on the island between the Turks & Greeks. In 1963, a United Nations officer drew a cease-fire line partitioning the island’s capital Nicosia, on a map using a green crayon, ever since referred to as the ‘Green Line’. The ‘Green Line’ runs east-west through Cyprus and Nicosia, thus bisecting the capital, and making it the only divided capital in the world (Figure 1.2). 11 On July 20, 1974, the first president of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, was overthrown in a coup d’état by rebels backed by the then ruling Greek junta, and this led to the death of several hundred Greek and Turkish Cypriots. This provided the Turkish government with a pretext to send in troops to protect the Turkish Cypriot population; these troops have since occupied the northern third (37%) of the island. Around 180,000 Greek-Cypriots moved from the north to the south of the island, and approximately 40,000 Turkish-Cypriots moved from the south to the north. The previous homes of Greek-Cypriots in the north were distributed to the new Turkish settlers (Kacowicz and Lutomski 2008), but many homes in the north remained deserted as the number of displaced Turkish Cypriot’s represented close to half the previous Greek Cypriot population. The absorption of Greek Cypriots into the south was disadvantaged by their larger population and a smaller inventory of vacated properties (Kacowicz and Lutomski 2008). Both parties lost all of their possessions and required assistance.   In 1983, the north was unilaterally declared the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)’, which is recognized as a separate state only by Turkey. Since 2003, a handful of check-point crossings on the ‘Green Line’ in Nicosia were opened, granting entry to either side. In April 2004, the entire island of Cyprus was admitted into the European Union, but only the south is protected by EU legislation until the current political problem is resolved. The Republic of Cyprus has the only internationally recognized government on the island. Cyprus lies on many geopolitical fringes, between Greece and Turkey, Christianity and Islam, East and West, Europe and Asia, and now inside and outside the EU (Papadakis et al. 2006). In 2011, the north was comprised of approximately 60,000 Turkish Cypriots and about 150,000 Turkish immigrants (www.windowoncyprus.com/politics.htm), and the population of the south in 2011 was 803,0002.                                                                      2 www.indexmundi.com/cyprus/demographics_profile.html 12 The history of fishing  Turkey In the early 1900s, Greeks, Lazes (people from the south-eastern Black Sea coast) and Armenians made up the majority of fishers in Turkey (Aflalo 1911); the Greeks and Armenians even introduced the purse seine net to Istanbul in 1885 (Knudsen 2011). Turks generally replaced these fishers after the exchange of populations that followed the last war between Greece and Turkey (1919-1922), and after a hefty tax was imposed on wealthy non-Muslims in 1942. With Istanbul’s constant growth, many migrants were pulled to Istanbul from central Anatolia, thus many new Turkish fishers lacked a historical maritime connection. Old Turkish fishers (>80 years old) are a rarity in Turkey, except for the few who have managed to invest in their business and technology in times of profit and with state-handouts to purchase larger, more efficient vessels. These men are the fathers and grandfather of industrial fishers of today. The first detailed description of Turkish fish and fisheries is ‘Balık ve Balıkcılık’ (Deveciyan 2006). In this book, first published in French in 1923 as ‘Pêche et pêcheries en Turquie’ and again in 2006 in Turkish, species composition in relation to their sales was recorded from 1909 to 1923 from the Istanbul fish market, including weight and price. Mean annual marine catches were approximately 9,500 metric tonnes (t) annually, estimated from the Istanbul fish market. The fish most abundantly caught and sold during this period were bonito and Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus).  In the 1930s, total national reported catches were between 25,000 and 30,000 t (Üstündağ 2010). The main species caught at this time throughout the Aegean, Marmara and Levantine Seas were primarily bonito and Atlantic mackerel, and secondly, anchovy, European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus) and turbot (Scopthalmus maximus). Bonito was such a staple, that in 1937, they comprised 18,000 of Istanbul’s 13 26,000 t of marine landings (Üstündağ 2010), or over two thirds of total catches. Anchovy was the most important catch from the Black Sea region at this time; one author estimates annual anchovy catches at around 1,500 t from one among many cities along the Black Sea coast (Sayilir and Babuçoğlu 1972). Excess anchovy catches from years with high abundance were utilized as manure and fertilizer. Catch capacity for all species was under-developed, as fishing gear was very simple; it consisted of rowboats, fish traps and cotton fishing nets (Knudsen 1995). According to an early fisheries report from Istanbul from the 1940s (İstanbul Belediyesi undated), about half of the total marine landings from 1944-1948 consisted of bonito. In the 1950s, coastal artisanal fishing typically involved nets and lines, purse seining for anchovy, beach-netting and the shooting of dolphins (Knudsen 2009).  From 1953-1958, total national reported fishery landings varied between 100,000 and 110,000 t∙year-1 and peaked in 1956, with 140,000 t (Üstündağ 2010). In this period, fisheries statistics were notoriously inaccurate since reported landings were derived from estimates based on sales records of some fish markets, and after that they were based on sub-sampling surveys, rule of thumb and ‘guesstimates’ as described in Chapter 2 in the section on ‘Unreported and under-reported catches’.  Many fisheries soon became over-exploited due to the development of industrial practices, which initially developed in parts of Turkey in the 1950s, such as in Iskenderun Bay where a drop in catch per unit of effort (CPUE) was noticed along with the increasing effort by the bottom trawling fleet (Gücü and Bingel 2011), although the majority of industrial effort commenced in the 1970s and 1980s. With the aid of new technologies, subsidies and tax credits to the fishing industry, the rapid growth of fishing capacity was encouraged. Due to overfishing in the early 1960s and 1970s, the structure of catches shifted significantly from larger, valuable fish species (bonito, Atlantic mackerel, large bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix) to smaller, less valuable ones (such as anchovy and sprat). Consequently, fishing 14 fleets started targeting smaller species, resulting in by-catch of the larger, less abundant fish species (BSERP 2007).  The late 1970s saw a huge increase of anchovy catches, with demand following suit in the 1980s. This was largely influenced by the economy of Turkey changing from a state-led to a market-based economy during the 1980s (Zengin and Knudsen 2006). The year with the highest reported marine fish and invertebrate catches in Turkey was 1988 with 623,404 t, not 676,000 t, as stated in “The present status of fisheries in Turkey” (Harlioğlu 2011). State-led investments in the fisheries increased dramatically during this time, for example, credit to the fisheries sector totalled around $ 4 million US in 1976 and peaked at around $ 30 million US annually by the late 1980s (Knudsen 2009). Many anchovy processing plants were quickly constructed along the Black Sea coast to deal with this ‘new’, highly abundant fish resource, many of which received a 40% investment grant from the government (Knudsen 2009). In 1983, there were just two anchovy factories, which increased to 25 by 1995 (Üstündağ 2010).  The late 1980s saw a collapse of fish catches in the Black Sea, which decreased from almost 500,000 t in 1988 to 190,000 t by 1991 (TÜİK 1967-2010), due to the overcapacity of Turkish fishing vessels, increased eutrophication and also an alien invasion (under jellyfish in ‘Major fish stocks’ later in this chapter). This was deemed a national ‘fishery crisis’ that changed people’s perception of the status of fisheries resources, which they began to regard as fragile, rather than inexhaustible. However, the crisis also resulted in a shift in target fisheries from small pelagics (purse seiners) to demersal fish (bottom trawlers) in the Black Sea (Knudsen, 2009), and then subsequently to a decline in catches of demersal fish species. Details of the anchovy collapse from the ‘fishery crisis’ are discussed under ‘anchovy’ in the `Major fish stocks’ section.  Many bottom trawl vessels, after experiencing low catches throughout the 1990s, switched their target fisheries again from demersal fish to small pelagics such as sprat. While more abundant, yet much less 15 valuable, sprat are not used for direct human consumption, but rather for fish meal/oil production (European Commission 2007; Zengin et al. 2011).  Species composition has dramatically changed in the last fifty years. In the 1950s and 1960s, most fisheries landings were composed of larger, valuable species such as Atlantic bonito, Atlantic mackerel, bluefish, grey mullet (Mugilidae), turbot, red mullet (Mullus barbatus), pike-perch (Sander lucioperca), and seabream (Diplodus spp.) (Hinrichsen 1998), and around 35% of total catches consisted of smaller forage fish such as anchovy or sprat. The situation is now reversed, as most of the larger fish species have been removed from the system, while anchovy, sprat and pilchard together accounted for 78.5% of total fish catches in 2010 (TÜİK 2010). Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) and Atlantic mackerel ceased their annual migrations to the Black Sea roughly 20-30 years ago (Knudsen et al. 2007), but can still be found, albeit in drastically reduced numbers. This loss of biodiversity and especially top predators has substantially reduced the stability of the marine ecosystem. The amount of commonly caught commercially valuable species has also declined; for example in the 2000s, over 90% of the total catch consisted of only eight species; European anchovy, horse mackerel, bonito, grey mullet, twaite shad (Alosa fallax), whiting, red mullet and turbot. This number decreased from 21 species in the 1980s (Harlioğlu 2011) and 26 during 1960- 1970 (Zengin et al. 1998).  Turkey shares the Mediterranean and Black Seas with many other countries, which poses challenges to the management of trans-boundary resources. In an assessment of the top 53 fishing countries, which together land 96% of global marine catches, each contributing countries’ adherence to the voluntary FAO (UN) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries was assessed and scored (Pitcher et al. 2008, 2009), Turkey ranked 46 out of 53 evaluated countries. Like most other countries, Turkey’s ‘intentions’ scored better than their ‘implementation’ of the UN Code of Conduct.  16 The Black Sea Major fisheries of the Black Sea include purse seining, trawling, set nets and dredging. The purse seine fleet began in Turkey in the early 1930s (Gücü 2001). Since the 1950s, growth of this fleet accelerated due to technological advancements, state-sponsored credit and infrastructure improvements (Knudsen 2003, 2009). Consequently, purse seines have dominated the fisheries of the Black Sea since the 1960s. Net size and engine power have continually increased. In 1998, a typical purse seiner had two 700 hp (or more) engines and carried two different nets each 1,000 fathoms long, i.e., 1.8 km (Knudsen 2003).  The industrial sector operates mainly in the Turkish portion of the Black Sea, although some boats venture seasonally to Georgian waters and the Mediterranean Sea. Many Black Sea purse-seiners are actively involved in the bluefin tuna fishery in the Mediterranean, which is very profitable. Juvenile bluefin tuna are caught in the eastern Mediterranean and sent to ‘tuna ranches’ where they are fattened for export to eastern markets (Stergiou et al. 2009). Industrial fisheries can fish at sea for months at a time and use the following gear types for their target species: bottom trawls target whiting, red mullet, turbot, bluefish, horse mackerel (Trachurus spp.), thornback ray (Raja clavata) and shark (Selachiimorpha); pelagic trawls target sprat; mid-water trawls target anchovy and sprat; and purse seines target anchovy, horse mackerel, bonito, bluefish and larger tuna species. The artisanal fisheries operate closer to shore and use the following gear types for their target species: bottom gillnets target whiting, red mullet and turbot; surface gillnets target bonito, grey mullet (Mugilidae), bluefish and garfish (Belone belone); and dredges target sea snail (Rapana venosa). Bottom trawling, despite being illegal in the eastern Black Sea, continues to occur (Knudsen 2009). Although small-boat fishers oppose illegal trawling, corruption and bribes allow these destructive business practices to continue (Knudsen 2009).   17 Since the 1960s, the Black Sea Large Marine Ecosystem (LME) has been faced with increasing environmental stressors such as pollution, eutrophication, overfishing, the introduction of alien species, removal of top predators and the subsequent trophic cascade, as well as climatic variations (GFCM 2011b). Much of the pollution stems from the Danube River which drains 1/3rd of continental Europe into the catchment area of the Black Sea3. Also, the construction of many dams on the Kizilirmak and Yeşilirmak rivers have significantly reduced nutrient availability to the Turkish continental shelf (Zengin and Knudsen 2006), which resulted in decreased marine productivity of the area. Turkey has a very narrow and limited section of the continental shelf on its Black Sea coast. Since the weakening of the Soviet Union (who used to be a prominent fishing power) in the 1980s, Turkey has dominated the fisheries within the Black Sea (GFCM 2011b). Due to the large area of the Black Sea, and also its rough seas, monitoring and control have been a challenge, but have improved within the last 5-10 years, since the Coast Guard got took over as the control authority. Corruption between the authorities and industrial commercial fishers, however, still presents a problem for artisanal fishers.  Since 1950, many different types of government aid was handed to the fishing industry. Many entrepreneurs took advantage of these handouts, while continuing to self-invest and expand their business in times of profit. The owners of fishing boats continually invest in larger boats, fishing nets and newer technology in order to remain competitive (Knudsen 2009), although most owners are heavily indebted. Fishing technology is continually evolving requiring less manpower to catch the same amount of fish in the commercial sector. Technology has outpaced natural population growth in most fish stocks.  There were around 100 purse seiners operating in the Marmara and Black Sea in 1998; the anchovy purse-seiners have 20-25 crew on board each boat; the large-pelagic seiners have around ten crew with                                                                     3 UNDP, 2012. www.undp-drp.org/drp/danube_danube_delta.html 18 one seine net, and their investment (in 1986) is about U.S. $32,000 or U.S. $3,200 per person (Berkes 1986). The required investment needed to be a player in these commercial/industrial fisheries is now impossible to attain for artisanal fishers due to the advancement of fishing technologies, resource depletion, and the lack of profitable intermediate technologies (Knudsen 2009). The job security and economic security of the artisanal sector are both greatly at risk. Due to the limited selectivity of purse  seiners, larger fish often block the mesh of the nets, and consequently the smaller fish get stuck inside. This is just one problem associated with multi-species fishing, which is increasingly reflected by the vast amounts of undersized fish for sale in Turkey.  The fishing operations of the Black Sea are primarily industrial and operated by purse seines and pelagic trawlers. Demersal species in the Black Sea only occur to depths above the anoxic layer, due to the presence of H2S gas, lower salinity and absence of oxygen levels (Zengin 2006). The Black Sea previously hosted very healthy demersal and pelagic fish populations and was considered a highly productive ecosystem at all trophic levels until the mid-1980s, but conditions have rapidly deteriorated (Kalayci et al. 2010). There is an account of one large trap (or weir; dalyan) in operation in the Turkish Black Sea area in the 1840s that used to catch immense quantities of fish; as many as 20,000 bonito and 500 swordfish  were often caught within 24 hours (Knudsen 2004). The Black Sea coast had the lowest reported annual marine catches in 1968 with 82,245 t, and the highest in 1988 with 480,400 t. From a 2010 report (S. Bekişoğlu, unpublished data), during the 1967-2009 reporting period, the Black Sea was responsible for 77.5% of the catches of Turkey, although in terms of average productivity, the Black Sea was second to the Sea of Marmara, until recently.     19 Sea of Marmara  Traditionally, the fisheries of this sea have mainly targeted pelagic and migratory species. The shrimp fishing fleet includes over 200 medium-sized boats including illegal trawlers and beach seiners targeting deepwater rose-shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris; Zengin and Akyol 2009), consequently many demersal stocks are over-exploited, and overall catches are not known precisely. When bottom trawling became prohibited in 1971, bottom trawl nets were to be phased out eventually and replaced by alternative types of fishing gear. However, trawlers in fact stayed in the Marmara Sea as, once at sea, they were difficult to apprehend for the authorities (Ali Çemal Gücü, pers. comm.). The bottom trawl sector took off during the 1980s, when seafood demand increased and infrastructure improved (Knudsen et al. 2010), until the mid-1990s, when catches and profits ceased to increase. Bottom trawl catches of shrimp in Marmara Sea where highest from 1988 to 1990, with 4,000-6,000 t landed annually (TÜİK 1967-2010), more on this in Chapter 4. Industrial trawlers and the artisanal sector often compete for the same species, as trawlers (often illegally) operate very close to shore. The low selectivity of bottom trawl gear  caused radical changes in the species composition of fish in the areas trawled. Fish that were once plentiful included swordfish, tuna, bluefish, Atlantic mackerel  and sea bream (Sparidae); however, now anchovy and sprat are the dominant catches.  Landings as a whole have recently declined in the Sea of Marmara. For instance, in 2006 total landings were 70,000 t and in 2010 total landings were 36,000 t. The Sea of Marmara’s portion of Turkey’s total marine catches has also been declining; in the late 1960s, it contributed 19% to the nation’s total catches, but declined to 14% by 1980 and just 9% by 2010. The Sea of Marmara’s lowest reported landings (over the 1967- 2010 period) were in 1968, with 7,143 t, and highest in 1999 with 81,005 t. 20 Overall, the Sea of Marmara’s health is rapidly deteriorating, mainly due to pollution (notably, domestic waste), and declining fisheries due to overfishing and illegal fishing4. Commercial fishing is technically banned during the summer months; however, before re-opening in 2010, 50 bottom trawlers were seen actively fishing (H.T. Çinarçiğil, pers. comm.). Consequently, many demersal stocks are over-exploited, and these overall catches are unknown. The shrimp fishing fleet consists of over 200 medium-sized boats, including illegal trawlers and beach seiners targeting deepwater rose-shrimp (Zengin and Akyol 2009).  Beam trawls are forbidden in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas (ICES 2006); although they are commonly used to catch shrimp (Penaeidae) and sea cucumber (Holothuroidea) in the Sea of Marmara and sea snail in the Black Sea.  Bottom trawling was technically banned in 1971 (A.Ç. Gücü, pers. comm.) in the Sea of Marmara, but the ban has not been enforced. From the reported data, it is obvious that bottom trawlers have been reporting catches from the Sea of Marmara each year since 1971. Illegal bottom trawling also occurs in the Bosphorus Strait. The late 1980s had the highest number of trawlers in the Sea of Marmara, with 269 trawlers in 1986 and 296 in 1987. Commercial fishing is also technically banned during summer months; however, before re-opening in 2010, 50 bottom trawlers were seen actively fishing (H.T. Çinarçiğil, pers. comm.).  Anchovy is the most abundant pelagic fishery species, followed by horse mackerel, bonito, bluefish and mullets, while shrimp and mussel are the most abundant invertebrate species in the Sea of Marmara. Turkeys shrimp production is dominated (72%) by catches from this sea (Zengin et al. 2007). Increasing                                                                     4 http://www.tudav.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=34&Itemid=37&lang=tr 21 shrimp catches in the early 1980s, reached a peak in 1989 of over 8,300 t, and have since declined due to increased fishing effort, including widespread illegal bottom-trawling (M. Zengin, pers. obs.).  Aegean Sea  The fisheries of the Aegean are dominated by the artisanal (artisanal) sector that uses small wooden boats, 5-12 m in length (Ünal et al. 2011), and are crewed by one to two fishers. Their daily fish catches range from 2.0 – 7.2 kg∙day-1. These artisanal vessels primarily deploy gill nets, trammel nets, long lines and lift nets (Ünal and Erdem 2009) and target horse mackerel, bluefish, grouper (Serranidae), common dentex (Dentex dentex), chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) and swordfish.   There is also a minor industrial sector operating in the Aegean Sea, which includes trawlers and purse seiners. Most of these industrial vessels are not indigenous to the area, but rather come from the Black Sea to fish opportunistically in the Aegean. Fishing with beach seines was popular, until a 2001 ban prohibited their use in Turkish Aegean waters (Anonymous 1999), as demanded by local artisanal fishers. Driftnets were also popular in this sea. The industrial sector targets small pelagics such as anchovy and European pilchard as well as some larger pelagics such as bonito.  Turkey’s artisanal fishery uses many types of nets that, when accidentally discarded or lost, continue fishing unmanned (‘ghostfishing’). Gears associated with ghostfishing include small seine, trammel net and gillnet. Worldwide, lost gillnets amount to approximately 1% of global lost fishing nets annually (Laist 1995); however, in Turkey the occurrence is much higher, and an annual loss rate of up to 14.5% was reported for trammel and gill nets in the Turkish Aegean (Ayaz et al. 2010). Although of concern, the 22 fishing mortality associated with this type of ‘discarding’ is negligible and therefore not included here in our estimate of total fisheries removals.  The recreational sector often fished with dynamite in the 1950s, and fishers easily gathered hundreds of grouper and sea breams from the surface (M. Ulman, pers. comm.); black grouper (Mycteroperca bonaci) were so plentiful that it was a common food. The 1960s saw the introduction of scuba gear, but it was costly and not readily available until much later. In the late 1960s, hookah diving was introduced, and consequently groupers and other large sedentary fish populations were easily decimated, one such fisher was seen stockpiling hundreds of black grouper into his vessel on his first pass with hookah (M. Ulman, pers. comm.).  The artisanal fishery in the tourist town of Bodrum collapsed in the 1970s after expansion of the trawling fleet. The trawlers left once stocks became depleted, but stocks never rebounded. Berkes (1986) blames this decline in abundance on the booming tourist trade for encouraging too many unlicensed part-time fishers (Ceyhan and Akyol 2009). In 2007 alone, Bodrum received approximately one million tourists (Kiliç and Aydoğan 2009). Levant Sea In the 1930s a local purse seine fleet began to develop. A fleet of two bottom trawlers was established as early as the 1940s, and increased to 14 vessels in just over a decade (Gücü and Bingel 2011). Consequently, a drop in the catch per unit effort (CPUE) of demersal fish was noted in the Gulf of Iskenderun and the authorities were first alerted to the potential for overfishing in the mid-1950s (Gücü 2001).   23 Strict restrictions on bottom trawling within the 3 mile zone in the early 1980s resulted in increased purse seine activity in Iskenderun Bay. Seine boats come to the Levantine Sea from the Black Sea in periods of high pelagic species abundances to fish (Bingel et al. 1993).  The artisanal sector here uses predominantly trammel nets, gill nets and longlines. Fishers often use two different size mesh trammel nets to target a wider range of species, i.e. a small mesh for small species such as mullet, and a larger mesh net for others (Berkes 1986); many demersal species such as seabreams, bass, mullet and grouper are landed. Longlines are used to target swordfish and large tuna species; stingrays are often caught as by-catch and then discarded since there is no local consumption of these species (M. Ulman, pers. comm.).  Industrial operations in the Levant Sea include trawlers, purse seiners and beach seiners. Iskenderun Bay is approximately 80 km wide and it is illegal for trawlers to operate within three miles from the coast; however, this is not enforced. Trawlers often ignore this rule and invade the small continental shelf area shared with the artisanal sector, further aggravating relations between the two sectors. The industrial boats operating here have the ability to be away from port for weeks. The Levantine coast has the lowest reported landings out of the four seas and represented 6.2% of Turkey’s total commercial landings in 2010.  Reported marine landings in the Levantine Sea were lowest in 1973 at 2,311 t and the highest in 1993 at 42,289 t. Annual commercial landings averaged for the 1967-2010 period were 14,000 t∙year-1 (Ş. Bekişoğlu, unpublished data).      24 Cyprus   The fishing history of Cyprus since 1950 is presented in three distinct time periods: [British] Colonial Cyprus (1950-1960); United Cyprus (1961-1973) and Two Solitudes (1974-2010), where applicable.  Colonial Cyprus (1950-1961) Basic fisheries laws were enacted in 1931 in Cyprus. Some of the most important sections were (Fodera 1961): • Section 3: every fishing vessel was to be licensed, which was free of charge. Penalties for fishing without a license were up to three months imprisonment or a £25 fine, or both; • Section 5: the use of poison and explosives was prohibited, and the transport and sale of fish caught with these methods was also prohibited. Penalties included up to two years imprisonment or fines of up to £100, or both; • Section 7: vessels would be confiscated if owned by a person convicted of an offense in Section 5, or if were used to fish with the use of poison or dynamite.   During the colonial period, although the use of dynamite carried a heavy penalty, regulations at this time were poorly enforced due to insufficient monitoring and inaccessibility issues. In 1950, the Cypriot fishing fleet consisted of 320 sailboats, 19 motorized sailboats and 10 trawlers, which together employed 960 people and caught 460 t of fish (Anonymous 1951) . Only the coastal area was fished, which extended two miles out to sea (Anonymous 1960). Catches increased slightly, and averaged just under 500 t·year-1 for the late 1950s. In 1961, the artisanal sector landed about 40% of the catch (Fodera 1961), the rest being landed by the trawlers, which are deemed part of the industrial sector since they ‘actively’ fish. By 1960, there were approximately 700 fishers in total (Fodera 1961), the majority being Greek Cypriots. The fishing sector was under-developed at this time due to a lack of natural ports and shelters for vessels. In the past, the road network was not connected to the sea in many places, thus 25 limiting transport. Historically, villages were built at a distance from the coast, due to frequent raids from pirates. Only demersal inshore stocks were exploited due to a steep continental shelf and limited pelagic stocks, mainly using destructive fishing techniques such as dynamite fishing, which was common. Some stocks experienced declines in their catches, along with reductions in average fish size (Fodera 1961). Pelagic fishing was not practiced, and hence populations of, e.g., greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) were abundant in coastal waters (Fodera 1961). Demersal fishing lines to target shark and other large pelagics were made from hemp, with the top end secured to a “dried hollow pear-shaped pumpkin” as a float (Fodera 1961), and hemp was used for all demersal longlines at this time.  From 1951-1960, the national seafood consumption rate increased by a factor of three due to an increase in fish imports. The per capita seafood consumption rate for Nicosia circa 1961 was  8 kg·person-1·year-1 (Fodera 1961), and seafood contributed 7.4% of total protein consumption. Fishing contributed 0.17% to the Gross National Product (GNP) and commercial fishers made-up 0.12% of the population in 1960 (Fodera 1961). From 1950-1960, under colonial rule, most artisanal and industrial commercial catches were reported.   United Cyprus (1961-1973)  Cyprus’s main harbour, the Bay of Famagusta, was the islands largest natural harbour (Figure 1.2). It had a wharf length of 1,750 feet and berthed vessels up to 20 feet long. Two other significant harbours during this period were in Paphos and Kyrenia (Figure 1.2). Boats sought shelter by hauling out onto beaches for protection from stormy seas (Fodera 1961). Moorage was an issue on the island in the past, and still remains an issue in the north. The north-eastern coast of Cyprus was not suited for bottom 26 trawling, but was excellent for line, basket and net fishing. The bottom trawl fleet was limited to 12 vessels, two of which were reserved for the Turkish Cypriot community (Fodera 1961).  Two solitudes (1974-2010) North There were only about 30-40 Turkish-Cypriot fishers on the island at the time of its division in 1974 (E. Sinay, Department of Animal Husbandry, unpubl. data), but post-1974, more Turkish Cypriots took to fishing as they had access to freshly-abandoned gear in the north. The number of artisanal fishers gradually grew to reach approximately 410 fishers in 2012. Bottom trawling was only practiced in the north from 1993-1997 and was prohibited in 1998, due to the observed damage that trawling directly inflicted on the environment and its resources (Çiçek 2011). Trawling had actually ceased completely one year earlier, in 1997, due to a government enactment of a 3-mile trawling limit from the coast. In 2012, about 5 fishers in the north used drift nets with mesh sizes > 65 cm to target large pelagics such as swordfish, bluefin tuna and other large pelagics (B.A. Çiçek, pers. comm.).  Approximately 500 families in the north rely solely on fishing for survival (Çiçek 2011), while many families have had to exit the industry due to declining resources and hence diminishing profits. Some issues affecting these fishers include low marine productivity, lack of insurance, inadequate cold storage facilities, no access to more modern fishing techniques and a lack of monitoring and control and surveillance to deter illegal fishing. There is also a scarcity of fish markets in the north, thus requiring the use of a middleman to market their catches in the south; middlemen which make over a 100% profit and 27 do not purchase low-value catches due to spatial restrictions on their transport vehicles. The continental shelf is narrower in the north than the south, which further decreases inshore fishing opportunities. South The Department of Fisheries and Marine Research (DFMR) provided assistance to the fisheries sector of the south in 1974 with subsidies for new vessels and equipment to help improve food security since their effective fishing area was reduced by about 40% from 1300 km2 to 800 km2 (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984). By the late 1980s, Cyprus’ reported fisheries catches (representing data from the south) exceeded their catches prior to the division (Solsten 1993), and doubled in both heavily trawled and other areas (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984; Garcia 1986a, 1986b). This was in part due to the great success of a seasonal trawling ban and the offshore expansion of fishing area, which commonly occurred across the globe during the 1980s and 1990s (Swartz et al. 2010). The commercial fleet has four main sectors: artisanal, multi-purpose, large pelagic, and bottom trawl; the last three of these are considered industrial, due to vessel lengths greater than 12 m (Martin 2012). Since the early 2000s, there has been an increase in albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) in Cypriot waters for which sport-fishing operators have recently been trying to create a new market. See Table 1.1 for a comparison of fishers and vessels for the north and south in 2010.  Table 1.1 Number of fishers and vessels engaging in commercial and recreational sectors in the north and south, 2010. Sector Northa Southb Industrial vessels                                        -  4 trawlers, 25 multi-purpose Artisanal vessels 410 1,134 Recreational vessels 1,425 2,000 Anglerse 2,000 No data available Spearfishers 346 2,200  The artisanal fishery, as defined by the national Fishery Law 132(I)/2007, is conducted by vessels 4-12 m, by use of trammel nets, bottom gillnets and bottom longlines to target demersal species (European 28 Union 2007). The artisanal sector fishes exclusively inshore and their average effort increased by a factor of 8 from 1967-1984, measured in horsepower (hp) times the number of fishing days (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984). Total catches for this sector were stable from 1967-1982 (averaging 500-800 t per year), despite a 3.5 fold increase in average hp (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984), which led to a decline in catch per unit effort (CPUE). Since the early 1980s, this increase in effort was enhanced by modernization of fishing gear and technology, i.e., the introduction of hydraulic nets and longline haulers (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984). The proportion of artisanal catches in total reported commercial catches increased from 40% in the 1950s to 70% by the late 1980s (Hannesson 1988). One third of their catches were represented by 6 species: red mullet, striped red mullet, pandora (Pagellus erythrinus), red porgy (Pagrus pagrus), parrotfish (Sparisoma cretense) and bogue (Boops boops) (Anonymous 2010), all fished by trammel net. Another significant trend worth noting is that the composition of catches shifted from high-valued species to low-valued species from 1975-1984 (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984); higher priced species valued at $ 8.03 U.S./kg and above declined from 36% of total catch composition to 21%, while low-valued species valued below $ 1.56 U.S./kg increased from 42% to 63%. In the 2000s, there was a limit of 500 permitted artisanal vessels (Rousou 2009)5, with enforced minimum landing sizes and gear restrictions in place (European Union 2007).  Multi-purpose vessels are between 12-24 m in length and use passive fishing gear such as nets, bottom longlines, and occasionally drifting surface longlines7 which target both inshore demersals and large pelagics (European Union 2007). Minimum landing sizes only exist for bluefin tuna, but limited entry, closed seasons and gear restrictions are also used as management measures (European Union 2007). The large pelagic fishery uses mainly drifting longlines to target swordfish, bluefin tuna and albacore tuna and operates in waters around Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean. Longline hooks traditionally were baited with fresh squid (Loligo vulgaris) and octopus (Octopus vulgaris, as in the north), but have                                                                     5http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/CYP/profile.htm 29 recently switched to imported sardines and squid (A. Petrou, pers. comm.). Bottom otter trawlers are between 21-27 m in length and have engines between 220-750 hp. They are licensed for either their inshore fishing area (Exclusive Economic Zone, EEZ) or for international waters of the eastern and central Mediterranean (European Union 2007). In 2003, 144 full-time fishers were employed on 8 inshore trawlers and 14 offshore trawlers6. Since 2006, there have been four active bottom trawlers operating in territorial waters which land about 30% of the total commercial catch (in value), and 8 operating in international waters. Bottom trawling expanded in depth, engine size and range during the ‘United Cyprus’ and ‘Two Solitudes’ periods. An expansion first occurred into depth, to target hake (Merluccius merluccius) and shrimp, then mean engine size increased from approximately 160 to 240 hp by 1983 (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984). Also the geographical range expanded, with the area trawled increasing from an average of 2.8 km2·day-1 in 1967 (Fodera 1961) to 4 km2·day-1 by 1984, despite the 40% reduction in fishing grounds due to the split of Cyprus in 1974 (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984). The declining catches of the artisanal sector are attributable to bottom trawlers landing a high proportion of juvenile fish (i.e., growth overfishing). Trawlers have been known to illegally fish inshore, i.e., under the 30 fathom limit, to catch picarel, which frequently damaged the trammel nets of the [artisanal] inshore fishery (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984), creating further tension between the two sectors. Since 2004, adherence to European Union (EU) regulations and their Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) has ensured trawlers operate at depths greater than 50 m.                                                                        6 www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/CYP/profile.htm 30 The key fish stocks  Please see Appendix table 1 (fish) and Appendix table 2 (invertebrates) for a complete list of taxa used in the Turkish study, which includes the current English names (validated in FishBase, www.fishbase.org), the scientific names, and the Turkish names. Please see Appendix table 3 (fish) and Appendix table 4 (invertebrates) for a complete list of taxa used in the Cypriot study, which includes their current English, Turkish, Greek-Cypriot and scientific names. Turkey Anchovy: anchovy are caught exclusively by purse seiners ranging from 15 m to 50 m in length and use a net mesh size of 16 mm (Oztürk et al. 2011). Most anchovy is consumed within Turkey while between 10-30% of the catch is sent to factories for processing into fishmeal and fish oil. Over a five-year period, from 1975-1979, the Black Sea’s total marine fishery landings sharply increased by over 400% (TÜİK, 1967-2010), mostly attributable to the increase in anchovy abundances and hence catches (see Chapter 4 on Black Sea CPUE graph for more details). Although of much less value, anchovy catches sustained purse seine fisheries for some time. But each year, this fishery has been worsening and the future looks grave. According to one concerned local scientist, the 2010-2011 fishing season brought catches of 240,000 t of anchovy, the 2011-2012 season only 200,000 t, and the 2012-2013 season only 126,000 t (GFCM 2013; Ulman 2014). While there are still some anchovy, there are about 10 times more fishers than before. With local stocks much reduced, the Turkish anchovy season has shrunk from 3 months to just 30 days per year over the last decade, and much of Turkish fishing effort and capacity has shifted (uncontrolled) from Turkish waters to Georgian waters. Without a system of total allowable catches and quotas, each vessel takes as much fish as they can carry. Sadly, in the 2012-2013 season, over 40% (by weight) of the 60,000 t of anchovy caught in Georgia were undersized (too small even for fish meal and oil processing) and were hence discarded (GFCM 2013). There is incredible wastage occurring, as these 31 fish should have been allowed to grow and generate higher catches. In the 2013-2014 fishing season, most industrial commercial vessels returned to port 2 months before the end of the commercial season as there were no fish left to catch. Atlantic mackerel: Atlantic mackerel was traditionally caught using traditional fish weirs or dalyans. On October 8, 1913, the Bulbulderesi dalyan (a fishing weir stationed in the Bosphorus) caught a record 520,000 mackerel in one afternoon; it was normal to catch between 4 million and 5 million mackerel annually in the early 1900s from this one dalyan (Deveciyan 2006). Catches were limitless up until the late 1960s in Turkey. And the importance of this species as food became embedded in Turkish culture. Since their decline (i.e., for the last forty years), Atlantic mackerel has been imported from Norway to meet the demand, particularly in Istanbul and other major cities. They are still caught in very small numbers in the Istanbul Bosphorus along with chub mackerel, 1-10 singles at a time, according to one fishers log, but are caught in slightly higher amounts in the Dardanelles and Aegean (B. Yalcin, pers. comm.). Bluefin tuna: bluefin tuna, like many other large pelagic species, historically migrated from the Sea of Marmara to the Black Sea. The bluefin tuna fishery in Turkey dates back at least to the 15th century when traps, hand-lines and spears were commonly used to capture this species (Karakulak and Oray 2009). Turkey had 26 tuna traps in operation in the Bosphorus region in the early 20th century, which confirms a massive presence of this species in the eastern Mediterranean region (Natale 2010). Fishers recall that this was the most important Black Sea and Marmara sea fish species, and how the waters used to boil with them. In the 1980s, each bluefin tuna caught in the Marmara Sea weighed approximately 300-400 kg, see Chapter 4 for more details (Karakulak and Oray 2009); fishers are now catching small to medium specimens weighing between 25-45 kg. Since the mid-1980s, the bluefin fishery relocated from Marmara Sea, first to the northern, and then to the southern Aegean Sea. Since 32 the early to mid-2000s, bluefin have been spawning between Cyprus and the Turkish Mediterranean coast (see Chapter 4). Bluefish: bluefish or lufer in Turkish is highly valued for its flavour and is the staple preferred fish to eat in Istanbul (Knudsen 2006). Bluefish are migratory pelagic predators that occur along all Turkey’s coasts. They are targeted mainly by the artisanal sector who catches them by hand lines, encircling nets and gillnets in all seas, by otter trawls in the Black Sea, by purse-seines in the Sea of Marmara (Ceyhan et al. 2007), and by recreational anglers. Bluefish have shrunk from a mean caught size of 1 kg to just 100 g in recent years, most too small even to spawn. In the early 19th century, it was a favourite pastime of the people of the Bosphorus to catch this fish from August to October (Deveciyan 2006) by handlines, and used horse hair as fishing line. Total sales of bluefish at the Istanbul fish market, at this time, varied between 50 t and 380 t per day (Deveciyan 2006). As anchovy represents Black Sea culture, bluefish deeply relates to Istanbul culture.  Bonito: In the early 1900s, bonito were caught using 14-18 yard long fishing lines, spun from horse hair (Deveciyan 2006). Up until the 1960s, there were much larger bonitos being caught, `torik`, some up to 25 kg in size evidenced from early photos, a size class which has entirely disappeared today. In 1960, bonito catches in Turkey were so plentiful that cold-storage facilities quickly filled to capacity and fishers were forced to take a break from fishing bonito (Roesti 1966). Bonito catches in Turkey peaked in 1969 with over 50,000 t and in 2005 with over 70,000 t. In recent years, huge numbers of juvenile bonito were landed which had not yet had the chance to reproduce (Zengin and Dinçer 2006). From 2007-2010, annual bonito catches ranged from 5,000-9,400 t (TÜİK, 1967-2010). Examination of long-term catch statistics reveals that bonito catches started to decline in 1980 and that bonito populations exhibit peaks in population size, once every five years (Zengin and Dinçer 2006), although the last three peaks 33 occurred each 6 to 7 years (1998-1999, 2005-2006, and 2012-2013). The average size of caught bonito today ranges from 0.5 to 1 kg.  Jellyfish: In the early 1980s, an alien species of warty comb jelly (Mnemiopsis leidyi) was introduced to the Black Sea, most likely from ballast water. These ctenophores had no natural predators in the Black Sea basin prior to their arrival. They consume mainly zooplankton and, to a lesser extent, the larvae of planktivorous fish such as anchovy and sardines (Oguz et al. 2008), making them both a competitor and a predator of small pelagic fish. In 1988, comb jelly populations blossomed to over 500,000 t when extrapolated over the entire Black Sea basin (Oguz et al. 2008). This jellyfish bloom is thought to have been the principal reason behind the extremely low anchovy catches along with the national ‘fishery crisis’, which were less than 30,000 t for the 1990-1991 winter fishing season (Knudsen, 2009). [Note that since the anchovy season is from November to February each year, one year’s catch is spread out over a two year period. Thus, the low catch of the 1990-1991 seasons is thus not reflected in the national catch data]. Biologists then toyed with the idea of introducing another species of ctenophore, the brown comb jelly (Beroe ovata, a predator of Mnemiopsis leidyi) as a natural form of population control to help suppress the population of Mnemiopsis leidyi’s, but later decided that the idea was too risky. In the 1990s, the same ctenophore that was to be introduced (Beroe ovata), somehow (either naturally or not) established itself in the Black Sea which led to a massive decline in Mnemiopsis leidyi populations. The Mnemiopsis leidyi abundance eruption in the Black Sea is seen as one of the most extreme jellyfish invasion events in the world, and has insightful implications for ecosystem operations (Kideys 2002). Jellyfish catches have been reported in the catch statistics from 1986 to 2006, for the moon jelly (Aurelia aurita). These are mainly caught by pelagic fisheries as by-catch and some may have been exported to south-east Asia. Jellyfish catches have been excluded from this study.  34 Mediterranean horse mackerel: Over the last 40 years, the highest Black Sea catches of Mediterranean horse mackerel preceded the jellyfish invasion (discussed below) of the Black Sea (1989- 1990). Between 1985-1988, Black Sea catches were between 90,000 and 100,000 t annually (TÜİK, 1967- 2010); between 2001-2006, catches declined to under 10,000 t annually, i.e., to the same level as catches during the 1950-1975 time period, before the start of industrial fishing (Daskalov 2002). Catches have increased only slightly to around 10,000-15,000 t annually, for the 2006-2010 period. Note that this corresponds to an 85-90% reduction in catches. It is likely that intensive fishing in Turkish waters in 1985-1989 led to the reduction of the stock and catches in the following years (Daskalov & Ratz, 2010).  Istavrit is the name given to both Atlantic and Mediterranean horse mackerel (i.e. Trachurus trachurus and Trachurus mediterraneus, respectively) species. When immature (5 to 10 cm), the Mediterranean horse mackerel is called `Istavrit kraça`. Only immature kraça are now caught.  Striped Venus clam (Chamelea gallina): striped Venus clam is harvested by hydraulic dredge. The by-catch associated with this gear consists mainly of undersized clams, smaller than 17 mm, black mussels and crabs, which are all discarded. The estimated maximum discard rate for this fishery is 8%, with an average of 5%7. Their catches were first noted in the landing statistics in 1990 with a reported 13,000 t. Landings were highest in 2006, with 46,600 t. In the most recent decade (2000s), striped Venus clam catches have been (on average) 27,000 t·year-1. Thirty-nine vessels were equipped with hydraulic dredges targeting striped Venus clam in Turkey in 2004 (Dalgiç et al. 2005).   Turbot: turbot were once very abundant in the Black Sea. In the coastal town of Samsun, in the early 1900s, fishers caught up to 3,000 turbots a week (Knudsen et al. 2010). Wild turbot is one of the highest-priced fish in Turkey, but farmed turbot, mainly from Bulgaria, now provides a cheaper                                                                     7 Source: www.friendofthesea. org/fisheries.asp?ID=16 35 alternative. The highest turbot catches in the entire Black Sea region were recorded between 1955 and 1969 (Mikhailov and Papaconstantinou 2006). Turbot catches have since decreased considerably in the last few decades, along with their mean size, from 41.9 cm in 1990 to 30.4 cm in 2005 (Knudsen et al.  2010). The commercial turbot fishery has crashed in the Black Sea since the mid-2000`s. Many fishers blame a vacuum-type device (the `Elif`) which sucks up the striped-Venus clam for disturbing and killing juvenile turbots. Cyprus Since the early 1990s, annual stock assessments of the five most commercially important demersal fish species have been undertaken: bogue, red mullet, striped red mullet, common pandora and picarel (Hadjistephanou and Vassiliades 2004), which together account for over 60% of demersal catches (DFMR 2007). Four of which have been ‘fully exploited’ from the mid-1980s to present, with the exception of picarel stocks, which are considered healthy and some years even under-exploited (DFMR 2007).  Fisheries management  Turkey The main fisheries laws are based on Fisheries Law No. 1380, enacted in 1971. This law defined the sectors and created rules and regulations to follow such as mandatory licensing for all commercial vessels. Some control measures which are in place include: minimum mesh sizes, minimum size limits, closed areas, closed seasons, protected species, banned fishing gears, gear restrictions. Almost all of these rules are ineffectual and not adhered to, since the country is lacking ample investment in the Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) of its fisheries. The only catch limits in place are in regulation to the bluefin tuna ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna) 36 quota, and the recreational fishers on Galata Bridge in the Golden Horn, although it is likely that neither quota is adhered to. Governmental policy towards this sector has generally focussed on the increase of catches (Duzgunes and Erdogan 2008) instead of long-term sustainability of the fisheries.  Cyprus North The Cyprus issue led to a stagnation of economic development in the north, triggering a decrease in GDP and economic recession throughout the 1980s and 1990s. This recession pushed many Turkish Cypriots towards urbanization, leaving many rural areas abandoned. Since the government operates with very limited resources and personnel, services are essentially only provided for urban areas, which have pulled people away from rural ones. Famagusta used to be one of the Mediterranean’s most popular tourist destinations, but post-1974, it resembles a ‘ghost town’. In 2010, the Global Heritage Fund, who strives to protect, preserve and sustain the most significant and endangered cultural heritage sites named Famagusta city “on the verge” of irreparable loss and destruction8. However in the 2000s, due to the stabilization of the Turkish Lira and also the opening of its borders, the mean economic growth rate in the north between 2003-2009 was nearly 6.5%, showing much faster economic growth than most European countries (www.investinnorthcyprus.org).  South In November 2004, the Republic of Cyprus was accepted into the European Union and thus their fisheries management plans were aligned with EU’s objectives. The EU’s Mediterranean Regulation was adopted by the EU in 2006, operational as of 2010, and applied to the 7 EU member countries which                                                                     8www.globalheritagefund.org/onthewire/taglist/Famagusta 37 border the Mediterranean: Spain, France, Italy, Slovenia, Greece, Cyprus and Malta9. The entire island is considered part of the European Union; however, since the Republic of Cyprus (south) does not have control of the northern portion of the island, EU legislation is suspended in the north10. If a solution to the “Cyprus Problem” is found, this suspension will be lifted. Turkish Cypriots are regarded as EU citizens even though they reside in areas outside of governmental jurisdiction. Cyprus was to be one of the first European countries to solicit help in combatting illegal fishing. The Cyprus government has paid close to £1 m ($ 1.33 million US) to provide a GPS-based fisheries management system to the Department of Fisheries and Marine Research, to monitor the activity of 500 licensed small fishing boats <15 m operating in Cypriot waters, so that unlicensed vessels fishing in the area could be more easily detected11, but unfortunately there were legal hurdles and this is not yet operational. Turkey’s (lack of a defined) EEZ   Turkey, along with less than a handful of other countries (Israel, Syria, United States and Venezuela), chose not to sign and ratify the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS granted each country exclusive rights over the marine resources within their Exclusive Economic Zone (up to 200 nautical miles from their coasts). However, Turkey’s potential membership to the EU would be contingent upon signing. Turkey’s issues with this law are primarily related the Aegean and Mediterranean coastal waters, since many Greek islands are situated very close to Turkish lands (for example the Greek Dodecanese island of Kastelorizo is only 2 km away from the Turkish mainland). Greece on the other hand, ratified UNCLOS in 1995.                                                                      9 www.eubusiness.com/topics/fisheries/mediterranean.806 10www.mof.gov.cy/mof/customs/customs.nsf/All/05AEEF243C9BFC8BC22572BF002D0A28?OpenDocument 11www.cybit.co.uk/News/Cybit-Win-Vessel-Tracking-Contract-With-Cyprus-Dep.aspx 38 Turkey’s concerns about UNCLOS include the definition of the Exclusive Economic Zone, the range of its territorial sea, and the delimitation of the continental shelf (Oral 2009). Turkey is also concerned that signing may block some of the country’s traditional and physical access to the sea, and to its resources. While Turkey continues to struggle with the UNCLOS framework in the Mediterranean (which has not prevented it from claiming an EEZ in the Black Sea), it has signed the Convention on International Trade for Endangered Species (CITES) of Wild Fauna and Flora (Knudsen et al. 2007). Cyprus EEZ’s  The territorial sea boundary at 12 nm was established in 19649, and any catches taken beyond this limit were considered ‘international waters’ in Cyprus. For the purposes of this study, all catches taken within the EEZ, or EEZ equivalent for years prior to EEZ declaration12, which is 200 nm out to sea, or the equidistant line drawn between two countries coastlines if less than 200 nm (as is the case between Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Lebanon and Syria), are considered catches taken within Cyprus’s EEZ or EEZ equivalent. North The territorial sea was expanded to 12 nm in January 200213. In 2011, Turkey a delineated their maritime boundaries in the eastern Mediterranean, as a direct response to the South’s commencement of exploratory oil drilling in its EEZ.                                                                          12 Cyprus declared an EEZ in 2003. (www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/STATEFILES/CYP.htm) 13 www.jag.navy.mil/organization/documents/mcrm/cyprus.pdf 39 South  Cyprus’s EEZ was declared in 20039. Cyprus has made agreements with Egypt (2003)10, and Israel (2010) delineating their respective EEZ’s. An agreement has not yet been reached with Lebanon, due to Lebanon’s dispute with Israel over their delineation between their EEZ’s14. Current issues impeding the fisheries Turkey A recent study on Atlantic horse mackerel  (Kalayci et al. 2010), suggested that purse-seines and bottom trawls are the fishing methods which are the source of most undersize fish in markets. Many species of fish are caught as juveniles, before they have had a chance to grow and reproduce, thus leading to both growth and recruitment overfishing (Ricker 1975; Pauly 1984). The percentage of Atlantic horse mackerel caught under the minimum legal landing size (MLLS) of 13 cm was 61% by purse seine, 65% by bottom trawl, 10% by gillnet, 39% by mid-water trawl and 20% by fishing line. These under-sized fish, are then either discarded or marketed illegally, and most likely not included in the catch data (V. Ünal, pers. comm.). Undersized fish are not unique to Atlantic horse mackerel, but are an issue for most commercial species, especially bluefish15. Illegal fishing in this sea has resulted in undersized fish being dominant in catches (i.e. growth overfishing). The dominant fishery catches from 1950-2010 in the Turkish Black Sea were anchovy, bonito, whiting, bluefish, horse mackerel and sprat while the important invertebrate landings were sea snail, cockle, and striped Venus clam.                                                                      14 Source: www.cyprus-mail.com/lebanon/lebanon-has-no-eez-quibble-cyprus/20120317 15 Source: www.eurasianet.org/node/65453 40 Turkey and Cyprus  The Eastern Mediterranean is host to many populations of ‘Lessepsian’ fish species, which have migrated from the Red Sea, through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean. In Cyprus, a total of 133 non-native species have been found, and of these, 109 are Lessepsian migrants (EastMed 2010), four of which are considered invasive: dusky spinefoot (Siganus luridus), marbled spinefoot (Siganus rivilatus), silver-cheeked toadfish (Lagocephalus sceleratus) and blue-spotted cornetfish (Fistularia commersonii). The number of Lessepsian species found in catches was much greater in the 2000s than the 1980s, and increased at a rate of about one per year. This may indicate that there is either increased awareness in ‘Lessepsian migrants’, or increased scientific interest, or that these Lessepsian species are out-competing local pelagic species, or are increasingly retained by fishers (EastMed 2010).   The silver-cheeked toadfish has negatively affected the fishing and fishers in Cypriot waters. Pufferfish contain a very complex neurotoxin called tetrodotoxin (TTX) in their liver, gonads, intestines and skin, fatal if ingested (EastMed 2010), with no known antidote. Fishers are increasingly affected by this species, as the toadfish get entangled in nets, damage nets and lines with their large beaks and fused front teeth, swallow copious amounts of fishing hooks, target commercial fish species (competition with fishers), and are toxic to eat and thus have no commercial value. Their reproductive success may be attributed to their fast growth, early reproduction (2 years), high adaptation, lack of fishing pressure, and absence of predators (EastMed 2010).  A bylaw titled ‘The Green Line Trade Regulation’ in Cyprus, operational in 2008, granted fishers from the north rights to sell their catches in the south. At present, 10 fishers and 8 middlemen market catches from the north, in the south (in 2012; E. Sinay, pers. comm.). Some middlemen purchase fish directly from Turkey and sell both in the north and south (although it is not allowed to sell catches from Turkey 41 directly to the south). The Cypriot government seems suspicious about some sales of catches possibly emanating from Turkey but cannot prove this, especially for specific taxa such as rabbitfish, i.e., dusky spinefoot and the marbled spinefoot, which have no demand in Turkey, but are highly valued in Cyprus16. In 2010, the following taxa were traded from the north to the south (E. Sinay, unpubl. data): bogue (35.2 t), rabbitfish (12.7 t); red mullet (11.5 t), dusky grouper (7 t), common dentex (4.7 t), picarel (4.7 t); red porgy (3.9 t); white seabream (Diplodus sargus; 3.9 t); and salema (Sarpa salpa; 2.9 t).  Some species which are very expensive in other countries are very inexpensive in the north, namely bluefin tuna, bonito, and other tuna-like species. These species sell for between U.S. $1.70-2.85 per kilo, i.e., the same as picarel.  Fishing effort & overcapacity  Turkey There is presently tremendous overcapacity in Turkey with respect to the size and power of the fishing fleet which contrasts with the diminished state of most fish stocks. In 1938, a tax break was introduced on imported boat engines and fishing gear to promote fishing (Üstündağ 2010) which stayed in effect until 1996. The effect of this subsidy was not noticeable at first, due to the second World War, but took off after 1948. Consequently, from 1938 to 1956, fishery landings increased by a factor of nine (Üstündağ, 2010). The Marshall Plan (around 1950) delivered fishers financial as well as technical aid for organizing themselves into fishery-co-operatives (Knudsen 2009). The Marshall Plan also benefitted the fishery sector by directly financing capital investments such as boats, building major roadways, which facilitated                                                                     16 Siganidae sell for 45 TL (U.S. $ 25.26) per kilo in the north, and 45 € (U.S. $ 59.54) per kilo in the south (E. Sinay,    pers. obs.). In the south €20 is the normal price per Kg at Fishmonger level. 42 the transportation of goods, building ports, created cold storage facilities, and also by removing the state tax which was previously imposed on fish catches.  In the 1950s, the fishing fleet doubled in size to 6,283 boats (Üstündağ 2010), and the 1960s saw an increased adoption of engines. Despite these initiatives, reported fish catches did not increase much during the 1950s and 1960s (Knudsen 2009). In 1961, 70% of Turkey’s fishing boats were motorless (Roesti 1966); in just a decade, by 1970, over 90% of Turkey’s fishing fleet had motors (TÜİK, 1967-2010), and 99.9% by 2001. In 1976, the Agricultural Bank increased the amount of opening credits given to fishers (Üstündağ 2010), which particularly benefitted the industrial fishing sector; Knudsen explains (2004) “that there was a legal void that, gave almost free rein to the growing fleet of purse seiners and trawlers”. The purse seiners evolved swiftly due to aid from technology, increased demand, and state-sponsored infrastructure and credit (Knudsen 2004). The trawling fleet was additionally encouraged by a relaxation of the three-mile coastal limit to accommodate them (Berkes 1986). The length of net per fisher also increased by a factor of five along the coast of south-west Turkey between 1950 and 1980 (Tudela 2004). Fishing boats got the opportunity to exploit new areas by extending their reach during this time.  In the 1970s, with the help of new technologies, landings began to exceed demand (Knudsen 1995). Since fish is marketed fresh, both regionally and nationally, the bumper catches of anchovy and horse mackerel were initially difficult to sell. To respond to the increased landings, the State Planning Organization supplied fishing co-operatives and entrepreneurs with generous credits (40% of investment costs) to establish anchovy processing plants. Over twenty new anchovy processing plants were constructed.  43 Since the fisheries were very lucrative at this time, successful fishing companies were able to increase their size and number of boats. Efficiency was increased due to increased engine power (Sağlam and Duzguneş 2010) and the adoption of radar, sonar and satellite by the commercial industry (see Jacquet et al. 2010). Knudsen (2003) reported that all fishers accept that sonar increases catch capacity; as one fisher expressed it, “there is no such thing as fishing luck any longer” (Knudsen 2009). In recent years, the government has encouraged the adoption of sonar to increase fishing capacity (Knudsen 2003). The banning of sonar use is another idea to help restrict fishing capacity but would be very difficult to enforce. The most significant reduction in fishing capacity is expected to result from structural aid for the decommissioning of boats, if and after Turkey is allowed to join the EU (Knudsen 2008).  By-far, the highest cost to Turkish fishers is gasoline, and $ 11 million US in 2010 was spent for it (TÜİK 2010). In 2002, the Turkish government introduced a diesel fuel subsidy; the normal diesel fuel price is 3.34 Turkish lira (TL)/litre ($ 1.90 US) and the subsidized price is 1.26 TL/litre ($ 0.71 US; Anon., unpublished data). Almost all commercial/industrial boats take advantage of this diesel fuel subsidy, while less than 35% of boats <12 meters do (Üstündağ 2010). This is because the diesel is sold by large tankers to customers who buy large quantities, thus disqualifying the artisanal sector. This diesel subsidy is the single most-important instrument that is allowing commercial fisheries to continually operate, and without it, fishing would be much less economically viable. Also, this diesel fuel subsidy encouraged an increase in total engine power, adding to the overcapacity issue (Knudsen et al. 2010).  Fuel subsidies contribute 23% of the world total in fishery subsidies, and are viewed as ‘capacity enhancing’ subsidies (Sumaila et al. 2010b); beneficial subsidies also exist which enhance sustainability through conservation, monitoring, control and surveillance. Fuel subsidies directly influence overcapacity by subsidizing the cost of operation and artificially increasing the profit margin (Sumaila et 44 al. 2010a). It is often these artificially increased profits that allow these industrial fishers to continue to operate when they would be normally be operating at a loss, and be forced to stop operating and over-exploiting without this form of aid, skewing the bio-economic equilibrium.   From 1991-2008, Turkey tried to control its fishing fleet by launching a moratorium on new fishing licenses.  However, the moratorium was lifted thrice (1994-1996, 1997-1999 and 2001), whilst the outcome was that the fishing fleet actually more than doubled in size (from 8,200 boats in 1994 to 18,100 boats in 2002, see Chapter 4 for a visual illustration of this effort increase). Over 4,700 boats have entered the fishery since 2001 (Figure 2.7). The licensing system has since been reinstated, but is not the solution to restricting fishing effort (Ünal 2004), since loopholes were found such as allowing boats to increase the size and the engine power of their vessels by 20% (Koşar 2009).  Recently, biological and bio-economic assessments were made using catch data (from 1991-2008) to estimate the status of marine fish stocks and to provide estimates for optimal fleet capacity. The results suggest an excess in capacity of over 350% in all of Turkey’s seas combined (C.P Mathews, unpublished data). In the Black Sea, anchovy fishing capacity exceeds by 200%, and the Black Sea fishery for all species combined has excess capacity of approximately 250%, while Turkey’s other seas have an excess capacity of ≥500%.   Fleet capacity management, can be a strategically and technically powerful method for managing fisheries; however; it is rarely practiced because fishery managers do not want to deal with the short term political problems associated with fleet reduction programs. The other strategy more commonly practiced, is to hand out long-term subsidies to fishers, which, greatly exceeds the costs of capacity control. There is currently a buyback scheme in place for the commercial fisheries of Turkey, and it is 45 working to some degree, although it is completely voluntary. The government pays $ 4,600 US (10,000 TL) for vessels ranging from 10-19.9 m, $ 6,900 US (15,000 TL) for vessels ranging from 20-29.9 m and 30+ m vessels receive $9,200 US (30,000 TL). One purse seiner (T. Sengün, pers. comm.) complained that he would never use the buyback scheme since the government does not reimburse for them for all of the equipment added to the boat, which can be extremely costly for industrial fishers.   The European Union has been experimenting with ways to best reduce fishing capacity for decades. Previous attempts at reducing overcapacity have failed because a ‘one size fits all’ solution was applied which resulted in smaller boats getting decommissioned but left overall fishing capacity unchanged. The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) of the EU has been in place for 28 years but has largely failed to save fisheries. The policy is accepting proposals and is due to reform itself by 2013. The new OCEAN 2012 campaign is one such proposal to make the CFP effective by aiming to promote low-impact fishing and the elimination of destructive and unsustainable practices. Member countries are required to annually report on the balance between the capacity of their fleets and the resources available, and if they fail to do so, it will result in a denial of access to these resources. Other proposals for a reformed EU Common Fisheries Policy include sustainability and long-term measures such as bringing all fish stocks to sustainable levels by 2015, adopting an ecosystem approach for all fisheries, setting defined targets and time frames to end overfishing, putting an end to discards, protection measures for the artisanal sector, only lending of financial help to sustainable initiatives and a strict control mechanism which will exclude any perverse funding of illegal activities or overcapacity 17.  Lessons from EU buyback schemes, where fishing boats are bought for their removal from the industry, have shown to be unsuccessful unless accompanied by a method which prohibits the re-entry of boats                                                                     17Source:2012.europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/873&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en 46 into industry, and also limits the expansion of effort. Learning from both the (unsuccessful and successful) trials of other nations battling the issue of overcapacity will benefit the implementation of an effective program. Without management measures aimed at more sustainable fishing practices, catch potential, revenue and jobs will continue to decline. The people who will suffer the most are the many artisanal fishers, who cannot afford to geographically expand their ranges to fish new areas, as commercial fishing has traditionally done. With other stresses the ocean is facing such as climate change, ocean acidification, de-oxygenation and shifting baselines (see Chapter 4), overcapacity is perhaps the easiest of these to understand and address.  Another possible management measure is to introduce individual quotas, which allot a maximum allowable catch of a species. Before this can be implemented however, the existing stock must be assessed from stock assessments, which are costly.  Quota management exists for turbot and sprat fisheries in the Black Sea and their total allowable catches are allocated based on historical catches (GFCM 2011b). Since stock assessments have not been completed for most species; it is unlikely that quotas will be able to begin anytime in the near future to help alleviate some of the fishing pressure. For this method, control and inspection would have to be functioning parts of management, and loopholes would need to be addressed and closed. Cyprus North Trawlers and purse-seiners have been banned since 1999 (Çiçek 2011) and the areas trawled prior to that were negligible, but likely negatively affected Mediterranean seagrass meadows (Posidonia oceanica),  a keystone species which much other marine life depends on (Ilkay Salihoglu, pers. obs.). Prior to 1974, the trawlers operated at depths greater than 45 m, and later at depths from 8 m to 45 m. 47 South There is currently a Fishing Effort Adjustment Plan18 (FEAP) which was crafted by the Department of Fisheries and Marine Research (DFMR), the governmental body in charge of conducting fisheries research and data collection continues according to the relevant EU regulation. (Anonymous 2010). The FEAP aims to reduce inshore fishing effort for all sectors to alleviate pressure exerted on coastal stocks, and to adjust the fishing fleet in accordance with the sustainability of the stocks. The FEAP is funded by the European Fisheries Fund in compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy. To adjust fishing effort, the following measures are currently being implemented: the decommissioning of vessels, using selective fishing gear and methods, increasing the allowable net mesh size, reducing the number of fishing licenses, reducing the types of allowable fishing gear, creating areas protected from fishing disturbances, and imposing tighter controls (Anonymous 2010). The Department of Fisheries and Marine Research (DFMR) was contacted during the writing of this report but unfortunately was not willing to share any information which was not already publicly available. Thesis goal and objectives  This research had two main goals: The first goal of this research was to conduct an in-depth study of the quality and scope of fisheries catches reported by both Turkey and Cyprus to the FAO from 1950-2010, and then provide best available estimates of other types (of previously unreported) fisheries removals to assess total national fisheries removals for the 1950-2010 period. This was completed for Turkey (Chapter 2) and for Cyprus (Chapter 3). A “re-estimation” approach was used to approximate the historical catch trends using best available peer-reviewed literature, grey literature and knowledge of local experts. Thus, accounting for                                                                     18 The FEAP is funded by the European Fisheries Fund in compliance with the Common Fisheries Policy. 48 total catches can better measure the significance of the formal and informal value of the resources which many inherently depend on for sustenance. The next part of the research (Chapter 4) was to evaluate how much the fisheries have changed in both Turkey and Cyprus by interviewing fishers themselves. About 180 fishers were surveyed in Turkey and 82 in Cyprus to measure if the perceived rate of change of the Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) throughout one’s career was similar to their actual change in CPUE. This research is important because it provides evidence that profound changes in the fisheries have indeed occurred, and also that for several sectors, the ‘Shifting baselines’ phenomenon is evident, which allows the past to be forgotten due to the non-transformation of traditional knowledge.  Chapter 5 is the final chapter, presenting a synthesis of the key results of this thesis, along with an explanation of the strengths and limitations this research provides. It also discusses how this research can be used to benefit the fisheries of Turkey and Cyprus. 49  2: TURKISH RECONSTRUCTION SYNOPSIS  Turkey’s marine fisheries catches were estimated for the 1950-2010 time period using a reconstruction approach, which estimated all fisheries removals, including unreported landings, recreational landings and discards. These estimates were added to the ‘official’ data, as reported in TURKSTAT, which are also available from the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). The total reconstructed catch for the 1950-2010 time period (inclusive of the reported data) is approximately 33 million t, or 80% more than the 18.4 million t of reported data. This added about 14.5 million t to the reported data, consisting of 9.7 million t of unreported landings, nearly 2.6 million t of discards, and 1.5 million t of recreational catches and 1.2 million t of subsistence catches. In 2010, total reported marine landings for Turkey were 445,617 t and the total reconstructed catch was 780,100 t. The main unreported taxon by tonnage was European anchovy due to its large contribution to the catch. The major reasons for underreporting include a general distrust fishers have towards the system, combined with inefficient fisheries monitoring and surveillance capabilities. Accounting for all fisheries components is crucial in understanding the development of fisheries resources, improving management, and reducing threats to the domestic food security of Turkey. Turkey’s fisheries catches in 2007, based on the official data, represent approximately 0.6% of world fisheries landings (Diffey 2007). The total reconstructed catches calculated here signify that Turkey caught over 1% of global fisheries landings. According to the latest published statistics in 2010 (TÜİK, 2010) anchovy dominated total reported marine catches (51%), followed by sprat (13%), European pilchard (6%), striped Venus clam (6%), Mediterranean horse mackerel (3%), whiting (3%), and sea snail (2%).   50 INTRODUCTION  Given the growing emphasis on ecosystem-based management (Levin and Lubchenco 2008), it is important to have a comprehensive understanding of total fishery removals in order to assess long-term trends and make more informed decisions regarding resource use. Accurate baseline catch data are fundamental for assessing the current and future amounts and uses of fisheries resources. Publicly available national data sources and those provided to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), account only for a portion of what is removed from the marine environment (see section on unreported and under-reported catches). The aim of this study is to provide a time series of catches for all of Turkey’s marine fisheries sectors and components since 1950. This will help provide the foundation necessary for sustainable management of this important national resource. The data are presented here by the four marine regions associated with Turkey’s coastline. The methods and total reconstructed catches are then presented by region and then by country as a whole. Turkish distant-water fisheries are only discussed for the Black Sea as no evidence (i.e., anecdotal, grey literature or published) was found on Turkish catches elsewhere in the Mediterranean.  METHODS  Here, a reconstruction of Turkey’s fisheries is presented for the years 1950-2010, using the methodology as described in Zeller et al. (2007). Thus, for the purpose of documenting Turkey’s marine fisheries catches, four different marine regions of Turkey are presented: (1) the Black Sea coast, from which about 75% of Turkey’s total fishery landings originate; (2) the Sea of Marmara, (which includes the Dardanelles, and also Istanbul and the Bosphorus Strait, which is the site of a large recreational/subsistence fishery); (3) the Aegean Sea to the city of 51 Marmaris;(4) and the Levantine Sea. This study focuses only on wild marine fish and invertebrate capture fisheries, and thus does not include mariculture. Officially reported landings  The FAO’s Fishstat Plus database is the only publicly available resource presenting Turkish marine landings for the entire 1950-2010 period. National ‘Turkstat” data are only available from 1967 onwards (TÜİK 1967-2010), although Turkey has been reporting landings data to the FAO since 1950. The reported landings were compared from 1950-2010 between the two available sets (national and FAO data), and were found to be almost identical, thus implying a good transfer of data from the Turkish government to the FAO (Figure 2.1).   Figure 2.1. Reported FAO data compared to national TURKSTAT data, 1950-2010.   Annual totals from the FAO database (as sent to FAO by Turkey) were used as the reported baseline from 1950-1966, as national data reported by sub area (i.e., by sea) could neither be located by any of our associates nor from the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) for the 1950 to 1966 period. The annual totals from 1950 to 1966 in the FAO database were presented as one annual 52 total sum for the country. The Turkish Ministry of Commerce collected statistics at that time (Üstündağ 2010); however, the species composition, and allocation to corresponding sea is no longer available. Catches were disaggregated by region (i.e. sea) and by species using average proportions from the closest available national landing statistics (the 1967 to 1971 period). The geographic allocation of catches used for the reported data during the 1950-1966 period was Aegean Sea (2.7%), Black Sea (75.4%), Levant Sea (3.2%), and Marmara Sea (18.7%). All national Turkstat catch statistics (www.turkstat.gov.tr) for the 1967 to 2010 time period were made available to us and were used as the reported baseline, since they contained better spatial detail than the FAO data.  Catches outside Turkish national waters  Some Black Sea turbot catches were taken outside Turkey’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which extends 200 nautical miles out into the Black Sea (www.blacksea-commission.org). These catches, although not caught in Turkish waters, are recorded as Turkish landings and therefore do not accurately represent Turkish catches from a spatial point of view. Thus, turbot catches, which were recorded as Turkish catches in national statistics, were re-allocated here to the waters of the countries from which they were caught, i.e., Romania, Bulgaria, and Ukraine (www. blacksea-commission.org/_publ-SOE2009-CH9.asp). The reconstructed total catch for turbot will therefore reflect only catches attributed to Turkey fishing within its own exclusive national fishing grounds in the Black Sea, allowing inferences to be made regarding national fisheries catches and resource trends. Turkish fisheries in areas other than those mentioned here, e.g., in the Western Mediterranean, are not considered in this study.    53 Taxonomic breakdown   Based on ‘Turkstat’ national reported data, the catches from the eastern and western Black Sea were combined to represent ‘the Black Sea’. Turkstat data were used as a baseline rather than FAO data since it contained a more detailed spatial allocation of catches, i.e., according to sea.  In Turkey, catches are recorded using common names. For most years the English equivalent was given, but these were not always consistent (See Appendix Tables 1a and 1b for a list of fish and invertebrates used in this report). For instance, ‘istavrit karagöz’ corresponds to Atlantic horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) and ‘istavrit kraça’ corresponds to Mediterranean horse mackerel (Trachurus mediterraneus).  It is understood that ‘mezgit’ corresponds to whiting (Merlangius merlangus); and ‘bakalorya’ and ‘berlam’ correspond to European hake (Merluccius merluccius, see also www.fishbase.org). The catches for ‘bakalorya’ and ‘berlam’ were combined in the reported data from 2001 onwards; and these catches were assigned to European hake.  The various fish species of mullet (Mugil cephalus, Mugil soiuy, Liza saliens, Chelon labrosus, Moolgarda seheli, etc.) belong to the family Mugilidae, while ‘barbunya’ is the red mullet (Mullus barbatus) and ‘tekir’ is the striped red mullet (Mullus surmuletus), both of the family Mullidae.  For the Turkish ‘köpek baliği’, the provided English translation is ‘smooth-hound sharks’;  these fish were mostly classified as piked dogfish (Squalus acanthias), since they are the major shark species caught in Turkey19. Some species of tuna including bullet tuna (Auxis rochei), little tunny (Euthynnus alletteratus) and albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) were only added to the data collection process as of 2004, so their previous catches remain unknown.                                                                       19 www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/organizations/ssg/sharknews/sn11/shark11news12.html 54 It is most likely that the catches of round sardinella (Sardinella aurita) and European pilchard are grouped together in the reported data and therefore make it difficult to detect catch trends of either species. However, some local experts have explained that round sardinella populations are expanding northwards in the Aegean Sea and its catches are increasing. Only marine fish and invertebrates were used in this report, which thus excludes jellyfish, sponges, turtles and dolphins. Industrial vs. artisanal catch  Complete enumeration was carried out covering all registered professional fishers between 1967 and 1969 and again from 1972 until 1980. From then on, the State Institute of Statistics (SIS) gathered data on fishery landings, fishing fleets, equipment and the status of those engaged in the industry. After 1980, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) took over data collection (although both of the above-mentioned bodies did have some corresponding collection of data until recently) and the statistical collection methods remained the same, to cover industrial fishers (boats over 10 meters in length or with more than five crew members) by full enumeration, but changed from covering artisanal (artisanal) fishers by full enumeration to a ‘sub-sampling’ procedure (TÜİK, 1989).  The majority of the registered fishing boats are from the artisanal sector; for example in 2010, 85% of the registered Turkish fleet were small boats under 10 m in length (TÜİK, 2010). The Aegean and Levant coasts are mainly exploited by artisanal fishers, whilst the Black Sea and Marmara Sea are dominated by both industrial and artisanal operations (www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/29/34431494.pdf).  The standard artisanal operation uses trammel net, gillnet, longline, and dredgers, or some variation of these. Larger-scale operations include trawlers, purse seiners and carrier vessels (to transport anchovy catches from the seiner to the processing plant). Beach seiners (Anonymous 1985) were important until the most recent decades. Beam trawlers are used mainly for sea snail and hydraulic dredges are used to 55 gather cockle in the inshore Black Sea. The Black Sea hosts most of Turkey’s industrial fishing due to its large stocks of small pelagic fish, which are caught mainly by purse seine.  The activities of the industrial (industrial) sector within Turkey are defined here as trawlers, purse seiners, and any other registered fishing boat greater than 10 m in length. While 12 m is the required minimum length a boat must be to apply for a trawling license, the national data categorizes boats as   5-9.9 m in length and 10 m-19.9 m in length (among other length classes), making it difficult to separate for the 12 m length class. As national statistics do not relate catches to a particular fishing sector, this was performed by assigning species (or more precisely percentages of species) to either the artisanal or industrial sub-sectors, and the percentages are based on expert knowledge and experience (see Appendix tables 1 for fish and 2 for invertebrate classification to sector). Unreported and under-reported catches   Illicit fishing activities are problematic for management, as they combine criminal activities with fisheries management. For the past decade, the term IUU (Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated) fishing has often been misleadingly used as synonyms of “illegal fishing” (Bray 2000). Due to the complexity of the legalities which surround fishing enforcement accountability, from now on the suggested approach to illegal fishing, as proposed by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), is to separate the components of the term IUU; to have illegal fishing handled directly by law enforcement, and unreported and unregulated fishing to be dealt with by the fisheries management sector, as they both relate to fishery mandates (UNODC 2011). Several fishing activities in Turkey can be regarded as IUU fishing: fishing with an unlicensed vessel, fishing in closed areas/seasons, catching prohibited species, using forbidden equipment, and catches or revenue that are not reported may all be considered IUU practices (Ünal et al. 2009). Here, unreported catches are the main concern.   56 There seems to be a consensus between scientists, the government and people employed by the fishery industry in Turkey that unreported catches account for somewhere between 30-100% in addition to the reported landings (see below). In this section, the unreported catches of the commercial artisanal and industrial sectors are addressed. Unreported recreational and subsistence sector catches will be estimated in subsequent sections.  The following is a compilation of available accounts of misreporting, including scientific papers and interviews/consultations with key fishery experts and fishers:   • “Fishery landing statistics may represent only 30- 50% of actual catch, while the non-reported catch is likely to include more undersized, ‘out of season’ and/or prohibited species.” (Diffey 2007);  • Hamdi Arpa, an aquatic products engineer for the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA), estimates that the unreporting of data accounts for between 30-40%, due to the pitfalls of the data collection system (Ş. Bekişoğlu pers. comm.);  “The EU Fishery Commission and mostly all fishers share the opinion that at least 30% of total fishery catches are not declared to the government”( Ş. Bekişoğlu pers. comm.);  • Ramazan Özkaya, the president of the Turkish fishery co-operatives, estimates that the unreported amount of fish is much more than 30%, and probably closer to or greater than 50% (Ş. Bekişoğlu pers. comm.);  • From 1950-1966, the national statistics sent to the FAO were based on inquiries to provincial government officials, and on the sales records of provincial fish markets. It explicitly states that the true catch of fish could not be reflected by the data collected by the Ministry of Commerce during this period due to insufficient coverage (TÜİK, 1968). Unfortunately, the details of how these data were calculated are no longer available (Uğuzhan Türkoğlu, Turkstat employee, pers. comm., 57 March 18, 2011). Sales have, undoubtedly, occurred directly from boats and piers; and directly to restaurants throughout this period, all unreported; and  Many Turkish scientists do not agree with the collection methodologies of the fisheries department and realize that the real catches may be 50-75% more than reported (M. Zengin, pers. obs.). Given all the above evidence, the official Turkish fisheries statistics were considered to be an underestimate of total commercial catches. Based on a synthesis of the above information, 40% was added to total catches reported for the period 1950-2010, in order to account for a significant unreported/underreported commercial catch component. The motivation to underreport catches may be attributed to the heavy taxes and levies imposed on fish sales and income of fishers and the way in which fish is marketed. Evidence of this includes:  • Brokers impose an 8-10% sales tax (depending on the species) on catches sold through the fish hall/bazaar. Fishers often avoid this method of sale in order to avoid the tax;  • Income tax, varies according to annual income and profit margin; the maximum rate of income tax that can be applied is 30%;  • Fish agents and wholesalers do not declare the ‘true’ amount of wholesale and retail fish sales to the government (Ministry of Finance). The Turkish government is lacking an effective control system. Government officials and some economists suggest that at least 40-50% of the nation’s products and income have not been accurately declared (Ş. Bekişoğlu, pers. obs.); and  • An additional 10% tax is imposed on a commercial fisher’s total catches (referred to as ‘resource rent’), and is to be paid directly to the Ministry of Finance upon returning to shore. This tax is supposed to be collected at landing sites. Most fishers evade this tax by under-reporting their catches by about 30% on average, for fear of being taxed on their total landings (S. Bekişoğlü, pers. obs.; M. Ulman pers. comm.).  58 While there is clearly some incentive to under-report catches, inadequacies in catch data may also be attributed to data collection methods. Such methods that may negatively influence the quality of the data include:  • For the 1950–1966 period, only fish sold through select markets were used in the national catch data; fish sold at places other than those select fish markets are not accounted for here;  • Total catches are often simply a memory-based reflection on the previous year’s catch. Additionally, catches made out of season, using illegal gears, in prohibited areas, under legal size or sold directly by the fisher, are likely never declared;  • Artisanal fisheries catches from 1970 and 1971, and 1980 to the present are estimated by an annual sub-sampling method. This method of data collection, unless scaled-upward to account for the entire year and all fishers, results in underreporting; and  • Discrepancies also exist between reported landings and exports of the same species. For instance, sea snail, according to export records are vastly underreported by as much as 50% during the 1985-2004 time period, and around 1000% in 1995 alone (Knudsen et al. 2010).  According to a report from Ünal and Erdem (2009), authorities reported that 2.5 t of grouper, 1 t of common dentex and 1.5-2 t of European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) were caught annually in Turkey’s first designated ‘Marine Protected Area’ and ‘No Take Fishing Zone’ (as of 2009), at night by illegal recreational spear fishers, where up to hundreds of illegal spearfishers likely operate. It is also worth mentioning, based on a study done on managing grouper catches from the same region (Ünal et al. 2009), that the illegal catches of the above-mentioned species are equal or larger than the local fishery co-operatives’  annual legal catch of the same species. There are many layers of illegal fishing which occur at times simultaneously in Turkey, all stemming from a lack of MCS.  59 Recreational and Subsistence catches  Recreational catches have never been included in the collection of fishery statistics for Turkey. The first study of recreational fisheries activities in Turkey by Ünal et al. (2010), from the Çanakkale region, provided valuable insight and data; specifically, the number of recreational fishers, catch rates, and species composition.  At a recent workshop of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) on recreational fisheries (GFCM 2011a), a standardized definition of recreational fishing was produced. In this definition recreational fisheries are: “Fishing activities exploiting marine living aquatic resources from which it is prohibited to sell or trade the catches obtained.” Subsistence fishing is generally understood as the exploitation of marine aquatic resources for personal consumption (stats.oecd.org/ glossary). Subsistence and recreational fishing are not easily separated into distinct categories, but rather form part of a continuum. These components were estimated separately but recognize that catches from one sector may encompass some catches of the other. Subsistence fishing (for necessity) developed into recreational fishing (for leisure and to supplement the diet) as social and economic conditions evolved. Although the legal framework for these sectors is defined in ‘Fisheries Law No. 1380 Aquaculture and Fisheries Communiqué’, the majority of fishers in these sectors are unaware of these rules. Anyone can obtain an Amateur Fishing Certificate, although it is not legally required in order to fish, which leads to difficulties in monitoring this sector (M. Zengin, unpublished data). Here recreational and subsistence fisheries catches for Turkey were  estimated using a detailed account of fishing in Çanakkale (Ünal et al. 2010) in combination with assumption-based estimates to expand this estimate to the entire country.   60 Çanakkale  Çanakkale, with a population of 70,000, is increasingly becoming a popular coastal city for both recreational and commercial fisheries. In the Ünal et al. (2010) study, 190 recreational fishers were surveyed, and then total catches were scaled up to reflect total catches of the recreational fishers in the region. The percentage of recreational fishers from this region was found to represent 9.9% of the population and their average number of recreational fishing days was 77·year-1. Their catch rate resulted in an average of 0.645 t·fisher-1·year-1. The study also suggested that most recreational fishers are neither subsistence nor ‘true sport’ fishers, since 45% of shore-based, 73% of underwater fishers and 75% of boat-based recreational fishers sell their catches. Conflicts often arise between commercial and recreational fishers for this reason (ICES 2006). The total number of recreational fishers estimated for this study was greater than the reported number of commercial fishers (6,922 and 5,987, respectively).  The total human population of the region was obtained from Populstat data (www.populstat.info) for the period 1950-2010, and the data were interpolated between the closest available years. The annual population amount was divided by 9.9%, to represent the percentage of fishers in the study (Ünal et al. 2010), which was then multiplied by the calculated catch rate to get annual recreational catch totals. The catch rate per fisher for 1950 was obtained by doubling the catch rate for 2010, which yielded  1.29 t·fisher-1·year-1; the intermediate values were then obtained by interpolating linearly to the 2010 values (0.645 t·year-1, see above). This higher catch rate in the past was attributable to higher fish abundances and also larger mean fish sizes resulting from less competition in 1950. Recreational catches were assigned taxonomically using the same species composition as the Ünal et al. (2010) study.   61 Istanbul  Istanbul is, by far, the most populated city in the country. From 1950 to 2010, the city of Istanbul has grown in population from 1.2 million people to 13.3 million people (www.turkstat.gov.tr), and it is now the 22nd largest city in the world.  Istanbul has thousands of anglers fishing daily on the Bosphorus Strait, which is a very prominent fishing corridor. Many pelagic stocks make their annual migrations from the Aegean Sea, through the Sea of Marmara and then the Bosphorus Strait, to the Black Sea, and return via the same route back to the Mediterranean Sea. To calculate the number of recreational fishers for this area, the assumption that 1% of the population fishes recreationally was used (S. Bekişoğlu, pers. obs.), changing with population trends over time so that in 1950, Istanbul had an estimated 11,665 recreational fishers, and in 2010 an estimated 129,000 recreational fishers.  In earlier years, fishers in Istanbul were richly rewarded for their efforts. An angler could finish a fishing ‘day’ in one hour in the 1960s, each fish weighing between 4-6 kg (M. Ulman, pers. comm.). The average catch rate at present is about 1 kg∙fisher-1∙day-1, although considerable day-to-day variation occurs (A. Safahi, pers. comm., recreational angler from Istanbul). For 1950, a catch rate of 2 kg∙day-1 was conservatively assumed (due to more abundant fish stocks, and less overall fishing pressure). A linear interpolation was used to derive a time series of catch rates from the 1950 rate of 2 kg∙person-1∙day-1 and the rate in 1999 of 1 kg∙person-1∙day-1. The 1999 catch rate was held constant to 2010. The increasing population of Istanbul and associated increase in fishing effort likely resulted in lower catch rates per person, due to lowered abundance and the existence of smaller-sized fish, which is reflected in our assumption-based estimated catch rate. The same number of fishing days were  assumed per year as presented in Ünal et al. (2010) of 77 fishing days∙year-1. Although higher catch rates (5 kg∙day-1) are presented for recreational anglers catching horse mackerel from a Galata Bridge survey (Zengin, 2011), 62 experience of fishers and timing of survey likely influenced these high catch rates and, thus, our estimation remains conservative in comparison. The Çanakkale species breakdown (based on Ünal et al., 2010) was also used to disaggregate the recreational catches of the Istanbul (Bosphorus) fishing area, since both areas share similar taxa.  The entire Turkish coast To estimate the number of recreational fishers in Turkey (excluding the Çanakkale and Istanbul provinces, which have been estimated separately), human population data from Populstat data’s provincial dataset was used. The population of the coastal provinces in each of the four regions considered here (Black Sea, Marmara Sea, Aegean Sea, and Levantine Sea) was calculated based on census data (as presented by Populstat) for the period 1950-2000. For 2001-2010, the total known population trend was inferred to each coastal region. The percentages of the population living coastally (Çanakkale and Istanbul provinces excluded) ranged from 40% in 1997 to 45% in 1950.  To account for the number of recreational fishers in the coastal population, it was assumed that 2% of the coastal population fishes recreationally in both the Aegean Sea and Levant Sea, to account for less productive seas than the study area, which equals 1/5th the percentage of recreational fishers of the Ünal et al. (2010) study on recreational fishers. For the Sea of Marmara, 3.3% of the coastal population was assumed to fish recreationally; and for the Black Sea region, 1% of the coastal population was assumed to recreationally fish since subsistence/recreational fisheries are known to be much lower in this region. The amount of recreational fishers varied over time along with population trends for each of the provinces.   63 The recreational catch rates applied to the coastal populations of the Black Sea, Aegean Sea and Levant Sea were one fifth that of the Çanakkale study site, or 0.129 t·fisher-1∙year-1 in 2010. The catch rate was doubled to 0.258 t·fisher-1∙year-1 in 1950. A linear interpolation between catch rates of  0.258 t·fisher-1∙year-1 in 1950 and 0.129 t·fisher-1∙year-1 in 2010 was applied. The catch rate applied to the Marmara Sea was three quarters that of the study site, since the productivity of these regions are more similar, or 0.483 t·fisher-1∙year-1 in 1950 (to remain conservative), which was reduced by half in 2010 to 0.241 t·fisher-1·year-1 and the catch rate was interpolated between 1950-2010. Subsistence catches  To distinguish the recreational and subsistence sectors for accounting purposes, it was assumed that in 1950, this sector was dominated by people fishing exclusively for subsistence purposes. Therefore, in 1950, the ratio of subsistence to recreational fisheries catches was assumed to be 9:1 for all regions. Given the substantial developments in the economy of Turkey since 1950 (GDP per capita was $ 1,299 US in 1950, www.nationmaster.com), and the fact that GDP had risen to $ 13,800 US by 2010 (www.indexmundi.com), a subsistence to recreational catch ratio of 1:9 was assumed. Then, a linear  interpolation between these two ratios was performed to derive a sub-sector breakdown for the entire 1950-2010 time period. Taxonomic allocation of recreational/subsistence catches To allocate recreational/subsistence catches to individual fish species/groups for the Aegean, Marmara and Levant Seas, the species composition from the reported TURKSTAT 1980 commercial catch data was used as a baseline to assign catches to the same percentage of occurrence per species.   64 Some of these individual species ratios were slightly adjusted after consultation with local experts, fishers and analyzing all the peer-reviewed literature to account for different target species between commercial and recreational fisheries. For example, anchovy and other small pelagics are not caught by the recreational sector (S. Knudsen, pers. obs.), so these were excluded from recreational catches for all seas. For the Black Sea, annual trends in the catch data as well as expert knowledge were used. For the years between 1950 and 1966, the species composition was averaged from the closest available statistical years (1967-1971). Select popular recreationally-caught taxa were given a higher allocation percentage for recreational catches (Table 2.1).  Table 2.1. Taxonomic allocation of recreational/subsistence catches (%) in Turkey, from 1950-2010. Taxa                                                                           1950-1980 1981-2010  Aegean & Levantine Sea:a     Grouper (Serranidae) 20 10   European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) 20 10    Common dentex (Dentex dentex)   5 10  BlackSea:b      Bonito (Sarda sarda) 40 until 1968 3-49 from 1969-2010 a) From Ünal and Erdem (2009); b) From S. Knudsen, unpublished data.   Discards  Discards were separated into three components: 1) discards from bottom trawl fisheries; 2) discards from highgrading; and 3) all ‘other’ discards.  Turkey has reported some discard amounts in their annual statistical reports (as fish that are ‘not processed or consumed’) from 1998-2008. The reported discard rate was calculated from 1998-2008, and the discard rate ranged from 0.5% in 2000 to 3.24% in 2006, averaging 1.6% for the 11 year period. Due to the random process of the statistical sampling programme, and the annual form that commercial fishers are required to fill out (normally from memory alone), it is highly unlikely that these figures represent actual discard rates.  65  According to Kelleher (2005), fisheries around Turkey have the following discard rates: trawl fisheries (45- 50%), artisanal fisheries (<15%), mid-water trawlers targeting small pelagics (5.1%), sea snail dredge fishery (11.5%), and coastal encircling nets (7.4%). Additionally, the following discard rates were found for Turkey: 35.5% discards from the coastal shrimp beam trawl fishery in Turkey (Zengin and Akyol 2009), 77% discards from the commercial prawn trammel net fishery in the Aegean (Gökçe and Metin 2007), 77.8% discard rate for monofilament nets, 22.8% for multifilament net fishing in the gillnet fishery in the Turkish Aegean Sea (İlker et al. 2008), 38% discards from bottom trawl fishing in the Turkish Aegean Sea (A.Ç. Gücü, unpublished data), 37% discards from demersal trawling in Turkish waters (Özbilgin et al. 2006), and 36% discards from Black Sea bottom trawling (Özbilgin et al. 2006). Available discard information was converted into discard rates for each of the discard components. Bottom trawling discards Bottom trawling is one of the most destructive gear-types. Some of the well-documented impacts of bottom trawling include damage to benthic habitat, destruction of essential fish habitat, increased siltation, reduced biodiversity and reduced species richness over a short time period (Thrush and Dayton 2002). Unfortunately, no such study on bottom trawling impact on the benthic system has been completed for Turkey; but this type of research is urgently needed. Black Sea  Bottom trawling is illegal in the eastern Black Sea; but legal in the western Black Sea region. For all bottom trawling operations in the Black Sea, there are specific ‘target’ fisheries. From fieldwork on discard rates in the Black Sea (2004-2006), the following discard percentages were applied (Table 2.2, Zengin and Knudsen 2006). These percentages mostly represent the ratio of under-sized fish that are 66 discarded due to minimum legal landing size, fishing season, and market price.  Table 2.2. Discard rates applied to taxa from  bottom trawling on the Turkish Black Sea coast, 1950-2010. Taxon Discard rate (%) Whiting (Merlangius merlangus)a 45.3 Red mullet (Mullus barbatus)a 25.7 Turbot (Scopthalmus maximus)a 27.5 Mediterranean horse mackerel (Trachurus mediterraneus)a 25.8 Atlantic horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus)a 22.2 Piked dogfish (Squalus acanthias)a 16.6 Sea snail (Rapana venosa)b 11.5 a) From Zengin and Knudsen (2006); b) From Kelleher, (2005).    The Black Sea does not have a ‘target’ shrimp (Penaeidae) fishery, but shrimps are caught as by-catch and retained by bottom trawlers (Zengin and Knudsen 2006). The Black Sea’s shrimp contribution is negligible and reported zero catches in 2010. No additional discards for shrimp have been calculated for the Black Sea region. Marmara Sea Discards from bottom trawling were calculated as 37% of the reported catches for five specific target species (Table 2.3, Özbilgin et al. 2006). Shrimp are fished in the Sea of Marmara using trammel nets and bottom trawls. The discard rate used for the shrimp fisheries in this sea was averaged from two published discard rates for shrimp fishing in Turkey (Gökçe and Metin 2007; Zengin and Akyol 2009); the resulting discard rate of 56% was then applied to shrimp catches to get a total discarded amount, which was then allocated to the following species (Table 2.3, Metin et al. 2009): swimming crab (Portunidae 29%); blue crab (Callinectes sapidus 17%); annular seabream (Diplodus annularis 15%); angular crab (Goneplax rhomboides 15%); mantis shrimp (Squilla mantis 12%); and purple-dye murex (Bolinus brandaris, 12%).  67 Table 2.3. Discard rates (%) applied to taxa from bottom trawling in the  Sea of Marmara and Aegean Seas, 1950-2010. Taxon                                                                         Marmara Sea    Aegean Sea                                                                     %                     %                  Mullet (Mugilidae and Mullidae)a 37 38 Turbot (Scopthalmus maximus)a 37 38 Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus)a 37 38 Smooth-hound (Mustelus mustelus)a 37 38 Sea snail (Rapana venosa)a 37 38 Shrimp fishery discard rate (56%), applied to following taxa:  Swimming crabb 29 29 Blue crabb 17 17 Mantis shrimpbd 12 12 Annular seabreambd 15 15 Angular crabbd 15 15 Purple-dye murexbd 12 14 From Özbilgin et al. (2006); b) From Gökçe and Metin (2007); c) From Zengin (2009);  d) From Metin et al. (2009).     Aegean Sea  Trawlers fish in their ‘home’ fishing grounds (the Western Black Sea), and as the fishing season finishes their fishing grounds expand to the Aegean and Levant Seas. The trawling discard rate for the Aegean Sea is a little lower than for the Levant Sea, at 38% (Stergiou et al. 1998, A.C. Gucu, unpubl. data). This 38% discard rate was applied to the same target species listed above in the Marmara Sea section. In addition, the shrimp trawling discards have been allocated to the same taxa and percentage (56% of shrimp fisheries) as in the previous section on the Sea of Marmara (Table 2.3). Levant Sea Bottom trawl data for this region were recently evaluated for the past 40 years (A.Ç. Gücü, unpublished data; Table 2.4) to establish trends in discard rates over time. In the 1980s, the discard rate from bottom trawling was 40.9%, on average, which increased to 48.3% by 2007-2010. A constant discard rate of 40.9% was assumed for the 1950 to 2006 time period, which increased to 48.3% from 2007-2010. In the recent period, discarding has increased in the Levant and Aegean Seas as evidenced by the increasing availability of undersized fish; and a maximum discard rate of 93.5% was even sometimes reached (A.Ç. 68 Gücü, unpublished data). The shrimp trawl fishery had a higher discard rate in this sea at 71% (Duruer et al. 2008), which was applied to the taxa in Table 2.4 for the 1950-2010 period. Table 2.4. Discard rates (%) applied to bottom trawling in the Turkish Levantine coast, 1950-2010. Taxon 1950-2006 2007-2010 Red mulleta 40.9 48.3 Atlantic horse mackerela 40.9 48.3 Mediterranean horse mackerela 40.9 48.3 Shrimp fishery discard rate 71%b, applied to following species:   Swimming crab  50 50 Blue crab  35 35 Mantis shrimp  15 15 a) From Dr. Ali Çemal Gücü, unpublished data; b) From Duruer et al. (2008).   Discards from highgrading   Highgrading is defined as the discarding of a marketable species in order to retain the same species at a larger size and price, or to retain another species of higher value or the retention of only those species with the greatest market value (Alverson 1994). Until very recently, some non-target fish species have been almost entirely discarded (Zengin et al. 2011). After the Turkish fishery ‘resource crisis’ of the late 1980s, some previously discarded species became target species and have only recently become marketable due to a marked decline in the catches of larger, more valuable fish.  From 1950-1995, nine times the reported amount of the following species were likely discarded (M. Zengin, pers. obs.): scorpionfish (Scorpaenidae), gobies (Gobiidae), stingrays (Dasyatidae) and sprat. From 1996-2010, at least two times the reported amount of these select species were discarded (Zengin and Knudsen 2006; Zengin et al. 2011), since a portion of these are now landed, but the majority continue to be discarded at sea (Table 2.5). Sprat is the exception, which has now shifted to being a ‘tar-get’ fishery; sprat has a 15% discard rate post-1996 (M. Zengin, pers. obs.). Although a targeted fishery 69 now exists for sprat, their geographical range overlaps for about one month during the year with that of anchovy and sprat is therefore caught incidentally, and then discarded at the market.  In a recent study by Ali Çemal Gücü20, based on anchovy size comparisons between landed sizes and sampled-at-sea sizes, it was estimated that 41% of anchovy (by weight), and 76% (by number) were likely discarded at sea due small sizes resulting from highgrading during the 2012-2013 fishing season. Since anchovy are the largest Turkish fishery, this high amount was assumed to have been covered through the estimations of unreported catches and discards. Table 2.5: Discard rates (%) applied to highgrading for all seas, 1950-2010.a Taxon 1950-1995 1996-2010 Scorpionfish  900 200 Goby  900 200 Stingray 900 200 Sprat  900  15 a) From M. Zengin, pers. comm.    ‘Other’ discards   Kelleher (2005) suggested that the anchovy fishery, the largest fishery in Turkey, has no discards as the fish are caught by purse-seines and anything not sold is sent to one of 25 fish meal and fish oil processing plants. However, on closer inspection, fish processing plants occasionally refuse to process small pelagic catches when the facility is at capacity, resulting in the spoiling and discard of excess catches, or if the catches presented are juveniles, as they do not yet have enough oil for processing. Therefore, for anchovy and all ‘other’ commercial marine species that have not yet been mentioned, a discard rate of 5% was applied. This rate was guided by taking the weighted average global discard rate of 8%, and deducting Turkey’s average reported discard rate (1.6%). The resulting rate of 6.4% was con-servatively reduced to 5%. Mid-water trawlers targeting small pelagic fish have a weighted discard rate                                                                     20 http://hamsi.ims.metu.edu.tr/sunumlar/4-IUU-GFCM[ACG].pdf 70 of 5.1% (Kelleher 2005), which is suitable for the discards of all ‘other’ species, most of which are small pelagics. Although it may seem that discarded species are not of general importance, they may have an important role in the ecosystem (Akyol 2011). Other catch adjustments Sea cucumber There were some minor discrepancies concerning the data collection that need mentioning. Sea cucumbers (Holothuridae) are commercially harvested, but have not been included in the national landing statistics. It is highly unlikely that sea cucumbers were included in the ‘Miscellaneous marine invertebrates’ category in the reported Turkstat data, since for most years there is a discrepancy, there is not a great enough amount in the miscellaneous category to cover these commercial activities. They generated between 19 to 77 t of processed product annually between 1996 and 2007 (Aydin 2008); their weight was assessed mostly while the animals were fresh. Processing involves a combination of freezing, drying and salting; the final product is then exported to the Asian seafood market. Sea snail  The Rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) is an invasive snail species that was first recorded in the Black Sea during the 1940s (Sağlam et al. 2009). They are top predators with a ferocious appetite, and the diversity of bivalves in the Black Sea declined two-fold since their introduction (Vershinin 2007). This sea snail is associated with a marked decline in range and density of native mussel settlements, near both the Anatolian and Caucasus coasts on the Black Sea, originally biologically rich areas (Öztürk 1999).  Rapa whelk has been fished either by dredging or by diving since the 1980s, mostly by artisanal fisheries. Dredging for sea snails most likely damages benthic habitats, but this has not yet been studied. This species was first included on its own in the national fisheries statistics in 1988, and was under the 71 ‘others’ column for invertebrates some years before that (Rad 2002). This animal is not consumed in Turkey, but instead exported to Asian markets.  In the Black Sea, illegal fishing for this species is common: “Although illegal, most boats use two or even three dredges simultaneously and operate at night (which is also illegal); although dredging is illegal in the summer, this is when the fishery is most intense, when catches are best” (Knudsen et al. 2010). The months with the highest sea snail catches are also the summer months when dredging (and trawling) activities are supposedly banned (M. Zengin, unpublished data). Formal state regulations to a large extent are circumvented with regards to the sea snail fishery of the Black Sea.  In the easternmost Black Sea, sea snail fisheries ceased operating from 2005 until recently due to the diminishing mean size of the animal, which decreased from 62 mm in 1991 to 47 mm in 2005 (Knudsen et al. 2010). In 2008, the owners of three of the largest sea snail processing plants in Samsun (Black Sea coast), all complained about the hardships of finding buyers for sea snails for the last two to three years, due to their declining mean size; the fishers also complained that the reduced mean sizes meant they increasingly found themselves returning many smaller sized individuals to the sea (Knudsen et al. 2010).  Sea snail exports were found to be higher than reported landings over a twelve year period in between 1986-1988 and 1993-2003, but not including the years between 1989 and 1992 because the export statistics could not be verified (Knudsen et al. 2010). Unfortunately, export data from 2004 onwards group sea snails with a larger taxonomic category, so the export amounts for this species could not be verified. The year with the highest discrepancy was 1995, as exports were almost eleven times higher than the reported landings (12,988 t and 1,198 t, respectively). Data collection for this fishery should be more precise given the limited amount of snail-processing plants on the Black Sea coast.   72 Turbot in the Black Sea There is a notable decline in reported Turkish turbot catches from the Black Sea starting in 2002. It is widely acknowledged that Turkish fishers were illegally fishing for turbot in the north-western Black Sea, in Bulgarian, Romanian and Ukrainian waters (where between 1,000 and 2,000 t were taken annually) in the period 1993-2001 and also 2009-2010. Some (fatal) accidents involving the maritime police and illegal Turkish fishers temporarily stopped this illegal fishing problem. The catches were sold on the Turkish market and reported as Turkish catch. Turkish fishers also catch turbot in the Abkhazia region of Georgia, a run-away Georgian state (S. Knudsen, pers. comm.). After 2001, Turkish fishers have had to rely more on their own ‘narrow and exhausted’ Black Sea continental shelf for turbot, due to these escalated conflicts, hence the reduction of Turkish reported turbot catches (Llope et al. 2011).  Turbot catches caught by Turks in waters other than their own were estimated to be about 2.4 times higher than the reported landings averaged for the 2002-2010 period (Zengin et al. 2011). For each of the eleven years (1993- 2001, 2009-2010), the reported catch data was adjusted with the minimum estimated amount (1,000 t∙year-1) of foreign-caught turbot catches (since these catches were not caught in Turkish waters), and the catches must be allocated to the waters of the countries in which they were caught. Unreported Mediterranean mussel Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) has always been a part of traditional Turkish cuisine. The majority of mussel catches have gone unreported and were estimated here for the first time. Through surveys conducted in 2013, details of this fishery were obtained, and four types of mussel fishers and their catch rates were derived from: 1) Elif fishers; 2) Dredgers; 3) Scuba divers; and 4) Skin divers.  73  It is illegal to catch mussel from the Bosphorus Strait, Marmara Sea and the Dardanelles, unless one has a special license for mussel, which are challenging to obtain. Hence, the bulk of the fishery operates illegally and (very) often has to pay penalties to the local authorities. There are many local news articles about mussel fishers being caught and fined in recent years, but since the population density is so high (especially in Istanbul), and control is very sparse, the majority of this illegal fishery goes unnoticed.  ‘Elif’ fishers: This is a new type of vacuum-style compressor called an ‘Elif’. There are three known Elif compressors operating in Turkey beginning in 2009, two in the Sea of Marmara and one in the Aegean Sea. They operate from May to September, and can collect 4 x 26 kg bags of mussel a minute, or a total of 1,500 bags a day, which results in 39 t·vessel-1·day-1. Out of the five-month fishing season, it was assumed that each of these three boats collects mussel 30 days a season (this is a part-time operation, conducted between holding other jobs) resulting in ~1,170 t·vessel-1·year-1 of unreported mussels. Thus, for 2009 and 2010, 2,340 t·year-1 (i.e., two operators) of mussel was allocated to the Sea of Marmara and 1,170 t·year-1 (one operator) was allocated to the Aegean Sea. These mussel catches and the dredger catches below were allocated as unreported artisanal commercial catches.  Dredgers: There are several known mussel landing and processing centers located on the Bosphorus Strait from which dredgers operate (A. Ulman, pers. obs.). One such area on the Bosphorus collected between 1,000 and 1,500 bags·day-1, with each bag containing approximately 26 kg of mussels. To be conservative, an average of 1,000 bags was used, which equalled 26 t·day-1 for this site alone. This site operated daily from May to September and was thus assumed to operate 120 days·year-1, equating to 3,120 t·year-1 of catches. It was assumed that there were at least 5 such illegal processing sites on the Turkish Black Sea coast, 6 in the Bosphorus-Marmara-Dardanelles region, and one on the Aegean Sea 74 coast. The dredgers interviewed in 2013 by A.U. began collecting mussels around 1965, but their catch rate was reduced by 25% (i.e., to 2,340 t·year-1) in 1965 to reflect lower fishing pressure due to lower demand imposed by the lower human population, but by 1980, 3,120 t·year-1 per site was deemed appropriate and used.   Scuba gear: One professional scuba diver collects ~0.7 t∙day-1 and operates about 20 days·year-1 (as an income supplement, A. Ulman, pers. obs.) which equates to catches of 14 t∙diver-1·year-1. All mussel collectors using scuba were assigned half this catch rate in 1950 (7 t∙diver-1·year-1), which was linearly increased to 14 t∙diver-1·year-1 by 1980 and this rate was held constant until 2010. It was assumed that in 1950, there were 100 scuba divers collecting mussels in the Marmara Sea region (including Istanbul and the Dardanelles), which was linearly increased to 500 by 1980, and was held constant to 2010. The Black Sea was assumed to have 20 mussel scuba divers in 1950, which was linearly increased to 200 divers by 1980, and held constant to 2010. The Aegean Sea was assumed to have 10 divers in 1950, which was linearly increased to 50 by 1980 and held constant to 2010. Mussels were not known to be collected from the Turkish Levantine coast (Mediterranean coast).   Skin divers: Mussels collected for bait by skin divers were estimated at 20 kg∙fisher-1∙day-1 for 100 days·year-1, equating to 2 t∙fisher-1∙year-1. It was assumed that there were 100 such skin diving fishers operating in the Istanbul, Marmara and Dardanelles areas beginning in 1965, which was linearly increased to a (very conservative) 1,000 fishers·year-1 by 1980, which was held constant to 2010. The Aegean Sea was assumed to have 20 skin diving fishers in 1950, which was linearly increased to 200 by 1980, and held constant to 2010. Other seas were not considered here. These mussel catches and catches using scuba gear were allocated as recreational catches.  75 Accounting for uncertainty To account for uncertainty from the quality of the data used, the guidelines first derived by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were used (Table 2.6). First, each sector’s contribution to the total reconstructed catch was independently scored by three of the co-authors of this reconstruction, which were then averaged, for three periods in time (1960 to represent the period from 1950 to 1969, 1980 to represent the period from 1970 to 1989, and 2000 to represent the period from1990 to 2010)  Table 2.6. Presents our criteria for scoring the quality of the  data used in this reconstruction for three separate time period.                     RESULTS The total reconstructed results are first presented by sea and component, followed by adjustments, and then the total reconstructed catch for the nation as a whole, by component.    ‘Score’ for evaluating the quality of time series of reconstructed catches, with their confidence intervals (IPCC criteria from Figure 1 of Mastrandrea et al. 2010) Score -% +% Corresponding   IPCC criteria* 4 Very good 10 20 High agreement & robust evidence 3 Good 20 30 High agreement & medium evidence or medium agreement. & robust evidence 2 Bad 30 50 High agreement. & limited evidence or medium agreement & medium evidence.  1 Very bad 50 90 Less than high agreement & less than robust evidence *Mastandrea et al. (2010) note that “confidence increase” [and hence confidence intervals are reduced] “when there are multiple, consistent independent lines of high-quality evidence”.  76 Total reconstructed catches   The Black Sea Industrial and artisanal catches For the 1950-2010 period, total reported landings for the industrial fishing sector were ~13.1 million t (89%) from the Black Sea, while the artisanal sector landed a total of ~1.7 million t (11%) The major taxa landed by the industrial sector for the 1950-2010 period include anchovy (69%); Mediterranean horse mackerel (9%); bonito (4%); whiting (3%); Atlantic horse mackerel (2%); cockle (2%); and bluefish (2%). Anchovy catches from the Black Sea region were exclusively caught by purse seiners from the industrial sector. The major taxa landed by the artisanal sector for the 1950-2010 period are grey mullet (10%); bonito (9%); whiting (8%); Mediterranean mussel (8%); turbot (6%); bluefish (5%); and Mediterranean horse mackerel (4%). Unreported catches The total unreported component for the Turkish Black Sea amounted to approximately 5.6 million t for the 1950-2010 period. Of this total, 94% was allocated to the industrial sector and 6% was allocated to the artisanal sector. The taxonomic allocation for the unreported catches is the same as the industrial and artisanal reported components above. Recreational and subsistence catches Total estimated Black Sea recreational and subsistence catches totalled slightly over 77,500 t, or specifically ~39,300 t for the recreational and ~38,200 for the subsistence sectors, for the 1950-2010 period. The portion of this attributed to the subsistence sector was much higher (90%) at the beginning 77 of the study period than at the end (10% in 2010). Recreational catches had the opposite trend, whereby in 1950, they accounted for 10% which increased to 90% by 2010. The dominant species caught in the Black Sea by the recreational sector over the 1950-2010 time period were: bonito (28%); Mediterranean horse mackerel (16%); Atlantic horse mackerel (12%); bluefish (7%); grey mullet (7%); and seabream (4%). Discards Total discards for the Black Sea amounted to 2.14 million t for the 1950-2010 period. Total discards from bottom trawling in the Black Sea (for the 1950-2010 period) totalled ~740,600 t. The taxonomic composition of discards included Mediterranean horse mackerel (65%), Atlantic horse mackerel (14%), red mullet (8%), turbot (5%), sharks (4%), sea snail (3%), and shrimp (1%).  The total discards from highgrading in the Black Sea (for the 1950-2010 period) totaled approximately 590,500 t and had the following composition: rays (56%); scorpionfish (20%); gobies (13%); and sprat (11%).  The total discards from all of the ‘other’ fisheries in the Black Sea for the 1950-2010 period, totalled around 558,300 t; of which 80% were from the anchovy fishery; 5% were from the bonito fishery; 3% were from the bluefish fishery; 3% were from the cockle fishery; 2% were from the red mullet fishery; and the remaining 7% were from ‘other’ fisheries.           78 Marmara Sea  Industrial and artisanal catches For the 1950-2010 period, industrial fishing operations landed approximately 738,000 t of total reported catches (30%) from the Sea of Marmara, while the artisanal sector landed more than 1,423,500 t (70%). The major species landed by the industrial sector for the 1950-2010 period include anchovy (~140,300 t); grey mullets (~84,400 t); European pilchard (~78,000 t); silversides (~Atherinidae, 45,000 t); chub mackerel (~31,000 t); bonito (~26,000 t); and bluefish (~17,700 t).  The major species landed by the artisanal sector for the 1950-2010 period include Mediterranean mussel (1.1 million t); cockle (~46,000 t); mussel (~40,400 t); shrimp (~33,350 t); chub mackerel (~33,000 t); mullets (~31,300 t); bonito (~24,300 t); and bluefish (~20,200 t). Unreported catches The total unreported component for the Sea of Marmara amounted to ~872,000 t for the 1950-2010 period. Of this total, 63% was allocated to the industrial sector and 37% was allocated to the artisanal sector. The taxonomic allocations for the unreported catches are the same as the industrial and artisanal reported components above. Recreational and subsistence catches The total reconstructed catch for the entire Marmara Sea region for the recreational and subsistence sectors for the 1950-2010 period was ~3 million t, or specifically, ~2 million t for the recreational and ~1 million for the subsistence sector, for the 1950-2010 period.  79 The catch is distributed between the three different sub-areas in the following manner: the total reconstructed catch for the recreational sector in the Marmara Sea region (excluding Istanbul and Çanakkale) for the 1950-2010 period totalled ~2.5 million t (85% of the regions total catch); the recreational/subsistence catches for the Çanakkale region for the entire 1950-2010 period totalled just over 225,000 t; and the recreational/subsistence catches for the Istanbul region for the same period totalled just over 325,000 t. Recreational catches for the Çanakkale region were dominated by bluefish (15%), picarel (Spicara smaris 12%), sea snail (10%), mussel (6.8%), sea cucumber (6.7%), axillary seabream (Pagellus acarne; 6.2%), grey mullet (4.6%), horse mackerel (3.6%), gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata; 3.4%), Atlantic mackerel (3%), and smooth-hound shark (2.9%). The dominant recreationally-caught species in the rest of the Marmara Sea region by the recreational for the 1950-2010 period were: Mediterranean mussel (30%); bluefish (15.9%); bonito (7 %); Mediterranean horse mackerel (6.9%); picarel (6.5%); chub mackerel (5.9%); mullets (5.4%); sea snail (5.4%); horse mackerel (4.9%); and ‘other’ marine species (12%). Discards Total discards from bottom trawling for the 1950-2010 period were estimated to be ~87,000 t (on average, ~5,100 t∙year-1 for the 2000s). Discards had the following taxonomic composition: Mediterranean horse mackerel (41.2%); shrimp fishery discards (24.7%); Atlantic horse mackerel (21.6%); red mullet (6.5%); sharks (3.3%); turbot (2.5%); and sea snail (0.2%). Total discards from high-grading in Marmara Sea (for the 1950-2010 period) totalled ~127,000 t and had the following taxonomic composition: rays (42%); scorpionfish (35%); gobies (21%); and sprat (2%). 80 Total discards from ‘other fisheries’ in the Marmara Sea (for the 1950-2010 period) totalled just over 98,000 t, and had the following taxonomic composition: 37% anchovy; 9% bonito; 8% European pilchard; 8% bluefish; 5% whiting; and 33% from all ‘other’ fisheries. Aegean Sea  Industrial and artisanal catches For the 1950-2010 period, industrial fishing operations landed just over 1 million t (75%) of total reported commercial catches from the Aegean Sea while the artisanal sector landed ~337,300 t (25%). The major taxa landed by the industrial or industrial sector for the 1950-2010 period are: European pilchard (~335,000 t); anchovy (~164,000 t); grey mullet (~89,000 t); blue whiting (~63,150 t); chub mackerel (~54,000 t); bogue (~40,000 t); and bonito (~24,150 t). The major taxa landed by the artisanal sector for the 1950-2010 period are grey mullet (~48,000 t); seabream (~30,100 t); mussel (~30,050 t); European seabass (~20,750 t); bogue (~15,550 t); twaite shad (~11,100 t); and common octopus (8,750 t). Unreported catches The total unreported component for the Aegean Sea amounted to nearly 553,000 t for the 1950-2010 period. Of this total, 75% was allocated to the industrial sector and 25% was allocated to the artisanal sector. The taxonomic allocations for the unreported catches are the same as the industrial and artisanal reported components above.   81 Recreational and subsistence catches The total reconstructed catch for the recreational and subsistence sectors from the Aegean Sea for the entire 1950-2010 period was ~143,450 t, (on average, 3,700 t∙year-1 in the 2000s). Total recreational catches amounted to ~79,900 t (59%) over the 1950-2010 period, while subsistence catches accounted for ~63,550 t (41%). The dominant taxa caught in the Aegean Sea by the recreational and subsistence sectors were groupers (13%); grey mullet (11%); seabream (12%); horse mackerel (12%); European seabass (12%); common dentex (11%); bogue (6%); and Mediterranean horse mackerel (5%). Discards Discards from bottom trawling in the Aegean Sea (for the 1950-2010 period) totalled nearly 70,000 t. The discards had the following composition: Mediterranean horse mackerel (30%); red mullet (25%); Atlantic horse mackerel (20%); shrimp fishery discards (20%); sharks (5%); sea snail (1%); and turbot (0.1%). Total discards from the shrimp fishery totalled just over 8,900 t and specifically had the following taxonomic composition: swimming crabs (29%); blue crab (17%); annular seabream (15%); angular crab (15%); mantis shrimp (12%); and purple-dye murex (12%). The total discards from highgrading in the Aegean Sea (for the 1950-2010 period) totalled nearly  86,000 t. The discards had the following taxonomic composition: scorpionfish (49%); gobies (29%); rays (20%); and sprat (2%). The total discards from ‘other fisheries’ in the Aegean Sea (for the 1950-2010 period) totalled just over 58,400 t. Discards had the following taxonomic composition: European pilchard (29%); anchovy (12%); mullets (11%); European seabass (7%); shi drum (Umbrina cirrosa, 6%); and the remaining 35% were from other taxa.  82 The Levantine Sea  Industrial and artisanal catches For the 1950-2010 period, industrial fishing operations landed nearly 483,000 t (64%) of reported catches from the Levantine Sea, while the artisanal sector landed nearly 270,000 t (36%). The major reported taxa landed by the industrial sector in the Levantine Sea during the 1950-2010 period were European pilchard (15%); mullets (7%); silversides (7%); chub mackerel (6%); anchovy (5%); picarel (3%); and bluefin tuna (3%). The major reported taxa landed by the artisanal sector in the Aegean Sea during the 1950-2010 period were European barracuda (15%); seabream (11%); grey mullet (11%); leerfish (Lichia amia 7%); European seabass (5%); shrimp (4%); and common cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis 4%). Annual marine reported landings were highest in the Levantine Sea in 1993 with ~50,000 t and lowest in 2001 with ~11,800 t (TÜİK 2010). Unreported catches The total unreported component for the Levantine Sea amounted to ~306,000 t for the 1950-2010 period. Of this total, 75% was allocated to the industrial sector and 25% was allocated to the artisanal sector. The taxonomic allocation for the unreported catches is the same as the industrial and artisanal reported components above. Recreational and subsistence catches The reconstructed catch for the recreational and subsistence sectors from the Levantine Sea region for the entire 1950-2010 period was ~95,750 t (on average, just over 2,000 t∙year-1 in the 2000s). Total 83 recreational catches amounted to just above 53,500 t over the 1950-2010 study period, while subsistence catches accounted for ~43,600 t. The major taxa caught in the Levantine Sea by the recreational and subsistence sectors through the 1950-2010 period were European barracuda (~14,250 t); grouper (nearly 13,200 t); picarel (just over 12,400 t); common dentex (~9,550 t); European seabass (~9,550); gobies (~7,200 t); shark (~6,150 t): and leerfish (~2,100 t). Discards Discards from bottom trawling in the Levantine Sea (for the 1950-2010 period) totaled nearly 44,500 t (on average, 810 t∙year-1 for the 2000s). The discards had the following taxonomic allocation: red mullet (33%); Atlantic horse mackerel (13%); crabs (13%); Mediterranean horse mackerel (10%); shark (9%); and the shrimp trawl fishery (22%). The discards from the shrimp fishery (included in the above bottom trawling estimations) amounted to ~8,250 t.  The total discards from high-grading in the Levantine Sea (for the 1950-2010 period) totaled nearly 247,000 t. The discards had the following taxonomic allocation: gobies (72.8%); rays (15%); scorpionfish (12%) and sprat (0.2%). The total discards from ‘other’ fisheries in the Levantine Sea (for the 1950-2010 period) totaled 32,240 t. The majority of discards had the following taxonomic allocation: European pilchard (16%); European barracuda (7%); mullets (6%); swordfish (5%); picarel (5%); cuttlefish (5%); and the remaining 56% were from other taxa.   84 Other catch adjustments  The other catch adjustments were as follows:  Table 2.7. Results of ‘Other catch adjustments’ by taxon, tonnage, and year(s). Taxon group Total adjustment (t) Year(s) applied Sea cucumber 228.6 1996-2007 Sea snail 61,592 1985-1987, 1994-2003 Bluefin tuna 1,384 2006 Turbot 11,000 1993-2001, 2009-2010 Mediterranean mussel 1,072,000 1950-2010   Turkey as a whole   The total reconstructed catch for the 1950-2010 time period is approximately 33 million t, adding 14.5 million t to the total reported landings of around 18.4 million t (Figure 2.2, Appendix table 7).   Thus, reconstructed total catches were 63% more than the officially reported data. Our reconstruction of Turkey’s total catch from 1950 to 2010 combines the reported landings presented in the national data submitted to the FAO with our best estimates of additional unreported and under-reported catches (Figure 2.3, Appendix Table 7).  Using Table 2.6 as a scoring guide, the following uncertainty scores were calculated for the quality of the data used for this reconstruction: for 1960, -46% (as the lower score) and +78% (as the upper score), for 1980, -21% and +32%, and for 2000, -20% and 30%. Each following component comprised the following tonnages of total catch reconstruction: reported FAO data, 18.4 million t; unreported catches ~9 million t; discards ~2.6 million t, recreational catches ~1.45 million t; and subsistence catches of ~1.15 million t. As of 2010, out of a total of 16,650 registered fishing vessels, only 2,583 (15%) were industrial fishing 85 vessels, i.e., over 10 m in length. However, the industrial sector was estimated to land 90% of the total reported fishery landings for the 1950-2010 period (Figure 2.4, Appendix table 7).   Figure 2.2. Total reconstructed catch compared to total reported catch, 1950-2010.   From the total reconstructed catches (inclusive of the reported data) for the 1950-2010 period (Figure 2.4, Appendix table 8), anchovy was the largest single-taxonomic contribution to total marine landings with 14 million t; horse mackerel contributed 3.7 million t; Mediterranean mussel contributed 2.5 million t; bonito 1.6 million t; whiting 1.1 million t; bluefish 1.1 million t; European pilchard nearly 1 million t; and sprat around 330,000 t (included in data from 1996-2010 only).  It is clear from Figure 2.4 that the catches of small pelagics have increased dramatically since around 1980 (sprat, whiting, European pilchard and anchovy), while the larger pelagics (bonito, mullet, horse mackerel and bluefish) have been on a declining trend since the late 1970s. Marine landings for Turkey, when plotted as a time-series, appear to be semi-stable (Figure 2.4), however, once the very low-valued anchovy and sprat catches are excluded, it is apparent that the majority of catches besides anchovy and sprat have been on a downward declining trend since 1989 (Figure 2.5). 86    Figure 2.3. Total reconstructed catch by sector, 1950-2010.    Figure 2.4. Total reconstructed catch by major species or taxa, from 1950-2010.    Unreported landings Of the contributed adjustments, unreported catches were the largest component. This 40% unreported adjustment totalled to approximately 7.4 million t for the 1950–2010 period (Appendix table 7). The major unreported species throughout the 1950-2010 period were anchovy (~3.6 million t); 87 Mediterranean horse mackerel (~520,000 t); bonito (~266,000 t); European pilchard (~220,000 t); and whiting (~200,000 t).  Recreational/Subsistence Catches  The estimated recreational and subsistence catches for the 1950-2010 period were just over 2.6 million t (Figure 2.3, Appendix table 7). Of this amount 1.45 million t was from the recreational sector and 1.15 million t was from the subsistence sector. Of the total reconstructed catch, the Marmara Sea region (including both Istanbul and Çanakkale regions) accounted for ~2.3 million t (88%); the Aegean Sea accounted for ~139,000 t (5%); the Levantine Sea accounted for ~251,000 t (10%); and the Black Sea region accounted for ~76,000 t (2%).     Figure 2.5. Fishery reported catches (t) in Turkey, total landings and anchovy and sprat, 1950-2010.  The major species caught by the recreational sector throughout the 1950-2010 period were bluefish (~590,000 t); bonito (~288,000 t); Mediterranean horse mackerel (~272,000 t); picarel (~239,000 t); and chub mackerel (~229,000 t). Overall, recreational and subsistence catches as a fraction of total reconstructed catches accounted for nearly 9% of the total reconstructed catch (Figure 2.4). 88 Discards   Total discards for all components (Figure 2.6, Appendix Table 7) estimated was approximately  2.7 million t over the 1950-2010 time period. Discards from highgrading were most substantial, totalling 1.3 million t for the entire study period. Discards due to bottom trawling represented the second largest discard component totalling 730,000 t, and discards came third for all ‘other’ fisheries which totalled nearly 800,000 t for the same period. The major species discarded throughout the 1950-2010 period were rays (587,000 t); anchovy (472,000 t); Mediterranean horse mackerel (399,000 t); scorpionfish (267,000 t); and Atlantic horse mackerel (118,000 t). Overall, discards as a fraction of total reconstructed catches accounted for 9% of total reconstructed catches (Figure 2.6, Appendix Table 7).  Figure 2.6. Discard components for Turkey, 1950-2010.  DISCUSSION  Turkey’s total reconstructed catches over the 1950-2010 time period were estimated to be approximately 33 million tonnes, adding over 14 million tonnes to the officially reported landings presented by the FAO on behalf of Turkey. The discrepancy between the reported and reconstructed data was largely due to unreported catches, which accounted for about 9 million t, discards accounted 89 for 2.6 million t, recreational catches accounted for 2.2 million t, and subsistence catches accounted for 1.15 million. This study highlights the need for improved data collection procedures for Turkish fisheries statistics. Current and past methods of data collection have not accounted for total fisheries removals, which are urgently needed in order to assess fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems. Successful fisheries management plans depend, in large part, on the accuracy of the available data (Ünal and Franquesa 2010). As Turkey aspires to become a member of the EU, addressing missing catch data must be a priority. An overhaul of the statistical data collection system is already under way. However, understanding past catches is important to understanding Turkey’s fisheries. Since the fisheries represent less than 1% of the GDP, the Turkish government has not given these natural resources the special attention they require. However, such measures as GDP undervalue the true value of marine resources to a country especially when they fail to incorporate the unreported, recreational and discarded components, i.e., the three main components of this reconstruction. Below are some recommendations to enhance the accuracy for each component.  Of the contributed adjustments, unreported catches were the largest component. The substantial unreported landings estimated during this study appear to be the result of inefficient monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) systems in Turkey. Furthermore, fishers may under-report their catches due to the present taxation system. It would be a worthwhile government investment to address the loopholes in the reporting system, by making sure that fishers only land their catches at the specific ports offices equipped to verify catches against logbook data, and correcting current issues in the Vessel Monitoring System. To improve the accuracy of reporting, 100% observer coverage on all commercial vessels should also be implemented (INTERPOL 2010; Zeller et al. 2011). If Turkey was granted entry into the European Union (EU), these discrepancies would likely be resolved the quickest, as Turkey would have to align their policies with the Common Fisheries Policy of the EU. Illegal fishing, on the other hand, should not be a matter of fisheries management, but of law enforcement (UNODC 2011). Overall, 90 unreported landings accounted for 30% of total reconstructed catches. Illegal, unreported, unregulated fishing presents one of the biggest problems affecting fisheries management. The ‘unreported’ and ‘unregulated’ catches should be addressed by fishery managers, while ‘illegal’ fishing should be addressed by law enforcement. Currently, unreported and mostly unregulated, Turkey’s recreational sector was found here to have significant catch amounts, particularly in the recent period in the Sea of Marmara and the Bosphorus Strait. Recreational catches, for some species, were comparable in magnitude to commercial landings (i.e. picarel catches in the Sea of Marmara). Management measures urgently needed for this sector include surveys to estimate catch and a licensing system, which could improve regulation effort in this sector. Long-term monitoring of the recreational sector can be accomplished in as little as once every 4- 5 years (for cost-effectiveness) by completing roving surveys such as creel or angling surveys, or aerial surveys to provide necessary baseline data on fishing effort and catch per unit effort (see Brouwer et al. 1997). The Istanbul recreational/subsistence sector estimation is low compared to the Çanakkale study (Ünal et al. 2010), since the population of the study site is only about 6.4% that of Istanbul’s, and yet the total estimated catches of Çanakkale are 377% that of Istanbul’s. This is partly because only 1% of the population of Istanbul was estimated to fish recreationally while the study found 9.9% of the population in the Çanakkale region to be recreational fishers, and a much lower catch rate was used for the Istanbul region than the Çanakkale region to account for the fact that fishers generally use simple fishing rods and hand lines in Istanbul, but more sophisticated boats and nets in the Çanakkale region. Also, it is understood that the study region is a much more biologically productive corridor than the Bosphorus Strait, since many species have discontinued their migration routes to the latter for various reasons.  91 Discards represent the third main component in this reconstruction. It has been estimated that 2.6 million t of marine life have been discarded in Turkey for the 1950-2010 period, which is close to five years’ worth of total marine catches. Bottom trawling for shrimp and other species had the highest studied percentages of discards, and is also known to be highly destructive of the benthic fauna and flora composition. Mixed-species fisheries are considered wasteful as they catch substantial amounts of non-target species, which are often discarded. Most fishing methods in Turkey are mixed-species fisheries, which have high levels of associated discards, especially of under-sized commercial species. These factors have undoubtedly contributed to the nation-wide ‘growth overfishing’ dilemma. Putting an end to illegal trawling in the nation should significantly aid the many perilous marine stocks. Previous studies conducted on pelagic and demersal fish stocks around the coasts of Turkey indeed show that catches are comprised mainly of juvenile and sub-adult fish (Lok et al. 2002). Fish markets sampled along the Black Sea coast from 1990-1995 (Zengin et al. 1998) found that one third of the anchovy for sale in the region were below the minimum legal catch size of 9 cm; and in the Black Sea, 90% of bluefish are caught before they have a chance to reproduce. The minimum landing size (MLS) for bluefish was 14 cm (Ceyhan et al. 2007), but this species does not begin to reproduce until it is between 20-25 cm in length. Local fishers were worried about this ‘growth overfishing’ problem and started a national campaign (with the aid of Greenpeace) to raise public awareness regarding under-sized fish (Ceyhan et al. 2007). Due to this highly-publicized campaign (which provided rulers to measure fish length), the minimum legal landing size was increased to 20 cm for bluefish, but public pressure is mounting for the minimum legal landing length to be increased further to 25 cm. Since most fishers barely turn a profit, they instead try to ‘think outside the rules’; Knudsen (1995) reported that in Samsun, on the Black Sea coast, “most trawlers use an additional inner trawl bag that is 2 mm less than the legal mesh size of 18mm. Consequently, there is heavy overfishing of undersized fish”. If the species has commercial value, even though it is under-sized, it may still sell at the market (V. Ünal, pers. obs.). 92 The shrimp fishery would also benefit from having minimum landing sizes, so that individuals could be targeted which have already had a chance to reproduce, enhancing sustainability of the stock.  Minimum landing sizes would be more effective if the regulations coincided with fishing net mesh restrictions that would exclude catching juveniles of the target species to avoid waste in the fishery. Of course, there would have to be sufficient monitoring and control to enforce minimum mesh sizes, and also control measures are needed in fish markets, to prevent the sale of juvenile species. It should underlined that although marine fish landings in Turkey appear relatively stable (reported landings around 500,000 t·year-1 since the early 1990s), during the 2005-2010 period, small pelagics averaged to contribute 80% of total landings, while the larger-sized pelagics made up less than 20%. It should be emphasized that much of this anchovy and sprat caught is processed into fish flour and fish meal and is not made accessible to the growing population to help address food security concerns. Another important issue is that many of these larger pelagics have substantially decreased in size in recent decades, so that they themselves have almost become small pelagics, especially Mediterranean horse mackerel, Atlantic horse mackerel, and bluefish.  In Turkey, industrial and artisanal fleets often fish in the same areas and target the same species, aside from small pelagics such as anchovy and sprat (which are taken exclusively by industrial fleets). The artisanal sector, however, represents most of the employment. Overcapacity in Turkey’s seas needs to be addressed as practically all catches (even anchovy) are currently declining. Until fishing capacity is restricted, the well-being and resilience of Turkish marine ecosystems will continue to be compromised.  The industrial fishing fleet has continued to grow uncontrollably (most notably after the 1980s; Figure 8), which has been detrimental to the declining stocks of target species (Gücü 2001).   93 The combined landings of all demersal species from the Levantine region drastically declined from 10,000 t∙year-1 in 1992 to 2,000 t∙year-1 from 2001 onwards. This is most likely due to decades of intense trawling in combination with increased fishing effort. The data collection system must account for all species caught. For example dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) are known to migrate through the Levantine basin in the summer months; and palometa (Orcynopsis unicolor) are known to exist in the Aegean and Mediterranean Seas, both of which can be found for sale in Istanbul fish markets. Also, sea cucumbers are caught, processed and then exported to Asia. Yet, all these taxa are not included the official data collection system.    Figure 2.7. The number of licensed commercial fishing vessels in Turkey, 1950-2010.   The larger, more valuable species such as grouper, turbot, and red mullet have been overfished and many traditional fisheries such as Atlantic mackerel have collapsed. Both the Black and Marmara Seas have experienced dramatic shifts in the composition of species and the quality of their ecosystems has declined within the last 30 years. Fishers are now targeting smaller, less valuable species such as sprat, whiting and gurnards, which were not consumed by Turks in the past, but which have now found their 94 way to fish markets. In addition to declining fish stocks, mean fish sizes are getting smaller, as demonstrated with turbot, bluefish and anchovy. The health of Turkish fisheries is declining and will continue to do so until issues such as overcapacity, destructive fishing techniques (bottom trawling) and pollution are seriously addressed.  Key to improving management and moving towards more sustainable fisheries is an understanding of the history of fishing in an area. The current lack of adequate and reliable fisheries catch data, and the uncertainties associated with the available data have been major obstacles in the development of effective management plans (Koşar 2009). Over the period from 1930 to 1980, Turkey’s main fisheries catches changed from primarily bonito (a high trophic level, large fish), to primarily anchovy (a low trophic level, small fish), in the Istanbul and Marmara regions, which is an exemplary case of ‘fishing down marine food webs’ (Pauly et al. 1998). Now it is also probable that much of Turkey’s anchovy catches are not even coming from their own waters, as the anchovy are being driven out due to the highly-efficient technologies. Bonito had been the staple resource responsible for supplying Istanbul and the Marmara region with considerable wealth and food security for millennia, but its portion of total catch, along with many other larger fish such as swordfish, bluefin tuna and Atlantic mackerel have all but disappeared. A comprehensive time series of fisheries catches, such as presented in this report, is therefore essential to understand, and to help improve, the state of Turkey’s fisheries.    95 3: CYPRUS RECONSTRUCTION  SYNOPSIS  The island of Cyprus has been divided since 1974 into the Turkish Cypriot north and the Greek Cypriot south. Here, we have reconstructed the total marine fishery removals for the island in its entirety, and then for each side. Cyprus’s total marine fisheries catches were reconstructed for the 1950-2010 time period by estimating all fishery removals, including unreported commercial, subsistence and recreational catches, and major discards. These estimates were added to the ‘officially reported’ data, as represented by data submitted by countries to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Such data were submitted by the south, but were absent from the north for years following the 1974 partitioning of the island. The total reconstructed catch for 1950-2010 was nearly 243 000 t, which is 2.6 times the 93 200 t officially reported by FAO on behalf of Cyprus. The unreported components consisted of nearly 57 000 t of large-scale commercial landings, 43 000 t of small-scale commercial landings, 11 000 t each for recreational and subsistence landings and nearly 28 000 t of discards. Improving the accuracy of fishery statistics by accounting for all removals is fundamental for better understanding fisheries resource use thus increasing the opportunities for sustainable development through enhancing fisheries management capacity. INTRODUCTION  To reconstruct total marine fisheries extractions from the entire island of Cyprus from 1950-2010, the data reported on behalf of Cyprus to the FAO was used as our baseline, to which non-commercial (previously unreported) sectors have been estimated to determine the island’s total catch. In order to approximate historic catch time series data when there is some information lacking, we follow the approach used by Zeller et al. (2007), and many others (Cisneros-Montemayor et al. 2013; Ulman et al. 96 2013a; Belhabib et al. 2014; Schiller et al. 2014), which use a “re-estimation” approach. However, given its non-recognition by the international community, catches for the ‘north’ have not been reported to FAO since the partitioning of the island in 1974, but were estimated and included here. This study provides a detailed summary of each sector’s likely catches for each side of the island, thus providing important baseline data, which can help improve on the management of these renewable resources. METHODS  The following steps were taken in order to complete the catch reconstruction of Cyprus’s fisheries (See also: Pauly 1998; Zeller et al. 2007):  • Identify existing time-series of catches submitted on behalf of Cyprus to the FAO; • Determine what sectors and fisheries components were included in the FAO data; • Compare national data (where applicable) to the data reported to FAO to determine if there was a good transfer of data; • Identify local fisheries scientists willing to provide local expertise and help validate assumptions; • Review all existing peer-reviewed, grey literature, and older (i.e., colonial) reports; • If necessary, conduct local fisheries survey to establish reliable anchor points; • Determine best-available anchor points for effort and catch rates to estimate missing sectors; • Use interpolations to fill in missing years, then combine sectors; • Compare with data reported to FAO and provide estimate of total fisheries removals.  Officially reported landings  The data reported by Cyprus for the 1950-2010 period included commercial artisanal and industrial catches. Catches from the recreational and subsistence sectors, plus discards and some additional commercial catches were omitted from the data provided to the FAO, as were all catches in the north after 1973. 97  Two distinct continuous time-series’ of catch data for both north and south for the 1950-2010 period were generated to establish a historical baseline for each of the two parts, which were later combined to represent the ENTIRE island, AND to which future catches can be compared for future management decision. Hence, the catches reported to FAO from 1950-1973 (United Cyprus) were first split into ‘north’ and ‘south’ components based on each parts percentage of available fishing area, used to spatially allocate reported catches. The fishing areas were defined as 545 km2 or 40% for the north and 816 km2 or 60% for the south (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984).  To allocate the reported catches to sector, trawlers accounted for 60% of Cyprus’s reported catches in the late 1950s (Fodera 1961), which were the only industrial fishing method used at this time. Total industrial catches in the 2000s (which included trawlers, longliners, multi-purpose and pelagic vessels), accounted for 44% of reported catches, averaged from the DFMR National catch data from 2003-2005. Thus, the reported catches were allocated as 60% industrial from 1950-1961, and then were linearly decreased to 44% for the 2003-2010 period, the remainder being artisanal.  Industrial catches in the south in the 2000s included the bottom trawlers (21-27 m), bottom longliners (about 16 m), multi-purpose vessels, and pelagic swordfish and bluefin tuna vessels, while all vessels <12 m were considered artisanal.      98 Unreported catches  United Cyprus Industrial and artisanal During the colonial period, fisheries statistics were collected and compiled by the Chief Port Officer. Data were collected from a sub-sample of artisanal fishers at the end of each year, and from trawlers after each trip, but these data were “unchecked and severely underestimated” (Fodera 1961). To validate the reported catches at the end of the colonial period, an FAO expert multiplied the actual number of artisanal fishers and trawlers by their average catch rates (Fodera 1961), which assessed artisanal catches at 480 t·year-1 and 576 t·year-1 for trawlers, and hence concluded that ‘true’ catches for both commercial sectors were actually more than double (i.e., around 1,050 t) the reported amount of 500 t in 1960 (Fodera 1961). To account for this underreported ratio in our study, catches were doubled for the north from 1950-1973, and for the south from 1950-1979. The underreported estimate for the south from 1980-2010 is explained below. North Industrial After the division of the island, separate unreported components were estimated for the north from 1974-2010. During 1974, all industrial fishing vessels (operated by Greek Cypriots at that time) left the waters of the north. Hence, no industrial fishing occurred in the north between 1974 and 1992. From 1993 until 1997, five bottom trawl vessels <15 m in length operated in the north (Department of Animal Husbandry, unpubl. data). These trawlers operated from September to May, approximately 150-180 days·year-1 with a catch of about 8 t·vessel-1·day-1, the latter suggested by the former vessel operator. To 99 calculate annual bottom trawler catches, the number of trawlers was multiplied by the average of 165 fishing days·year-1, and then by the catch rate of 8 t·vessel-1·day-1. This catch rate was assumed constant for each of the five years (1993-1997), as trawling was practiced only for a short period, hence, the likelihood of immediate declines in catch/effort from repeated trawled areas would be low.   The only other industrial catches in the north were from one exploratory purse-seine vessel hired from Turkey for a two month period in 2002. The former operator of the seiner provided us with catch estimates of between 20-30 t·day-1 which were exported to Turkey (Department of Animal Husbandry, unpubl. data). We assumed this purse seiner to have fished 20 days·month-1 for the two months, and used the averaged catch rate of 25 t·day-1. Artisanal (1974-2010) While some artisanal catch data were collected in the north beginning in 2004, they were not deemed reliable (Table 3.1). Only a fraction of fishers report their catches (or parts of) to the Department of Animal Husbandry. Even the Department’s fully expanded estimates, which were multiplied by a factor of 2-3, were deemed misleading of actual catches by local officials.   Table 3.1. North: Locally reported artisanal catches (t) and estimated total catches for the north of Cyprus. Year Locally reported artisanal catches (t) Estimated total catches by Dept. of Animal of Husbandry (t) 2000 - 450-500 2001 - 400-450 2002 - 450 2003 - 400 2004 130 400-450 2005 165 400 2006 162 400 2007 186 400 Source: Department of Animal Husbandry.  100  Due to the unreliable nature of the available ‘official’ artisanal data in the north, an interview survey using a categorization of the artisanal commercial sector into four fisher classes was conducted by one of us in 2013 to evaluate this sector (B. Çiçek, unpubl. data). For this survey, 36% (n = 150) of all registered artisanal fishers (n = 410) were interviewed (for main results see Table 3.2).   Table 3.2 Categorization of the artisanal fishers in the north of Cyprusa. Class Experience level Labour type % of fishers Avg. # fishing days per year Annual catches (t∙vessel-1∙year-1) 1 Expert Full-time 11 283 2.70 2 Experienced Part-time 31 166 0.62 3 Experienced Part-time 46 98 0.16 4 Inexperienced Occasional 12 59 0.06 aSource: Survey results, (B.Cicek, pers. obs.), 2013.   To create a time-series of the number of artisanal vessels in the north, 40 Turkish Cypriot artisanal vessels were assumed to actively fish in 1974 (E. Sinay, Department of Animal Husbandry, unpubl. data), and this number of active vessels was linearly increased from 40 in 1974 to the reported 269 artisanal vessels in 2007 (Department of Animal Husbandry, unpubl. data). An average catch rate of 0.571 t·vessel-1·year-1 was used as the 2010 CPUE anchor point, derived from the 2013 artisanal survey data, averaged from the weighted catch rates for each class of fishers (Table 3.2).   The per capita Gross National Product (GNP) in the north also displayed linear behaviour from 1980-2003, but grew more rapidly post-2003 due to the UN acceptance of Cyprus into the EU, and the opening of the Green Line border, both of which reduced the isolation of the north. The assumption that artisanal vessels and GNP were related is based on the notion that to enter the commercial sector, a vessel is needed (unless shared), and therefore some disposable start-up income is required. The vessel numbers were linearly increased in the 2000s which was not directly linked to the strong rise in GNP in 101 the 2000s, because the fisheries were then understood to be saturated, i.e., most artisanal fishers are only marginally surviving, which would impede new players from entering the fishery.  The average length of gillnets (effort) used has substantially increased in recent decades to overcome the progressive decline of artisanal catches (B.A. Çiçek, unpublished data). Gillnets are packaged according to length or ‘zembil’. One zembil is 60 m, and fishers can request any number of zembils be strung together. Three decades ago, fishers used either 1, 2, or 3 segments of zembil (i.e., for a total gillnet length of between 60-180 m), but in 2013, the lead author surveyed artisanal fishers from the north, and found them to currently use between 8-50 zembils (from 480 m to 8 km in total gillnet length). Despite this marked increase in fishing effort, the fishers still noticed a significant drop in catch/effort over the decades. The artisanal catch rate was adjusted from the 0.571 t·vessel-1·year-1 in 2010 backwards to 1974 using known changes in fishing net length as a proxy (Ulman et al. 2013b). Thus, the 2000, 1990, 1980 and 1974 artisanal catch rates in the north were assumed to have been three times, five times, ten times and twenty times higher than the 2010 catch rate of 0.571 t·vessel-1·year-1 (i.e., 2000: 1.71 t·vessel-1·year-1, 1990: 2.85 t·vessel-1·year-1, 1980: 5.71 t·vessel-1·year-1, 1974: 11.42 t·vessel-1·year-1). The catch rates were linearly interpolated for intervening years and were determined by multiplying the number of fishing vessels was multiplied by the adjusted catch rates from 1974-2000, and then by using weighted averages of the four fisher classes and number of vessels from 2001-2010. South (1979-2010) Industrial and Artisanal Although systematic under-reporting likely occurred at all times (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984), the reporting system was known to gradually improve from 1980 onwards in the south (A. Petrou, AP 102 Marine Consulting, pers. comm.). Thus, the under-reported percentage was linearly interpolated from 100% in 1979 to 20% by 1996, as we assume this 80% reduction in under-reported catches conservatively addresses the improvements in the system without overestimating them. As some unreporting is understood to continue, this 20% unreported component was held constant from 1996 to 2010. For the north, the generalised 100% under-reporting rate was only applied from 1950-1973. Recreational and subsistence catches Recreational fishing is defined here as fishing which is neither targeted primarily for commercial purposes, nor for subsistence purposes (Pawson et al. 2007), but rather for enjoyment and ‘sport fishing’ is commonly used to describe recreational activities. Subsistence fishing is defined as fishing for the primary purpose of providing food for either one’s self or ones family. United Cyprus (1950-1973) In 1960, there were approximately 50 recreational fishing vessels on the island, with an average catch rate of 0.128 t·vessel-1·year-1 and a combined total catch of 6.4 t·year-1 (Fodera 1961). Thus, the 6.4 t·year-1 recreational catch was assumed constant from 1950 to 1973, and 40% was assigned to the north and 60% to the south, which equated to 2.56 t·year-1 for the north and 3.84 t·year-1 for the south. Two solitudes (1974-2010) North  For the north beginning in 1974, recreational catches were calculated for three separate fishing methods: recreational vessels, spearfishers and shore-based anglers. Data were available on recreational fishing effort from 2007-2010 (Table 3.4).  103 Table 3.3. North: Data on recreational fisheries (2007-2010)a  Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 Recreational fishing boats 207 227 242 281 Recreational fishing licenses 205 217 220 263 Recreational additional fishers 138 146 157 221 Recreational angler 205 217 220 263 Spearfishing licenses 306 384 208 368 a Provided by the Department of Animal Husbandry.   Most vessels registered with the Directorate of Ports and Harbours were known to fish recreationally in 2013 (B.A. Çiçek, pers. obs.), after interviewing the managers of several fishing shelters, it was understood that about 80% (i.e., 1,425) of registered vessels actively fished in 2010, with an assumed catch rate of 0.2 t·vessel-1·year-1, which equated to 285 t of vessel-based recreational catches for 2010 (B. A. Çiçek and I. Salihoglu, pers. obs.). To estimate spearfish catches, there were 368 licensed spearfishers in 2010, which were separated into two groups: the experts or high-liners (10% of the number of spearfishers), with 150 fishing days∙year-1, and a catch rate of 20 kg·fisher-1·fishing day-1, and average-skilled spearfishers, (90% of the spearfishers), with an average of 75 fishing days∙year-1 and a catch rate of 4 kg·fisher-1·fishing day-1. Combined, this equated to 209.4 t of spearfish catches in 2010. The catch rates were derived from the results of local interviews with about 20 spearfishers from the north in 2013 (A. Ulman, B. Çiçek, pers. obs.).  For shore-based recreational fishers in 2010, it was estimated that at least 2000 people were engaged in angling for approximately 20 weeks·year-1 with a catch rate of 3 kg·fisher-1·week-1 (B. A. Çiçek and I. Salihoglu, pers. obs.), which equated to 120 t of shore-based recreational catches in 2010. Thus, for 2010, total estimated recreational catches were 614.4 t (i.e., the sum of vessel-based, spearfishing and shore-based angling). For the 1973 to 2010 time period, we linearly interpolated between the 1973 104 recreational catch (i.e., 2.56 t·year-1) and the 2010 value of 614.4 t·year-1 to establish a time-series of recreational catches in the north. South  The DFMR (Hadjistephanou and Vassiliades 2004) estimated that recreational catches were equivalent to approximately 15% of annual reported commercial catches. Thus, for the south, recreational catch was linearly increased from 3.84 t·year-1 in 1973 to the equivalent of 15% of the annual reported commercial catches for the south by 1990, which was held constant to 2010. This recreational catch estimation was assumed to include catches caught by vessel, spearfisher, and angler. Furthermore, to differentiate between recreational and subsistence fishing for all ‘recreational’ catches estimated here (for both north and south), in 1950, 80% of the estimated ‘recreational‘ catches were assumed to be caught for subsistence purposes and 20% for purely recreational purposes, and by 2010, 40% of catches were assumed to be caught for subsistence purposes and 60% for recreational purposes. The two rates were linearly interpolated between 1950 and 2010 for both sides. All recreational and subsistence catches were allocated to the following taxa: common dentex (30%), dusky grouper (25%), mottled grouper (Mycteroperca rubra, 20%), bonito (15%), greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili, 6%) and leer fish (4%). Furthermore, a small percentage of industrial catches from the trawlers (~5%), which existed in both north and south when the island was united, were consumed by crew and went unreported (Garcia and Demetropoulos 1984). The same percentage (5%) of take-home consumption was assumed for the artisanal sector, and was applied to the north from 1950-1973, and the south from 1950-2010, and were allocated the same taxonomic resolution as the reported data, since it is understood that individual fish preferences are similar to commercial preferences, and generally, fishers would take home fish that were damaged or otherwise not marketable (Ulman et al. 2013b). 105 Discards North (1950-2010) Discards may include both commercial and non-commercial species, and have gone unreported. In the north, some taxa were constantly discarded, such as moray eels (Muraenidae), dogfish, stingrays (Rajidae) and picarel, while other species are frequently used as bait to bait hooks and traps (B.A. Cicek, pers. comm.). While ‘baitfish’ are not technically ‘discarded’, their catches go unreported and hence, are also considered here as discards, since they are neither sold commercially, nor directly consumed. From the results of our 2013 artisanal study in the north, a 10% discard rate for ‘true’ discarding (See Table 3.4 for taxonomic allocation) and a 5% ‘bait-fish’ discard rate were applied.   Table 3.4. Discard allocation. Industrial and artisanal sectors: North (1950-2010); South (1950-1973). Taxon % Batoidea 20 Muraena helena  20 Selachimorpha  20 Spicara maenaa  20 Anguilla anguilla  05 Coris julis  04 Thalassamo pavo  04 Scorpaena scrofa  03 Macroramphosus scolopax  01 Euechinoidea  01 Asteroidea  01 Dardanus megistos  01 aSource: Expert assessment combined with artisanal survey results.   The baitfish composition consisted of Diplodus annularis (22%), Serranus scriba (14%), Serranus cabrilla (12%), Octopus vulgaris, Eledone spp., Sepia officinalis, Illex coindetii and Loligo spp. (10% each), and Sardinella maderensis (2%). The two discard rates (10% from Table 3.4 plus 5% for baitfish were 106 combined) were applied to reported and unreported artisanal commercial catch components from 1950-2000 for the north. Due to the increasing impact of invasive species, discarding patterns changed in the early 2000s and thus details of discards from 2001-2010 are detailed below in the ‘South’ section.  The bottom trawlers which operated from 1993 to 1997 were only allocated the 10% ‘true’ discard rate (See Table 3.4), and the results from a 2003 exploratory trawl survey in the north with detailed taxonomic detail were used to allot the discarded amounts to specific taxa (Benli et al. 2003). Our bottom trawl discard estimates are minimal estimates (but see relatively low discard rate for southern bottom trawlers below). The single purse seiner which operated for 2 months was deemed to have zero discards, as it was an exploratory vessel to determine if pelagic fish abundances would support such a fishery, therefore, it was assumed all catches would have been retained and recorded. South (1950-2010) In the south, the pelagic longline fishery had an average discard rate of 10% (European Union 2007), with ocean sunfish (Mola mola), pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea), and thresher shark (Alopias spp.) as the major discarded species. The bottom trawl fishery had a 13% discard rate, with common pandora and picarel (European Union 2007) as the major discarded taxa. For the artisanal fishery, as in the north, a 10% discard rate was assumed (A. Petrou, pers. obs.), with crustaceans as the dominant discarded taxa (Rousou 2009). In light of the above published discard rates for the south, a conservative  10% discard rate was applied to all reported and unreported commercial catches from 1950-2010. Artisanal discards from 1950-1973 were allocated to the same taxa as the north (Table 3.4) and artisanal discards from 1974-2010, and from the industrial sector from 1950-2010 are listed in Table 3.5, based on European Union (2007) and Rousou (2009).  107 Table 3.5. Discard allocation. Artisanal (1974-2010) and industrial  sectors (1950-2010): South Taxon %  Spicara smaris  0.29 Pagellus erythrinus  0.16 Dasyatidae  0.20 Mola mola  0.12 Alopias spp.  0.05 Murex scolopax  0.03 Boops boops  0.01 Mullus barbatus  0.01 Mullus surmuletus  0.01 Serranus cabrilla  0.02 Bolinus brandaris  0.05 Echinoidea 0.03 Maja squinado  0.02  Lessepsian discards (2001-2010) In the 2000’s, discard rates for the artisanal sector in the north, and for the artisanal and industrial sectors in the south were adjusted to account for two major invasive species (‘Lessepsian migrants’) which had established themselves from the Indian Ocean and Red Sea, the  silver-cheeked toadfish (Lagocephalus sceleratus) and the redcoat (Sargocentron rubrum, a squirrelfish).  L. sceleratus was first observed in Cypriot waters in 2000, its presence became ‘more intense’ by 2004 (DFMR 2011), established a sizeable population by the 2007-2008 season (Nader et al. 2012) which has since increased, owing to a lack of natural predators. Thus, L. sceleratus was estimated to account for an additional 5% of total commercial catches (as in reported and unreported commercial catches) in 2003, which was linearly increased to 50% of commercial catches by 2008, held constant to 2010 for both the north and south (B.A. Çiçek, 2013 artisanal fisher survey results, A. Petrou, pers. obs., Table 3). As of 2012, this species contributed to approximately 50% of total catches by weight (B.A. Çiçek, 2013 artisanal fisher survey results, A. Petrou, pers. obs.), and was most often caught in gillnets. The redcoat was estimated to account for 3% of discards in 2001, which was linearly increased to 9% from 2007-108 2010.For a summary of anchor points used to estimate each unreported catch component, the area(s) applied, the sector referred to, and the reference(s) used, see Table 3.6. RESULTS  Reconstructed catch for the whole island  The total reconstructed catch for the entire island from 1950-2010 amounted to nearly 243 000 t, which was 2.6 times the FAO reported landings for Cyprus of 93 200 t (Figure 3.1, Appendix table 9). From the total reconstructed catch, the sectors which had the highest estimated total fishery removals were the industrial (40%), and the artisanal (39%), while discards (12%), subsistence (6%), and recreational (3%) sectors contributed less significant proportions. The main taxa caught by Cyprus were picarel, seabream, red mullet, cephalopods and silver-cheeked toadfish (Figure 3.2, Appendix table 10). Table 3.6. Data sources, available time-series data, and data anchor points used for catch reconstruction of Cyprus. N=North; S=South; DAH=Department of Animal Husbandry, North; Department of Fisheries and Marine Research=DFMR. Area  Sector Year(s) Source Reported data Missing data (unreported) Catch (t) N Commercial 1950-1973 FAO x  7 552 S Commercial 1950-2010 FAO x  159 300 N  Commercial 1950-1973 Fodera, 1961 x 9 850 S Commercial 1950-1979 Fodera, 1961 x 21 550 S Commercial 1980-2010 A. Petrou  x 34 330 N Industrial 1993-1997, 2002 DAH  x 34 000 N Artisanal 1974 DAH  x  N Artisanal 2010 B. Çiçek, 2013 survey x 16 700aN Recreational 2007-2010 DAH  x 6 100 N Subsistence 1950-1973 Fodera, 1961 x 440 N Subsistence 1974-2010 DAH, Fodera, 1961 x 12 400 S  Subsistence 1950-2010 Fodera, 1961 x 9600 S Recreational and Subsistence 1974-2010 DFMR  x 1 130 N Discards 1950-2010 B. Çiçek, 2013 survey  8 600 S Discards (all) 1950-2010 European Union, 2007; Rousou 2009 x 11 700 N & S Discards (Pufferfish) 2003-2010 DFMR, 2011, Nader et al; 2012; B. Çiçek, 2013 survey 6 800 a) North: Artisanal unreported catch amount from 1974-2010. 109 Reconstructed catch for the north   The total reconstructed catch in the north was approximately 84,000 t for the 1950-2010 period. The 7,550 t of catches reported to the FAO from 1950-1973 contributed over 9% to the North’s total reconstructed catch, 57% of which were industrial and 43% of which were artisanal. About 76,000 t of catches were not reported to the FAO from 1950-2010 (Figure 3.2a, Appendix table 11, see Appendix table 12 for major landed taxa). Thus, total reconstructed catches for the north were over 11 times the amount reported to FAO on behalf of the northern area of Cyprus from 1950-1973.   From 1950-2010, industrial unreported landings amounted to 34,000 t (>40% of total reconstructed catch for the north), mainly driven by the short-lived bottom trawl fishery from 1993-1997  (6,600 t·year-1, Figure 3.2a). Artisanal unreported landings totalled approximately 26,500 t (>25% of total reconstructed catch). Total subsistence and recreational catches from 1950-2010 each contributed about 6,000 t (each contributing about 7% to total reconstructed catches, Figure 3.2a). Total industrial discards were about 3,400 t and artisanal discards amounted to approximately 5,000 t (contributing about 4% and 6% to the total reconstructed catch, respectively). Most artisanal discards in the last decade were attributable to the invasive silver-cheeked toadfish (see Table 3.7). Reconstructed catch for the south  The total reconstructed catch in the south was about 164 000 t for the 1950-2010 period, which included 60% of reported FAO data from 1950-1973 and 100% of reported FAO data from 1974-2010, plus the unreported sectors, and discards (Figure 3.2b). Thus, the reconstructed total catches for the south of 159,300 t were 86% higher than the approximately 86,000 t of reported data for the time-series.  110      Figure 3.1. Total reconstructed catch for the island of Cyprus for 1950-2010, by a) fishing sectors plus discards. Note that data reported by FAO are overlaid as line graph; and b) major taxa, with the ‘Others’ category containing 56 additional taxa.  Landings in the south were almost equally distributed between the industrial and the artisanal sectors. The industrial sector totalled around 65,500 t or just over 40% of total landings for 1950-2010, and the artisanal sector totalled around 64,300 t or just over 40% for the same period (Figure 3.2b, Appendix Table 13, also see Appendix Table 14 for major taxa).    024681012141950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Catch (t x 103) Year Centracanthidae Sparidae Mullidae Cephalopoda L. sceleratus Thunnus  alalunga Others a) b) 111  Figure 3.2. Total reconstructed catch for a) the northern part of Cyprus by fishing sectors plus discards for 1950-2010; and b) for the southern part of Cyprus by fishing sectors plus discards for 1950-2010.  Note that data reported by FAO (as assigned to each island part) are overlaid as line graphs. Confidence intervals have been included for 1960, 1980 and 2000, which were assessed by the quality of the data used to derive assumptions (See Table 2.6 for computation of confidence intervals).   Industrial landings increased from 360 t·year-1 in 1950 to peak at over 2,100 t·year-1 in 1986, before declining to 740 t·year-1 by 2010. Artisanal catches increased steadily from 240 t·year-1 in 1950 to a peak at around 2,200 t·year-1 in 1986, before declining to 940 t·year-1 by 2010. Estimated subsistence and recreational catches for the south from 1950-2010 were just over 5,100 t and 5,000 t, respectively, both which slightly increased throughout the time-series.   112 Table 3.7. Discards of the invasive silver-cheek toadfish in the north and south of Cyprus (t). Year Northa Southb 2003 13 104 2004 28 257 2005 75 521 2006 78 820 2007 112 1195 2008 146 1195 2009 149 831 2010 150 840    DISCUSSION North The fisheries management team which exists under the umbrella of the Department of Animal Husbandry in the north operates on an extremely inadequate budget, thus lacking data collection, control, and surveillance capabilities. The data reported to the Department from the fishers are inconclusive and represent only 10-20% of our total reconstructed catch estimates, while the Department’s own estimation of total catches reaches closer to 50% of the findings from the present study (Table 3.1). The ‘unreported’ fishing component is certainly high and needs addressing to track the status of local stocks and evaluate how conservation measures are performing. It is exemplary that industrial fishing practices (i.e., bottom trawling and purse seining) were banned early in the north, as industrial fishing benefits few, and have substantial ecological and monetary costs associated with them (Pauly 2006). South In November 2004, the Republic of Cyprus was admitted into the European Union and hence their fisheries management plans were aligned with EU plans. The EU’s Mediterranean Regulation was 113 adopted in 2006, active as of 2010, and applied to the 7 EU member countries bordering the Mediterranean (Spain, France, Italy, Slovenia, Greece, Cyprus and Malta). The entire island is now considered part of the European Union; however, since the Republic of Cyprus (south) does not have any control over the north, EU legislation is suspended in the north. If a solution to the “Cyprus Problem” is found, the suspension of legislation in the north will be lifted. However, Turkish Cypriots are regarded as EU citizens even though they reside outside the governmental jurisdiction.  Whole Island A significant proportion (54%) of the unreported catches from Cyprus’s catch reconstruction was due to the catches from the north post-1973 being absent from the data reported to FAO. This is the first instance artisanal catches in the north were assessed, and the details of the (short-lived) industrial sector were first recorded outside of Cyprus.  For the confidence scoring of the data used, the scores were averaged from 3 independent reviewers which assessed both north and south, the scores were then weighed by the relative contribution of each sector to the catch for each sector to derive the confidence interval for those years. See Figures 3 a and b for confidence interval results where the values for each period are displayed (i.e., 1960 for 1950-1969, 1980 for 1970-1989, and 2000 for 1990-2010).  Seeing as most countries only monitor their commercial fishing sectors, yet, recreational and subsistence sectors also contribute significant proportions to overall catches, snapshot assessments of Cyprus’s non-commercial sectors (recreational with boat, recreational from shore, subsistence, and spear) would contribute a great deal to the scientific and especially the fisheries community. These assessments could be accomplished by completing either roving creel or angling surveys once every five 114 years to provide necessary baseline data on both fishing effort, fishing area and catch per unit effort (see Brouwer et al. 1997).  Total catches for Cyprus as a whole have been on a declining trend since the mid-1990s, if the discards of the invasive silver-cheeked toadfish are excluded (see Figure 3.1b), and total catches for Cyprus have declined by 22% in the last decade alone. The declining trend is more apparent for the island as a whole (Figure 3.1) and the south (Figure 3.2b), rather than the north (Figure 3.2a). This was likely due to the reconstruction approach used for the north, which only first properly assessed the artisanal sector in 2013, and hence, simplifying assumptions had to be made to determine historical catches, thus potentially missing past peak catches. However, fishers in the north have clearly reported massive declines in their catch/effort, especially over the last two decades (A. Ulman & B.A. Çiçek, pers. obs.) which strongly suggests that stocks in the north are declining. It is understood that Mediterranean fisheries catches have been declining for the last two decades, and seemingly even earlier in the western Mediterranean (Pauly et al. 2014), surely to be exacerbated by surging local tourism pressure and its associated demand for seafood.  To battle the declining state of the resources, a focus towards embracing ecosystem-based management (EBM) in global fisheries, meant to maintain the health of the whole ecosystem by acknowledging the interconnectedness of ecosystem components needs to be prioritized by national and regional management. For example, we feel that a statement from the EU, describing the discards of the pelagic longline fishery in Cyprus as not significant since the discarded species were of no commercial value [yet included endangered loggerhead turtle] (European Union 2007), is mis-aligned with EBM and needs rethinking. A species may not have commercial value, yet, may have significant ecological value warranting special protection. 115 The reduction of industrial effort for both sides is well-aligned with EBM framework especially relating to bottom trawling, which is known to damage benthic habitats. The reduction of effort is deemed ‘good’ for the sustainability of the resource whereas fuel subsidies are deemed ‘harmful’ for the future of the resource because fuel subsidies mask the ‘true cost’ of fishing by artificially enabling fishers to continue fishing when otherwise it would not be economically viable (Sumaila and Pauly 2006). Generally, the increasing global cost of fuel would inhibit many marginalized fishers from fishing, thus encouraging natural resource conservation (Sumaila et al. 2010b). Instead, re-allocating this public money (i.e., harmful subsidies) to improved monitoring and enforcement capacity on both sides would benefit rather than harm the future of the resources. Another issue is spear-fishing, which is increasing in popularity amongst both locals and tourists, as a wide-ranging variety of equipment can be found at most tourist stores. Many locals are alarmed that novice spear-fishers kill a high proportion of coastal juvenile fish, detrimental to the future viability of stocks. The spear-fisheries would benefit from improved regulation and a requirement for spear-fishers to understand which species and sizes could be sustainably targeted. The fact that the island remains divided remains a major obstacle affecting future sustainability of stocks. After being accessed into the EU, the south adopted many EU fisheries policies such as stock assessments, EU minimum catch sizes, etc., which would be more effective if the entire island applied the same policies. Both sides face the same issues such as that of the pufferfish invasion and illegal fishing, and are conducting similar conservation programs such as the installation of artificial reefs and the creation of marine protected areas, yet each deal with their problems independently of each other, foregoing the loss of nearby local expertise. One last issue also pertains to the division of the island hindering sustainability is that since the north is not internationally recognized, they do not receive an individual European ICCAT (The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) quota 116 for bluefin tuna, as in the south. This may further harm the Atlantic bluefin tuna stock as many bluefin are caught in the north, which go unreported (to ICCAT), weakening regional stock assessment and consequently scientific advice. This study has highlighted some of the differences and commonalities with regards to the fisheries of the two halves of the island of Cyprus, and presents a continuous time-series of total fisheries extractions for the entire island of Cyprus, as well as its two components. It has been noted that both north and south have become increasingly proactive in marine resource conservation, and may indeed be on a path towards more sustainable fisheries, a direction that will benefit both the marine environment and fishers around Cyprus. With tourism projected to increase, achieving and maintaining sustainable marine fisheries should be a national priority which could help provide and guarantee a local protein source to many for generations to come.    117 4: SHIFTING BASELINES OF TURKISH AND CYPRIOT FISHERIES   “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.”   Aldous Huxley   … But it is past time we begin.  SYNOPSIS  New evidence for ‘shifting baselines’ from different fisheries in Turkey and Cyprus is presented, based on field interviews of local fishers. First, the total reconstructed catch, total fishing effort, and national catch per unit effort (CPUE) trends are presented for Turkey as a whole, and by sea. Then using survey data gathered for each fisher, the ratio of initial to current CPUE of individual fishers are presented along with their shifts in perceived change in resource abundance by sector, for both Turkey and Cyprus. For Turkey as a whole, total effort increased by over 700% from 25 million kW days in 1967 to nearly 190 million kW days in 2010, while CPUE declined by about 380% from nearly 16 kg·kW·day-1 in 1967 to 4 kg·kW·day-1 in 2010. For most sectors, perceived change in resource abundance was found to significantly decline. The exceptions were Turkish purse seine fishers and South Cypriot artisanal fishers; the former was due to a major ecosystem regime shift, and the latter possibly due to early changes to the resources, which this survey could not capture. The artisanal and recreational sectors of Turkey were shown to experience the most profound changes, with declines in ratio of initial to current CPUE of about 40 times since about 1950.  INTRODUCTION  Humans have altered ecosystems since they started hunting (rather than being hunted) hundreds of thousand years ago (Liebenberg 2013), and this ‘alteration’ massively increased 12,000 years ago, when farming began (Montgomery 2007). Although the exploitation of nearshore marine animals dates back 118 over 100,000 years (Jackson et al. 2001; Richter et al. 2008), systematic transformation of marine ecosystems by humans really began with the deployment of steam-powered trawlers around the British Isles in the 1880s, i.e., with the application of fossil energy (here coal) to what is still equivalent to hunting (Pauly et al. 2002).  In the Eastern Mediterranean, the wave of biomass decline and local extinctions from the transition to fossil fuel (rather than muscle and wind power) manifested itself only in the 1950s. Indeed, what is likely the only underwater film from the 1940s shows an abundance of sharks and other underwater life in Greek waters that is unimaginable today (Zogaris and De Maddelena 2014). This shark abundance was similar for the Black Sea, which Turkish trawlers heavily exploited in the early 1970s. Massive increases in human populations and hence demand for resources was satiated by major increases in the power of fishing vessels, which acquired not only the ability to catch whole fish schools, but to render these species commercially extinct. The process took decades, however, and hence the perception was affected by shifted baselines (Pauly 1995). Here, we compare how marine ecosystems have shifted both in quantitative (i.e., ‘objective’ or ratio of initial to current CPUE) terms, and in subjective terms, i.e., in the perception and memories of Turkish and Cypriot fishers (‘perceived change in resource abundance’). With a gradual decline of resources, each new fisher perceives the ecosystem state at the beginning of their career as the norm to which they compare future changes. If stories about earlier ecosystem states are not passed down from older fishers, long-term change can go unnoticed, a phenomenon called ‘Shifting Baselines Syndrome’ (SB) first coined by Pauly (1995). Indeed, global fisheries catches have been declining since the late 1990s according to FAO (FAO 2012), or even earlier (Watson and Pauly 2001), but most publications still focus on the ‘sustainability’ of fisheries, instead of the rebuilding  aspect (Pitcher and Pauly 2001).  119 There are many articles about shifting baselines (Greenstein et al. 1998; Baum and Myers 2004; Sáenz-Arroyo et al. 2005; Sáenz–Arroyo et al. 2005; Ainsworth et al. 2008; Bunce et al. 2008; Humphries and Winemiller 2009; McClenachan 2009; Parsons et al. 2010), but several of these articles (i.e., Greenstein et al. 1998; Baum and Myers 2004; Humphries and Winemiller 2009; McClenachan 2009) misunderstood the term to only represent the sequential loss of biodiversity, without the gradual shift in the perception of the resources which accompanies it. Learning from history when data are scarce demands that we make the best possible use of the available information (Papworth et al. 2009), i.e., traditional ecological knowledge . Such knowledge is acquired and strengthened throughout fishers’ career, and thus can be used to determine how far away from reasonably pristine an ecosystem may have devolved (Berkes and Folke 1998). Modern fishery management often relies on the changes in fish population size measured against available historical reference points; thus, using incorrect reference points is perilous, and can lead to mismanagement. Thus, a historical perspective is necessary to inform policy makers of the potential productivity of fish stocks (Rosenberg et al. 2005).  Only recently have marine scientists begun to systematically document historical changes in the abundance of exploited marine resources; in the process, they have created a new discipline, ‘historical marine ecology’ (see contribution in Jackson et al. 2011; Kittinger et al. 2014). In recent decades, we have increased our impacts on the ocean and its resources, first demonstrated by the removal of larger predators and consequent decline in the mean trophic level of mixed fisheries (www.fishingdown.org, Pauly and Palomares 2005). The fishes of higher trophic level declined by at least one order of magnitude since the mid-20th century (Sumaila and Pauly 2011), but many of these species declines went unnoticed (Dulvy and Polunin 2004).  Technological improvements enabled fishers to operate further offshore and in deeper waters, often using illegal gear, which have in some places seriously perturbed ecosystem functioning (Watling and 120 Norse 1998). A top-heavy trophic structure (i.e., high predator biomass) with high biodiversity and resilience are key elements of healthy marine ecosystems (Knowlton and Jackson 2008). Overfishing and ecological extinction of species can precede the collapse of ecosystems (Jackson et al. 2001), highlighting a higher propensity for ecosystem collapse today than the past (Sala et al. 1998), as resilience has been reduced by simplification of food webs. If not detected and counteracted in time, a buildup of gradual changes can transform entire large marine ecosystems in structure and function as occurred in the Black Sea (Eremeev and Zuyev 2007). The Mediterranean and Black Seas are some of the most impacted marine ecosystems worldwide (Costello et al. 2010). The loss of diversity, complexity, and hence resilience is giving way to undesirable algal blooms, dead zones, disease outbreaks, and species invasions, all of which contributing to a potential disaster (Lotze et al. 2006).  Papworth et al. (2009) are among those who understand the importance of correctly identifying shifting baselines, actual measurable biological changes need to have occurred, but stakeholders should fail to accurately notice them.  In this thesis, 180 fishers from Turkey and 82 fishers from Cyprus were interviewed to assess how each fisher’s actual change in CPUE varied throughout their careers, and the results were compared to their degree of perceived change (Maunder et al. 2006), to determine if the change in perception adequately represented the actual degree of change in marine ecosystems. First, total reconstructed fisheries catch and fishing effort, and national CPUE trends (i.e., a measure of fishery resource abundance) are presented for Turkey to help frame the issue. Then, the occurrence of shifting baselines is examined by sector for Turkey and Cyprus.  Historical abundances from anecdotes   With increased urbanization, many of us have lost our sense of connectedness with the natural world, and this has had negative effects on biodiversity (Turner et al. 2004). In the early 1960s, ‘real’ fishers would hunt swordfish with harpoon, making them equal opponents, both “armed with spear” (Koray 121 1962). Fishing of such top predators, during their spawning season was destructive and soon led to their depletion (Koray 1962). In Koray’s time, Istanbul had a population of approximately 1 million people, about 1/15th today’s size, and the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stood at US $1,300 (www.nationmaster.com). People were generally poor, but the massive migrations of pelagic fish ensured that most of Istanbul’s inhabitants could eat high-quality protein. Kemal (1985) described threats facing the fisheries in the early 1970s, which saw the deployment of industrial cannery ships, radar and even machine guns (to hunt dolphin), as first steps in the demise of the fisheries. In the mid-1970s, after sturgeon (Acipenseridae) and turbot were fished out in the Black Sea, shark populations were soon decimated by trawlers (Can 2013). The early 1980s were the most successful years for purse seiners. Mr. Ismail Kelefat (pers. comm. to A.U.), explained that with just one year’s purse seine catches in the early 1980s, he was able to purchase two oceanfront houses on the Bosphorus Strait. In 1982, many purse seine vessels began using colour sonars from Japan, allowing fishers to differentiate between different species. Only one year later in 1983, they had decimated coastal stocks such as chub mackerel, shi drum and large bluefish or ‘kofana’ and had to move their vessels offshore to fish, a concept previously unimaginable.  The Bosphorus Homer, in the Iliad, was the first to write about the superabundances of fish in the Bosphorus, when he had Agamemnon offer Achilles the riches of the Bosphorus fishing grounds among other treasures as a bribe to keep the hero fighting against Troy (Champion 2011). Gilles (2000) described the Bosphorus as the best place in the world to fish in the 16th century, as (inexperienced) women and even children could fish from their windows using basket (Özdağ 2013). Inscribed on a fountain on the Bosphorus in the 17th century, writes “Baliği bol bousporus”, i.e., “the Bosphorus is full of fish”. Old fishers explained that the ‘golden years’ of fishing in Turkey lasted until the late 1950s, as anyone could catch as much swordfish 122 and Atlantic mackerel as they could carry. However, those stocks were decimated, followed by sturgeon, then bluefin tuna, chub mackerel and large bonito or ‘torik’. Once one species was overfished, the next one, of lesser value was targeted, and the lost species often forgotten (A. Ulman, unpubl. data). The Golden Horn In the 1st century, Pliny stated that the Golden Horn (an inlet in the southwest of the Bosphorus) was named so because it was once laden with so many fish that its surface appeared “golden” (Tekin 1996). Nationally, recreational catches were extremely high in the 1950s and 1960s. Fishers from Galata Bridge in the Golden Horn explained how they used to cast a çapari line (a handline with 10 hooks) off the bridge, and in a few minutes there would have caught 10 diverse and valuable fish such as bonito, two-banded seabream, turbot, bluefish and large garfish; today the same line would land 2-3 juvenile horse mackerels, just one quarter their earlier caught size.  Marmara Sea The mid-1980s saw the overfishing and local extirpation of several migratory species, notably bluefin tuna, which fishers say was the “shepherd of the sea” as it herded many other species close to shore for them to catch. Turkish people never targeted bluefin tuna themselves, but in just one day in 1984, when hundreds upon hundreds of large bluefin individuals were spawning in Marmara Sea, 19 purse seine vessels caught nearly 300 of them (jointly 55 t). The sea was red from slaughter and bluefin never again returned here to spawn (Can 2013), resulting from a recent 100-fold bluefin tuna price increase from US$ 1.30·kg-1 to $130·kg-1.Fishers say due to bluefin tuna`s departure from Marmara Sea, other species got heartbroken (‘küsmek’) and chose not to return to the area. Purse seine fishers now struggle to maintain their income, due to an almost entire collapse of the stocks of migratory pelagics, aside from anchovy and bonito. 123 The advent of certain destructive types of fishing such as dynamite fishing and illegal bottom trawling, combined with sophisticated technology such as high-voltage lights, radars and sonars facilitated the decimation of stocks in the Sea of Marmara, the heart of its Turkish commercial fisheries (Özdağ 2013). This is where most migratory stocks would spawn (Galtsoff 1924; Caddy and Griffiths 1990), but when small-scale fisheries were replaced by industrial fisheries, sustainability went (Koray 1962). For example, shrimp used to be fished by basket from Marmara Sea, but in the mid-1980`s the ‘Algarna’ trawling method was introduced. The manager of ‘Water Products’ then explained to the fishers that “the bottom is just like a parsley field, the more you cut, the more shrimp will come.” The number of Algarna trawlers increased from 30 to 500 in the small inland sea, and initially combined they would catch 15 t·shrimp·day-1, which diminished to about 1 t·shrimp·day-1 in just 6 months’ (Can 2013). Mirrored around the world, the collapse of fisheries is the latest in a very-long history of unregulated exploitation, the result of managers and fishers not understanding the consequences of their actions (Roberts 2010). The aim here is to document, beyond the anecdotes mentioned above, the rate and severity of change of the fisheries of the eastern Mediterranean by comparing the trajectories of catch, total effort, and actual and perceived changes in CPUE of the fishers in Turkey and Cyprus.  The Dardanelles The Dardanelles are the last affected area from the cessation of many migratory species which used to travel from the Aegean to the Black Sea, and hence still has the best fishing. The only species still being caught today in the Dardanelles which were predominantly targeted species 40 years ago are two-banded seabream, common dentex, and Atlantic mackerel. The two-banded seabream now has a drastically reduced geographical range, the dentex has seen its catches decline by over 90% in the last four decades, and the Atlantic mackerel’s commercial fishing days have just about finished. Thus, this trajectory does not look hopeful. 124 METHODS  Local data collection  The Turkish and ‘North’ Cyprus surveys with fishers were conducted from May 5 to August 25, 2013, and ‘South’ Cyprus from January 10 to February 20, 2014. Data were collected on initial catches, perception of change, effort and recent catches. The Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) from the University of British Columbia approval identification number is H13-00012. In Turkey, a total of 180 fishers were surveyed from 4 different sectors and 82 fishers from Cyprus were surveyed from two sectors, totalling 262 respondents. To track their perception of change, the majority of Turkish interviews were conducted along two of the busiest pelagic migratory corridors (i.e., the Istanbul Bosphorus and the Dardanelles), understood to have undergone the greatest changes. See Figures 4.1 and 4.2 for cities sampled.  After commencing the field surveys, the focus shifted from finding stratified age samples of only commercial fishers to surveying each sector as best as possible, as it was apparent that the fishers of some sectors had remarkably different perspectives. In Turkey, the surveyed sectors were commercial (purse-seiners, trawlers and artisanal fishers), and recreational (land and boat-based anglers and spearfisher). In Cyprus, only the artisanal and recreational sectors were surveyed, as no industrial fishing currently occurs in the north and industrial fishing in the south was recently reduced to just two active trawlers. Overall, 13 fishing communities were surveyed in Turkey (Figure 4.1) and 8 in Cyprus, four from each side (Figure 4.2).  125  Figure 4.1. Map of Turkey showing all survey sites, and the continental shelf in dark blue.    Figure 4.2. Map of Cyprus showing all of the survey sites, the ‘Green Line’ and the continental shelf in dark blue.  The respondents were selected for their varying experience levels (when known), at random by purposive sampling (approaching certain types of fishers by targeting the marinas where they berth 126 their boats), or by snowball sampling (i.e., chain referral sampling) when there were many fishers in the same area. While some fishers responded that they began to fish when they were children (between 4-9 years old), these ages were scaled up to a minimum age of 10 years for each fisher, since prior to age 10, most kids experience infantile amnesia, while by age 10, memories are ‘crystallized’21. Catch rates from fisher interviews were converted to either kilograms or tonnes to allow for comparison between respondents. If the reply was in ‘cases’ of fish, the fisher was specifically asked how many kg equate to a ‘case’ for that species, i.e., which was 10 kg for most species (i.e., bonito, bluefish, sardine). Measurements in okes and kulaç were converted to metric units using 1 oke = 1.28 kg and 1 kulaç = 1.83 m.  Total reconstructed catches  The results from the catch reconstruction for Turkey (Figure 2.3, Appendix table 7, Ulman 2014) which included estimates of all previously unreported sectors was used to gain a comprehensive view of total marine fishery catches from 1950-2010, as the data collected by each country and sent to FAO normally only account for commercial fisheries, underestimating total catches. The total reconstructed catch results for Turkey were used to calculate CPUE by country and by area (i.e., each sea). Total effort and CPUE for Turkey and by sea  Boat engine power is used as a measure of effort. Horsepower was reported for Turkey in separate size classes. To calculate average horsepower (hp) for motorized vessels within a given class, the geometric mean was used for each given size class, and multiplied by the number of vessels to get total hp per class. Total hp per class was then summed for all classes annually to get total hp (annual fishing effort). As the data suggested from its gear breakdown, from 1967-2004, half the vessels > 100 hp were                                                                     21 http://www.livescience.com/14106-infant-amnesia-childhood-memories.html 127 assumed to be trawlers and the mean trawler hp of 351 (Table 4.1) was used; the other half assumed to be purse seiners, and a mean 1,364 hp (or 1,107 kW) was used. From 2005-2010, a new category of ‘500+’ hp was introduced; all these vessels were assumed to be purse seiners, hence 1,364 hp was applied; the 200-500 hp range were assumed to be trawlers (as above); for the 100-200 hp category the geometric mean hp was applied. After total hp was calculated by year, it was converted to kW using the conversion rate of 0.7456. Next, total kW was multiplied by the average number of days fished for each sector (Table 4.1) to determine total kW days. Finally, the total reconstructed catches for Turkey, had total kW·days divided by total reconstructed catches each year to determine the CPUE, i.e.,  kg·kW-1·day-1.  The purpose of illustrating national CPUE trajectories is to show the profound change of stock abundance suggested by this indicator.  Many fisheries managers solely look at catch trends; however, the inclusion of effort explains more about overall impacts and pressure exerted on the environment. Due to incomplete effort data for Cyprus, national CPUE could not be computed. Observed change in CPUE  A ratio was applied using each fisher’s initial CPUE (measured either catch per fisher per year or per day, the year they began their career) and current CPUE (for 2013), further referred to here as ‘Ratio of Initial to Current CPUE’. This ratio was plotted for each fisher’s year they started their career to assess the change in CPUE over time.    128 Table 4.1. Turkish fishing fleet characteristic, results from field 2013 survey. Recreational vessel (n=22) Vessel length (m) Total hp Age Age started # years fished Fishing days/year Catch/year (t) Minimum 5.5 6.5 45 8 4 20 0.13 Maximum 12.0 80 82 50 64 330 1.60 Mean 9.4 33 60 25 38 106 0.52 Artisanal (n=60)       Minimum 6.4 9 25 6 7 90 0.15 Maximum 13.0 380 74 40 69 365 400 Mean 8.9 86 52 16 36 202 11.1 Purse seiners (n=20)       Minimum 12 420 30 12 14 100 10 Maximum 51 3000 78 20 68 240 2500 Mean 35 1364 49 16 26 203 403.7 Trawlers (n=21)       Minimum 9.5 140 24 13 9 90 10 Maximum 28 730 61 31 43 210 400 Mean 25 351 52 17 28 181 88.5 Angler (n=32)       Minimum - - 12 10 0 5 0.01 Maximum - - 73 62 63 315 0.80 Mean - - 47 26 20 120 0.34 Spearfisher (n=20) Depth fished (m)      Minimum 3 - 19 6 3 4 0.03 Maximum 35 - 65 39 51 150 1.20 Mean 12.8 - 34 16 17 49 0.38   Table 4.2. Cyprus fishing fleet characteristics, results from 2013-2014 field survey. Recreational vessel (n=12) Vessel length (m) Total hp Age Age started # Years fished Fishing days/year Catch/year (t) Minimum 5.0 20 37 10 8 7 0.09 Maximum 10.5 85 61 35 45 320 4.50 Mean 8.5 35 51 15 21 122 2.60 Artisanal (n=55)       Minimum 7 45 28 12 9 50 0.02 Maximum 10.5 136 72 35 63 320 5.00 Mean 9.8 81.5 56 17 25 162 1.45 Spearfisher (n=15) Depth  fished (m)      Minimum 10 - 20 10 8 12 0.01 Maximum 34 - 55 24 45 200 1.00 Mean 26 - 36 15 21 65 0.36   129 Perceived change in abundance  Each fisher was asked to rate resource abundance from 1 to 100 (1 being the worst and 100 being the highest possible, as in a pristine ecosystem), both for their initial year fishing and for the ‘current year’ (2013). A 1 to 100 scoring system was used to allow for more variability in the responses than a 1 to 10 scoring system. The score given for their initial year had the 2013 score subtracted, and the resultant value was plotted at each fishers’ first year fishing defined from their ‘perceived change in resource abundance’.  Shifting baselines  For the shifting baselines phenomenon to be demonstrated, the resource itself must have declined, i.e., demonstrated here by the decline in ratio of initial to current CPUE, along with a decline in the perceived change in resource abundance as well. As an additional hypothesis, it is expected that when there is a higher percentage of ‘younger’ than ‘older’ fishers from the mean experience level of each sector, perceived change in resource abundance would tend not to decrease significantly; this was measured in Tables 4.3 and 4.4. Table 4.3. Shifting baselines (SB) associated variables for Turkey; the difference between maximum and minimum mean year at start of career (by sector).  Sector Mean year began fishing % older fishers % younger fishers SB predicted SB occurring Recreational  1990 43 57 No Yes Artisanal  1978 54 46 Yes Yes Bottom trawl  1980 60 40 Yes Yes Purse seine 1983 50 50 Y/N No        130 Table 4.4. Shifting baselines (SB) associated variables for Cyprus; the difference between maximum and minimum mean year at start of career (by sector). Sector Mean year  began fishing % older fishers % younger fishers SB predicted SB occurring Recreational/ North Cyprus 1979 63 37 Yes Yes Artisanal/ North Cyprus 1979 59 41 Yes Yes  Artisanal/ South Cyprus 1980 45 55 No No  After careful consideration, the bottom trawler survey results from the Gulf of Iskenderun were excluded from the analysis since the area has a much longer trawling history than our other sites (the Black Sea and Sea of Marmara), thus significant changes likely occurred to this ecosystem prior to our subjects beginning their careers. For the purse seiners, since their temporal trends of CPUE showed non-linear behavior, a multiple linear regression (with a squared term) was suggestively used to fit the data.  Statistical analysis  The following analyses were applied to the data: Pearson product correlation coefficients were calculated to quantify the strength of the association between variables, i.e., perceived change in resource abundance & ratio of initial to current CPUE and time. Then, a linear regression was applied to ratio of initial to current CPUE and perceived change in resource abundance vs time for each sector, by country, and the slope of each regression was tested for its significant difference from zero. Finally, the slopes of ratio of initial to current CPUE and perceived change in resource abundance vs. time were used (via a t-test) to test the hypothesis that the Mediterranean artisanal fishers of Turkey and Cyprus experienced similar declines in catches. However, a full statistics test to measure the differences in the regressions could be completed using ANCOVA.  131 Methods thought by Turkish and Cypriot fishers to improve the status of fisheries were given by fishers from an open ended question on how to improve the national fisheries and ranked as most popular replies.  RESULTS   Total catches, effort and CPUE in Turkey and its seas  Figure 2.4 shows the total reconstructed catch from Turkish waters, which was about 157,000 t·year-1 in 1950, peaked at just over 1 million t in 1987 and 1988, and then declined to about 775,000 t·year-1 in the late 2000s (Ulman et al. 2013).  Total effort (Figure 4.3a), was about 9.5 million total kW days in 1950, gradually increased until 1997, then the increase accelerated, reaching 380 million total kW days by 2005, and then declined to under 200 million total kW days by the late 2000s. For Turkey, CPUE (Figure 4.3a) initially declined by half from nearly 16 kg·kW·day-1 in 1967 to 8 kg·kW·day-1 in 1968, mainly due to the removal of previously abundant species in this first detailed year of fisheries statistics such as garfish, with an over 90% decline in catches in one year, stingray (Dasyatidae) catches which decreased by 80%, and sturgeon that were never again reported after 1967. CPUE has been steadily declining since 1982, and averaged just 4 kg·kW·day-1 in the late 2000s.  Black Sea  The reconstructed catch from Turkish waters in the Black Sea was just under 100,000 t in 1950, peaked at 777,000 t in 1988 and declined to about 520,000 t·year-1 in the late 2000s (Ulman et al. 2013).  132 Total effort in the Black Sea (Figure 4.3b) was about 9.4 million total kW days in 1967 and hovered around 15 million total kW days in the late 1980s, before rapidly increasing to over 200 million total kW days in the mid-1990s. It has since declined to just under 125 million total kW days in the late 2000s.    Figures 4.3.a-e. Total effort in Turkey (represented by secondary Y-axis in dotted line) and Total catch/effort (represented by primary Y-axis and solid line) derived from total reconstructed catches for Turkey for a) all of Turkey; b) Black Sea; c) Marmara Sea (including catches of Bosphorus and Dardanelles); d) Aegean Sea; and e) Levantine Sea.    133 Since over two-thirds of Turkey’s fisheries catches stem from the Black Sea, it is not surprising that CPUE levels are over triple those than Turkey as a whole (Figure 4.3b). CPUE declined in the Black Sea from the late 1960s from an average of 18 kg·kW·day-1 to a low of 3.5 kg·kW·day-1 in 1976, likely attributable to the removal of large predatory fish, and then quickly increased to peak at nearly 73 kg·kW·day-1 in 1987 due to the increase in populations of former prey, including anchovy and sprat. CPUE then crashed to just over 20 kg·kW·day-1 from 1989-1991, due to the invasion of the warty comb jelly Beroe ovate, which consumed much of the small pelagic fish in their zooplanktonic stage. The system partially recovered soon after, to nearly 63 kg·kW·day-1 in 1992, and has since steadily declined from 48 kg·kW·day-1 in 1994 to 5 kg·kW·day-1 by 2010. From its peak CPUE in 1987, CPUE in the Black Sea declined by over 94% by 2010.  Marmara Sea The reconstructed catch for the Marmara Sea was about 50,000 t in 1950, peaked at 198,000 t in 1999 and declined to about 140,000 t·year-1 in the late 2000s (Ulman et al. 2013).  Effort in the Sea of Marmara (Figure 4.3c) was about 4.6 million total kW days in 1967 and increased slightly to average about 10 million total kW days in the 1980s until 1997, when it rapidly increased to nearly 66 million total kW days in just one year in 1998, peaked at over 120 million kW days in 2000 and has since declined to average just over 60 million total kW days·year-1 in the late 2000s.  Although the CPUE in the Sea of Marmara (Figure 4.3c) varied from 1967 until 1993, a declining trend is apparent from 1974, when CPUE peaked at 25 kg·kW·day-1, to current levels of 2.36 kg·kW·day-1, a 90% decline.    134 Aegean Sea The reconstructed catch from the Turkish part of the Aegean Sea, was about 5,000 t in 1950, peaked at 106,000 t in 1993, then declined to about 70,000 t·year-1 in the late 2000s (Ulman et al. 2013).  Total effort in the Turkish Aegean (Figure 4.3d), was less than 7 million total kW days in 1967, which doubled to about 15 million kW days by the early 1990s, then increased rapidly to peak at 70 million total kW days in 2000. Effort has since declined to about 35 million total kW days·year-1 in the late 2000s. Turkish CPUE in the Aegean (Figure 4.3d) steadily increased from 1967 and peaked at 6.3 kg·kW·day-1 in 1995. After peaking, CPUE steadily decreased to about 1 kg·kW·day-1 in the early 2000s, and increased to 2 kg·kW·day-1 in the late 2000s.  Levant Sea The reconstructed catch from the Turkish part of the Aegean Sea, was about 5,000 t in 1950, peaked at 75,000 t in 1992 and 1993 and declined to about 40,000 t·year-1 in the late 2000s (Ulman et al. 2013).  Total effort in Turkish part of the Levant Sea (Figure 4.3e) was at 4 million kW days in 1967, which steadily increased to peak at 44 million kW days in 1999, before declining to average 24 million kW days by the late 2000s. The corresponding CPUE (Figure 4.3e) declined from about 8 kg·kW·day-1 in 1968 to a low of 1.2 kg·kW·day-1 in 1977, increased back to 8 kg·kW·day-1 in 1981, before declining to average 1.6 kg·kW·day-1 in the late 2000s.   135 Observed change in ratio of initial to current CPUE vs. perceived change in resource abundance  Turkey Recreational sector The ratio of initial to current CPUE and perceived change in resource abundance of recreational fishers decreased significantly (Figure 4.4a; r = -0.755, and Figure 4.4b; r= -0.722, respectively, p<0.01 in both cases). The larger percentage of younger recreational fishers suggested that shifting baselines should not be significant, signifying stronger decreases in perceived change in resource abundance than expected. The data suggest that ratio of initial to current CPUE (Figure 4.4a) decreased by a mean factor of about 40 times since the 1960s, and the perceived change in resource abundance (Figure 4.4b) decreased by about 85% since the 1960s.  Artisanal sector  The ratio of initial to current CPUE and perceived change in resource abundance of artisanal fishers decreased significantly (Figure 4.4c; r = -0.354; Figure 4.4d; r = -0.612, respectively, p<0.01), and the perceived change in resource abundance decline (shifting baselines) behaved as predicted, as there were more ‘older’ fishers than ‘younger’ in the sample size. The data suggest that ratio of initial to current CPUE decrease by a factor of about 40 times since the 1960s and the perceived change in resource abundance (Figure 4.4d) declined by about 65% in the last 60 years.   Bottom trawl sector The ratio of initial to current CPUE (Figure 4.4e) did not decrease significantly over time (although it did appeared to decline), but the perceived change in resource abundance (SB) did decrease significantly 136 (Figure 4.4f, r= -0.645, p<0.05). The perceived change in resource abundance trend behaved as predicted, given a higher proportion of ‘older’ fishers. The data suggest that ratio of initial to current CPUE declined by a factor of about 25 times, while the perceived change in resource abundance decline was about 70% since the early 1970s.    Figure 4.4a-h. Observed change in CPUE (left panels) and perceived change in CPUE (right panels) experienced by the fishers of Turkey, according to sector: a&b) recreational fishers; c&d) artisanal fishers; e&f) bottom trawl fishers; and g&h) purse seine fishers. The Y-axis is the relative amount of change experienced per fisher throughout their career from dividing their current catch by their initial catch. Positive values for increases in CPUE over time are expressed as very low values (between 0 and 1). The Y-axis describes the relative change in CPUE as experienced by fisher by dividing their current catch rate by their initial catch rate. Solid linear regression lines represent that the slope was significantly different from 0 (p<0.01 for a and b, and p<0.05 for c-h), and dotted linear regression lines represent that changes in CPUE were not significantly different from 0 (p>0.05). The multiple regression (with a squared term) was used to fit the data for purse seiners (g and h, p>0.05).  137 Purse seine sector Both ratio of initial to current CPUE (Figure 4g) and perceived change in resource abundance (Figure 4h) did not decrease significantly (p<0.05); the relationship between ratio of initial to current CPUE & perceived change in resource abundance and time appear to be non-linear. A multiple regression was used here to suggestively show the experienced responses from this sector, although a non-parametric test could also have been applied. North Cyprus, recreational sector The ratio of initial to current CPUE (Figure 4.5a) did not decrease significantly over time (although it appeared to decline), but the perceived change in resource abundance did decrease significantly (Figure 4.5b; r= -0.461, p<0.01). The perceived change in resource abundance results behaved as predicted, given a higher proportion of ‘older’ fishers sampled. The data suggest that the ratio of initial to current CPUE was about 7 times higher than today’s catches (Figure 4.5a) and the perceived change in resource abundance decreased by about 80% (Figure 4.5b), both since the early 1970s (Figure 4.5b).  North Cyprus, artisanal sector The ratio of initial to current CPUE did not decrease significantly over time (Figure 4.5c), but the perceived change in resource abundance did decline significantly (Figure 4.5d, df=52, r= -0.605, p<0.05). The perceived change in resource abundance results behaved as predicted, owing to a higher proportion of ‘older’ fishers. The data suggest that the ratio of initial to current CPUE declined by over 10 times (Figure 4.5c), while the perceived change in resource abundance (Figure 4.5d) decreased by 40% since 1970.  138 South Cyprus, artisanal sector Both the perceived change in resource abundance and the ratio of initial to current CPUE did not decrease significantly over time (Figure 4.5 e and 4f, p<0.05). The perceived change in resource abundance results behaved as predicted, owing to a higher proportion of ‘younger’ fishers in the sample. All Cyprus, artisanal sector For all Cyprus (results of the north and south computed together), the ratio of initial to current CPUE did not decrease significantly over time, while the perceived change in resource abundance did decrease significantly (Figure 4.5g and h, respectively; 4.5h, r= -0.351, p<0.05).  Comparing Mediterranean artisanal fishers of Turkey with Cyprus  Using a t-test, the slopes of both ratio of initial to current CPUE and perceived change in resource abundance between Mediterranean artisanal fishers from Turkey and Cyprus were found to be dissimilar. The data suggest that the mean ratio of initial to current CPUE for Mediterranean Turkey from 1950 was about 14 times the 2013 reported amount, with a mean decline of only 5 times for Cyprus from the late 1950s to 2013. The overall mean decline in perceived change in resource abundance was 75% for Turkey and just 31% for Cyprus.  139   Figure 4.5a-h. Observed change in CPUE (left panels) and perceived change in CPUE (right panels) experienced by the fishers of Cyprus, according to sector: Relative change in fisheries (left panels) and perceived change in fisheries (right panels) for Cyprus: a&b) North Cyprus (recreational sector); c&d) North Cyprus (artisanal sector); e&f); South Cyprus (artisanal sector); g&h) Entire Cyprus (artisanal sector). The Y-axis describes the relative change in CPUE as experienced by fisher by dividing their current catch rate by their initial catch rate. Solid linear regression lines represent that the slope was significantly unlike 0, and dotted linear regression lines represent that changes in CPUE were not significantly different from 0.      140 How to improve fisheries  Some quotes gathered during the field interview describe some fishers’ general frustrations or feelings about the fisheries are given in Table 4.3.  Table 4.5. Interesting quotes fishers told to first-author. T=Turkey and C=Cyprus. T: Recreational      fishers “Education is needed about past larger size possibilities of bluefish and bonito, then people can see how wrong it is to eat the babies.”  “We need a Ministry of Fisheries, and they should receive input from fishers who understand the sea.” T: Artisanal     fishers “30 years ago, 3 months of fishing would leave your pockets full for the other 9 months, now we fish every day and can barely put food on the table.”  “Fishers use 100 times more nets now than before. If there is fish, you should only need one net, more nets ≠ more fish.” T: Bottom trawl     fishers “If we finish all the fish in the sea, boats will be forced to stop fishing, and only then will the fish have a chance to replenish themselves.”  “Before the government wanted bigger boats and invested in them, now they are having a hard time going backwards.” T: Purse-seine      fishers “50 years ago we were guaranteed many riches as fishers, life was insured with abundances of fish, now we don`t even enjoy fishing anymore.”  “If our waters were full of fish, Turkish fishers can empty the seas in 1 day, capacity is that huge! How are their no restrictions on catch amounts.” C: Recreational     fishers “We have seen the best fishing years imaginable, but our children will only know those years through encyclopaedias.”  “Barely any freshwater nutrients are reaching the sea anymore; the ecosystem needs these as building blocks.” C: Artisanal     fishers “In Kyrenia, 25 years ago, sponge divers caught almost all of the groupers, in 48 hours they took 3 truckfulls of grouper, now you have to dive to 35 m+ to find them.”  “We must decrease our capacity massively: as in total net length, hp and number of vessels.”  Methods thought by Turkish and Cypriot fishers to improve the status of fisheries are given in Table 4.6. These responses were given by the fishers from an open ended question and ranked as most popular suggestions.    141 Table 4.6. Top 11 Methods thought by Turkish and Cypriot fishers to improve the status of fisheries Turkey # of cases Cyprus # of cases End illegal fishing  44 More MPAs 24 Ban bottom trawling  38 Improve control 14 Improve control  33 Increase min. mesh size 11 Ban purse seining 23 More artificial reefs 8 Restrict capacity/control effort 18 Protect spawning seasons 6 Ban sonar 14 Restrict capacity/control effort 8 Install quotas 10 Educate 4 Control undersized fishing 7 Increase fines 3 Protect spawning seasons 7 Increase temporal closures 6 Ban purse seine lights 5 Ban sonar 2 Educate fishers/consumers 5 Decrease corruption 2   DISCUSSION  The current fisheries of the eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea provide only a glimpse into what the fisheries resembled just half a century ago, as fisheries have pushed these marine ecosystems far from their natural historical baseline of abundance and diversity. Thus, overall in Turkey, CPUE – which reflects abundance when catchability remains constant - declined by about 380%, from 15.7 kg·kW·day-1in 1967 to 4.1 kg·kW·day-1 in 2010, while total effort increased by over 700%, from 25 million kW days to nearly 190 million kW days. CPUE is shown not to reflect abundance when CPUE remains high, while abundance is actually declining, which is termed ‘hyperstability’ (Hilborn and Walters 1992).  The decrease in abundance is also clearly reflected in the declines in ratio of initial to current CPUE and perceived change in resource abundance of both Turkish and Cypriot fishers. In fact, only the Turkish purse seiners and the artisanal fishers of Southern Cyprus did not experience significant declines in perceived change in resource abundance. In most cases, the ‘older’ fishers noted a higher degree of change in ratio of initial to current CPUE and perceived change in resource abundance than ‘younger’ 142 fishers, whereas all ‘very new’ fishers (<2 years’ experience) were unaware of prior changes to the marine ecosystem. Hence it can be said that the shifting baselines phenomenon is occurring in both Turkey and Cyprus. Using fishers to describe environmental change demonstrated the shifting baselines syndrome quite well, as newer fishers were generally unaware of the past riches of the ecosystem and apparently quite content with their (actually) dismal catches, although catches would have been at least one order of magnitude more just half a century ago. Some older fishers remarked that they did not attempt to pass older stories down to younger fishers, because the stories of lost species no longer appear relevant to today’s activities. Thus, although highly pertinent to understanding fisheries, these stories are being lost as well. The failure to pass these historical anecdotes onto the current generation has been described as general amnesia (Papworth et al. 2009). As these older fishers retire, the baseline resets itself, and the past is thus forgotten. This in part explains why massive changes can occur in the fishing industry without effective measures being taken to combat stock declines. In fact, fisheries research even acknowledging the rapid decline of the fisheries is scarce in Turkey, which may be due to the fact that no official Department of Fisheries exists. The people who manage the fisheries are under the umbrella of the Turkish Ministry of Food, Agriculture, and Livestock, and apparently, no one seems to be held responsible for the state and sustainability of marine fish stocks.  Industrial fisheries have been known to typically reduce community biomass by 80% within 15 years of exploitation (Myers and Worm 2003). Moreover, in Turkey, the compensatory increases of fast-growing fish (1970s) lasted only a decade before their catches also began to decline. Turkish purse seiners are proud that they have some of the most advanced technology available, such as Kaico Japanese sonars which can detect fish up to a distance of 10 km, which are well-understood to be disastrous for the future fisheries by those who use them. These declining trends in CPUE are not uniquely happening only 143 in Turkey or the Mediterranean, but are being mirrored all over the world, see (Belhabib D et al. 2013; Tesfamichael et al. 2014) for other similar trends found in the Red Sea and Western Africa. Yaşar Kemal, an early Turkish environmentalist, wrote of one conscientious fisher in the early 1970s (Kemal 1985) who only caught red mullets at 25 cm in size, leaving the smaller size classes an opportunity to grow, and the larger individuals to produce more new recruits for subsequent fishing years. This method of improving selectivity could be used today to reverse the declining trend in catches, but mesh sizes would have to be strongly controlled. Studies have shown that if fish are only caught at the size which the cohort attains their highest biomass (Lopt), growth overfishing can be avoided and long-term catches could increase substantially (Vasilakopoulos et al. 2014).  Ending illegal fishing and effectively banning bottom trawling are the two most frequently suggested approaches to improve the state of the Turkish fisheries. Bottom trawling in Turkey, normally occurs illegally, i.e., in prohibited waters, too close to shore, and in prohibited seasons. It has been shown that in most cases, the probability of detection must be over 20% to serve as a deterrent, and fines would have to be increased many-fold to impede further illegal activity (Sumaila and Keith 2005).  Cyprus is taking effective measures to combat the decline of its major species by completely eliminating the industrial fisheries in the north and by drastically reducing the industrial sector in the south (Ulman et al. 2014). However, four out of five of their top commercial species (aside from picarel, Centracanthidae) are overfished and thus, additional measures are needed to rebuild stocks. Cyprus fishers seem to understand some solutions such as building more marine protected areas and artificial reefs.  Here we have converted memories into knowledge and have tried to establish some historical precedence of what the pristine ecosystem likely resembled and functioned. As currently no unexploited communities exist, the past may provide some different possible targets for management scenarios 144 (Pitcher and Pauly 2001), and thus provides a more holistic picture of where we currently stand in relation to past abundances and biodiversity assemblages (Pauly 2011). Historical data are also the main source of reliable information for use in assessments for extinction risk which can lead to the protection of species (McClenachan et al. 2012). This loss of traditional ecological knowledge is perilous to the deeper understanding of historical traditions (i.e., culture) and the relationship that exists between them and us, as in culture, thus, this loss is akin to the eternal loss of meaning (McKibbin 1989).   Where nature currently stands was derived by human decision alone; many allowed themselves to slightly degrade the ecosystem further from how they found it, and then adapted to lower quality conditions (Mackinnon 2013). The future is also a choice, the people can continue to live with some short-term (however diminishing) economic gain along with the gradual decline of the natural world which everyone ultimately depends on, or begin to combat the decline by rebuilding to what the natural system once resembled. Since humans have come to rely so heavily on these resources, why not ensure their longevity into the future? More scientific data, which is costly and time-consuming to obtain may not be necessary to plan for rebuilding. What seems to be needed, and is presently mostly lacking, is political will not to let the situation degrade further, and shifting baselines to let us forget about the need for rebuilding.145 5: CONCLUSION  This research firstly aimed at establishing a more-accurate historical baseline of total fishery removals for both Turkey and Cyprus, and secondly to determine the current state of fisheries for each country. Chapter 1 provided necessary background information on the different maritime regions for both Turkey and Cyprus such as their geographical areas, underlying policies and main fishery resources. The chapter also included a historical account of the fisheries as well as some current issues facing them. The background material for this chapter was provided to enable the audience to understand the rationale for the specific aims of the research encountered in Chapters 2, 3 and 4. The findings detailed in each of the three main chapters are summarized below, as are the limitations faced during doing this research and also suggestions for further research.  In Chapter 2, Turkey’s total reconstructed fisheries catches were calculated and presented from 1950 to 2010, for Turkey as a whole, and also for each maritime region (i.e., each sea) by compiling information about the contributing sectors and assessing each sector’s annual total catches by year, to the highest possible taxonomic detail. The results showed an unreported catch amount which was approximately 80% higher than the data reported by Turkey to the FAO. The major unreported catch amount stemmed from a seemingly well understood consensus that most commercial fishers generally under-report their catches from 30-40% (or more) due to a general distrust towards the government and skepticism about owing that money in future taxes.  The results also clearly show that despite current catches appearing stable, if anchovy and sprat are excluded from the data (which are of hardly any economic value, also much of which is not even used for human consumption but rather sent for processing into fishmeal and fishoil), that Turkish stocks have been on a declining trend since the late 1980s (Figure 2.5). Catches from the previously unassessed recreational and subsistence sectors, as well as discards were shown to 146 be substantial (Figure 2.3, Appendix table 7), especially emanating from the Istanbul-Marmara Sea-Dardanelles region, and a snapshot assessment of each of these sectors would greatly benefit fisheries managers in depicting local catch trajectories, and also help to warn them about crashing stocks and where to concentrate conservation efforts towards. Overcapacity is thought to have been the major cause of the general decline, especially as the number of commercial vessels actually doubled in the late 1990s due to known loopholes in the system, despite a ban on entry (Figure 2.7), but this issue was explored in further detail in Chapter 4. This work has demonstrated that the current local fisheries management organizations are not effectively seeking to protect the future of this industry as overcapacity has been met with the ‘Tragedy of the Commons’, which is common in the Mediterranean, with its many shared fish stocks. This has resulted in a major overexploitation of marine resources and collapse of many commercial stocks.   In Chapter 3, Cyprus’s total fisheries catches were calculated for each side from 1950-2010, and then later combined to represent the entire island’s catches. The catches of the ‘North’ (the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) were found to be excluded from the global FAO database, seemingly as it is neither a UN member country nor internationally recognized as a distinct state (except by Turkey). The research undertaken here was the first accountable appraisal of the artisanal sector in the north, as approximately 40% of the sector was surveyed for this study. Data limitations for catches in the north from 1975-2009 were lacking, and thus many assumptions were made here, and normally direct linear interpolations were used to link one anchor point with the next (See Table 3.6 for sources of data used and also anchor points). Also, facts about the North’s brief industrial sector were learned from the Department of Animal Husbandry and are now recorded for future evaluation of the area. In completing the literature search for Cyprus, colonial annual reports were located and used to assess the fisheries catches of during Cyprus’s colonial period (i.e., from 1950-1960), historical treasures none of the 147 associates in Cyprus were aware existed. This research paper was also one of the few and new initiatives to have experts from both the ‘north’ and ‘south’ working together for the greater good of science, and it is anticipated that this work will encourage more meaningful collaborations between the two sides. Although not as clear in the north, most likely due to the assumptions based on the newly accumulated data and hence linear interpolations backwards in time, a declining trend for the marine fisheries for the also evident for Cyprus as a whole, and for the South, once catches of Lagocephalus sceleratus and Thunnus alalunga were excluded. L. sceleratus is poisonous and hence, inedible, but was included here for comprehensive purposes, and Thunnus alalunga, is a newly targeted species (especially in the sports fisheries) that both sides are now seeking and encouraging a local market for. It is necessary for the people in charge of these resources to fully comprehend how much fish have been and are being removed and by whom, so that appropriate decisions regarding the future of these resources can be made (Pauly et al. 2014).   The Fishing Effort Adjustment Plan in the south clearly seems to be taking appropriate measures to drastically reduce industrial fishing. Moreover, the data from these two catch reconstructions are to be used as part of a bigger project, to help assess the total marine fisheries catches of the world due out in 2015 (edited by D. Pauly, and D. Zeller), and the data collected and used, which had many improvements to the data reported by each country to the FAO, such as improved taxonomic detail and errors fixed, are now freely made available on the www.seaaroundus.org website.  In Chapter 4, total CPUE for Turkey as a whole and by sea was illustrated using reported annual fleet dynamics. These results clearly showed that the massive doubling of effort from the 1990s to the early 2000s was likely the principal reason for immediate declines in both total and regional CPUE. Fleet capacity would seemingly have to be reduced to pre-1990 levels if the current stocks are to have a 148 chance at rebuilding. Shifting baselines was found to be evident for the industrial fishers of Turkey and the recreational and artisanal fishers of North Cyprus as these fishers were generally unaware of the drastic changes to the fisheries which likely occurred just before the commencement of their careers/hobbies, these fishers also averaged about 10 years less experience than the other sectors (See Table 4.1). This evidence of shifting baselines is worrisome because this non-transformation of traditional knowledge may impede those who rely on the resources from being fully aware of the severity of the issue, and hence, neglect an urgent call for action. This data has clearly shown that both the artisanal and recreational fisheries have rapidly declined by about a factor of 40 times in Turkey, and by about 20 times for bottom trawlers from the Black and Marmara Seas; although due to a lack of locating older industrial fishers, this latter could potentially be higher than this, which would make for an interesting further study of this topic.   Several reasons exist why the degree of change is likely more severe than illustrated here, one being that 2013 was a year with exceptional fish catches, because bonito catches peaked that year, which is the last remaining migratory fish of economic value. Several purse seiner operators remarked that the bonito fishery is the only thing keeping them in the fishery, as once each 7 years, higher-than-average catches of bonito allow them to pay off some bank loans, enabling them to receive bank credit for the upcoming 6 years, which keeps them afloat. Anchovy also now appears to be overfished, as the season has shrunk from 8 months down to only one month in just 20 years and much of their catches are now discarded due to their small size, and limited lipid content, which prevent them from being processed into fish oil (Ulman 2014)22. In addition, as total CPUE was assessed here, which in itself is a very informative measure, it alone is unable to capture other very informative indices such as the gradual substitution of lower-valued commercial species, declining tropic levels, localized commercial                                                                     22 http://hamsi.ims.metu.edu.tr/sunumlar/4-IUU-GFCM[ACG].pdf 149 extinctions, the foregone economic value of the loss of top predators, and some sort of indices to account for the massive increase in technological capacity such as the inclusion of bird radars, Kaico fishfinders, on-board freezers, transport vessels, etc., all of which would also be interesting topics for upcoming research.  Although 5/6 commercial species in Cyprus are considered overexploited, the observed changes in Cyprus were not as drastic as Turkey since they did not have the earlier super-abundances of migratory fish as Turkey did, resulting in less steep declines in both observed and perceived changes in CPUE.  Most surveyed fishers in Cyprus were extremely aware of their job security as it constantly has taken more effort to catch a lesser amount of fish. Their financial woes are currently exacerbated by the fairly recent need to replace their fishing nets at least each six months due to increased pufferfish and dolphin damage. Many fishers are very keen about exiting the fishing industry, but generally lack transferable skills required for other professions. One thing is certain, almost all fishers from both sides of Cyprus have heard of, and believe in conservation strategies, a term not yet understood in Turkey, showing promise for the future.   In recent years, catches have been dominated by juvenile fish of the key commercial species, a clear sign of ‘growth overfishing’. There is incredible wastage occurring with this growth overfishing dilemma, as fish should be allowed to grow to at least maturity where they would generate higher catches, and higher economic return. In the 2013-2014 fishing season, most industrial vessels returned to port 2 months before the end of the commercial season as there were no fish left to catch. Scientific advice and effective government regulation are urgently needed along with the incorporation of traditional knowledge from the fishers to secure a future for the fisheries. While there are national fisheries rules and regulations on paper, they have been utterly ineffective at halting the decline of this stock and the 150 runaway growth of fishing capacity and effort. The industrial sector is begging for the introduction of catch limits for each major commercial stock, which they feel is the only way to ensure jobs (and fish) in the future, but so far, to no avail. Both the industrial and artisanal fisheries of Turkey appear to be on the brink of collapse and require an urgent shift in management, one that fosters the entire ecosystem and its inhabitants. And yes, it will mean cuts in allowable catches, likely substantial. And yes, many fishers may lose their jobs or livelihoods. But it comes down to this, do Turkish fishers and the Turkish society want healthy and sustainable fisheries for future generations, or only short-term (and increasingly negligible) profit now?  Effective management needs to embed this fishery in an ecosystem-based management setting, which requires that fishery managers balance the demands of all resource users. Given Turkey’s massive over-capacity and excessive fishing effort in both industrial and artisanal fisheries, Turkey’s fisheries management and resource policy are at a difficult crossroad: continue to conduct business as usual and further impair and damage an ecosystem already under severe strain from excessive and uncontrolled human impacts, or apply controls on all sectors of fisheries in an attempt to stop the decline and start rebuilding stocks. Only the second path can lead to fisheries that are sustainable and embedded in a well-functioning and productive ecosystem. Only such fisheries can guarantee a future for all.  Aside from the main issue illustrating the general decline of fisheries in the Eastern Mediterranean, and the non-transfer on historical knowledge from older to younger fishers, additional focus for forthcoming work should be targeted at utilizing the wealth of traditional ecological knowledge of experienced fishers, and connecting the fishers with policy makers to establish goals and determine total both allowable effort and catches. In addition, economic studies highlighting what specific increases in the investment for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance abilities would negate illegal fishing would also be 151 extremely beneficial for Turkey, as many important laws are already in place, but most do not seem to be adhered to. Seeing as many fishers would benefit from acquiring new skills to help exit the industry, charging much higher fines for illegal fishing, and using that equity to buyback vessels and to train ex-skippers to patrol would help solve many immediate issues.  It is hoped that this research illustrates the severity of the rapidly declining fisheries in the Eastern Mediterranean and demonstrates the necessity to protect and rebuild these stocks to ensure food security for the millions of people who rely on fisheries both as a source of protein and livelihood.   152 REFERENCES   Aflalo F (1911) Regilding the crescent. J.P. Lippimcott Company, Philadelphia. 310 p. Ainsworth CH, Pitcher TJ and Rotinsulu C (2008) Evidence of fishery depletions and shifting cognitive baselines in Eastern Indonesia. Biological Conservation 141(3): 848-859. Alverson DL (1994) A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Technical Paper No. 339. Rome FAO: 233. Anonymous, editor (1951) Colonial Annual Reports. His Majesty's Stationary Office, London. Anonymous, editor (1960) Colonial Annual Reports. His Majesty's Stationary Office, London. Anonymous (1985) Proceedings of the conference on common property resource management. National Resource Council. 575 p. Anonymous (1999) Mediterranean News. The Monachus Guardian 2(2): 47-59. Anonymous (2010) Fishing Effort Adjustment Plan (FEAP) of the Cyprus Fleet targeting demersal and mesopelagic stocks in the coastal zone of the Republic of Cyprus. Fishing effort adjustment plan, Department of Fisheries and Marine Research. 13 p. Ayaz A, Ünal V, Acarli D and Altinagac U (2010) Fishing gear losses in the Gokova Special Environmental Protection Area (SEPA), eastern Mediterranean, Turkey. Journal of  Applied Ichthyology 26: 416-419. Aydin M (2008) The commercial sea cucumber fishery in Turkey. SPC Beche de mer Information Bulletin 28: 40-41. Baum JK and Myers RA (2004) Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecology Letters 7(2): 135-145. 153 Belhabib D, Koutob V, Gueye N, Mbaye L, Mathews C, Lam V and Pauly D (2013) Lots of boats and fewer fishes: A preliminary catch reconstruction for Senegal, 1950-2010. Fisheries Centre Working Paper #2013-03, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 34 p. Belhabib D, Koutob V, Sall A, Lam VWY and Pauly D (2014) Fisheries catch misreporting and its implications: The case of Senegal. Fisheries Research 151: 1-11. Benli H, Cihangir B and Katagan T (2003) The bio-ecological properties of the surrounding waters of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Translated from Turkish report titled 'Kuzey kıbrıs deniz alanlarının biyoekolojik araştırmaları'. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi, İzmir. 90 p. Berkes F (1986) Local-level management and the commons problem: A comparative study of Turkish coastal fisheries. Marine Policy 10(3): 215-229. Berkes F and Folke C, editors (1998) Linking sociological and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York. 476 p. Bingel F, Özsoy E and Ünluata Ü (1993) A review of the state of the fisheries and the environment of the Northeastern Mediterranean (Northern Levantine basin). General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM) 65, FAO, Rome. 74 p. Bray K (2000) A global review of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. FAO Report, Food & Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. 53 p. Brouwer SL, Mann BQ, Lamberth SJ, Sauer WHH and Erasmus C (1997) A survey of the South African shore-angling fishery. South African Journal Marine Science 18: 165-177. Brown AC and Cattling HW (1986) Ancient Cyprus. Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. BSERP (2007) Black Sea transboundary diagnostic analysis. Black Sea Ecosystem Recovery Project, Black Sea Environmental Programme. 269 p. 154 Bunce M, Rodwell LD, Gibb R and Mee L (2008) Shifting baselines in fishers' perceptions of island reef fishery degradation. Ocean & Coastal Management 51(4): 285-302. Caddy JF and Griffiths R (1990) Recent trends in the fisheries and environment in the General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (GFCM) Area. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy. 71 p. Can K, editor (2013) Balık ağalara takildi. Ekin Grubu, Istanbul. 288 p. Ceyhan T and Akyol O (2009) The swordfish fishery in the Turkish Mediterranean Sea. ICCAT (64) 6: 2069-2078. Ceyhan T, Akyol O, Ayaz A and Juanes F (2007) Age, growth, and reproductive season of bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) in the Marmara region, Turkey. ICES Journal of Marine Science 64: 531-536. Chuenpagdee R, Liguori L, Palomares MD and Pauly D (2006) Bottom-up, global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches. Fisheries Centre Research Report 14, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C. 112 p. Çiçek BA (2011) Artificial reefs in North Cyprus: An opportunity to introduce fishermen to sustainable development. pp. 141-153 In Bortone S, Brandini RP, Fabi G and Otake S (eds.), Aritificial reefs in fishery management. CRC press. Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Cisneros-Mata MA, Harper S. and Pauly D. (2013) Extent and implications of IUU catch in Mexico's marine fisheries. Marine Policy 39: 283-288. Costello M, Coll M, Danovaro R, Halpin P and Ojaveer H (2010) A census of marine biodiversity knowledge, resources and future challenges. PLoS ONE 5(e12110). Dalgiç G, Okumuş İ and Engin S (2005) Turkish work, Italian work: technical and operational properties of Striped Venus (Chamelea gallina L., 1758) dredgers In Turkey. Turkish Journal of Aquatic Life 3(4): 414-417. 155 Daskalov G (2002) Overfishing drives a trophic cascade in the Black Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 225: 53-63. Deveciyan K (2006) Türkiye’de balik ve balikçilik: İstanbul balıkhanesi eski müdürü. Translated from 1915 original Pêche et Pêcheries en Turquie. Aras, İstanbul. 455 p. DFMR (2007) Management plan for the bottom trawl fishery within territorial waters of Cyprus. Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment, Department of Fisheries and Marine Research, Nicosia, Cyprus. 21 p. DFMR (2011) Annual Report 2010. Department of Fisheries and Marine Research Nicosia, Cyprus. 18 p. Diffey S (2007) Technical assistance to support the legal and institutional alignment of the fisheries sector to the EU Acquis. Fisheries & Aquaculture Study, Final Report, General Directorate for Protection and Control, MARA, Ankara, Turkey. 85 p. Dulvy N and Polunin N (2004) Using informal knowledge to infer human-induced rarity of a conspicuous reef fish. Animal Conservation 7: 365-374. Duruer EC, Kinacig'il T, Soykan O and Tosunog Z (2008) Contribution to some biological and fishery aspects of commercial penaeid prawns in Mersin bay (northeastern Turkey). Crustaceana 81(5): 577-585. Duzgunes E and Erdogan N (2008) Fisheries management in Black Sea countries. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 8: 181-192. EastMed (2010) Report on the technical meeting on the Lessepsian migration and its impact on eastern Mediterranean fishery. Scientific and Institutional Cooperation to Support Responsible Fisheries in the Eastern Mediterranean, FAO, Athens, Greece, December 7-9, 2010. 140 p. Eremeev V and Zuyev G (2007) Commercial fishery impact on the modern Black Sea ecosystem: a review. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 7: 75-82. 156 European Commission (2007) Report of the scientific, technical and economic committee for fisheries.  STECF advice for sprat and turbot in the Black Sea. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium. 68 p. European Union (2007) Pilot study report on the evaluation of discards of the Cyprus fishery. As part of Cyprus's national fisheries data collection programme, EU Data Collection Regulation (DCR) No 1543/2000, No 1639/2001 and No 1581/2004. 41 p. FAO (2010) The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 218 p. FAO (2012) The state of the world fisheries and aquaculture 2012. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 230 p. Fodera V (1961) Report to the government of Cyprus on fishery development possibilities. Expanded program of technical assistance, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 82 p. Galtsoff PS (1924) Seasonal Migrations of Mackerel in the Black Sea. Ecology 5(1): 1-5. Garcia S (1986a) A highly successful seasonal trawling ban: The Cyprus Effect. Naga, the ICLARM quarterly January: 3-4. Garcia S (1986b) Seasonal trawling bans can be very successful in heavily overfished areas: The "Cyprus Effect". Fishbyte April: 7-12. Garcia S and Demetropoulos A (1984) Management of Cyprus fisheries. FAO Fisheries Report, Rome, Italy. 51 p. Garibaldi L (2012) The FAO global capture production database: a six-decade effort to catch the trend. Marine Policy 36: 760-768. 157 Gazioğlu A (1990) The Turks in Cyprus: A Province Of The Ottoman Empire (1571-1878). Rustem and Brother, London. 345 p. GFCM (2011a) Report on the transversal workshop on the monitoring of recreational fisheries in the GCFM area.SAC13/2011/Inf.18, General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) Palma de Mallorca, Spain. 30 p. GFCM (2011b) Status of the GFCM actions in the Black Sea. General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean: Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), Marseille, France 7-11 February 2011. 41 p. GFCM (2013) Joint GFCM-BSC workshop on IUU fishing in the Black Sea. Black Sea Commission Headquarters, Istanbul, Turkey, 25-27 February 2013. 58 p. Gilles P (2000) İstanbul Boğazı Eren, İstanbul. 268 p. Gökçe G and Metin C (2007) Landed and discarded catches from commercial prawn trammel net fishery. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 23(5): 543-546. Greenstein BJ, Curran HA and Pandolfi JM (1998) Shifting ecological baselines and the demise of Acropora cervicornis in the western North Atlantic and Caribbean Province: a Pleistocene perspective. Coral Reefs 17: 249-261. Gücü AC (2001) Development of northeastern Mediterranean fishing fleet: Impacts on/of ecosystem changes. Technological developments in fisheries: 19-21 June 2001. Balikcilikta teknolojik gelismeler. Izmir, Turkey. 20-22 p. Gücü AC and Bingel F (2011) Hake, Merluccius merluccius L., in the northeastern Mediterranean Sea: a case of disappearance. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27(4): 12. Gürtürk N (1972) Bati karadeniz sahillerimizdeki (karaburun - kefken) midye yataklari (3). Balık ve balıkçilik 20(3): 52. 158 Hadjistephanou N and Vassiliades L (2004) The present status of fishery and information system in Cyprus. MedFisis Technical Document 4.2(GCP/INT/918/EC - TCP/INT/2904/TD-4.2): 59. Hannesson R (1988) Optimum fishing effort and economic rent: a case study of Cyprus. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 299, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 57 p. Harlioğlu AG (2011) Present status of fisheries in Turkey. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 21(4): 667-680. Hilborn R and Walters CJ (1992) Quantitative fisheries stock assessment: choice, dynamics and uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New York. 570 p. Hill G (1949) A History of Cyprus. University Press, Cambridge. Hinrichsen D, editor (1998) Coastal waters of the world: Trends, threats and strategies. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 232 p. Humphries P and Winemiller KO (2009) Historical impacts on river fauna, shifting baselines, and challenges for restoration. BioScience 59(8): 673-684. ICES (2006) Report of the ICES-FAO working group on fishing technology and fish behavior (WGFTFB), 3-7 April 2006. ICES WGFTFB Report 2006 ICES CM 2006/FTC:06, ICES-FAO, Izmir, Turkey. 180 p. İlker A, Gökhan G and Cengiz M (2008) The effects of netting twine on discard rates of commercial red mullet gillnets in Izmir Bay. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 8: 373-376. INTERPOL (2010) Resolution: Sustainable Environmental Crime Programme. INTERPOL General Assembly 79th Session, Resolution AG-2010-RES-03.Doha, Qatar. 1 p. İstanbul Belediyesi (undated) İstanbul Şehri İstatistiki Yilliğı 1944-1948 Cilt 7. Istanbul Belediyesi. 83-84 p. 159 Jackson JBC, K.E. Alexander and E. Sala, editors (2011) Shifting baselines: the past and future of ocean fisheries. . Island Press, Washington, D.C. 298 p. Jackson JBC, Kirby MX, Berger WH, Bjorndal KA, Botsford LW, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke R, Erlandson J, Estes JA, Hughes TP, Kidwell S, Lange CB, Lenihan HS, Pandolfi JM, Peterson CH, Steneck RS, Tegner MJ and Warner RR (2001) Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293(5530): 629-637. Jacquet J, Hocevar J, Lai S, Majluf P, Pelletier N, Pitcher T, Sala E, Sumaila UR and Pauly D (2010) Conserving wild fish in a sea of market based efforts. Oryx 44(1): 45-56. Kacowicz AM and Lutomski P, editors (2008) Population resettlement in international conflicts: A comparative study. Rowan & Littlefield Publishers Ltd., Lantham, MD. 245 p. Kalayci F, Samsun S, Sahin C, Samsun O and Gozler A (2010) Comparison of biological characteristics of the horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus L. 1758) which caught of different fishing gears in the Southern Black Sea (Turkey). Indian Journal of Marine Sciences 39(1): 43-48. Karakulak FS and Oray I (2009) Remarks on the fluctuations of bluefin tuna catches in Turkish waters. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 63: 153-160. Keles R (1982) Turkiye de kentlesme ve kentsel gelisme politilalari. Turk Sosyal Bilimler Dernegi; Turkiye Gelisme Arastirmalari Vafki Ortak Semineri 4: 43-45. Kelleher K (2005) Discard's in the world's marine fisheries: An update. FAO Technical Paper 470, Rome, FAO: 131. Kemal Y, editor (1985) The sea-crossed fisherman. Collins Harvill, London. 287 p. Kideys A (2002) Fall and rise of the Black Sea ecosystem. Science 297(5586): 1482-1484. Kiliç S and Aydoğan M (2009) Tarihsel bir kıyı kasabasinda kitle turizminin etkileri: Bodrum örneğİ. Ege Coğrafya Dergisi 18(1-2): 85-103. 160 King C (2004) The Black Sea: A history. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 276 p. Kittinger JN, McClenachan L, Gedan KB and Blight LK, editors (2014) Marine historical ecology in conservation: applying the past to manage for the future. University of California Press, Berkeley. 312 p. Knowlton N and Jackson JBC (2008) Shifting baselines, local impacts, and global change on coral reefs. PLoS Biol 6(2): e54. Knudsen S (1995) Fisheries along the eastern Black Sea coast of Turkey: Informal resource management in small-scale fishing in the shadow of a dominant capitalist fishery. Human Organization 54(4): 437-448. Knudsen S (2003) Fishery management in the Black Sea: From ignorance to politics? Journal of Southeast European & Black Sea Studies 3(1): 46-62. Knudsen S (2004) From tax to proteins: state fishery policy and the disregard of tradition in Turkey. Middle Eastern Studies 40(5): 109-157. Knudsen S (2006) Between life giver and leisure: Identity negotiation through seafood in Turkey. International Journal of Middle East Studies 38: 395-415. Knudsen S (2008) Ethical know-how and traditional ecological knowledge in small scale fisheries on the eastern Black sea coast of Turkey. Human Ecology 36: 29-41. Knudsen S, editor (2009) Fishers and scientists in modern Turkey: The management of natural resources. Bergahn Books, Oxford, UK. 283 p. Knudsen S, editor (2011) Fishers & scientists in modern Turkey: the management of natural resources, knowledge, and identity on the eastern Black Sea coast. 304 p. 161 Knudsen S, Pelczarski W and Brown J (2007) Joining the EU: The impacts on fisheries. Project Deliverable 5.3, EU FP6 project 505576 2006, Bergen, Gdynia, London: European Lifestyles and Marine Ecosystems Project Deliverable 5.3. 42 p. Knudsen S, Zengin M and Koçak MH (2010) Identifying drivers for fishing pressure: A multidisciplinary study of trawl and sea snail fisheries in Samsun, Black Sea coast of Turkey. Ocean & Coastal Managament 53(5-6): 252-269. Koray Y (1962) Deniz Ağacı (The tree of the Sea). Remzi Kitabevi, İstanbul. 551 p. Koşar İ (2009) Türkiye’de balikçilik istatistiklerinin iyileştirilmesi ve Avrupa birliği uyum süreci. E.U. Journal of Fisheries & Aquatic Sciences 26(2): 153-158. Kosswig C (1953) Some aspects of fisheries in Turkey. Journal of Hydrobiology 1(4): 145-153. Laist DW (1995) Marine debris entanglement and ghost fishing: a cryptic and significant type of bycatch? Alaska Sea Grant College Program Report 96-03, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 33-39 p. Levin SA and Lubchenco J (2008) Resilience, robustness, and marine ecosystem-based management. BioScience 58(1): 27-32. Liebenberg L (2013) The origin of science. Cybertracker, Cape Town, South Africa. 267 p. Llope M, Daskalov GM, Rouyer TA, Mihneva V, Chan K-S, Grishin AN and Stenseth NC (2011) Overfishing of top predators eroded the resilience of the Black Sea system regardless of the climate and anthropogenic conditions. Global Change Biology 17(3): 1251-1265. Lok A, Cengiz M, Ulas A, F. Ozan Duzbastilar FO and Tokac A (2002) Artificial reefs in Turkey. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: s192-195. Lotze HK, Lenihan HS, Bourque BJ, Bradbury RH, Cooke RG, Kay MC, Kidwell SM, Kirby MX, Peterson CH and Jackson JBC (2006) Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312(5781): 1806-1809. 162 Mackinnon JB (2013) The once and future world: Nature as it was, as it is, as it could be. Random House Canada. 256 p. Martin JI (2012) The small-scale coastal fleet in the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. Note IP/B/PECH/NT/2012_08, European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies - Fisheries Brussels. 38 p. Mastrandrea M, Field C, Stocker T, Edenhofer O, Ebi K, Frame D, Held H, Kriegler E, Mach K, Matschoss P, Plattnew GK, Yohe G and Zwiers F (2010) Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties. IPCC Cross-Working Group Meeting on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties,Jasper Ridge, CA, USA, 6-7 July 2010, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 7 p. Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf [Accessed: 5 June, 2014]. Maunder M, Sibert J, Fonteneau A, Hampton J, Kleiber P and Harley S (2006) Interpreting catch per unit effort data to assess the status of individual stocks and communities. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63: 1373-1385. McClenachan L (2009) Documenting loss of large trophy fish from the Florida Keys with historical photographs. Conservation Biology 23(3): 636-643. McClenachan L, Ferretti F and Baum JK (2012) From archives to conservation: why historical data are needed to set baselines for marine animals and ecosystems. Conservation Letters 5(5): 349-359. McKibbin B (1989) The end of nature. Random House, New York. Metin Ç, Gokçe G, Aydin İ and Bayrami İ (2009) Bycatch reduction in trammel net fishery for prawn (Melicertus kerathurus) by using guarding net in Izmir Bay on Aegean Coast of Turkey. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 9: 133-136. Mikhailov K and Papaconstantinou C (2006) IASON: International Action for the Sustainability of the Mediterranean and Black Sea Environment. Report on sustainable exploitation of marine 163 resources and biotechnology issues in the Mediterranean and the Black Seas 6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems, Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Athens, Greece. 69 p. Montgomery D (2007) Dirt: the erosion of civilizations. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Myers RA and Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423: 280-283. Nader M, Indary S and Boustany LE (2012) The Puffer Fish Lagocephalus sceleratus (Gmelin, 1789) in the Eastern Mediterranean.GCP/INT/041/EC – GRE –ITA/TD-10, FAO EastMed, Athens, Greece. 42 p. Natale AD (2010) The Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna: Entangled in a big mess, possibly far from a conservation red alert.  Some comments after the proposal to include bluefin tuna in Cites Appendix 1. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 65(3): 1004-1043. Oguz T, Fach B and Salihoglu B (2008) Invasion dynamics of the alien ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its impact on anchovy collapse in the Black Sea. Journal of Plankton Research 30(12): 1385-1397. Oral N (2009) Non-ratification of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention: An Aegean dilemma of environmental and global consequence. Berkeley Journal of International Law 1, Law of the Sea Symposium: 17. Özbilgin Y, Tosunoğlu Z and Özbilgin H (2006) By-catch in a 40 mm PE demersal trawl codend. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 30: 179-185. Özdağ U (2013) For the health of the sea: In search of an expansive “land ethic” in Turkish maritime literature. Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment 20(1): 5-30. Öztürk B, editor (1999) Black Sea biological diversity. United Nations Publications, New York. 144 p. Oztürk B, Keskin C and Engin S (2011) Some remarks on the catches of anchovy, Engraulis encrasicolus (Linnaeus, 1758), in Georgian waters by Turkish fleet between 2003 and 2009. Journal of the Black Sea/Mediterranean Environment 17(2): 145-158. 164 Papworth SK, Rist J, Coad L and Milner-Gulland EJ (2009) Evidence for shifting baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters 2(2): 93-100. Parsons D, Morrison M, MacDiarmid A, Stirling B, Cleaver P, Smith I and Butcher M (2010) Risks of shifting baselines highlighted by anecdotal accounts of New Zealand's snapper (Pagrus auratus) fishery. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 43(4): 965-983. Pauly D (1984) A mechanism for the juvenile-to-adults transition in fishes. J. Cons. CIEM 41: 280-284. Pauly D (1995) Anecdotes and shifting baseline syndrome of fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10(10): 430. Pauly D (2006) Major trends in small-scale fisheries, with emphasis on developing countries, and some implications for the social sciences. Maritime Studies (MAST) 4(2): 7-22. Pauly D (2011) On baselines that need shifting. Solutions - for a sustainable and desirable future 2(1): 14. Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard J, Froese R and Torres FJ (1998) Fishing Down Marine Food Webs. Science 6  279(279): 860-863. Pauly D, Christensen V, Guénette S, Pitcher TJ, Sumaila UR, Walters CJ, Watson R and Zeller D (2002) Toward sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418: 689-695. Pauly D and Palomares ML (2005) Fishing down marine food webs: it is far more pervasive than we thought. Bulletin of Marine Science 76(2): 197-211. Pauly D, Ulman A, Piroddi C, Bultel E and Coll M (2014) Reported versus ‘likely’ fisheries catches of four Mediterranean countries. Scientia Marina 78S1: 11-17. Pawson MG, Tingley D, Padda G and Glenn H (2007) EU contract FISH/2004/011 on Sport Fisheries (or Marine Recreational Fisheries) in the EU. Cefas, Suffolk, UK. 242 p. 165 Pitcher T, Kalikoski D, Pramod G and Short K (2008) Safe conduct? Twelve years fishing under the UN Code. WWF. 65 p. Pitcher T, Kalikoski D, Pramod G and Short K (2009) Commentary: Not honouring the code. Nature 457: 658-659. Pitcher T and Pauly D (2001) Rebuilding ecosystems, not sustainability, as the proper goal of fishery management. pp. 311-329 In Reinventing Fisheries Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Germany. Rad F (2002) Country report- Turkey. CIHEAM - Options Mediteraneenes. 341-371 p. Richter C, H. Roa-Quiaoit, C. Jantzen, M. Al-Zibdah and M. Kochzius (2008) Collapse of a new living species of giant clam in the Red Sea. Current Biology 18(17): 1349-1354. Ricker WE (1975) Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of fish populations. Bull. Fish. Res. Board Can. 191: 382. Roberts C (2010) The unnatural history of the sea. Island Press, Washington DC, USA. 456 p. Roesti RM (1966) The declining economic role of the Mediterranean tuna fishery. American Journal of Economics & Sociology 25(1): 77-90. Rosenberg AA, Bolster WJ, Alexander KE, Leavenworth WB, Cooper AB and McKenzie MG (2005) The history of ocean resources: modelling cod biomass using historical records. Frontiers in Ecology 3(2): 84-90. Rousou M (2009) Non-commercial marine invertebrate discards of small-scale coastal fisheries: a case study in Cyprus (Levantine, Eastern Mediterranean Sea). Biological Diversity thesis, University of Plymouth. 69 p. 166 Sáenz-Arroyo A, Roberts C, Torre J, Carino-Olvera M and Enriquez-Andrade R (2005) Rapidly shifting environmental baselines among fishers of the Gulf of California. Proceedings of the Royal Society 272(1575): 1957-1962. Sáenz–Arroyo A, Roberts CM, Torre J and Cariño-Olvera M (2005) Using fishers’ anecdotes, naturalists’ observations and grey literature to reassess marine species at risk: the case of the Gulf grouper in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Fish and Fisheries 6(2): 121-133. Sağlam H, Duzgüneş E and Öğüt H (2009) Reproductive ecology of the invasive whelk Rapana venosa Valenciennes, 1846, in the southeastern Black Sea (Gastropoda: Muricidae). ICES Journal of Marine Science 66: 1865-1867. Sağlam N and Duzguneş E (2010) Comparative approach to analyze fishing fleet profile of Turkey and European Union as an indicator of fishing effort. Scientific Research and Essays 5(21): 3572-3584. Sala E, Boudouresque CF and Harmelin-Vivien M (1998) Fishing, trophic cascades, and the structure of algal assemblages: evaluation of an old but untested paradigm. Oikos 82(3): 425-439. Sayilir B and Babuçoğlu M, editors (1972) Hamsi-name. Phoenix Yayinevi, Istanbul. 127 p. Schiller L, Alava J, Grove J, Reck G and Pauly D (2014) The Demise of Darwin's Fishes: Evidence of fishing down and illegal shark finning in the Galápagos Islands. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2458. Solsten E, editor (1993) Cyprus a country study, Fourth edition. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 304 p. Stergiou K, Tsikliras A and Pauly D (2009) Farming up Mediterranean food webs. Conservation Biology 23(1): 230-232. 167 Stergiou KI, Economou A, Papaconstantinou C, Tsimenides N and Kavadas S (1998) Estimates of discards in the Hellenic commercial trawl fishery. Rapports Commission Internationale pour la Mer Mediterranee 35: 431-435. Sumaila R and Pauly D (2006) Catching more bait: a bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(6): 114. Sumaila UR and Keith JA (2005) Global scope and economics of illegal fishing. Marine Policy 30: 696-703. Sumaila UR, Khan A, Teh L, Watson R, Tyedmers P and Pauly D (2010a) Subsidies to high seas bottom trawl fleet and the sustainability of deep sea benthic fish stocks. Marine Policy 34(3): 459-497. Sumaila UR, Khan AS, Dyck AJ, Watson R, Munro G, Tyedmers P and Pauly D (2010b) A bottom-up re-estimation of global fisheries subsidies. Journal of Bioeconomics 12: 201-225. Sumaila UR and Pauly D (2011) The 'March of Folly' in global fisheries. pp. 281-289 In Jackson JBC, Alexander KE and Sala E (eds.), Shifting Baselines: the past and future of ocean fisheries. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Swartz W, Sala E, Tracey S, Watson R and Pauly D (2010) The spatial expansion and ecological footprint of fisheries (1950 to present). PLoS One 5(12): e15143. Tekin O (1996) The pelamydes of Byzantanium and the Golden Horn. Anatolian Arastirmalari XIV: 470-478. Tesfamichael D, Pitcher TJ and Pauly D (2014) Assessing changes in fisheries using fishers’ knowledge to generate long time series of catch rates: A case study from the Red Sea. Ecology and Society 19(1): 18. Thrush S and Dayton P (2002) Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and dredging: Implications for marine biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 33: 449-473. 168 Tudela S (2004) Ecosystem effects of fishing in the Mediterranean: an analysis of the major threats of fishing gear and practices to biodiversity and marine habitats. General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) No.74. 58 p. TÜİK (1967-2010) Su Urunleri Istatistikleri- Fishery Statistics Turkish Statistical Institute Ankara, Turkey. TÜİK (2010) Su Urunleri Anket Sonuclari- Fishery Statistics 2010. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu, Ankara, Turkey. Turner W, Nakamura T and Dinetti M (2004) Global urbanization and the separation of humans from nature. BioScience 54(6): 585-590. Ulman A (2014) Urgent change in management measures required to save Turkish fisheries from collapse. Journal of Coastal Development 17: 1. Ulman A, Bekişoğlu Ş, Zengin M, Knudsen S, Ünal V, Mathews C, Harper S, Zeller D and Pauly D (2013a) From bonito to anchovy: a reconstruction of Turkey’s marine fisheries catches (1950-2010). Mediterranean Marine Science 14(2): 309-342. Ulman A, Çiçek B, Salihoglu I, Petrou A, Patsalidou M, Pauly D and Zeller D (2013b) The reconstruction and unification of Cyprus' marine fisheries catch data, 1950-2010. Fisheries Centre Working Paper #2013-09, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 72 p. Ulman A, Çiçek BA, Salihoglu I, Petrou A, Patsalidou M, Pauly D and Zeller D (2014) Unifying the catch data of a divided island: Cyprus's marine fisheries catches, 1950-2010. Environment, Development and Sustainability 16(4): 23. DOI: 10.1007/s10668-10014-19576-z. Ünal V (2004) Viability of trawl fishing fleet in Foca (the Aegean Sea), Turkey and some advices to central managment authority. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 4: 93-97. Ünal V, Acarli D and Gordoa A (2010) Characteristics of marine recreational fishing in the Çannakale strait (Turkey). Mediterranean Marine Science 11(2): 315-330. 169 Ünal V and Erdem M (2009) Combating illegal fishing in Gokova Bay (Aegean Sea), Turkey. pp. 80-86 In Proceedings of the 3rd International symposium on underwater research. Ege University, Izmir, Famagusta, Cyprus. Ünal V, Erdem M, Goncuoglu H, Guclusoy H and Tosunoglu Z (2009) Management paradox of groupers (Epinephelinae) fishing in the Gökova Bay (Eastern Mediterranean), Turkey. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment 7(3-4): 904-907. Ünal V and Franquesa R (2010) A comparative study on socio-economic indicators and viability in small-scale fisheries of six districts along the Turkish coast. Journal of  Applied Ichthyology 26: 26-34. Ünal V, Yercan M and Günden C (2011) The status of fishery cooperatives along the Aegean Sea coast (Turkey). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 27: 854-858. UNODC (2011) Transnational organized crime in the fishing industry: Trafficking in persons, smuggling of migrants, illicit drugs trafficking United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Vienna. 140 p. Üstündağ E (2010) Geçmişten günümüze balikçilik uygulamalari ve hamsi avciliğina etkileri. Su Ürünleri Merkez Arastirma Enstitüsü, Trabzon, Turkey. 9 p. Vasilakopoulos P, Maravelias C and Tserpes G (2014) The alarming decline of Mediterranean fish stocks. Current Biology 24: 6. Vershinin A, editor (2007) Living Black Sea. Kogorta Publishers, Moscow. 192 p. Watling L and Norse EA (1998) Disturbance of the seabed by mobile fishing gear: A comparison to forest clearcutting. Conservation Biology 12(6): 1180-1197. Watson R and Pauly D (2001) Systematic distortions in world fisheries catch trends. Nature 414: 534-536. Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fisheries catches for U.S. flag island areas in the Western Pacific: The last 50 years. US Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266-277. 170 Zeller D, Rossing P, Harper S, Persson L, Booth S and Pauly D (2011) The Baltic Sea: Estimates of total fisheries removals 1950-2007. Fisheries Research 108: 356-363. Zengin M (2006) Türkiye’nin orta Karadeniz (Samsun: Kızılırmak-Yeşilırmak) kıyılarındaki ekosistem-habitat değişimleri üzerine genel bir değerlendirme. pp. 275-278 In Özhan E (ed.) Türkiye’nin Kıyı ve Deniz Alanları VI. Ulusal Konferansı, 7-11 Kasım 2006Muğla Üniversitesi, Muğla. Zengin M and Akyol O (2009) Description of by-catch species from the coastal shrimp beam trawl fishery in Turkey. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 25: 211-214. Zengin M and Dinçer AC (2006) Distribution and seasonal movement of Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda) populations in the Southern Black Sea coasts. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 6: 57-62. Zengin M, Genc Y and Duzgunes E (1998) Evaluation of the data from market samples on the commercial fish species in the Black Sea during 1990-1995. p. 9. First International Symposium on Fisheries and Ecology proceedings (FISHECO '98) 02-04 Sep.,1998. Trabzon. Zengin M, Gümüş A, Süer S, Dağtekin M, Akpınar İÖ and Dalgıç G (2011) Monitoring of the trawl fisheries in the coast of Turkish Black Sea. 2nd Transversal working group on bycatch. GFCM Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC), Sub-Committee on Marine Environment and Ecosystem (SCMEE), Sub-Committee on Stock Assessment (SCSA), GFCM Antalya, Turkey. 12 p. Zengin M, Karakulak FS, Polat H and Kutlu S (2007) A study on the stocks of the deep-water pink shrimp (Parapenaeus longirostris lucas, 1846) in the Marmara Sea. Rapp. Comm. int Mer Medit. 38: 642. Zengin M and Knudsen S (2006) Effects of the trawl and sea snail fisheries on the resources of the benthic macro fauna in the middle Black Sea coast. Black Sea Ecosystem 2005 and Beyond, 1st Biannual Scientific Conference 8-10 May, 2009. BSERP, İstanbul. Zogaris S and De Maddelena A (2014) Sharks, blast fishing and shifting baselines: Insights from Hass’s 1942 Aegean expedition. Cahiers de Biologie Marine 55: 305-313. 171 APPENDIX  Appendix table 1. Turkish fish taxa list. List of English names, scientific names and  Turkish names used in this report.  English name Scientific Name Turkish name (additional name) Albacore Thunnus alalunga Albakor (irigöz) Anglerfish Lophius piscatorius Fener baliği Angel shark Squatina squatina Keler Annular seabream Diplodus annularis İsparoz (ispari) Atlantic horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus Karagöz İstavrit Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus Uskumru Atlantic saury Scomberesox saurus Zurna Axillary seabream Pagellus acarne Kırma Mercan Black scorpionfish Scorpaena porcus Lipsöz Black goby Gobius niger Siyah Kayabalığı Black grouper Mycteroperca bonaci Siyah Orfoz Bogue Boops boops Kupez (kupa) Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix Lüfer (big çinekop) Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus Orkinoz Blue jack mackerel Trachurus picturatus Istavrit Bonito Sarda sarda Palamut (torik) Brown meagre Sciaena umbra Işkine (mavraşgil) Bullet tuna Auxis rochei  Yazılı orkinoz Blue whiting Micromesistius poutassou Bakalorya Chub mackerel Scomber japonicus Kolyoz (kolyozvonozu balığı) Common dentex Dentex dentex Sinağrit Common dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus Lambuka Dusky grouper Epinephelus marginatus Orfoz European anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus Hamsi European barracuda Sphyraena sphyraena İskarmoz (baraküda) European conger Conger conger Miğri European pilchard Sardina pilchardus Saradalya (çiroz) European plaice Pleuronectes platessa Pisi European seabass Dicentrarchus labrax Levrek European sprat Sprattus sprattus Çaça Frigate tuna Auxis thazard  Gobene Garfish Belone belone Zargana Gilthead seabream Sparus aurata Çipura Goatfishes Mullidae Paşa barbunu Gobies Gobiidae Kaya baliği Grey mullet Mugilidae Kefal Groupers Serranidae Orfoz Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili Avci (sarikuyruk) Gurnards Trigla Kirlangiç Hake Merluccius merluccius Berlam John dory Zeus faber Dülger Leerfish Lichia amia Akya Little tunny Euthynnus alletteratus Yazili orkinoz Meagre Argyrosomus regius Sariağiz Medit. horse mackerel Trachurus mediterraneus Sarıkuyruk istavrit Pacific mullet Mugil soiuy Rus kefali Painted comber Serranus cabrilla Asıl hani Pandora Pagellus erythrinus Kırma mercan Picarel Spicara smaris İzmarit Piper gurnard Trigla lyra Öksüz Red mullet Mullus barbatus  Barbunya Round sardinella Sardinella aurita Sardalya Saddled seabream Oblada melanura Melanurya Salema Sarpa salpa Sarpa (çitari) Scorpionfishes Scorpaenidae İskorpit Seabream Diplodus spp. Fangri (fanri) Shad Alosa fallax Tirsi Sharpsnout seabream Diplodus puntazzo Sivriburun karakgöz    172 Appendix table 1 continued. Turkish fish taxa list. List of English names, scientific names and Turkish names used in this report.  English name                          Scientific Name                      Turkish name Shore rockling Gaidropsarus mediterraneus Gelincik Sharks Selachiimorpha Köpek baliği Shi drum Umbrina cirrosa Minekop Silversides Atherinidae Gümüş (çumuka) Sole Solea solea Dil Sprat Sprattus sprattus Çaça Striped red mullet Mullus surmuletus Tekir Swordfish Xiphias gladius Kiliç Thicklip grey mullet Chelon labrosus Kefal Thornback ray Raja clavata Vatoz Tub gurnard Trigla lucerna Kırlangiç Turbot Scopthalmus maximus Kalkan (saç) Twaite shad Alosa fallax Tirsi White grouper Epinephelus aeneus Lahoz White seabream Diplodus vulgaris Karagöz Whiting Merlangius merlangus Mezgit *Note that the symbols ı, ö, ü , İ, ç, ğ, ş are special Turkish characters which correspond    to the English  uh, o, u, ee, ch, soft gh, sh sounds respectively.   173 Appendix table 2. Turkish invertebrate taxa list. List of English names,  scientific names and Turkish names used in this report.  English name Scientific name Turkish name Angular crab Goneplax rhomboides  Yengeç Blue crab Callinectes sapidus Mavi yengeç Brown comb jelly Beroe ovata Deniz anasi (medüz) Caramote prawn Melicertus kerathurus Karabiga Carpet shell Ruditapes decussatus Akıvades (kum midyesi) Comb jelly Ctenophora  Deniz anasi (medüz) Common octopus Octopus vulgaris Ahtapot Common squid Loligo vulgaris Kalemerya Deepwater rose shrimp Parapenaeus longirostris Pembe karides (çimçim) Edible crab Cancer pagurus Pavurya European flat oyster Ostrea edulis İstiridye European lobster Homarus gammarus İstakoz Giant gamba prawn Aristaeomorpha foliacea Kırmızi karides Green tiger prawn Penaeus semisulcatus Jumbo karides Great Mediterranean scallop Pecten jacobaeus Tarak Horse mussel Modiolus barbatus Kıllı midye Mantis shrimp Squilla mantis Böcek yiyen Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis Kara midye Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus Deniz kereviti Rapa whelk Rapana venosa Deniz salyangozu Sea cucumber Holothuridea Deniz hıyarı Sepia Sepia officinalis  Mürekkep  Shrimp Penaeidae  Karides Speckled shrimp Metapenaeus monoceros Erkek karides Spiny lobster Palinurus vulgaris Böcek Striped venus clam Chamelea gallina Beyaz kum midyesi Swimming crab Portunidae Çalpara Tun snail Tonna galea  Deniz salyangozu Warty comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi Deniz anasi *Note that the symbols ı, ö, ü , ı, ç, ğ, ş are special Turkish characters which correspond to the English    uh, o, u, ee, ch, soft gh, sh sounds, respectively.   174 Appendix table 3. Cypriot fish taxa list. List of English names, scientific names, Cypriot names and Turkish names used in this report.  English name Scientific name Cypriot name Turkish name Albacore tuna Thunnus alalunga - Albakor (irigöz) Angel shark Squatina squatina Kyrós Keler Anglerfish Uranoscopus scaber Lychnos Kurbaga Annular seabream Diplodus annularis Sparos İsparoz (ispari) Atlantic bonito Sarda sarda Palamida Palamut (torik) Atlantic horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus Safridi Istravrit (kraça) Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus Scumbrί Uskumru Axillary seabream Pagellus acarne Fatsoukli Kırma Mercan Big-scale sand smelt Atherina boyeri Atherina Gümüş (çumuka) Black goby Gobius niger - - Blackmouth catshark Galeus melastomus - - Black seabream Spondyliosoma cantharus Scáthari Sarigöz Blackspot seabream Pagellus bogaraveo - - Blotched picarel Spicara maena Menoulla İzmarit Blue butterfish Stromateus fiatola Stira - Blue jack mackerel Trachurus picturatus - - Blue shark Prionace glauca Cancharίas Pamuk Bogue Boops boops Voppa Kupez (kupa) Blue-spotted cornetfish Fistularia commersonii - - Brown meagre Sciaena umbra Siakos Işkine Brushtooth lizardfish Saurida undosquamis - - Bull ray Pteromylaeus bovinus Actopsaro Kulaklifolya Chub mackerel Scomber japonicus Collίos (Koliós) Kolyoz Comber Serranus cabrilla Channos Asıl hani Corb Umbrina cirrosa Milokopi Kötex Common dentex Dentex dentex Synagrida Sinağrit Common guitarfish Rhinobatos rhinobatos Violopsaro Iğnelikeler Common pandora Pagellus erythrinus Lythrini Kırma mercan Common stingray Dasyatis pastinaca - Vatoz Common torpedo Torpedo torpedo Electryko Uyuşturan Common two-banded seabream Diplodus vulgaris Haratzida Karagöz Devil fish Mobula mobular Selachi kephaloptero Şeytan Dogfish Squaliformes Skyllos Köpek balık Dusky grouper Epinephelus marginatus Orfos Orfoz Dusky spinefoot Siganus luridus - Sokan European anchovy Engraulis encrasicolus Gávros Hamsi European barracuda Sphyraena sphyraena Sphyrna İskarmoz (baraküda) European conger Conger conger Mougri Miğri European eel Anguilla anguilla Chéli Yilan European hake Merluccius merluccius Backaliaros Berlam European pilchard Sardina pilchartus Sardella Saradalya (çiroz) European seabass Dicentrarchus labrax Lavraki Levrek Flying gurnard Dactylopterus volitans Chelidonopsaro Uçan Foureyed sole Microchirus ocellatus Glóssa Dil Four-spot megrim Lepidorhombus - - Frigate mackerel Auxis thazard thazard Kopáni Gobene Garfish Belone belone Velonida Zargana Gilt-head seabream Sparus aurata Tsipoura (Çipura) Çipura Golden picarel Spicara flexuosa Tseroulla - Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili Mineri Avci (sarikuyruk) Greater pipefish Syngnathus acus Sacerápha Deniz ignesi 175 Appendix table 3 continued. Cypriot fish taxa list. List of English names, scientific names, Cypriot names and Turkish names used in this report.  English name Scientific name  Cypriot name  Turkish name Greater weever Trachinus draco Drákena Trakonya Grey gurnard Eutrigla gurnardus Capóni Benekli kirlangiç Grey mullet Mugilidae Kefalos Kefal Grey triggerfish Balistes capriscus Gourounópsaro Çütre Groupers Epinephelus  Vlachos Orfoz Gulper shark Centrophorus granulosus - - John Dory Zeus faber Chrystópsaro Dülger Largescaled scorpionfish Scorpaena scrofa - - Leerfish Lichia amia - Akya Lesser weever Echiichthys vipera Drákena Varsam Little tunny Euthynnus alletteratus Palamida (karvòuni) Yazili orkinoz Lizardfish Synodus saurus Skarmos Zurna Longspine snipefish Macroramphosus scolopax - - Long-snouted seahorse Hippocampus guttulatus Alogakί Deniz aygiri Madeiran sardinella  Sardinella madirensis - - Marbled spinefoot Siganus rivilatus - Sokan Mediterranean horse mackerel Trachurus mediterraneus Safridi Istavrit (karagöz) Mediterranean moray Muraena helena Smérna Merina Monkfish Lophius piscatorius - - Mottled grouper Mycteroperca rubra - Orfoz Ocean sunfish Mola mola Fegarópsaro Pervane Ornate wrasse Thalassamo pavo - - Painted comber Serranus scriba Perka Asıl hani Parrotfish Sparisoma cretense Skaros Iskaroz Picarel Spicara smaris Marida Smarida (Izmarit) Piper gurnard Trigla lyra Capóni Mazak Porbeagle shark Lamna nasus Cancharίas Dikburun karkarias Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Pestrofa - Rays and skates Rajiformes Vati Vatoz Red mullet Mullus barbatus barbatus Stryllia Barbunya Red porgy Pagrus pagrus Fangri Fangri (Mercan) Redcoat squirrelfish Sargocenton rubrum Rossos Hindistan Round sardinella Sardinella aurita Sardella Gümüş Saddled seabream Oblada melanura Melana Melanurya Salema Sarpa salpa Salpa Sarpa (çitari) Sardinellas Sardinella spp. Sardella Gümüş (çumuka) Scorpionfish Scorpaena spp. Scorpios İskorpit Sharks and dogfishes Squaliformes Skyllos Köpek baliği Sharksucker Remora remora Collisópsaro Vantuz Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus  Mytáki Sivriburun karagöz Silver-cheeked toadfish Lagocephalus sceleratus - - Small-spotted catshark Scyliorhinus canicula Skyláki Mahmuzlu camgöz Smooth hammerhead Sphyrna zygaena Pateritza Cekiç Spotted flounder Citharus linguatula Glossa Dil Starry ray Raja asterias - - Streaked weever Trachinus radiatus Drákena Çarpan Striped sea bream Lithognathus mormyrus Mourmoura Çizgili mercan Surmullet Mullus surmuletus Barbouni Tekir Swordfish Xiphias gladius Xifias Kiliç Thresher shark Alopias vulpinus Alepóu Sapan Twaite shad Alosa fallax Frίssa Tirsi 176 Appendix table 3 continued. Cypriot fish taxa list. List of English names, scientific names, Cypriot names and Turkish names used in this report.  English name Scientific name  Cypriot name  Turkish name     White grouper Epinephelus aeneus Sphyrida Lahoz White seabream Diplodus sargus sargus Sorgos Karagöz Whiting Merlangius merlangus Prosphygák Mezgit   177 Appendix table 4. Cypriot invertebrate taxa list. List of English names, scientific names, Cypriot names and Turkish names used in this report. English name Scientific name Cypriot name Turkish name Banded-dye murex  Hexaplex trunculus - - Common octopus Octopus vulgaris Octopus Ahtapot Common spiny lobster Palinurus vulgaris Astakos Böcek Cuttlefish Sepia officinalis Soupia Mürekkep Deepwater rose shrimp Parapenaeus longirostris Garida Pembe karides  European flying squid Todorodes sagittatus Kalamari Kalemerya European lobster Homarus gammarus - İstakoz Four-horned spider crab Pisa tetraodon - - Great Mediterranean scallop Pecten jacobaeus - Tarak Hermit crab  Dardanus calidus - - Mantis shrimp Squilla mantis - Böcek yiyen Mediterranean hermit crab  Paguristes eremita - - Mediterranean locust lobster Scyllarides latus Karavida - Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis - Kara midye Pencil sea urchin  Cidaris cidaris - - Purple-dye murex  Bolinus brandaris - - Shrimps Penaeidae Garides Karides Spider crab  Maja crispata - - Spiny lobster Palinurus vulgaris Astakos Böcek Squid Loligo vulgaris Kalamari Kalemerya Swimming crab Portunidae Karkinos Çalpara Turban snail Bolma rugosa - Deniz salyangozu    178 Appendix table 5. Turkish fish catch allocation by sector. Percentage of fish caught by artisanal sector, remaining percentage caught by industrial sector.  Source: Percentages estimated from collaborative experience of authors. Fish species (or group) Artisanal (%) Industrial (%) Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) 20 80 Anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) - 100 Angelshark (Squatina squatina) 10 90 Atlantic bonito (Sarda sarda) 15 85 Atlantic horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus) 2 98 Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) 25 75 Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) 10 90 Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) 15 85 Blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou) - 100 Bogue (Boops boops) 25 75 Bullet tuna (Auxis rochei rochei) 20 80 Chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) 25 75 Common dentex (Dentex dentex) 100 - Dusky grouper (Epinephelus marginatus) 100 - European barracuda (Sphyraena sphyraena) 100 - European conger (Conger conger) 20 80 European pilchard (Sardina pilchardus) 5 95 European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) 100 - European sprat (Sprattus sprattus) - 100 Frigate tuna (Auxis thazard thazard) 20 80 Garfish (Belone belone) 50 50 Gobies (Gobiidae) 10 90 Greater amberjack (Seriola dumerili) 10 90 Hake (Merluccius merluccius) 25 75 John dory (Zeus faber) 50 50 Leerfish (Lichia amia) 100 - Lizardfish (Synodus saurus) 70 30 Meagre (Argyrosomus regius) 100 - Mediterranean horse mackerel 2 98 (Trachurus mediterraneus) Mullets (Mugil spp.) 30 70 Painted comber (Serranus scriba) 40 60 Picarel (Spicara smaris) 35 65 Salema (Sarpa salpa) 100 - Sand smelt (Atherinidae) - 100 Scorpionfishes (Scorpaeniformes) 10 90 Seabreams (Diplodus spp.) 75 25 Sharks (Selachiimorpha) 10 90 Shi drum (Umbrina cirrosa) 100 - Shore rockling (Gaidropsarus mediterraneus) 100 - Sole (Solea solea) 20 80 Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) 50 50 Thornback ray (Raja clavata) 25 75 Twaite shad (Alosa fallax) 78 22 Turbot (Scopthalmus maximus) 72 28 Whiting (Merlangius merlangus) 15 85     179         Appendix table 6. Turkish Invertebrate catch allocation by sector.          Percentage of invertebrates caught by artisanal sector, and large-sector. Invertebrate species (or group) Artisanal (%) Large scale (%) Comb jellies (Ctenophora) - 100 Common octopus (Octopus vulgaris) 50 50 Common squid (Loligo vulgaris) 50 50 Crabs (Brachyura) 50 50 European flat oyster (Ostrea edulis) 100 - European lobster (Homarus gammarus) 90 10 Great Mediterranean scallop (Pecten jacobaeus) 100 - Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis)  100 - Rapa whelk (Rapana venosa) 100 - Sepia (Sepia officinalis) 50 50 Shrimps (Penaeidae) 45 55 Spiny lobsters (Palinuridae) 90 10 Striped Venus clam (Chamelea gallina) 10 90      180 Appendix table 7. Time series of reported marine fisheries catches (t) for Turkey by sub-sector (reported FAO and national data where used), and the estimated unreported, recreational,  subsistence, discarded and total reconstructed amounts. Year FAO National Unreported Discard Recreational Subsistence Total 1950 77,000 - 30,800 20,467 2,838 25,544 156,649 1951 86,000 - 34,400 22,859 3,194 25,025 171,479 1952 86,600 - 34,640 23,019 3,546 24,509 172,314 1953 67,100 - 26,840 17,835 3,894 24,000 139,669 1954 100,100 - 40,040 26,607 4,263 23,636 194,646 1955 83,000 - 33,200 22,062 4,418 22,197 164,877 1956 108,100 - 43,240 28,733 4,876 22,333 207,283 1957 89,400 - 35,760 23,763 5,312 22,298 176,533 1958 79,401 - 31,760 21,105 5,759 22,252 160,278 1959 87,402 - 34,961 23,232 6,212 22,180 173,987 1960 80,503 - 32,201 21,398 6,675 22,096 162,873 1961 74,602 - 29,841 19,829 7,178 22,095 153,544 1962 51,402 - 20,561 13,663 7,688 22,063 115,376 1963 122,602 - 49,041 32,588 8,209 22,015 234,455 1964 113,302 - 45,321 30,116 8,737 21,942 219,418 1965 127,502 - 51,001 33,890 9,276 21,852 243,521 1966 107,938 - 43,175 28,690 9,829 21,756 211,388 1967 - 204,069 81,628 47,922 10,391 21,640 365,649 1968 - 126,493 50,597 45,380 10,960 21,505 254,934 1969 - 158,679 63,472 40,624 11,536 21,348 295,658 1970 - 167,030 66,812 39,452 12,119 21,175 306,589 1971 - 146,207 58,483 41,701 12,810 21,151 280,353 1972 - 157,491 62,996 34,416 13,516 21,105 289,524 1973 - 130,367 52,147 18,698 14,226 21,022 236,460 1974 - 113,722 45,489 19,839 14,951 20,920 214,922 1975 - 102,024 40,810 17,776 15,681 20,787 197,078 1976 - 133,882 53,553 20,975 16,761 21,058 246,229 1977 - 146,270 58,508 27,405 17,865 21,278 271,326 1978 - 222,302 88,921 51,385 18,994 21,453 403,055 1979 - 328,342 131,337 81,615 20,146 21,582 583,022 1980 - 394,432 157,773 49,687 20,325 20,653 642,870 1981 - 438,284 175,314 62,773 21,345 20,573 718,289 1982 - 469,931 187,972 68,557 22,342 20,426 769,228 1983 - 518,561 207,424 98,667 23,355 20,250 868,258 1984 - 518,546 207,419 81,589 24,372 20,038 851,964 1985 - 531,095 212,438 93,243 25,388 19,787 881,952 1986 - 536,797 214,719 84,925 26,622 19,661 882,724 1987 - 580,453 232,181 94,068 27,867 19,493 954,063 1988 - 620,063 248,025 100,869 29,114 19,281 1,017,352 1989 - 409,316 163,726 90,441 30,366 19,026 712,875 1990 - 340,316 136,126 69,050 31,614 18,727 595,833 1991 - 312,845 125,138 66,143 33,071 18,506 555,702 1992 - 402,176 160,870 64,712 34,524 18,233 680,515 1993 - 496,555 198,622 68,710 35,955 17,902 817,745 1994 - 539,609 215,844 77,717 37,425 17,547 888,142 1995 - 582,150 232,860 69,276 38,876 17,141 940,303 1996 - 470,880 188,352 43,652 43,089 17,840 763,813 1997 - 400,672 160,269 35,215 39,831 15,459 651,445 1998 - 430,223 172,089 40,260 40,956 14,873 698,401 1999 - 520,499 208,200 42,707 41,470 14,060 826,935 2000 - 455,709 182,284 43,111 43,260 13,661 738,025 2001 - 479,649 191,860 41,746 44,329 13,003 770,586 181 Appendix table 7 continued. Time series of reported marine fisheries catches (t) for Turkey by sub-sector.                              Year           FAO       National             Unreported Discard Recreational Subsistence Total                 2002 - 520,267 208,107 39,908 45,396 12,330 826,009 2003 - 458,079 183,232 37,063 46,445 11,640 736,458 2004 - 502,544 201,018 39,818 47,484 10,936 801,799 2005 - 378,759 151,504 36,370 48,512 10,219 625,365 2006 - 486,403 194,561 38,819 49,538 9,492 778,813 2007 - 588,548 235,419 44,944 50,544 8,752 928,207 2008 - 452,383 180,953 43,639 51,379 7,977 736,332 2009 - 424,606 169,842 41,424 52,831 7,286 695,990 2010 - 445,617 178,247 41,329 54,360 6,719 726,272    182 Appendix table 8. Total reconstructed catch (t) by major taxa for Turkey, 1950-2010. ‘Others’ grouping includes 66 taxa. Year Anchovy Horse mackerel Bonito Whiting Bluefish Sprat Others 1950 38,704 20,718 24,137 5,203 7,961 - 59,925 1951 43,228 22,309 26,484 5,765 8,323 - 65,371 1952 43,530 22,303 26,584 5,794 8,283 - 65,820 1953 33,728 18,475 21,304 4,551 7,284 - 54,326 1954 50,316 24,636 30,079 6,633 8,798 - 74,184 1955 41,720 21,212 25,420 5,542 7,910 - 63,073 1956 54,337 26,047 32,177 7,134 9,169 - 78,419 1957 44,937 22,547 27,206 5,953 8,331 - 67,559 1958 39,911 20,700 24,563 5,322 7,907 - 61,873 1959 43,933 22,275 26,737 5,831 8,343 - 66,868 1960 40,465 21,014 24,921 5,397 8,064 - 63,011 1961 37,499 19,969 23,388 5,027 7,853 - 59,808 1962 25,837 15,631 17,223 3,561 6,814 - 46,309 1963 61,626 29,246 36,322 8,074 10,285 - 88,902 1964 56,952 27,547 33,875 7,488 9,906 - 83,651 1965 64,089 30,315 37,715 8,390 10,649 - 92,362 1966 54,255 26,661 32,516 7,155 9,779 - 81,021 1967 82,705 49,106 53,616 5,820 13,630 - 160,772 1968 50,137 33,425 34,640 9,249 11,338 - 116,145 1969 62,213 35,377 76,319 9,399 11,218 - 101,133 1970 103,745 42,574 28,931 17,561 14,651 - 99,128 1971 102,117 26,081 38,758 11,066 11,340 - 90,992 1972 133,045 37,234 21,375 10,137 10,755 - 76,979 1973 126,099 41,283 9,074 4,722 5,671 - 49,611 1974 109,842 29,396 11,443 5,621 6,550 - 52,070 1975 85,988 30,544 8,509 7,617 9,521 - 54,898 1976 112,802 40,622 8,465 8,312 18,356 - 57,672 1977 115,216 43,450 10,571 11,501 20,462 - 70,126 1978 168,110 75,793 12,133 40,167 12,145 - 94,707 1979 202,764 142,814 17,465 39,484 28,081 - 152,413 1980 365,212 104,702 26,023 13,507 20,984 - 112,443 1981 395,879 105,928 39,807 9,541 32,927 - 134,207 1982 399,258 119,463 42,228 8,757 53,144 - 146,379 1983 435,539 127,300 47,355 23,482 51,355 - 183,227 1984 479,902 164,288 16,007 23,017 23,716 - 145,034 1985 412,635 201,358 23,780 32,148 18,807 - 193,225 1986 417,752 197,441 21,540 35,623 24,591 - 185,776 1987 449,932 186,643 30,112 51,539 22,736 - 213,101 1988 450,396 189,110 31,410 53,599 24,312 - 268,526 1989 142,999 194,092 12,451 36,806 23,394 - 303,133 1990 107,351 150,299 26,521 31,562 21,210 - 258,891 1991 131,424 64,394 33,815 36,214 25,567 - 264,289 1992 253,208 57,534 18,264 35,779 22,004 18 293,707 1993 329,339 66,232 33,721 34,827 32,136 170 321,320 1994 426,906 61,698 20,140 29,921 20,048 7,280 322,149 1995 561,982 41,108 18,123 33,310 16,341 16,328 253,110 1996 421,486 44,149 20,216 38,618 14,741 1,466 223,136 1997 349,450 34,042 16,505 24,505 12,725 758 213,461 1998 330,600 34,195 40,388 22,822 13,237 1,916 255,244 1999 507,500 31,494 31,661 24,208 12,653 656 218,764 2000 406,000 46,258 23,214 29,297 14,697 9,672 208,887 2001 464,000 52,289 25,249 15,402 27,504 227 185,916 2002 540,850 51,341 14,935 16,475 44,920 3,178 154,310 2003 427,750 53,396 14,482 15,014 40,680 9,373 175,763 2004 493,000 52,580 14,042 15,382 37,581 8,477 180,738 183 Appendix table 8 continued. Total reconstructed catch (t) by major taxa for Turkey, 1950-2010. ‘Others’ grouping includes 66 taxa.      Year                Anchovy Horse mackerel Bonito Whiting       Bluefish Sprat Others                 2005 200,925 54,796 108,418 15,286 35,386 8,596 201,958 2006 391,500 51,245 49,091 16,915 20,904 11,332 237,826 2007 558,250 60,997 14,446 23,788 18,627 18,478 233,622 2008 364,929 61,963 15,168 22,717 14,516 61,015 196,023 2009 296,814 55,356 15,845 20,332 17,426 83,196 207,021 2010 332,083 43,599 19,353 25,014 15,649 88,842 201,732     184 Appendix table 9. United Cyprus: total reconstructed catch (t) by sector, 1950-2010. Year Reported FAO Industrial Artisanal Subsistence Recreational Discards Total Reconstructed 1950 500 480 520 30 1 122 1,153 1951 400 384 416 25 1 97 924 1952 400 384 416 25 1 97 924 1953 405 384 417 25 1 98 926 1954 508 481 521 30 1 123 1,156 1955 605 576 625 35 1 145 1,382 1956 505 480 521 30 2 122 1,154 1957 505 480 521 30 2 156 1,188 1958 603 576 624 35 2 145 1,382 1959 503 480 520 30 2 122 1,154 1960 503 480 520 30 2 120 1,152 1961 403 384 416 25 2 100 927 1962 603 573 628 35 2 146 1,383 1963 605 569 632 35 2 146 1,383 1964 610 566 636 35 2 146 1,385 1965 1,019 941 1,073 55 2 247 2,319 1966 1,014 834 1,081 55 2 248 2,324 1967 1,022 937 1,092 55 2 249 2,336 1968 1,425 1,296 1,530 75 2 348 3,251 1969 1,419 1,285 1,535 75 2 347 3,243 1970 1,376 1,235 1,494 72 2 336 3,139 1971 1,268 1,129 1,383 67 2 309 2,890 1972 1,348 1,197 1,484 71 2 330 3,085 1973 1,467 1,295 1,625 77 2 359 3,358 1974 1,190 1,270 1,477 89 16 293 3,145 1975 927 984 1,272 100 31 245 2,633 1976 1,055 1,118 1,422 130 46 275 2,992 1977 1,197 1,269 1,585 161 62 308 3,385 1978 1,260 1,314 1,670 187 78 322 3,570 1979 1,298 1,347 1,718 211 95 330 3,702 1980 1,321 1,331 1,710 234 112 327 3,715 1981 1,439 1,406 1,808 262 130 345 3,951 1982 1,563 1,477 1,904 289 148 363 4,182 1983 1,956 1,792 2,227 329 167 427 4,942 1984 2,216 1,972 2,408 362 187 463 5,391 1985 2,392 2,069 2,499 390 206 482 5,646 1986 2,657 2,119 2,733 421 227 510 6,010 1987 2,553 2,046 2,524 435 248 481 5,733 1988 2,508 1,938 2,418 450 269 459 5,534 1989 2,545 1,893 2,378 469 291 450 5,482 1990 2,587 1,853 2,334 488 314 440 5,428 1991 2,604 1,791 2,289 494 327 430 5,331 1992 2,679 1,769 2,284 508 345 427 5,333 1993 2,696 8,305 2,236 514 359 1,075 12,489 1994 2,765 8,271 2,216 526 377 1,070 12,459 1995 2,508 8,049 1,988 497 372 1,025 11,931 1996 2,550 8,065 2,018 506 388 1,267 12,244 1997 2,312 7,923 1,867 479 383 1,185 11,837 1998 2,420 1,375 1,933 495 405 351 4,560 1999 2,244 1,267 1,818 476 405 328 4,294 2000 2,235 1,254 1,808 478 418 325 4,284 2001 2,245 1,251 1,775 482 434 330 4,272 2002 1,908 2,057 1,501 444 420 281 4,703 2003 1,740 958 1,337 426 420 369 3,511 2004 1,528 837 1,139 404 417 502 3,299 2005 1,889 1,027 1,456 447 462 868 4,262 2006 2,138 1,156 1,557 477 498 1,190 4,879 2007 2,431 1,306 1,764 512 539 1,635 5,757 2008 1,991 1,065 1,493 463 516 1,619 5,157 2009 1,390 736 1,098 397 478 1,187 3,896 2010 1,403 740 1,113 400 495 1,199 3,946 185 Appendix table 10. United Cyprus: total reconstructed catch (t) my major taxa or family, 1950-2010, the ‘Others’ grouping contains 56 taxa. Year Centracanthidae Sparidae Mullidae Cephalopoda L. sceleratus Thunnus alalunga Others 1950 116 375 139 26 - - 497 1951 93 301 111 21 - - 398 1952 93 301 111 21 - - 398 1953 207 180 253 5 - - 281 1954 208 356 106 7 - - 479 1955 210 357 306 8 - - 501 1956 208 269 280 7 - - 390 1957 208 269 280 15 - - 416 1958 210 357 306 7 - - 502 1959 208 269 280 6 - - 391 1960 208 269 280 6 - - 389 1961 207 180 253 5 - - 282 1962 210 357 306 7 - - 503 1963 410 95 427 207 - - 244 1964 410 9 601 207 - - 158 1965 17 13 1,801 212 - - 276 1966 417 510 427 212 - - 758 1967 617 510 228 212 - - 769 1968 824 924 228 217 - - 1,058 1969 624 924 428 217 - - 1,050 1970 563 770 435 148 - - 1,223 1971 489 830 373 125 - - 1,073 1972 830 641 427 140 - - 1,047 1973 770 915 429 121 - - 1,123 1974 780 656 380 121 - - 1,208 1975 532 487 427 122 - - 1,065 1976 634 537 400 126 - - 1,295 1977 626 595 421 144 - - 1,599 1978 698 647 448 167 - - 1,610 1979 766 708 397 153 - - 1,678 1980 726 736 362 144 - - 1,747 1981 785 778 485 181 - - 1,722 1982 829 817 524 171 - - 1,841 1983 1,183 947 580 206 - - 2,026 1984 996 1,059 694 208 - - 2,434 1985 1,276 1,262 591 178 - - 2,339 1986 1,081 1,048 676 190 - - 3,015 1987 1,535 1,184 459 188 - - 2,367 1988 1,258 968 632 187 - - 2,489 1989 1,043 930 592 157 - - 2,760 1990 1,150 872 655 193 - - 2,558 1991 1,443 779 491 185 - - 2,433 1992 1,026 829 565 176 - - 2,737 1993 930 2,076 527 1,253 - - 7,703 1994 642 2,032 528 1,299 - - 7,958 1995 854 2,006 503 1,209 - - 7,359 1996 917 2,036 555 1,158 - - 7,578 1997 780 1,970 552 1,131 - - 7,404 1998 851 694 450 214 - - 2,351 1999 655 805 492 201 - - 2,141 2000 640 892 409 178 - 7 2,158 2001 806 658 349 154 - - 2,305 2002 583 1,076 318 148 - 30 2,548 2003 696 468 309 119 117 59 1,743 2004 376 415 212 100 284 350 1,562 2005 300 524 242 69 595 572 1,959 2006 310 563 247 92 898 686 2,083 2007 337 588 294 82 1,306 955 2,194 2008 293 710 248 69 1,340 370 2,126 2009 253 567 158 57 980 351 1,531 2010 220 575 189 59 990 371 1,543 186  Appendix table 11. North Cyprus: total reconstructed catch (t) by sector, 1950-2010.  Year Reported Industrial Artisanal Recreational Subsistence Discards Total reconstructed 1950 200 120 280 1 12 60 473 1951 160 96 224 1 10 48 378 1952 160 96 224 1 10 48 378 1953 160 96 224 1 10 48 379 1954 200 120 280 1 12 60 473 1955 240 144 336 1 14 72 567 1956 200 120 280 1 12 60 473 1957 200 120 280 1 12 93 506 1958 240 144 336 1 14 72 567 1959 200 120 280 1 12 60 473 1960 200 120 280 1 12 60 473 1961 160 96 224 1 10 48 379 1962 240 143 337 1 14 72 567 1963 240 142 338 1 14 72 567 1964 240 141 339 1 14 72 567 1965 403 234 572 1 22 121 949 1966 404 130 573 1 22 121 951 1967 406 234 578 1 22 122 956 1968 565 324 806 1 30 170 1,331 1969 564 321 807 1 30 169 1,328 1970 546 309 783 1 29 164 1,285 1971 503 282 723 1 27 151 1,183 1972 536 299 773 1 28 161 1,263 1973 584 324 844 1 31 175 1,375 1974 - -0 366 7 12 55 440 1975 - - 402 13 23 60 498 1976 - - 431 19 33 65 548 1977 - - 452 26 43 68 589 1978 - - 464 33 52 70 620 1979 - - 469 40 62 70 641 1980 - - 466 47 71 70 654 1981 - - 481 55 80 72 688 1982 - - 491 63 89 74 716 1983 - - 497 71 97 75 740 1984 - - 500 79 106 75 759 1985 - - 498 87 114 75 774 1986 - - 493 96 122 74 785 1987 - - 483 105 130 73 790 1988 - - 470 114 137 70 791 1989 - - 453 123 144 68 788 1990 - - 431 132 151 65 779 1991 - - 433 142 158 65 798 1992 - - 433 152 165 65 815 1993 - 6,600 432 162 171 725 8,090 1994 - 6,600 429 173 177 724 8,103 1995 - 6,600 424 183 183 724 8,114 1996 - 6,600 418 194 189 723 8,124 1997 - 6,600 410 205 194 722 8,131 1998 - - 401 216 200 60 877 1999 - - 390 228 205 58 881 2000 - - 378 239 210 57 883 2001 - - 325 251 214 60 850 2002 - 1,000 268 264 219 52 1,802 2003 - - 207 276 223 56 761 2004 - - 142 289 227 62 719 2005 - - 218 301 230 121 872 2006 - - 150 314 234 114 812 2007 - - 157 328 237 150 871 2008 - - 168 341 240 186 935 2009 - - 172 355 243 190 959 2010 - - 172 369 246 191 978 187 Appendix table 12. North Cyprus: total reconstructed catch (t) my major taxa or family, 1950-2010. The ‘Others’ grouping includes 41 taxa or families. Year Spicara smaris Sparidae Mullidae Epinephelus Sepia officinalis Lagocephalus sceleratus Others 1950 116 115 1 42 22 - 177 1951 93 92 1 33 18 - 141 1952 93 92 1 33 18 - 141 1953 86 76 1 27 2 - 187 1954 88 150 1 54 2 - 178 1955 90 151 1 54 3 - 268 1956 88 114 1 41 2 - 227 1957 88 114 1 41 7 - 255 1958 90 151 1 54 2 - 269 1959 88 114 1 41 2 - 227 1960 88 114 1 41 2 - 227 1961 86 76 1 27 2 - 187 1962 90 151 1 54 2 - 269 1963 170 42 1 14 82 - 258 1964 170 6 1 1 82 - 307 1965 16 10 1 1 84 - 837 1966 176 210 81 14 84 - 386 1967 256 210 81 14 84 - 311 1968 343 377 161 14 86 - 350 1969 263 377 161 14 86 - 427 1970 238 304 205 13 58 - 467 1971 207 325 168 17 49 - 417 1972 345 268 35 59 55 - 501 1973 322 396 42 55 47 - 513 1974 7 87 60 55 16 - 215 1975 8 98 72 64 18 - 238 1976 9 107 84 72 19 - 257 1977 9 114 94 78 20 - 274 1978 9 119 103 84 21 - 284 1979 9 123 112 88 21 - 288 1980 9 124 119 91 21 - 290 1981 10 130 128 97 22 - 301 1982 10 135 137 102 22 - 310 1983 10 138 145 107 22 - 318 1984 10 141 153 111 22 - 322 1985 10 143 160 114 22 - 325 1986 10 144 167 117 22 - 325 1987 10 144 173 119 22 - 322 1988 9 144 179 121 21 - 317 1989 9 142 184 122 20 - 311 1990 9 139 188 123 19 - 301 1991 9 142 196 127 20 - 304 1992 9 144 203 130 20 - 309 1993 1,857 1,466 210 134 283 - 4,140 1994 1,857 1,468 217 137 283 - 4,141 1995 1,857 1,469 224 140 283 - 4,141 1996 1,856 1,470 231 143 283 - 4,141 1997 1,856 1,471 237 145 283 - 4,139 1998 8 151 243 148 18 - 309 1999 8 151 249 150 17 - 306 2000 8 150 255 152 17 - 301 2001 7 141 255 148 15 - 284 2002 5 130 254 144 12 - 1,257 2003 4 119 253 139 9 13 224 2004 3 107 252 133 6 28 190 2005 4 126 270 148 10 75 239 2006 3 113 268 142 7 78 201 2007 3 117 276 146 7 112 210 2008 3 122 285 151 8 146 220 2009 3 125 293 156 8 149 225 2010 4 128 301 160 8 150 227 188 Appendix table 13. South Cyprus: Total reconstructed catch (t) by sector, 1950-2010. Year Reported FAO Industrial Artisanal Subsistence Recreational Discards Total Reconstructed 1950 300 360 240 18 1 62 680 1951 240 288 192 15 1 49 545 1952 240 288 192 15 1 49 545 1953 240 288 192 15 1 51 547 1954 300 361 240 18 1 63 683 1955 360 432 288 21 1 73 815 1956 300 360 240 18 1 62 681 1957 300 360 240 18 1 63 682 1958 360 432 288 21 1 73 815 1959 300 360 240 18 1 62 681 1960 300 360 240 18 1 60 680 1961 240 288 192 15 1 52 548 1962 360 429 291 21 1 74 816 1963 360 427 294 21 1 74 816 1964 361 424 297 21 1 74 817 1965 604 707 502 33 1 127 1,370 1966 606 704 508 33 1 127 1,373 1967 609 703 515 33 1 128 1,380 1968 848 972 724 45 1 178 1,920 1969 846 964 728 45 1 178 1,916 1970 819 926 711 43 1 172 1,854 1971 754 847 660 40 1 158 1,707 1972 804 898 711 43 1 169 1,822 1973 876 971 781 46 1 184 1,983 1974 1,190 1,270 1,111 76 10 238 2,705 1975 927 984 870 77 18 185 2,135 1976 1,054 1,118 991 98 27 211 2,444 1977 1,201 1,269 1,133 119 36 240 2,796 1978 1,260 1,314 1,205 135 45 252 2,951 1979 1,298 1,347 1,249 150 55 260 3,060 1980 1,321 1,331 1,244 163 65 258 3,061 1981 1,439 1,406 1,327 182 75 273 3,263 1982 1,563 1,477 1,413 200 86 289 3,466 1983 1,956 1,792 1,730 231 97 352 4,202 1984 2,217 1,972 1,909 256 108 388 4,632 1985 2,394 2,069 2,001 276 119 407 4,872 1986 2,642 2,119 2,240 299 131 436 5,225 1987 2,554 2,046 2,041 305 143 409 4,943 1988 2,507 1,938 1,948 313 156 389 4,743 1989 2,546 1,893 1,926 325 168 382 4,694 1990 2,590 1,853 1,902 337 181 376 4,649 1991 2,605 1,791 1,856 336 185 365 4,533 1992 2,681 1,769 1,851 343 193 362 4,518 1993 2,699 1,705 1,804 343 197 351 4,400 1994 2,766 1,671 1,787 349 205 346 4,357 1995 2,511 1,449 1,564 314 188 301 3,817 1996 2,554 1,465 1,600 317 194 545 4,120 1997 2,316 1,323 1,456 285 178 463 3,706 1998 2,423 1,375 1,532 296 189 291 3,683 1999 2,245 1,267 1,428 272 177 269 3,413 2000 2,237 1,254 1,431 268 179 268 3,401 2001 2,251 1,251 1,450 268 182 270 3,422 2002 1,909 1,057 1,233 225 157 229 2,901 2003 1,741 958 1,130 204 145 313 2,750 2004 1,529 837 998 177 128 440 2,581 2005 1,888 1,027 1,238 217 161 747 3,391 2006 2,136 1,156 1,407 243 184 1,076 4,067 2007 2,428 1,306 1,608 274 211 1,485 4,886 2008 1,992 1,065 1,325 223 175 1,434 4,223 2009 1,386 736 926 154 123 997 2,937 2010 1,401 740 941 154 126 1,008 2,970  189 Appendix table 14. South Cyprus: total reconstructed catch (t) my major taxa or family, 1950-2010. The ‘Others’ grouping includes 51 taxa or families. Year Centracanthidae Sparidae Mullidae Epinephelus Cephalopoda Lagocephalus sceleratus Others 1950 21 308 81 1 55 - 214 1951 17 246 65 1 44 - 172 1952 17 246 65 1 44 - 172 1953 140 125 156 1 24 - 101 1954 144 247 65 1 46 - 180 1955 148 248 188 1 47 - 183 1956 144 187 172 1 36 - 141 1957 144 187 172 1 36 - 142 1958 148 248 188 1 46 - 184 1959 144 187 172 1 35 - 142 1960 144 187 172 1 35 - 141 1961 140 125 156 1 24 - 102 1962 148 248 188 1 46 - 185 1963 271 67 262 1 139 - 76 1964 271 7 369 1 129 - 40 1965 42 11 1,108 1 133 - 75 1966 288 317 263 123 143 - 239 1967 411 317 140 123 143 - 246 1968 551 568 140 246 147 - 268 1969 427 568 263 246 147 - 265 1970 389 457 268 314 178 - 248 1971 340 491 229 258 154 - 235 1972 553 414 262 52 177 - 364 1973 535 612 263 63 153 - 357 1974 884 619 298 79 185 - 640 1975 599 402 336 43 180 - 575 1976 711 443 302 56 197 - 735 1977 712 486 318 63 243 - 974 1978 789 505 343 53 263 - 998 1979 861 597 290 109 252 - 951 1980 819 620 255 122 224 - 1,021 1981 885 642 377 96 259 - 1,004 1982 935 608 415 84 262 - 1,162 1983 1,318 746 472 83 518 - 1,065 1984 1,137 858 589 86 454 - 1,508 1985 1,431 1,080 484 142 317 - 1,418 1986 1,240 815 574 248 267 - 2,081 1987 1,701 921 352 75 330 - 1,564 1988 1,411 720 535 134 343 - 1,600 1989 1,188 676 498 191 434 - 1,707 1990 1,299 632 569 78 477 - 1,594 1991 1,600 567 400 93 400 - 1,473 1992 1,169 583 477 94 506 - 1,689 1993 1,067 647 405 84 624 - 1,573 1994 899 637 407 111 900 - 1,403 1995 1,108 564 382 76 566 - 1,121 1996 1,245 569 441 73 376 - 1,416 1997 1,079 479 439 69 366 - 1,274 1998 1,103 449 367 80 473 - 1,211 1999 761 529 414 69 399 - 1,241 2000 744 625 330 74 360 - 1,268 2001 915 420 282 71 355 - 1,379 2002 672 349 264 64 278 - 1,274 2003 784 255 270 50 223 120 1,048 2004 443 236 186 39 198 324 1,155 2005 376 326 197 56 268 716 1,452 2006 440 375 221 62 288 1,220 1,461 2007 482 375 268 55 318 1,911 1,477 2008 430 491 217 46 223 1,912 904 2009 338 360 122 35 115 1,330 637 2010 306 365 153 35 111 1,344 656 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0135603/manifest

Comment

Related Items