"Science, Faculty of"@en . "Oceans and Fisheries, Institute for the"@en . "DSpace"@en . "Fisheries Centre Research Reports. Volume 23, number 2"@en . "Le Manach, Fr\u00E9d\u00E9ric"@en . "Pauly, D. (Daniel)"@en . "2017-08-15T16:29:49Z"@en . "2015"@en . "Although the 'national' catch reconstructions presented here emphasize the coastal and thus domestic catches of\r\nWestern Indian Ocean countries, the attention of their fisheries ministries is often directed elsewhere, i.e., at the\r\ntuna fisheries that have made the Western Indian Ocean a bonanza for European (mainly Spanish and French) and\r\nEast Asian fishing fleets.2\r\nThese fisheries are very lucrative, and the Western Indian Ocean countries that permit tuna vessels to operate in\r\ntheir Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) get a share \u00E2\u0080\u0094 albeit small \u00E2\u0080\u0094 from access fees. But they should not forget\r\ntheir domestic fisheries because they are the ones that ensure \u00E2\u0080\u0094 or at least contribute \u00E2\u0080\u0094 to the (sea)food security\r\nof their populations. The eleven chapters in this report document that this contribution to seafood security is much\r\nhigher than previously assumed, but also that it is sharply declining in several countries. Thus, this report suggests that it is time to devote more attention to coastal fisheries and to rehabilitate them, e.g.,\r\nas achieved in Southern Kenya, where strong, positive interactions between governments, scientists and fishers\r\nenabled the banning of gears not suitable for sustainable reef fisheries, and the establishment of marine reserves.\r\nHopefully, initiatives such as these can be duplicated throughout the region."@en . "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/62634?expand=metadata"@en . "ISSN 1198-6727NumberVolumeFisheries Centre Research Reports2015Fisheries CatCh reConstruCtions in the Western indian oCean, 1950-201023 2ISSN 1198-6727 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, CanadaFisheries Centre Research ReportsFisheries Catch Reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950-20102015 Volume 23 Number 2Edited byFisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2)ii + 161 pages \u00C2\u00A9 published 2015 byThe Fisheries Centre,University of British Columbia2202 Main MallVancouver, B.C., Canada, V6T 1Z4 ISSN 1198-6727 Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach and Daniel PaulyContentFisheries Centre researCh reports are abstraCted in the Fao aquatiC sCienCes and Fisheries abstraCts (asFa)issn 1198-6727 Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2)ii + 161 pages \u00C2\u00A9 Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2015Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2)2015Edited byFr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach and Daniel PaulyA Research Report from the Fisheries Centre at UBCForeword iReconstructing Catches for the Union of the Comoros: Uniting Historical Sources of Catch Data for Ngazidja, Ndzuwani and Mwali from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 1Beau Doherty, Melissa Hauzer and Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach Le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement Soutenu de P\u00C3\u00AAcheries Artisanales : Reconstruction des Captures Marines \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti de 1950 \u00C3\u00A0 2010 [With an extended English abstract] 13Mathieu Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter, Ahmed Darar Djibril, Gilles Hosch, Pierre Labrosse, Yann Yvergniaux, Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach and Daniel PaulyFirst Estimate of Unreported Catch in the French \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses, 1950-2010 27Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach and Daniel PaulyTentative Reconstruction of Kenya's Marine Fisheries Catch, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 37Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach, Caroline A. Abunge, Timothy R. McClanahan and Daniel PaulyReconstructing Domestic Marine Fisheries in Mayotte from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 53Beau Doherty, Johanna Herfaut, Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach, Sarah Harper and Dirk ZellerMarine Fisheries in Mozambique: Catches Updated to 2010 and Taxonomic Disaggregation 67Beau Doherty, Margaret M. McBride, Atan\u00C3\u00A1sio J. Brito, Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach, Lizette Sousa, Isabel Chauca and Dirk ZellerReconstruction of the Domestic and Distant-Water Fisheries Catch of La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France), 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 83Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach, Pascal Bach, L\u00C3\u00A9o Barret, David Guyomard, Pierre-Gildas Fleury, Philippe S. Sabarros and Daniel PaulyArtisanal Fisheries in the World's Second Largest Tuna Fishing Ground \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Reconstruction of the Seychelles' Marine Fisheries Catch, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 99Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach, Pascal Bach, L\u00C3\u00A9a Boistol, Jan Robinson and Daniel PaulyFailed State: Reconstruction of Domestic Fisheries Catches in Somalia 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 111Lo Persson, Alasdair Lindop, Sarah Harper, Kyrstn Zylich and Dirk ZellerSouth Africa\u00E2\u0080\u0099s Marine Fisheries Catches (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010) 129Sebastian Baust, Lydia Teh, Sarah Harper and Dirk ZellerAn Update of the Reconstructed Marine Fisheries Catches of Tanzania with Taxonomic Breakdown 151Elise Bultel, Beau Doherty, Adam Herman, Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach and Dirk ZelleriThis Fisheries Centre Research Report presents catch reconstructions for the fisheries of eleven entities of the western Indian Ocean, ranging from mighty South Africa in the South to the tiny Djibouti in the North, and from the uninhabited \u00C3\u008Eles Eparses \u00E2\u0080\u0094 the scattered islands in and near the Mozambique Channel \u00E2\u0080\u0094 to the densely populated Comoros Islands, and from the flourishing democracy of the Seychelles to the failed state that is Somalia. Only Madagascar and Mauritius are not included here \u00E2\u0080\u0094 but their catches were reconstructed earlier.1 The contrasts that these wide ranges of climate, population, and governance styles represent are not necessarily related as one would expect with the state of marine fisheries resources of these various entities. Thus, Somalia and Djibouti may have, overall, the least impacted coastal fish stocks of the region, while stocks along the Indian Ocean Coast of South Africa, a country which boasts a considerable research and management capacity, are generally in dire straits.Although the 'national' catch reconstructions presented here emphasize the coastal and thus domestic catches of Western Indian Ocean countries, the attention of their fisheries ministries is often directed elsewhere, i.e., at the tuna fisheries that have made the Western Indian Ocean a bonanza for European (mainly Spanish and French) and East Asian fishing fleets.2These fisheries are very lucrative, and the Western Indian Ocean countries that permit tuna vessels to operate in their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) get a share \u00E2\u0080\u0094 albeit small \u00E2\u0080\u0094 from access fees. But they should not forget their domestic fisheries because they are the ones that ensure \u00E2\u0080\u0094 or at least contribute \u00E2\u0080\u0094 to the (sea)food security of their populations. The eleven chapters in this report document that this contribution to seafood security is much higher than previously assumed, but also that it is sharply declining in several countries.Thus, this report suggests that it is time to devote more attention to coastal fisheries and to rehabilitate them, e.g., as achieved in Southern Kenya, where strong, positive interactions between governments, scientists and fishers enabled the banning of gears not suitable for sustainable reef fisheries, and the establishment of marine reserves. Hopefully, initiatives such as these can be duplicated throughout the region.The EditorsParis and VancouverFebruary 20151 For Madagascar: Le Manach F, Gough C, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2011) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Madagascar (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932008). Pp. 21\u00E2\u0080\u009337 In Harper S and Zeller D (eds.), Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19(4). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).For Mauritius: Boistol L, Harper S, Booth S and Zeller D (2011) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for Mauritius and its outer islands, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932008. Pp. 39\u00E2\u0080\u009361 In Harper S and Zeller D (eds.), Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19(4). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).2 Le Manach F, Chavance P, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Lindop A, Padilla A, Schiller L, Zeller D and Pauly D (in press) Global catches of large pelagic fishes, with emphasis on the high seas. In Pauly D and Zeller D (eds.), Global atlas of marine fisheries: ecosystem impacts and analysis. Island Press, Washington, DC (USA).ForeWordFisheries catch reconstruction for the Comoros \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 1reConstruCting CatChes For the union oF the Comoros: uniting historiCal sourCes oF CatCh data For ngazidja, ndzuWani and mWali From 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010*Beau Doherty,1 Melissa Hauzer2 and Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach1,3\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 1 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada2 Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria V8W 3P5, Canada3 Institut de Recherche pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, UMR212 Ecosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes Marins Exploit\u00C3\u00A9s, Avenue Jean Monnet, CS 30171, 34203 S\u00C3\u00A8te cedex, France\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Current address: BLOOM Association, 77 rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris, Franceb.doherty@fisheries.ubc.ca; mdhauzer@gmail.com; fredericlemanach@bloomassociation.org abstraCtComorian fisheries consist of a small-scale boat fleet of pirogues and motor boats operated by men as well as shore-based fishing by women, both of which have few catch statistics. We compiled historical data on catch rates and the number of boats in the fleet from both grey literature and national statistics, and used these to reconstruct a time series of boat-based catch from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. We also estimate catch by women fishers by extrapolating per-capita catch rates from a recently published study on the island of Ngazidja. Catches increased slowly from 1,000 t in 1950 to around 5,000 t in 1980, after which catches increased rapidly due to the increasing number of motorized vessels and the use of FADs offshore. The size of the fleet has grown rapidly since the 1990s and catch estimates are highest from 2005\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 at around 19,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1. Overall, the reconstructed catches are 1.3 times the figures reported to and by the FAO for the Indian Ocean. Total reconstructed catches consist primarily of Thunnus albacares (yellowfin tuna), Katsuwonus pelamis (skipjack tuna), Sardinella spp. (sardinellas) and Engraulidae (anchovies).introduCtionThe Union of the Comoros (referred throughout as 'the Comoros') is an archipelago in the northern Mozambique channel of the Western Indian Ocean that is composed of three islands: Ngazidja (or Grande Comore), Ndzuwani (or Anjouan) and Mwali (or Moh\u00C3\u00A9li; Figure 1). Fisheries in the Comoros consist of a small-scale pirogues and fibreglass motor boat (locally known as barques or vedettes) fleet as well as shore-based subsistence fishing by women. Until the 1980s the boat fleet was almost exclusively non-motorized pirogues using mostly handlines (de San 1983). Catches by this fleet increased in the 1980s, due to the importation of fibreglass motorboats and the use of anchored Fish Aggregating Devices (a-FADs) for fishing further offshore (Cayr\u00C3\u00A9 1991; Anon. 2013). The high season fishing months have historically occurred between November and February when tunas migrate around the islands; catches in other months are generally lower (Van Nierop 1985; James 1988).The fishing conditions on the three islands vary. Ngazidja is surrounded by a narrow coral reef extending about 500 m from shore (Fourmanoir 1954). The reef is generally not very deep, nor is it followed by a large shelf with productive fishing areas for reef species. Fishing here has historically targeted large pelagic species (e.g., sharks,1 tuna, billfish and dolphinfish) in areas about 5\u00E2\u0080\u009315 km offshore (Fourmanoir 1954). The fishing conditions off Ndzuwani are comparable to Ngazidja, except the productivity of the coral reefs is higher (Fourmanoir 1954). Fishermen from Ndzuwani and Ngazidja frequently fish the waters near Mwali, perhaps even more heavily than local residents (James 1988). Ndzuwani fishers also regularly fish in Mayotte's waters (Maggiorani et al. 1993; Doherty et al. this volume).* Cite as: Doherty B, Hauzer M and Le Manach F (2015) Reconstructing catches for the Union of the Comoros: uniting historical sources of catch data for Ngazidja, Ndzuwani and Mwali from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Pp. 1\u00E2\u0080\u009311 In Le Manach F and Pauly D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727]. 1 Historically there was a targeted fishery for sharks (Fourmanoir 1954), but fishing effort now targets more tuna and it does not appear that there is a fishery targeting sharks specifically. When caught, sharks are finned for the Chinese market and the meat is consumed locally (Kiszka et al. 2008).EEZ BoundaryShelf 0 100 km\u00C2\u00B1NgazidjaMwaliNdzuwaniFigure 1. Map of the Comoros showing the islands of Ngazidja (Grande Comore), Ndzuwani (Anjouan) and Mwali (Moh\u00C3\u00A9li), the extent of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as well as the continental shelf (darker blue). 2Mwali is the least densely populated island, and its continental shelf extends about 10 km from the coast and harbours much more productive reef fisheries (Fourmanoir 1954). Thus, fisheries in Mwali have historically targeted more reef species (e.g., snappers, groupers and emperors). A marine park was established around the southern half of the island in 2001, extending from the high tide mark to 100 m depth and covering over 400 km2 (Granek and Brown 2005).Fishing in the Comoros is mostly day trips, as no vessels have refrigerating units (de San 1983; James 1988) and crews are small, usually 1\u00E2\u0080\u00932 people per boat (WIOMSA 2011). The average crew and boat sizes are larger in Ngazidja, as these vessels often fish further offshore (WIOMSA 2011). Catches are usually landed on shore and sold on the same day (Anon. 2013). There are no restrictions on the amount of fish that may be landed, but fishers rarely catch more than they can consume or sell in one day (Hauzer et al. 2013a).A survey conducted by the Direction Nationale des Ressources Halieutiques (National Fisheries Department) in 1994 provided the only comprehensive assessment of catch by the small-scale boat fleet, and Hauzer et al. (2013a) provided the only catch estimates for women fishers. Fishers reported declines in catch abundances, mean size and changes in species composition over the last two decades (Hauzer et al. 2013b), but there was a lack of official catch statistics to verify these trends. Other studies during the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period provided estimates of catch rates and the number of boats in the fleets, and were used to reconstruct a time-series of boat-based catch. The size of the fleet has grown rapidly since the 1990s, but data collection and catch statistics has remained limited.The purpose of this report was to estimate the total marine fisheries catches for the Comoros from 1950 to 2010, using FAO data as the baseline. Reconstructed estimates were compared with FAO landings in an attempt to identify unreported sources of catch and increase transparency in Comorian catch statistics.the Comoros' Fisheries and reConstruCtion methodsBoat-based catchWe compiled catch and effort data from grey literature and unpublished datasets for select years with available data from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. These data were treated as anchor points and linear interpolation of catch rates, and the number of fishing boats were used to estimate gaps in the data between anchor points.Boat time-seriesTable 1 summarizes the boat counts that were available for the small-scale fishing fleets since 1950. In the early 1950s, Fourmanoir (1954) estimated that there were 130 pirogues in the southern villages of Ngazidja. Moal (1962) counted 213 boats in these same villages, representing a ratio of 0.61:1 for boats in 1954 compared to those in 1962. We assumed that the same increase occurred proportionally on other areas of Ngazidja, Ndzuwani and Mwali and applied this ratio to boat counts by Moal (1962) to estimate boat numbers in 1954. There was a large discrepancy in the number of boats recorded in the 1993 and 1994 national survey data. Since we found no explanation to justify this, we used the average number of boats from 1993\u00E2\u0080\u00931994.The boat anchor points in Table 1 were converted to a boat per-capita2 rate for each boat type and linear interpolation was used to estimate boats per-capita for years without boat data. This provided a boat per capita time-series from 2 Population statistics for 1960\u00E2\u0080\u00932012 were available from the World Bank database (http://databank.worldbank.org, Accessed: 06/06/2013) and for 1950 and 1955 from the United Nations database (http://data.un.org, Accessed: 06/06/2013). Missing years in the 1950s were linearly interpolated.Table 1. Anchor points for the number of boats in the Comoros for various years between 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932011.Year Pirogues Motor boatsb SourcesNon-motorized MotorizedaNgazidja Ndzuwani Mwali Ngazidja Ndzuwani Mwali Ngazidja Ndzuwani Mwali1954 566 123 36 - - - - - - Fourmanoir (1954)c1962 928 201d 59 - - - - - - Moal (1962)1979 1,455 970 194 45 30 6 - - - Faharoudine (1979)1983 - - - - - - 15e 25 10e Van Nierop (1985)1987 1,500 1,200 300 - - - 11 18 6 James (1988)1993 2,012 1,391 242 107 120 79 250 92 69 Unpub. data, 1994 survey, Direction National des Ressources Halieutiques1994 1,748 1,505 247 87 80 54 109 77 392011 1,888 1,864 227 23 25 209 802 708 18 Unpub. data, 2011 boat census, Direction National des Ressources Halieutiquesfa Includes Fedawa I.b Includes barques, vedettes, Fedawa II, Yamaha G18, and Japawa). Classification of boat categories are based on boat size, capacity, and horse power (Lablache-Carrara and Lalo\u00C3\u00AB 1993; Aboulhalik 1998).c Multiplied 1962 boat numbers by 0.61.d Missing boat data for 3 communities (Vouani, Pomoni and Moya) was estimated using the median value from other communities in Ndzuwani.e Estimated the distribution of vedettes in 1983 for Ngazidja and Mwali. There were originally 50 vedettes supplied (James 1988), 25 of which were originally on Ndzuwani (Van Nierop 1985). f Obtained through SWIOFP database (http://41.206.61.142:8080/statbase_3).Fisheries catch reconstruction for the Comoros \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 31950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 that was used to estimate a boat time-series by multiplying per capita boat rates by annual populations on each island (Figure 2).Catch rates time seriesWhere available, estimates of annual catch were divided by total boats on the island to estimate an annual catch rate. Otherwise, daily catch rates were multiplied by the number of trips per year to estimate the annual catch for different boat types (Table 2). Early observations of small-scale fisheries in the Comoros archipelago were well-documented by Fourmanoir (1954). These included catch rates of 50 kg\u00C2\u00B7trip-1 for pirogues fishing twice per week on the southern offshore banks of Mwali, and an average annual catch rate of 5.2 t\u00C2\u00B7pirogue-1. Pirogues fishing every day on the interior reef had an average catch rate of 10 kg\u00C2\u00B7trip-1 and an annual catch rate of 2.6 t\u00C2\u00B7pirogue-1, assuming trips occurred 5 times per week (Table 2).During this time, a normal week of pelagic fishing by 70 pirogues off Ngazidja landed: 1,500 kg of sharks (Isurus glaucus and Carcharinus longimanus), ten yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) with an average weight of 20 kg, two dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) with an average weight of nine kilos, and four Indo-Pacific sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus). Average lengths of landed sailfish on Ngazidja were 2.9 m (Fourmanoir 1954), and we estimate their average weight as 50 kg per fish using length-weight relationships from FishBase (www.fishbase.org). This yielded a total of 1,918 kg of pelagic fish by 70 boats in one week, or an average weekly catch of 27.4 kg per pirogue. Based on the overall catch composition in the 1994 survey data (unpub. data, Direction Nationale des Ressources Halieutiques), we assumed an additional 20% of annual catches were composed of yellowtail barracuda (Sphyraena flavicauda), oilfish (Ruvettues pretiosus), small pelagics and other reef fish (e.g., Lethrinidae and Carangidae), also documented in catches by Fourmanoir (1954). Linear interpolation between catch rates was used to fill in gaps. We used the same rates for all three islands where island specific rates were not available. We had no catch rates beyond 1994; however, the majority of boat fishers interviewed by Hauzer et al. (2013a) reported declines in catch abundance and mean fish sizes over the last 20 years. This was not surprising given the large increase in motorized vessels in the small-scale fishing fleet during this time (Figure 2). We assumed catch rates declined by 50% between 1994 and 2010 (Figure 3).1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Numer of boats 0 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 NgazidjaMwaliNdzuwaniNgazidjaMwaliNdzuwani1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 0 306090120NgazidjaMwaliNdzuwani1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 0 600700800900 200300400500100YearABCFigure 2. Estimated annual number of A) non-motorized pirogues from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, B) motorized pirogues from 1979\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, and C) motor boats from 1983\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Solid circles represent anchor points described in Table 1. 4Shore-based fishing by womenHauzer et al. (2013a) provided the only estimates of catch by women fishers in the Comoros. Based on data collected from interviews in 2009\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, the annual catch by women was estimated for three communities on Ngazidja (Table 3). Each community had 80 women fishers and catch estimates for each village ranged from 40\u00E2\u0080\u009399 tonnes due to the differences in catch rates and the number of full-time fishers. There are another seven communities on the island consisting of women fishers, one of which contains only ten fishers (Hauzer et al. 2013a). We estimated that the other six villages also contained approximately ten women fishers, based on the second author's personal experience. Extrapolated to the entire island of Ngazidja, this yielded an estimate of 255 tonnes for 2010. We converted these 255 tonnes to a shore-based catch per-capita and assumed the same per-capita catch rate for the islands of Mwali and Ndzuwani in 2010. All women fishers interviewed by Hauzer et al. (2013a) reported declines in catch abundance in the last ten years. We therefore assumed a higher shore-based catch per-capita in 2000, increasing the 2010 per-capita rate by 25%. We used linear interpolation to derive per-capita catch rates from 2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932009 and maintained the 2000 rate from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931999.Taxonomic and sectoral breakdownWe maintained the same annual taxonomic compositions for the boat-based reconstructed catch as what was reported to the FAO for the 1970\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. Data reported to the FAO from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931969 had poor taxonomic detail, with 20\u00E2\u0080\u009370% of the catch reported as 'marine fishes nei' (i.e., unidentified marine fish). To improve the taxonomic breakdown prior to 1970, we reallocated catches of unidentified fish to other taxonomic groups based on the catch composition in the early 1970s, using the average 1971\u00E2\u0080\u00931973 breakdown from FAO. The assumption here was that new taxa reported in 1971\u00E2\u0080\u00931973 FAO landings (e.g., Carangidae, Engraulidae, Istiophoridae and Scombriae) were reflective of improved taxonomic reporting rather than new fish species targeted by fisheries. This retained 7% Table 3. 2010 annual catch estimates for full-time and part-time women fishers on Ngazidja (derived from Hauzer et al. 2013a). Community Annual catch (t) Average catch per year Number of fishers % full timeFull time Part time Full time Part timeChindini 40.2 0.9 0.4 10 70 0.13Hantsindzi 59.7 0.9 0.5 50 30 0.63Mitsamiouli 98.8 1.4 0.7 60 20 0.75Seven other villages 8.1 1.1a 0.5a 5 5 0.50aa Estimated as average value from the three communities above.Table 2. Summary of annual catch rate estimates from 1954 to 1994.Year Boat type Daily catch rate (kg\u00C2\u00B7boat-1) Trips per year Annual catch rate (t\u00C2\u00B7boat-1)aSources and commentsNgazidja1954 Non-motorized pirogue 34.3a - 1.8 Fourmanoir (1954)1962 - - 1.5 Moal (1962)1978 - - 1.4 de San (1983)1994 - - 1.7 Unpub. data, 1994 survey, Direction Nationale des Ressource HalieutiquesMotorized pirogue - - 12.2Motor boat - 23.7Ndzuwani1962 Non-motorized pirogue - - 3.5 Moal (1962)1979 - - 1.4 de San (1983) 1983\u00E2\u0080\u00931984 39.7 (high season), 21.8b (low season)104.0 3.0 Van Nierop (1985), James (1988). Annual catch rate assumes 60% of trips occur in low season and 40% of trips occur in high season (Van Nierop 1985; James 1988)Motorized pirogue 69.0 (high season), 38.0b (low season)104.0 5.2Motor boat 252.4 (high season), 138.9b (low season)122.0 22.61986\u00E2\u0080\u00931987 Non-motorized pirogue 20.0 104.0 2.1 James (1988)Motor boat 250.0 122.0 30.51994 Non-motorized pirogue - - 1.4 Unpub. data, 1994 survey, Direction Nationale des Ressources HalieutiquesMotorized pirogue - - 8.0Motor boat - - 15.0Mwali1954 Non-motorized pirogue 50 (offshore) and 10 (inshore)104 (offshore) and 260 (inshore)c3.9 Fourmanoir (1954). Average of inshore and offshore rate1962 - - 5.1 Moal (1962)1979 - - 2.1 Faharoudine (1979), de San (1983)1994 - - 0.8 Unpub. data, 1994 survey, Direction Nationale des Ressources HalieutiquesMotorized pirogue - - 4.7Motor boat - - 9.8a Numbers reflect weekly catch rates observed in October; number of trips per week unknown. b Low-season rate estimated as 55% of high season rate based on ratios from James (1988). c Fourmanoir (1954) indicates these fishers fish every day; here we assume an average of 5 trips per week throughout the year (Van Nierop 1985).Fisheries catch reconstruction for the Comoros \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 5of annual catches as 'unidentified marine fish' and reassigned the remainder as anchovies, bigeye tuna, Carangidae, Indian mackerel, Indo-Pacific sailfish, kawakawa, skipjack tuna, swordfish and yellowfin tuna.The Sea Around Us uses the following fishing sectors in its global catch database: 'industrial' (i.e., large-scale commercial), 'artisanal' (i.e., small-scale commercial), 'subsistence' (i.e., small-scale non-commercial with primary purpose being self- or family-consumption), and 'recreational' (i.e., small-scale non-commercial with the primary purpose being pleasure). For the purposes of the Sea Around Us database, the small-scale shore fishing and boat-based catches were divided into artisanal and subsistence components. Species of higher value, such as tunas (Thunnus spp. and Euthynnus spp.), billfishes (Istiophoridae) and lobsters, were assumed to be primarily sold commercially and thus 80% of this catch was allocated to the 'artisanal' sector. Fish species sold at lower prices, such as small pelagics (Clupeiformes), and marine molluscs, were assumed to be primarily used for take-home consumption and 80% of these catches were allocated as 'subsistence'. For other species where the distinction was not obvious, such as jacks (Carangidae), mackerels (Auxis spp., Rastrelliger spp., Scomberomorus spp.), and other unidentified marine fish, we used an even split, allocating 50% to each small-scale sector. All shore-based catch was allocated as subsistence.Flags of ConvenienceFAO landing data (FishStat 2014) also included catches from the Central Eastern Atlantic (FAO Area 34) from 2007\u00E2\u0080\u00932012. These landings were composed mostly of pelagic species (primarily Clupeidae, Engraulidae, and Carangidae) as well as a small amount (2%) of demersals. However, as there were no records of any distant water Comorian fishing fleets, these catches were not considered domestic.Rather, we suspected that these catches were from industrial fishing vessels fishing the high seas using the Comoros as a flag of convenience. As a matter of fact, the Comoros has been previously identified as a potential flag of convenience state for high seas fishing (Gianni and Simpson 2005; Anon. 2013). The FAO fishing vessels finder database (www.fao.org/figis/vrmf/finder; Accessed: June 26, 2014) listed six foreign vessels (Table 4) that have been registered with the Comoros flag between 2004 and 2012. Given the absence of any other information we assumed that these countries were responsible for the FAO reported landings in the Atlantic. We allocated 89% of the pelagic catch to Lithuania 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Catch per pirogue or boat (t) 0 3456NgazidjaMwaliNdzuwani1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2009 0 81012141983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 0 2025303551015YearBC21A642MwaliMwaliNgazidjaNgazidjaNdzuwaniNdzuwaniFigure 3. Estimated annual catch rates (t\u00C2\u00B7boat-1) for A) non-motorized pirogues from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, B) motorized pirogues from 1979\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, and C) motor boats from 1983\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Solid circles represent anchor points described in Table 2. 6and 11% to Netherlands based on the proportion of total tonnage by vessels from these countries using midwater otter trawls. Demersal catches were reallocated to France, the only country with vessels using bottom trawls.Although we could not confirm that France, Lithuania and Netherlands were responsible for these catches, we are confident that these catches were not from the Comoros fishing fleets and our reallocation is, therefore, more informative than what is currently in the FAO database.Foreign fisheriesIndustrial longliners from Japan have fished in Comorian waters since at least the late 1950s (Moal 1962). Although there were no formal agreements at this time, Japan has contributed funds and equipment (e.g., fiberglass vessels, fishing nets) to develop the Comoros' fisheries over the years (de San 1983; James 1988; Lablache-Carrara and Lalo\u00C3\u00AB 1993). Formal agreements with the European Union have been signed in recent years, which allowed up to 45 tuna seiners and 25 longliners from France, Spain, Italy and Portugal to fish for tuna in the Comoros EEZ (Anon. 2013; Eckstein 2014).resultsOverall, the total reconstructed catches from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 were nearly 516,000 t, 96% of which were from the small-scale boat fleet, and 4% of which were from shore-based fishing by women (Figure 4A). Catches increased slowly from 1,000 t in 1950 to around 5,000 t in 1980, after which catch volumes increased rapidly due to the increasing number of motorized vessels and the use of offshore a-FADs. The size of the fleet has grown rapidly since the 1990s and despite decreasing catch rates, catch estimates were the highest from 2005\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 at around 19,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1. Overall, the reconstructed catches were 1.3 times the landings reported to FAO in the Indian Ocean. Total reconstructed catches consisted primarily of yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna, sardinellas, and anchovies (Figure 4B). The sectoral assignments suggested that 'artisanal' and 'subsistence' catches accounted for 61% and 39% of total reconstructed catches from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, respectively (Figure 4A).disCussionThe overall discrepancy between the reconstructed domestic catches and the data reported to FAO was mainly due to an increase in catch since 1995, which contributed 54% of the total reconstructed catch (and were 95,000 t higher than what was reported to FAO). In estimating catches for these years, we assumed a 50% decline in catch rates since the 1994 survey by the Direction Nationale des Ressources Halieutiques,which is the only comprehensive assessment of small-scale fisheries in the Comoros. Table 4. Fishing vessels registered with the Comoros flag in the FAO fishing vessel finder database.Country Boat name Period Gear Length (m) Gross tonnage Lithuania ARAS-1 2009, 2012 Midwater otter trawl 104 4,378IRVINGA 2011\u00E2\u0080\u00932013 105 4,407BALANDIS 2011, 2012 109 5,953KOVAS 118 5,979The Netherlands OCEAAN VII 2012 90 2,624France LA MADONE 2 2004 Bottom trawl and dredging 11 160 Boat-based, artisanal5 10 15 20 Boat-based, subsistenceShore-based, subsistenceAB0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Catch (thousand tonnes) Year 5 10 15 20 Yellowfin tunaSkipjack tunaSardinesAnchoviesOthersJacksBillfishesOther tunas and mackerelsFigure 4. Reconstructed catches by A) sector and B) major taxa. 'Others' includes lobsters, molluscs, sharks, rays and other unidentified marine fish. See details in Appendix Table A1 and Appendix Table A2.Fisheries catch reconstruction for the Comoros \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 7The 2012 dataset produced by FAO (2012; i.e., the dataset used here) showed that catches have steadily decreased from 1994 to around 11,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 from 2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. This was in stark contrast to the 2010 dataset (FAO 2012), where catches increased from 1994 to 20,500 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 2008\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. As we found no catch statistics for this period, the reasons for this change in the FAO data remains unknown. What we do know is that the number of motor boats in the Comoros increased from around 300 in 1994 to about 1,700 in 2011 (Figure 2). Catches in the 2012 FAO data declined by 23% over this same period and, if accurate, would correspond to about a 70% decline in annual catch per boat since 1994 (Figure 5).Interviews with fishermen confirmed that there has been a decrease in mean fish sizes and perceived catch abundance over the last 20 years (Hauzer et al. 2013b), but by how much we do not know. In these interviews 62% of motorized boat fishers and 55% of pirogue fishers reported declines in fish sizes. Similarly, 50% of motorized boat fishers and 75% of pirogue fishers reported declines in catch abundance. Given that this perception was not consistent among fishers, Hauzer et al. (2013b) suspected that the declines in catch were not drastic. Furthermore, catch figures remained reasonably high in recent years, averaging 22 kg\u00E2\u0088\u0099day-1 for pirogues and 110 kg\u00E2\u0088\u0099day-1 for motor boats (Hauzer et al. 2013b). Thus, we think that our assumption of a 50% decline may well be conservative, and catches over this period may actually be higher. Not surprisingly, sensitivity analysis of this assumption shows that catches in the last 15 years would vary considerably depending on the decline in catch rates assumed; thus this is a major source of uncertainty in our estimates (Figure 5). We were not able to provide estimates of uncertainty for the reconstructed totals, as error estimates are unavailable for catch statistics used, including those reported by the FAO.For most of the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931994 period, we found the 2012 FAO dataset to be a reasonable estimate of boat-based catches. The reconstructed estimates here provide an alternative, but show a similar trend to FAO data. The reconstructed catches yielded per-capita consumption rates of 6\u00E2\u0080\u009315 kg\u00E2\u0088\u0099person-1\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931979. These are low for an island country with few other protein sources. However, it is known that throughout the 1950s-1970s, fishing did not satisfy local consumption requirements and large amounts of salted fish were imported from Madagascar and Zanzibar (Fourmanoir 1954; Moal 1962; Faharoudine 1979; Meyer et al. 2006). Further studies are necessary to improve confidence in our results, notably with regards to the shore-based activities conducted by women fishers. In this study we extrapolated estimates by Hauzer et al. (2013b) for the island of Ngazidja to estimate catches for all of the Comoros and using population data estimated historical catches by this sector. This information provides a preliminary estimate of the scale of these catches, which could be improved through specific studies on the islands of Mwali and Ndzuwani. The importance of such activities for food security and livelihoods is increasingly recognized (Harper et al. 2013; Anon. 2014; Kleiber et al. 2014). Thus, further research is required to better understand the species most affected by these fisheries and well as their social and economical impact. We found few data on the species composition of catches in the Comoros and much of the data reported to FAO from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931969 was recorded as unidentified marine fish. We attempted to improve the taxonomic detail of these catches, by disaggregating them based on more detailed information in FAO data in the early 1970s. Information on major species caught by fisheries in 1950s (Fourmanoir 1954) and the 1994 national statistics could be used in future efforts to improve Comorian catch statistics and may provide valuable information of changes in species composition over time. For example, approximately 80% of catches on Ngazidja observed by Fourmanoir (1954) over a one-week period were composed of sharks, whereas they accounted for less than 1% of annual catches on Ngazidja in 1994 and fishermen reported that sharks are now rarely seen in catches (M. Hauzer, unpub. data). It is clear that tunas are now the main target species for offshore pelagic fisheries, but sharks likely accounted for a much larger proportion of catches in earlier years and this is not reflected in our estimates. Groupers (Plectropomus pessuliferus,3 Epinephelus merra, Variola louti), snappers (Lutjanus argentimaculatus, Aprion virescens) and emperors (Lethrinus nebulosus, L. olivaceus4) were commonly caught in Mwali reef fisheries in the 1950s (Fourmanoir 1954), but we found no species specific catch statistics for reef fisheries in recent years to compare these with. Interviews with fishermen suggested that some species that were once common are now rarely seen, 3 Plectropomus maculatus listed in Fourmanoir (1954) is a likely misidentification (Froese and Pauly 2014).4 Lethrinus miniatus listed in Fourmanoir (1954) is a likely misidentification (Froese and Pauly 2014).0 5 10 15 20 25 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Catch (thousand tonnes) Year Reported to FAOFigure 5. Reconstructed boat-based catch compared to other sources of catch data. Solid circles represent estimates observed in the grey literature (Moal 1962; de San 1983; Van Nierop 1985; James 1988; Amoriggi 2010) and the 1994 survey by the Direction National des Ressources Halieutiques. Dashed (75% decline) and dotted (25% decline) lines show sensitivity analysis for different assumptions about the decline in catch rates between 1994\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. 8while other species have completely disappeared from catches (M. Hauzer, unpub. data). The lack of detailed catch statistics for the Comoros makes it difficult to assess the magnitude of such changes, their causes and their impacts on fisheries and marine ecosystems It is critical for fisheries management that the Comoros dedicates more resources to accurately recording fisheries statistics (Pauly et al. 2013). Other than the 1994 national statistics and a few recently published studies (e.g., Hauzer et al. 2013a,b), data that exist are mostly from grey literature and often based on brief observations of the fishery in select regions. It is unlikely that we will ever know the 'true' historic catches of small-scale fisheries in the Comoros, but we hope this work may serve as a starting point to account for unreported catch statistics, improve transparency in fisheries data, and provide a resource of historical information for Comorian fisheries. If there are additional data that were unavailable to us, we hope they may be used to improve this work and we welcome contributions from other researchers to improve this database, which will be made available via the Sea Around Us website.aknoWledgementsThe authors of this report would like to acknowledge the support of the Sea Around Us, a collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. BD and FLM also thank the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation for support.reFerenCesAboulhalik FM (1998) Marine science country profiles \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Comores. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Western Indian Ocean marine science association (WIOMSA). 35 p.Amoriggi S (2010) Union des Comores \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Appui au d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la transformation des produits agricoles aux Comores. Fonds international de d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement agricole (FIDA), Rome (Italy).Anon. (2013) Contrat Sp\u00C3\u00A9cifique n\u00C2\u00B04 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00C3\u0089valuation r\u00C3\u00A9trospective et prospective du protocole de l'accord de partenariat dans le secteur de la p\u00C3\u00AAche entre l'Union europ\u00C3\u00A9enne et l'Union des Comores. Contrat Cadre MARE/2011/01 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00C3\u0089valuation et analyse d'impacts \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Lot 3 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 \u00C3\u0089valuations r\u00C3\u00A9trospectives et prospectives relatives \u00C3\u00A0 la dimension internationale de la Politique Commune des P\u00C3\u00AAches, Cofr\u00C3\u00A9p\u00C3\u00AAche, Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG), Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd, and Nordenfjeldske Development Services (NFDS), Brussels (Belgium). 111 p.Anon. (2014) Sustainable fisheries and aquaculture for food security and nutrition. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, Rome (Italy). 118 p.Cayr\u00C3\u00A9 P (1991) Behaviour of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and skipjack tuna (Katsuwonous pelamis) around fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the Comoros Islands as determined by ultrasonic tagging. Aquatic Living Resources 4: 1\u00E2\u0080\u009312.de San M (1983) Profil de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale aux Comores. South West Indian Ocean Fishery Project SWIOP/RAF/79/065/WP/6/82, FAO, Moroni. 22 p.Doherty B, Herfaut J, Le Manach F, Harper S and Zeller D (this volume) Reconstructing domestic marine fisheries in Mayotte from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Eckstein A (2014) MEPs green-light three fisheries agreements. Europolitics, edition of April 23, 2014.Faharoudine AH (1979) Country statement on the fisheries situation in the Comoros. pp. 45\u00E2\u0080\u009347 In Report of the FAO/IOP workshop on the fishery resources of the Western Indian Ocean south of the Equator. Indian Ocean Fishery Commission, Indian Ocean Programme, Development Report No. 45. FAO, Mah\u00C3\u00A9 (Seychelles).FAO (2012) FishstatJ Capture Production 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).FAO (2014) FishstatJ Capture Production 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932012. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Fourmanoir P (1954) Ichthyologie et p\u00C3\u00AAche aux Comores. M\u00C3\u00A9moires de l'Institut Scientifique de Madagascar S\u00C3\u00A9rie A \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Tome IX. 187\u00E2\u0080\u0093239 p.Froese R and Pauly D, editors (2014) Fishbase (www.fishbase.org).Gianni M and Simpson W (2005) The changing nature of high seas fishing: how flags of convenience provide cover for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, International Transport Workers' Federation, and WWF International. 83 p.Granek EF and Brown MA (2005) Co-management to Marine Conservation in Moh\u00C3\u00A9li, Comoros Islands. Conservation Biology: 1724\u00E2\u0080\u00931732.Harper S, Zeller D, Hauzer M, Pauly D and Sumaila UR (2013) Women and fisheries: contribution to food security and local economies. Marine Policy 39: 56\u00E2\u0080\u009363.Hauzer M, Dearden P and Murray G (2013a) The fisherwomen of Ngazidja island, Comoros: fisheries livelihoods, impacts, and implications for management. Fisheries Research 140: 28\u00E2\u0080\u009335. Hauzer M, Dearden P and Murray G (2013b) The effectiveness of community-based governance of small-scale fisheries, Ngazidja island, Comoros. Marine Policy 38: 346\u00E2\u0080\u0093354.Fisheries catch reconstruction for the Comoros \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 9James JRW (1988) Summary of the fisheries and resources information for the Comores. In Sanders MJ, Sparre P and Venema SC (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on the assessment of the fishery resources in the southwest Indian Ocean. RAF/79/065/WP/41/88/E. FAO/UNDP, Albion (Mauritius).Kiszka J, Wickel J, Jamon A and Layssac K (2008) Note sur l'exploitation et la capture accidentelle des requins autour de la Grande Comore (Union des Comores), Canal de Mozambique. Document interne \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Groupe de Recherche sur les Requins \u00E2\u0080\u0094 MAYSHARK. 2 p. Kleiber D, Harris LM, Vincent AC and Rochet M-J (2014) Improving fisheries estimates by including women's catch in the Central Philippines. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71(5): 656\u00E2\u0080\u0093664.Lablache-Carrara G and Lalo\u00C3\u00AB F (1993) Plan d'ex\u00C3\u00A9cution d'un syst\u00C3\u00A8me d'\u00C3\u00A9chantillonnage des captures aux Comores. 46 p.Maggiorani JM, Minet JP and Taquet M (1993) Situation de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte en 1992\u00E2\u0080\u009393 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 R\u00C3\u00A9sultats de l'enqu\u00C3\u00AAte halieutique (mars 1992 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 f\u00C3\u00A9vrier 1993) et comparison avec l'enqu\u00C3\u00AAte halieutique de 1988\u00E2\u0080\u009389. IFREMER, Collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 Territoriale de Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Direction de l'Agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt, Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches. 34 p.Meyer J, Nelson D, Black D and TANGO International (2006) Comoros: comprehensive food security and vulnerability analysis (CFSVA). World Food Programme (WFP), Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Branch (ODAV). 62 p.Moal RA (1962) La p\u00C3\u00AAche aux Comores. Minist\u00C3\u00A8re d'\u00C3\u00A9tat charg\u00C3\u00A9 d\u00C3\u00A9partements et territoires d'outre-mer, France. 78 p.Pauly D (2013) Fisheries: does catch reflect abundance? Nature 494(7437): 303\u00E2\u0080\u0093306.Van Nierop M (1985) Rapport pr\u00C3\u00A9liminaire sur la performance des embarcations de p\u00C3\u00AAche sur l'\u00C3\u00AEle d'Anjouan aux Comores. RAF/79/065/WP/20/85, SWIOP. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/279543.htm#F007 [Accessed: July 16, 2012].WIOMSA (2011) Migrant fishers and fishing in the Western Indian Ocean: socio-economic dynamics and implications for management. Final report of commissioned research project MASMA/CR/2008/02. 158 p. 10Appendix Table A1. Total reconstructed catch compared to official data reported to FAO.Year Reconstructed Reported to FAO Shore-based Boat-based Total Artisanal Subsistence 1950 142 653 347 1,142 8351951 145 659 431 1,235 9351952 148 634 549 1,331 9181953 152 739 542 1,433 8181954 155 796 584 1,535 8181955 158 975 518 1,651 8351956 161 1,052 559 1,772 8351957 164 1,091 643 1,898 7171958 167 1,166 688 2,021 7171959 170 1,143 839 2,152 8171960 173 1,221 896 2,290 8171961 176 1,171 1,087 2,434 8171962 179 1,285 1,115 2,579 9171963 182 1,344 1,165 2,691 9171964 185 1,403 1,217 2,805 9171965 189 1,318 1,407 2,914 9171966 193 1,212 1,617 3,022 8751967 197 1,258 1,678 3,133 8751968 202 1,425 1,619 3,246 1,2351969 206 1,470 1,671 3,347 1,2351970 211 1,420 1,815 3,446 1,6621971 215 1,647 1,672 3,534 2,4701972 220 1,832 1,564 3,616 2,8791973 225 1,985 1,486 3,696 3,2871974 230 2,074 1,472 3,776 4,0471975 237 2,115 1,517 3,869 4,7561976 245 2,315 1,412 3,972 4,8641977 255 2,357 1,470 4,082 5,6211978 265 2,378 1,408 4,051 6,0271979 275 2,821 1,610 4,706 6,4861980 285 3,131 1,732 5,148 6,9521981 295 3,428 1,863 5,586 7,4601982 304 3,711 1,990 6,005 7,9751983 312 6,684 3,540 10,536 8,4941984 321 6,774 3,543 10,638 9,0001985 330 6,136 3,175 9,641 9,5161986 339 5,444 2,773 8,556 9,9711987 348 5,543 2,757 8,648 10,3791988 357 6,349 3,151 9,857 10,9141989 366 7,345 3,282 10,993 10,7521990 375 7,804 3,855 12,034 11,2521991 385 8,321 4,291 12,997 11,5521992 394 8,853 4,597 13,844 12,5911993 403 9,624 4,807 14,834 12,7581994 413 9,191 4,510 14,114 13,5371995 423 9,484 4,756 14,663 13,1091996 434 9,838 4,934 15,206 12,6961997 445 10,110 5,170 15,725 12,5761998 456 10,368 5,358 16,182 12,3171999 468 10,701 5,475 16,644 11,8182000 480 10,770 5,826 17,076 12,0032001 482 11,077 5,895 17,454 11,4252002 485 11,246 6,069 17,800 11,1782003 487 11,314 6,289 18,090 11,0532004 489 11,263 6,587 18,339 10,9872005 491 11,383 6,661 18,535 10,7382006 492 11,393 6,784 18,669 10,4642007 494 11,102 7,156 18,752 10,7242008 495 10,921 7,352 18,768 11,0932009 496 10,803 7,414 18,713 10,8252010 496 10,621 7,449 18,566 10,540Fisheries catch reconstruction for the Comoros \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 11Appendix Table A2. Total reconstructed catch by taxa.Year Yellowfin tuna Skipjack tuna Sardines Anchovies Jacks Others1950 477 99 120 44 69 334 1951 463 98 233 43 67 332 1952 396 95 386 47 74 333 1953 479 117 313 58 90 376 1954 516 126 337 62 96 397 1955 701 159 179 66 102 445 1956 754 173 193 71 110 470 1957 735 186 242 89 138 508 1958 783 201 258 95 148 535 1959 735 189 485 89 139 515 1960 782 204 518 95 148 542 1961 714 183 829 81 126 500 1962 788 209 785 96 150 552 1963 821 221 821 101 157 572 1964 857 231 857 105 163 592 1965 759 206 1,188 87 136 538 1966 673 175 1,616 48 74 436 1967 695 185 1,677 49 77 450 1968 822 225 1,479 73 113 535 1969 845 235 1,526 75 116 550 1970 732 202 1,557 195 195 565 1971 865 249 1,209 134 269 808 1972 1,072 319 1,062 118 236 809 1973 1,235 379 950 106 211 815 1974 1,249 397 876 88 219 947 1975 1,269 432 916 76 191 984 1976 1,423 552 766 77 192 963 1977 1,386 607 817 68 170 1,033 1978 1,383 675 754 63 157 1,019 1979 1,607 870 840 68 178 1,142 1980 1,742 1,039 881 70 189 1,227 1981 1,855 1,213 936 71 199 1,312 1982 1,950 1,392 987 79 207 1,391 1983 3,404 2,643 1,733 144 361 2,250 1984 3,345 2,816 1,720 138 355 2,265 1985 2,932 2,668 1,526 117 313 2,084 1986 2,525 2,479 1,327 99 264 1,862 1987 2,498 2,638 1,288 96 256 1,873 1988 2,760 3,134 1,471 113 287 2,092 1989 3,283 3,756 988 494 494 1,978 1990 3,441 3,938 1,036 1,036 518 2,065 1991 3,626 4,149 1,092 1,310 546 2,274 1992 4,000 3,906 1,068 1,068 534 3,268 1993 4,712 3,972 1,131 984 566 3,470 1994 4,643 3,408 1,012 881 506 3,664 1995 4,799 3,615 1,086 978 543 3,642 1996 4,941 3,828 1,163 1,047 570 3,656 1997 4,954 3,951 1,215 1,093 571 3,941 1998 4,987 4,103 1,277 1,149 600 4,066 1999 5,112 4,347 1,300 1,163 616 4,105 2000 4,928 4,339 1,452 1,313 691 4,353 2001 5,040 4,605 1,486 1,263 743 4,318 2002 4,993 4,743 1,549 1,317 775 4,424 2003 4,861 4,816 1,593 1,433 796 4,591 2004 4,682 4,850 1,868 1,543 812 4,583 2005 4,554 4,954 1,680 1,596 1,008 4,742 2006 4,410 5,053 1,737 1,650 1,042 4,776 2007 4,033 4,890 1,958 1,873 1,107 4,891 2008 3,621 4,667 1,894 1,812 1,071 5,704 2009 3,413 4,705 1,935 1,851 1,094 5,714 2010 3,185 4,728 1,972 1,886 1,114 5,680 Fisheries catch reconstruction for Djibouti \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter et al. 13le d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement soutenu de p\u00C3\u00AACheries artisanales : reConstruCtion des Captures marines \u00C3\u00A0 djibouti de 1950 \u00C3\u00A0 2010*Mathieu Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter,1,2 Ahmed Darar Djibril,3 Gilles Hosch,4 Pierre Labrosse,5 Yann Yvergniaux,6 Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach1,7\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 and Daniel Pauly11 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada2 Agrocampus Ouest, UMR985 ESE Ecologie et sant\u00C3\u00A9 des \u00C3\u00A9cosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes, Rennes, France3 Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche, Minist\u00C3\u00A8re de l'Agriculture, de l'Elevage et de la Mer, Charg\u00C3\u00A9 des Ressources Hydrauliques, Djibouti-ville, Djibouti4 Fisheries Planning & Management, PO Box 862, L-2018 Luxembourg5 Mission pour la recherche et la technologie, Haut-commissariat de la R\u00C3\u00A9publique en Nouvelle-Cal\u00C3\u00A9donie, Noum\u00C3\u00A9a, France6 SmartFish Programme, Indian Ocean Commission, Eb\u00C3\u00A8ne, Mauritius7 Institut de Recherche pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, UMR212 Ecosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes Marins Exploit\u00C3\u00A9s, Avenue Jean Monnet, CS 30171, 34203 S\u00C3\u00A8te cedex, France\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Current address: BLOOM Association, 77 rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris, Francem.colleter@fisheries.ubc.ca; djidarar@hotmail.com; hosch@pt.lu; labrosse.pierre@gmail.com; yann.yvergniaux@coi-ioc.org; fredericlemanach@bloomassociation.org; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.caextended abstraCtThis study is part of the Sea Around Us and consists of a 'reconstruction' of the likely total fisheries catch (i.e., domestic and foreign catch) made in Djibouti's waters from 1950 to 2010, as well as catches by fishers from Djibouti in foreign waters. This reconstructed time-series contrasts with official catches reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) by Djibouti, which were found to be incomplete and misleading. Indeed, failed to account for several sectors such as discards, subsistence and recreational fisheries, or illegal catches by foreign fleets. The reconstruction of Djibouti's marine fisheries catches over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period overlapped with the development of Djibouti's artisanal sector and allowed us to account for the aforementioned missing sectors. A thorough bibliographic research on fisheries in Djibouti was carried out, and 'anchor points' required for estimating historical catches were then identified (Pauly 1998), similar to other reconstructions made around the world (see, e.g., Zeller and Pauly 2007; Zeller and Harper 2009; Harper and Zeller 2012; Harper et al. 2013). We separated our analysis into three sections: Djibouti's catch within its own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), Djibouti's catch outside its EEZ, and finally, foreign catches within Djibouti's EEZ.Our results show that FAO data contained several inconsistencies. Artisanal catches for the pre-independence period appeared to be too high given the low number of fishers and fishing practices at that time. For the post-independence period, our reconstruction was based on data provided by the D\u00C3\u00A9partement de la P\u00C3\u00AAche (Department of Fisheries) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 deemed to better reflect Djibouti's fisheries trends \u00E2\u0080\u0094 which also substantially differed from those published by FAO. Our reconstruction also included crude estimates for previously unaccounted sectors, which enabled us to produce a more realistic picture of the overall catch within Djibouti's EEZ and in foreign waters. Most notably, we identified that 25% of the total artisanal catches were not declared. In addition, we identified and estimated a small subsistence fishery that was never accounted for in official statistics, similarly to other sectors such as an holothurian fishery, artisanal discards, and a recreational fishery by tourists and residents. We also estimated catches made outside Djibouti's EEZ, mostly in Somalia. Illegal foreign fisheries, mostly from Yemen (but also Somalia to a lower extent), were also estimated. Finally, we also improved the taxonomic composition of catches during the early time-period using FAO's breakdown in more recent years. Overall, our total reconstructed catches (mostly composed of inshore species such as Serranidae, Lutjanidae, Carangidae, and Lethrinidae) are roughly similar to total catches reported to FAO, but annual catches are wildly different, especially in the earlier time-period. Before the independence in 1977, we estimated that catches increased from 130 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 to almost 300 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1, due to an increase in the number of fishers. Afterward, the annual catch quickly increased to 1,000 t by the end of the 1980s, thanks to the development of a real fisheries vision by the national authorities. Catches steeply decreased in the mid-1990s due to the Civil War, but then steadily increased again to reach around 1,300 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the 2000s. This report also provide some evidence of overexploitation, and we recommend to improve the data collection scheme and statistical framework in Djibouti, in order to better monitor domestic and foreign fisheries and thus ensure a sustainable use of marine resources.* Cite as: Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter M, Darar Djibril, A, Hosch G, Labrosse P, Yvergniaux Y, Le Manach F and Pauly D (2015) Le d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement soutenu de p\u00C3\u00AAcheries artisanales : reconstruction des captures marines \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti de 1950 \u00C3\u00A0 2010. Pp. 13\u00E2\u0080\u009325 In Le Manach F and Pauly D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727]. 14r\u00C3\u00A9sum\u00C3\u00A9Cette \u00C3\u00A9tude men\u00C3\u00A9e dans le cadre du Sea Around Us avait pour objectif de reconstruire les captures effectu\u00C3\u00A9es dans les eaux de Djibouti et pas les p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs djiboutiens en dehors des eaux nationales, afin de les comparer aux captures d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 la FAO. Cette \u00C3\u00A9tude a recoup\u00C3\u00A9 le d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAcherie artisanale djiboutienne, et nos r\u00C3\u00A9sultats montrent que les captures artisanales d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es au programme des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO) avant l'ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance sont trop \u00C3\u00A9lev\u00C3\u00A9es par rapport au nombre de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs et aux pratiques de l'\u00C3\u00A9poque. Pour la p\u00C3\u00A9riode post-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance, nous avons estim\u00C3\u00A9 que l'\u00C3\u00A9quivalent de 25% des captures artisanales d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es ne l'\u00C3\u00A9taient pas. Nous avons \u00C3\u00A9galement mis en \u00C3\u00A9vidence une p\u00C3\u00AAche de subsistance non-d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e, mais relativement faible (2% du total d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9). D'autres secteurs ont aussi \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 inclus, tels que la p\u00C3\u00AAche non-d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e d'holothuries, les rejets de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale, et la p\u00C3\u00AAche r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9ative. Les captures totales effectu\u00C3\u00A9es dans la ZEE djiboutienne sont en fin de compte relativement proches de celles d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es par Djibouti \u00C3\u00A0 la FAO, mais les captures annuelles sont tr\u00C3\u00A8s diff\u00C3\u00A9rentes. Nous avons \u00C3\u00A9galement estim\u00C3\u00A9 les captures artisanales djiboutiennes faites en dehors de la ZEE nationale (principalement en Somalie). Enfin, nous avons estim\u00C3\u00A9 les p\u00C3\u00AAches ill\u00C3\u00A9gales \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8res en provenance du Y\u00C3\u00A9men, mais aussi de Somalie. Ces r\u00C3\u00A9sultats montrent qu'il est aujourd'hui n\u00C3\u00A9cessaire de mieux surveiller les activit\u00C3\u00A9s de p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti afin d'am\u00C3\u00A9liorer la collecte des donn\u00C3\u00A9es et ainsi garantir une gestion durable des ressources.introduCtionLa R\u00C3\u00A9publique de Djibouti ('Djibouti' sera utilis\u00C3\u00A9 par la suite) est un petit pays d'Afrique de l'Est situ\u00C3\u00A9 au nord de la Somalie, face au Y\u00C3\u00A9men. Il occupe une position strat\u00C3\u00A9gique \u00C3\u00A0 la jonction de deux grands ensembles maritimes, le golfe d'Aden et la Mer Rouge, reli\u00C3\u00A9s par le d\u00C3\u00A9troit de Bab-el-Mandeb (Figure 1). Cette position strat\u00C3\u00A9gique entre la Mer Rouge et l'Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien en a fait un point de contr\u00C3\u00B4le essentiel pour les int\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00AAts commerciaux et militaires fran\u00C3\u00A7ais avant l'ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance en 1977 (Devinat 1957). Ces int\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00AAts n'ont pas limit\u00C3\u00A9s \u00C3\u00A0 la France, et on y trouve encore aujourd'hui des bases militaires am\u00C3\u00A9ricaines, japonaises, et autres. L'espace maritime sous juridiction djiboutienne s'\u00C3\u00A9tend environ 7 200 km\u00C2\u00B2 dont 2 500 km\u00C2\u00B2 de plateau continental (parmi les plus modestes du continent africain, avec une largeur moyenne estim\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A0 8 km ; El Gharbi 1987 ; Bouhlel 1988 ; Hosch 2010). Ce plateau est fortement d\u00C3\u00A9velopp\u00C3\u00A9 au Nord et au Sud de la bande c\u00C3\u00B4ti\u00C3\u00A8re, et est plus \u00C3\u00A9troit \u00C3\u00A0 l'int\u00C3\u00A9rieur, atteignant tout au plus 1,5 km de largeur \u00C3\u00A0 certains endroits. Il recouvre en grande partie le golfe de Tadjourah, o\u00C3\u00B9 la grande vall\u00C3\u00A9e du rift s'enfonce dans la mer, et la rive sud du golfe s'\u00C3\u00A9tire jusque dans les eaux somaliennes, alors que la rive nord se prolonge par une longue plaine (Bouhlel 1988). Des r\u00C3\u00A9cifs coralliens son pr\u00C3\u00A9sents sur presque toute la bande c\u00C3\u00B4ti\u00C3\u00A8re et le pourtour des \u00C3\u00AEles attenantes, jusqu'\u00C3\u00A0 une profondeur de 20\u00E2\u0080\u009330 m. Au-del\u00C3\u00A0, on observe un fond en pente douce couvert de sable et/ou de vase (Bouhlel 1988 ; Hosch 2010).La structure hydrologique est conditionn\u00C3\u00A9e par l'opposition de deux masses d'eau : celle du Golfe d'Aden dans la couche sup\u00C3\u00A9rieure, et celle plus profonde originaire de la Mer Rouge. La temp\u00C3\u00A9rature en surface est d'environ 31\u00C2\u00B0C en \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 et 26\u00C2\u00B0C en hiver ; en profondeur, la temp\u00C3\u00A9rature la plus basse observ\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A9tait de 15\u00C2\u00B0C vers 600 m (Allain 1974). Le r\u00C3\u00A9gime des vents influence fortement la situation en surface, et conditionne la profondeur de la thermocline (20\u00E2\u0080\u009330 m en \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 et autour de 100 m en hiver), la quantit\u00C3\u00A9 d'oxyg\u00C3\u00A8ne dissous, ainsi que la salinit\u00C3\u00A9. Ces param\u00C3\u00A8tres influent sur le comportement des esp\u00C3\u00A8ces et les saisons de p\u00C3\u00AAche (Abbes 1985). La saison s\u00C3\u00A8che qui s'\u00C3\u00A9tend de juillet \u00C3\u00A0 ao\u00C3\u00BBt est caract\u00C3\u00A9ris\u00C3\u00A9e par des vents (Khamsiin) allant jusqu'\u00C3\u00A0 sept sur l'\u00C3\u00A9chelle de Beaufort, entrecoup\u00C3\u00A9e de temp\u00C3\u00AAtes sporadiques emp\u00C3\u00AAchant les sorties en mer. Entre les mois de novembre et mars appara\u00C3\u00AEt souvent une houle allant jusqu'\u00C3\u00A0 cinq Beaufort (particuli\u00C3\u00A8rement dans le Nord), freinant \u00C3\u00A9galement les activit\u00C3\u00A9s de p\u00C3\u00AAche (K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a). Les principales saisons de p\u00C3\u00AAche sont donc comprises entre avril-d\u00C3\u00A9but juin et ao\u00C3\u00BBt-octobre (El Gharbi 1987 ; K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a).Les r\u00C3\u00A9cifs coralliens sont les \u00C3\u00A9cosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes c\u00C3\u00B4tiers les plus repr\u00C3\u00A9sentatifs \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti, mais il existe \u00C3\u00A9galement un r\u00C3\u00A9seau important de lagunes, mangroves et herbiers sous-marins (El Gharbi 1987). Les fonds sont productifs jusqu'\u00C3\u00A0 une profondeur de 70 m, la faune se rar\u00C3\u00A9fiant au-del\u00C3\u00A0 (Allain 1974). L'\u00C3\u00A9tendue du plateau continental aux extr\u00C3\u00A9mit\u00C3\u00A9s nord (notamment autour des \u00C3\u00AEles des Sept Fr\u00C3\u00A8res ; El Gharbi 1987) et sud du pays permet la pr\u00C3\u00A9sence de stocks importants de poissons d\u00C3\u00A9mersaux. La r\u00C3\u00A9gion nord jou\u00C3\u00AEt \u00C3\u00A9galement de conditions tr\u00C3\u00A8s favorables avec la pr\u00C3\u00A9sence des eaux froides de la mer d'Arabie engendrant une forte production primaire et une abondance des petits p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques. De m\u00C3\u00AAme, dans le golfe de Tadjourah, la remont\u00C3\u00A9e de la thermocline pendant l'\u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 est suivie d'une explosion de la production primaire stimulant ainsi la production des stocks p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques. La descente de la thermocline en hiver r\u00C3\u00A9duit l'activit\u00C3\u00A9 planctonique et entra\u00C3\u00AEne le d\u00C3\u00A9part vers d'autres r\u00C3\u00A9gions de la majorit\u00C3\u00A9 des stocks associ\u00C3\u00A9s (Bouhlel 0 50 km\u00C2\u00B1ShelfEEZ boundaryObockTadjourahDjibouti-villeLimites de l ZEEPlateau oc\u00C3\u00A9anique\u00C3\u008Eles dessept fr\u00C3\u00A8res\u00C3\u008Eles MushaFigure 1. Carte de la ZEE de Djibouti, montrant l'\u00C3\u00A9tendue du plateau oc\u00C3\u00A9anique (bleu fonc\u00C3\u00A9) et de la Zone Exclusive \u00C3\u0089conomique (ZEE), ainsi que les principales villes c\u00C3\u00B4ti\u00C3\u00A8res de Djibouti-ville (capitale), Tadjourah et Obock.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Djibouti \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter et al. 151988). Ainsi, une grand diversit\u00C3\u00A9 d'esp\u00C3\u00A8ces est p\u00C3\u00AAch\u00C3\u00A9e (Bouhlel 1988). Les taxons les plus importants sont ceux des grands d\u00C3\u00A9mersaux nobles (Acanthuridae, Balistidae, Epinephelinae, Haemulidae, Labridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Mullidae, Scaridae, et Sparidae) et les grands p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques (Carangidae, Carcharhinidae, Coryphaenidae, Istiophoridae, Scombridae, Sphyraenidae, Sphyrnidae, et Xiphiidae). Des stocks de Sepia spp. (seiches), Loligo spp. (calmars), Holothuria spp. et Actinopyga palauensis (holothuries), et crustac\u00C3\u00A9s (crevettes, cigales, langoustes et crabes), pr\u00C3\u00A9sentent \u00C3\u00A9galement un int\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00AAt (Hosch 2010). Les petits p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques (Carangidae, Clupeidae, et Scombridae) et les petits d\u00C3\u00A9mersaux restent quant \u00C3\u00A0 eux majoritairement inexploit\u00C3\u00A9s par la flotille djiboutienne (K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a ; Morgan 2006). Traditionnellement, la p\u00C3\u00AAche a toujours \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 faible \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti, et le poisson semble peu consomm\u00C3\u00A9 par la population (Bjoerklund et Walter-Dehnert 1983). La tradition des Afars et des Issas, les ethnies premi\u00C3\u00A8res de Djibouti, est plut\u00C3\u00B4t pastoraliste que maritime (comme en Somalie ; cf. Persson et al. ce volume). Le d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de cette activit\u00C3\u00A9 a principalement \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 d\u00C3\u00BB aux Y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nites qui fr\u00C3\u00A9quentaient saisonni\u00C3\u00A8rement la c\u00C3\u00B4te africaine et qui, pour certains, se sont install\u00C3\u00A9s sur le territoire au moment de sa colonisation par la France. C'est \u00C3\u00A0 partir de ces populations y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nites fix\u00C3\u00A9es sur le territoire depuis deux ou trois g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9rations que s'est constitu\u00C3\u00A9e la premi\u00C3\u00A8re communaut\u00C3\u00A9 de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs de Djibouti (Moal et Grateau 1967 ; Clouet 1970 ; Rouaud 1997). Par la suite, la p\u00C3\u00AAche s'est d\u00C3\u00A9velopp\u00C3\u00A9e dans la partie sud du pays majoritairement peupl\u00C3\u00A9e par les Issas, rattach\u00C3\u00A9s au groupe ethnique Somali et profond\u00C3\u00A9ment influenc\u00C3\u00A9s par les Arabes. Les Afars, peuplant majoritairement le Nord du pays, sont rest\u00C3\u00A9s plus longtemps tourn\u00C3\u00A9s vers la terre et n\u00C3\u00A9gociaient des droits de p\u00C3\u00AAche avec les Y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nites venus sur la c\u00C3\u00B4te (Clouet 1970). Durant la p\u00C3\u00A9riode coloniale, l'activit\u00C3\u00A9 de p\u00C3\u00AAche est rest\u00C3\u00A9e peu d\u00C3\u00A9velopp\u00C3\u00A9e avec un faible nombre de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs, peu de moyens, et une volont\u00C3\u00A9 du gouvernement fran\u00C3\u00A7ais port\u00C3\u00A9e en premier lieu sur l'exploration du domaine maritime (Moal et Grateau 1967 ; Allain 1974). Suite au gain de l'ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance en 1977, le gouvernement djiboutien a souhait\u00C3\u00A9 d\u00C3\u00A9velopper cette activit\u00C3\u00A9 afin d'exploiter pleinement son potentiel halieutique, cr\u00C3\u00A9er des richesses et am\u00C3\u00A9liorer la s\u00C3\u00A9curit\u00C3\u00A9 alimentaire du pays. Cette volont\u00C3\u00A9 s'est traduite par la r\u00C3\u00A9alisation de projets de soutien au d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement des activit\u00C3\u00A9s de p\u00C3\u00AAche, financ\u00C3\u00A9s par plusieurs instances internationales. L'objectif \u00C3\u00A9tait le d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement d'une p\u00C3\u00AAcherie exclusivement artisanale et nationale (Waldstein et Lampe 1988 ; Darar 1994 ; Morgan 2006). La p\u00C3\u00AAche industrielle a donc toujours \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 formellement interdite au sein des eaux djiboutiennes, les seuls bateaux autoris\u00C3\u00A9s \u00C3\u00A0 la p\u00C3\u00AAche (inf\u00C3\u00A9rieurs \u00C3\u00A0 16 m et sans chalut de fond) devant poss\u00C3\u00A9der une licence accessible aux seuls citoyens djiboutiens (K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a ; Darar et Hosch 2010). De mani\u00C3\u00A8re g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9rale, la p\u00C3\u00AAche est donc longtemps rest\u00C3\u00A9e un travail \u00C3\u00A0 temps partiel d\u00C3\u00BB aux revenus faibles et moyens de production limit\u00C3\u00A9s, et a gard\u00C3\u00A9 sa nature artisanale, \u00C3\u00A9tant pratiqu\u00C3\u00A9e en zone c\u00C3\u00B4ti\u00C3\u00A8re avec de petites embarcations. Entre 1982 et 1986, plus de 60% de la production nationale \u00C3\u00A9taient r\u00C3\u00A9alis\u00C3\u00A9s par l'Association Coop\u00C3\u00A9rative de P\u00C3\u00AAche Maritime (ACPM) situ\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti-ville. En 1986, 14 patrons p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs sur 165 d\u00C3\u00A9barquant \u00C3\u00A0 l'ACPM produisaient 56% des captures avec 35% des sorties en mer. Les zones de p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A9taient principalement concentr\u00C3\u00A9es au Sud (seulement 2% des captures de l'ACPM dans le Nord), et l'activit\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00A0 terre \u00C3\u00A9tait concentr\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti-ville avec du mat\u00C3\u00A9riel au potentiel limit\u00C3\u00A9 (El Gharbi 1987). L'activit\u00C3\u00A9 s'est par la suite d\u00C3\u00A9velopp\u00C3\u00A9e et professionnalis\u00C3\u00A9e au cours des ann\u00C3\u00A9es 90 et 2000 avec des projets de soutien et l'arriv\u00C3\u00A9e de nouveaux op\u00C3\u00A9rateurs (K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a ; Emerton 1998 ; Hosch 2010). Les moyens de production et \u00C3\u00A9quipements se \u00C3\u00A9galement sont am\u00C3\u00A9lior\u00C3\u00A9s, permettant d'exploiter les zones au Nord du pays \u00C3\u00A0 fort potentiel (El Gharbi 1987), et repr\u00C3\u00A9sentant 77% des captures totales en 2010 (Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche).Les sorties en mer ne d\u00C3\u00A9passent jamais 72 heures, et se font le plus souvent \u00C3\u00A0 la journ\u00C3\u00A9e selon les mar\u00C3\u00A9es et les vents. Elle a peu chang\u00C3\u00A9 au cours des ann\u00C3\u00A9es bien qu'ayant connu des progr\u00C3\u00A8s technologiques depuis les ann\u00C3\u00A9es 50 (apparition du monofilament et des moteurs hors-bords, par exemple). Les principaux types sont la p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 la ligne (palangrotte) visant les d\u00C3\u00A9mersaux, la ligne de tra\u00C3\u00AEne visant les p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques, et accessoirement le filet maillant (El Gharbi 1987 ; K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a). Ils se pratiquent depuis des embarcations, les houris, pouvant contenir deux \u00C3\u00A0 trois hommes pour les petits bateaux (six \u00C3\u00A0 huit m\u00C3\u00A8tres) et cinq pour les plus grands (10\u00E2\u0080\u009314 m\u00C3\u00A8tres). La p\u00C3\u00AAche se pratique \u00C3\u00A9galement \u00C3\u00A0 pied sur le plateau madr\u00C3\u00A9porique avec l'utilisation d'\u00C3\u00A9perviers (pour la p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 la crevette notamment), de filets, et \u00C3\u00A9galement la p\u00C3\u00AAche en apn\u00C3\u00A9e (en particulier pour la p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 la langouste ; Clouet 1970 ; Moal et Grateau 1967 ; K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a). Cette p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 pied est suppos\u00C3\u00A9e de faible envergure,et ne constituerait qu'une petite activit\u00C3\u00A9 annexe ou de subsistance (K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a ; Morgan 2006). Les s\u00C3\u00A9ries statistiques publi\u00C3\u00A9es par l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'Alimentation et l'Agriculture (FAO) sont souvent incompl\u00C3\u00A8tes de par leur non prise en compte de plusieurs secteurs tels que la p\u00C3\u00AAche de subsistance et la p\u00C3\u00AAche r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9ative. Ici, nous proposons de reconstruire les captures d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 la FAO par Djibouti depuis 1950 afin d'en am\u00C3\u00A9liorer la qualit\u00C3\u00A9 et la lecture, notamment par la r\u00C3\u00A9estimation des secteurs manquants, ainsi que la r\u00C3\u00A9-allocation des captures aux diff\u00C3\u00A9rents secteurs.. mat\u00C3\u00A9riels et m\u00C3\u00A9thodesLes donn\u00C3\u00A9es servant de base au travail pr\u00C3\u00A9sent\u00C3\u00A9 ici ont \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 extraites de la base de donn\u00C3\u00A9es FAO FishstatJ (FAO 2012). Elles correspondent aux donn\u00C3\u00A9es de captures d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es par Djibouti de 1950 \u00C3\u00A0 2010. Une recherche bibliographique portant sur les p\u00C3\u00AAches dans les eaux djiboutiennes a ensuite \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 effectu\u00C3\u00A9e afin d'en comprendre et compl\u00C3\u00A9ter le contenu. Des 'points d'ancrage', requis pour l'estimation des captures historiques depuis 1950 (Zeller et Pauly 2007), ont ensuite \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 identifi\u00C3\u00A9s. Nous avons s\u00C3\u00A9par\u00C3\u00A9 notre analyse en trois composantes : l'\u00C3\u00A9tude des captures de Djibouti \u00C3\u00A0 l'int\u00C3\u00A9rieur de sa ZEE, celle des captures de Djibouti \u00C3\u00A0 l'ext\u00C3\u00A9rieur de sa ZEE, et enfin celle des captures \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8res dans la ZEE djiboutienne. 16Reconstruction des captures djiboutiennes \u00C3\u00A0 l'int\u00C3\u00A9rieur de la ZEE nationaleCaptures d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale djiboutienneNous avons dissoci\u00C3\u00A9 deux p\u00C3\u00A9riodes pour la reconstruction des captures d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale djiboutienne : les p\u00C3\u00A9riodes (i) pr\u00C3\u00A9-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance de 1950 \u00C3\u00A0 1977, et (ii) post-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance de 1978 \u00C3\u00A0 2010. La p\u00C3\u00A9riode pr\u00C3\u00A9-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance est caract\u00C3\u00A9ris\u00C3\u00A9e par une tr\u00C3\u00A8s faible disponibilit\u00C3\u00A9 d'informations. Cependant, l'ensemble des \u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9ments trouv\u00C3\u00A9s d\u00C3\u00A9peignent une p\u00C3\u00AAche peu d\u00C3\u00A9velopp\u00C3\u00A9e avec peu de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs (Moal et Grateau 1967 ; Moal 1969 ; Clouet 1970), contredisant clairement les donn\u00C3\u00A9es FAO pr\u00C3\u00A9sentant des captures relativement hautes entre 1950 et 1963.1 La p\u00C3\u00A9riode post-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance est caract\u00C3\u00A9ris\u00C3\u00A9e par plus de donn\u00C3\u00A9es, notamment de la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche (branche du gouvernement charg\u00C3\u00A9e du suivi et contr\u00C3\u00B4le des p\u00C3\u00AAches dans le pays).2 \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 P\u00C3\u00A9riode pr\u00C3\u00A9-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendanceNous avons reconstruit les captures de cette p\u00C3\u00A9riode en utilisant le nombre de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs pr\u00C3\u00A9sents dans la ville de Djibouti, \u00C3\u00A0 savoir, 107 en 1951 et 150 en 1967 (Moal et Grateau 1967). Ces deux valeurs ont constitu\u00C3\u00A9 nos points d'ancrage pour le calcul des captures de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale entre 1950 et 1977. Nous disposions \u00C3\u00A9galement des captures annuelles par p\u00C3\u00AAcheur, calcul\u00C3\u00A9es entre 1982 et 1986 pour l'ACPM (El Gharbi 1987). Afin d'uniformiser nos m\u00C3\u00A9thodes de calcul avec celles d\u00C3\u00A9velopp\u00C3\u00A9es par El Gharbi (1987) et utilis\u00C3\u00A9es pour le calcul des captures de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale entre 1982 et 1986 (reprises par la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche ; cf point suivant), nous avons consid\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A9 que ces deux valeurs du nombre de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs correspondaient au nombre total de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti-ville, et divis\u00C3\u00A9 ces valeurs par 1,5 (i.e., le nombre moyen de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs par \u00C3\u00A9quipage). De cette mani\u00C3\u00A8re, nous avons obtenu le nombre de 'patrons p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs', que nous avons par la suite multipli\u00C3\u00A9 par une valeur constante de prise annuelle par p\u00C3\u00AAcheur \u00C3\u00A9gale \u00C3\u00A0 environ 1 285 kg\u00C2\u00B7ann\u00C3\u00A9e-1\u00C2\u00B7p\u00C3\u00AAcheur-1 (i.e, les deux-tiers de la moyenne des captures annuelles par p\u00C3\u00AAcheur sur la p\u00C3\u00A9riode 1982\u00E2\u0080\u009385).3 Ainsi, nous avons consid\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A9 que la prise par p\u00C3\u00AAcheur dans les ann\u00C3\u00A9es 50 et 60 \u00C3\u00A9tait inf\u00C3\u00A9rieure de un tiers \u00C3\u00A0 celle effectu\u00C3\u00A9e au d\u00C3\u00A9but des ann\u00C3\u00A9es 80, refl\u00C3\u00A9tant les progr\u00C3\u00A8s techniques substantiels entre les deux p\u00C3\u00A9riodes et une dynamique plus active de la fili\u00C3\u00A8re (cf. Introduction). D'autre part, nous avons \u00C3\u00A9galement ajout\u00C3\u00A9 aux captures obtenues 5% (poids des visc\u00C3\u00A8res) et 7,9% (captures dans les autres localit\u00C3\u00A9s ; i.e., la moiti\u00C3\u00A9 de la proportion observ\u00C3\u00A9e en 1986 pour traduire le faible d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAche dans le Nord ; El Gharbi 1987). Nous avons ensuite interpol\u00C3\u00A9 lin\u00C3\u00A9airement (extrapol\u00C3\u00A9 pour l'ann\u00C3\u00A9e 1950) les captures entre nos deux point d'ancrages en 1951 et 1967, puis entre 1967 et la moyenne des captures en 1978\u00E2\u0080\u009379. Selon plusieurs auteurs, ces captures comprenaient plusieurs esp\u00C3\u00A8ces telles que les m\u00C3\u00A9rous, carangues, barracudas, thons, bonites, maquereaux royaux et langoustes (que l'on retrouve dans les d\u00C3\u00A9barquements r\u00C3\u00A9cents), mais \u00C3\u00A9galement les mulets, aiguillettes, et sardinelles, tr\u00C3\u00A8s peu cibl\u00C3\u00A9s de nos jours (Moal et Grateau 1967 ; Clouet 1970). Il semblerait donc que les esp\u00C3\u00A8ces d\u00C3\u00A9barqu\u00C3\u00A9es aient chang\u00C3\u00A9 au cours du temps, les captures se concentrant de plus en plus sur les poissons de grande taille gr\u00C3\u00A2ce aux progr\u00C3\u00A8s technologiques et au d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAche professionnelle (Darar 1994). De plus, plusieurs petits types de p\u00C3\u00AAche existaient \u00C3\u00A0 l'\u00C3\u00A9poque, tels que la p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 la nacre (Pinna spp. ; pratiqu\u00C3\u00A9e principalement par les \u00C3\u00A9rythr\u00C3\u00A9ens sur le r\u00C3\u00A9cif des \u00C3\u00AEles Musha et dont le march\u00C3\u00A9 tr\u00C3\u00A8s limit\u00C3\u00A9 disparut \u00C3\u00A0 la fin des ann\u00C3\u00A9es 70), ou la p\u00C3\u00AAche au corail (vendu aux touristes ; Clouet 1970). Cependant, les informations concernant la composition taxonomique et son \u00C3\u00A9volution au cours du temps restant extr\u00C3\u00AAmement limit\u00C3\u00A9es, nous avons d\u00C3\u00A9cid\u00C3\u00A9 de conserver la composition taxonomique pr\u00C3\u00A9sente dans les donn\u00C3\u00A9es rapport\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 la FAO de 1983 \u00C3\u00A0 1987, comme pour le d\u00C3\u00A9but de la p\u00C3\u00A9riode post-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 P\u00C3\u00A9riode post-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendancePour cette p\u00C3\u00A9riode, la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche nous a fourni la s\u00C3\u00A9rie de donn\u00C3\u00A9es des captures nationales de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale, que nous avons substitu\u00C3\u00A9e aux donn\u00C3\u00A9es de la FAO (consid\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A9es comme moins repr\u00C3\u00A9sentatives/pr\u00C3\u00A9cises) pour le tonnage. La s\u00C3\u00A9rie de la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche ne comportait cependant aucune r\u00C3\u00A9solution taxonomique. De la m\u00C3\u00AAme mani\u00C3\u00A8re que pour la p\u00C3\u00A9riode pr\u00C3\u00A9-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance, nous avons donc utilis\u00C3\u00A9 la composition des donn\u00C3\u00A9es d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 la FAO de 1983 \u00C3\u00A0 1987.4Secteurs non-d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9sPlusieurs secteurs n'ont jamais \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 pris en compte dans l'estimation des captures djiboutiennes. Tout d'abord, une partie des captures r\u00C3\u00A9alis\u00C3\u00A9es par la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale djiboutienne \u00C3\u00A9tait et est toujours non-d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A0 la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche. Cette p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale produit \u00C3\u00A9galement des rejets non comptabilis\u00C3\u00A9s. Une p\u00C3\u00AAche de subsistance a \u00C3\u00A9galement exist\u00C3\u00A9 depuis longtemps, pratiqu\u00C3\u00A9e par quelques p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs de la capitale et dans d'autres r\u00C3\u00A9gions (Morgan 2006 ; Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche, donn\u00C3\u00A9es non publi\u00C3\u00A9es). Enfin, la p\u00C3\u00AAche r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9ative, de plus en plus importante, pr\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A8ve \u00C3\u00A9galement nombre d'esp\u00C3\u00A8ces marines sans suivi ad\u00C3\u00A9quat.1 A noter que l'int\u00C3\u00A9gralit\u00C3\u00A9 des donn\u00C3\u00A9es FAO pour la p\u00C3\u00A9riode pr\u00C3\u00A9-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance est constitu\u00C3\u00A9e du groupe g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9rique 'marine fishes nei'.2 Les donn\u00C3\u00A9es d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es par Djibouti ont \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 corrig\u00C3\u00A9es par la FAO pour la p\u00C3\u00A9riode 1983\u00E2\u0080\u009391 (estimations bas\u00C3\u00A9es sur 70% de la production officiellement d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e ; FAO 1991). Il en est de m\u00C3\u00AAme pour la p\u00C3\u00A9riode 1992\u00E2\u0080\u00932004, o\u00C3\u00B9 les donn\u00C3\u00A9es de la FAO correspondent \u00C3\u00A0 des estimations dont les m\u00C3\u00A9thodes de calcul ou sources ne sont pas pr\u00C3\u00A9cis\u00C3\u00A9es (FAO 2012).3 Nous avons exclu l'ann\u00C3\u00A9e 1986 de ces calculs car elle a connu une augmentation de la production \u00C3\u00A0 l'ACPM due \u00C3\u00A0 une nette am\u00C3\u00A9lioration de l'efficacit\u00C3\u00A9 de p\u00C3\u00AAche (El Gharbi 1987).4 Entre 1979 et 1982, les donn\u00C3\u00A9es publi\u00C3\u00A9es par la FAO incluent d\u00C3\u00A9j\u00C3\u00A0 Panulirus spp.. Ces captures rapport\u00C3\u00A9es ont donc \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 soustraites aux captures r\u00C3\u00A9-estim\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 partir de la composition taxonomique de 1983 \u00C3\u00A0 1987.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Djibouti \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter et al. 17\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 La p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale non-d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9eCe secteur \u00C3\u00A9quivaut \u00C3\u00A0 un pourcentage non n\u00C3\u00A9gligeable des captures d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es (K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a ; Emerton 1998 ; Hosch 2010). Ce ph\u00C3\u00A9nom\u00C3\u00A8ne est ancien, et a \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 caus\u00C3\u00A9 par un d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement lent de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale et de la fili\u00C3\u00A8re associ\u00C3\u00A9e (e.g., infrastructures de conservation, commercialisation), et donc de son contr\u00C3\u00B4le (Clouet 1970 ; Abbes 1985 ; Darar 1994 ; Morgan 2006). Les captures non-d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es sont en partie d\u00C3\u00A9barqu\u00C3\u00A9es et vendues \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti en dehors des circuits contr\u00C3\u00B4l\u00C3\u00A9s (e.g., restaurateurs). Elles sont \u00C3\u00A9galement donn\u00C3\u00A9es aux personnes qui aident lors du d\u00C3\u00A9barquement, gard\u00C3\u00A9es pour auto-consommation, ou jet\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 cause d'une mauvaise conservation par les p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs (dans le cas de l'ACPM, cette derni\u00C3\u00A8re cause a \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 estim\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A0 5% des captures en 1986, El Gharbi 1987 ; aussi estim\u00C3\u00A9e hypoth\u00C3\u00A9tiquement \u00C3\u00A0 25% des captures artisanales, Emerton 1998). El Gharbi (1987) a inclus une partie de ces pratiques (pour l'ACPM seulement, soit 3% des captures artisanales d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es) dans ses estimations des captures artisanales nationales reprises par la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche. De plus, des d\u00C3\u00A9barquements de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs bas\u00C3\u00A9s \u00C3\u00A0 Obock et sur la c\u00C3\u00B4te Nord se faisaient et font toujours au Y\u00C3\u00A9men (march\u00C3\u00A9 plus attractif, acc\u00C3\u00A8s au carburant fortement d\u00C3\u00A9tax\u00C3\u00A9, et proximit\u00C3\u00A9 des points de d\u00C3\u00A9barquements). Enfin, une grande partie de la p\u00C3\u00AAche se faisait hors contr\u00C3\u00B4le, \u00C3\u00A9tant donn\u00C3\u00A9 que nombre de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs artisanaux ne poss\u00C3\u00A9daient pas de licence. En effet, la mise en place de licences n'a eu lieu qu'en 2008 (Hosch 2010), et sont aujourd'hui d\u00C3\u00A9livr\u00C3\u00A9es aux propri\u00C3\u00A9taires de bateaux (les p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs non propri\u00C3\u00A9taires se voyant \u00C3\u00A9galement attribuer des cartes. Les captures de cette p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale non-d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e correspondraient \u00C3\u00A0 20\u00E2\u0080\u009330% des d\u00C3\u00A9clarations officielles (e.g., K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a). Nous avons donc utilis\u00C3\u00A9 une valeur de 25% de donn\u00C3\u00A9es non-d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es pour l'ensemble de la p\u00C3\u00A9riode 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Les esp\u00C3\u00A8ces concern\u00C3\u00A9es par cette p\u00C3\u00AAche non-d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e semblent similaires \u00C3\u00A0 celles dont la capture est d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e, m\u00C3\u00AAme s'il semblerait qu'il existe quelques diff\u00C3\u00A9rences. Par exemple, plusieurs groupes seraient plus particuli\u00C3\u00A8rement vis\u00C3\u00A9s : les requins (principalement des Carcharhinidae ; Anon. 2011) et les Mugilidae (p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 l'\u00C3\u00A9pervier au Sud; Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche). Les petits p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques (e.g., Clupeidae, principalement Sardinella longiceps), compl\u00C3\u00A8tement absents des d\u00C3\u00A9barquements d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9s, seraient \u00C3\u00A9galement concern\u00C3\u00A9s. Il n'y a cependant jamais eu de march\u00C3\u00A9 int\u00C3\u00A9rieur pour ces derniers, et \u00C3\u00A0 part leur utilisation comme app\u00C3\u00A2ts, leur p\u00C3\u00AAche est donc rest\u00C3\u00A9e faible (Bouhlel 1988 ; Hosch 2010 ; K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a).5 A cause du manque d'information flagrant sur ces captures non-d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es, nous avons repris donc l'allocation taxonomique utilis\u00C3\u00A9e pour la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e.Enfin, une exploitation r\u00C3\u00A9cente des holothuries est \u00C3\u00A9galement pr\u00C3\u00A9sente \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti (Hosch 2010). Ce ph\u00C3\u00A9nom\u00C3\u00A8ne est commun \u00C3\u00A0 de nombreux pays est-africains, en r\u00C3\u00A9ponse \u00C3\u00A0 une tr\u00C3\u00A8s forte demande du march\u00C3\u00A9 asiatique (Hosch 2010 ; Le Manach et al. 2011). Les donn\u00C3\u00A9es publi\u00C3\u00A9es par la FAO ne contiennent pas d'holothuries ; nous avons donc utilis\u00C3\u00A9 les donn\u00C3\u00A9es fournies par la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche (Tableau 1 ; p\u00C3\u00AAche non-rapport\u00C3\u00A9e).\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Rejets de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanaleLes rejets de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale ne semblent pas importants \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti, n'\u00C3\u00A9tant mentionn\u00C3\u00A9s dans aucune \u00C3\u00A9tude. Cependant, l'utilisation d'engins de p\u00C3\u00AAche tels que le filet maillant entra\u00C3\u00AEne souvent la capture d'esp\u00C3\u00A8ces accessoires ou de petite taille (Kelleher 2005 ; Anon. 2010), g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9ralement non d\u00C3\u00A9barqu\u00C3\u00A9es. Il semble en effet peu probable que les p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs gardent l'ensemble de ces captures comme app\u00C3\u00A2ts, et nous avons donc suppos\u00C3\u00A9 que ces captures (estim\u00C3\u00A9e de mani\u00C3\u00A8re tentative \u00C3\u00A0 1% de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale totale (rapport\u00C3\u00A9es + non-rapport\u00C3\u00A9e) sur l'ensemble de la p\u00C3\u00A9riode)6 \u00C3\u00A9taient rejet\u00C3\u00A9es. \u00C3\u0089tant donn\u00C3\u00A9 les faibles tonnages, nous avons simplement allou\u00C3\u00A9 ces rejets au groupe g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9rique 'poissons de fond'.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 La p\u00C3\u00AAche de subsistanceLa p\u00C3\u00AAche de subsistance a toujours \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 consid\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A9e comme \u00C3\u00A9tant faible, bien que pouvant \u00C3\u00AAtre importante \u00C3\u00A0 une \u00C3\u00A9chelle locale (Darar 1994 ; Morgan 2006 ; Hosch 2010). Elle a historiquement \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 pratiqu\u00C3\u00A9e par quelques p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs de Djibouti-ville et des autres r\u00C3\u00A9gions c\u00C3\u00B4ti\u00C3\u00A8res. Ces p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs op\u00C3\u00A8rent sur le plateau madr\u00C3\u00A9porique \u00C3\u00A0 l'aide de lignes \u00C3\u00A0 main ou de harpons, et ne poss\u00C3\u00A8dent g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9ralement pas de bateaux (Morgan 2006 ; Hosch 2010). Aucune estimation de l'ensemble de la p\u00C3\u00AAche de subsistance n'existe, mais ses caract\u00C3\u00A9ristiques se rapprochent d'un pays tel que la Mauritanie. En effet, \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti comme en Mauritanie, il n'y a \u00C3\u00A0 l'origine pas de tradition de p\u00C3\u00AAche, mais une tradition pastorale tourn\u00C3\u00A9e vers la terre. La p\u00C3\u00AAche de subsistance y a \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 estim\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A0 2% de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e (Belhabib et al. 2013), et il nous a sembl\u00C3\u00A9 r\u00C3\u00A9aliste d'appliquer une valeur similaire pour Djibouti sur l'ensemble de la p\u00C3\u00A9riode \u00C3\u00A9tudi\u00C3\u00A9e.7 Ne poss\u00C3\u00A9dant pas d'information quantitative, nous avons \u00C3\u00A9galement allou\u00C3\u00A9 ces captures de subsistance au groupe g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9rique 'poissons de fond'.5 Il y aurait eu quelques tentatives d'exportation \u00C3\u00A0 destination de l'Ethiopie, o\u00C3\u00B9 le march\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00A9tait plus ouvert (Morgan 2006). Morgan (2006) estimait \u00C3\u00A9galement que 10 \u00C3\u00A0 15% des d\u00C3\u00A9barquements \u00C3\u00A9taient des petits p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques (sources et/ou m\u00C3\u00A9thodes de calcul non pr\u00C3\u00A9cis\u00C3\u00A9es), ce qui semble grandement surestim\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00A9tant donn\u00C3\u00A9 les informations collect\u00C3\u00A9es sur l'ensemble de la p\u00C3\u00A9riode. 6 Cette proportion de rejets correspond \u00C3\u00A0 un taux de rejet moyen pour la petite p\u00C3\u00AAche c\u00C3\u00B4ti\u00C3\u00A8re des pays en voie de d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement (Kelleher 2005 ; Anon. 2010).7 La Somalie est \u00C3\u00A9galement un pays c\u00C3\u00B4tier \u00C3\u00A0 tradition pastoraliste, et beaucoup plus proche g\u00C3\u00A9ographiquement que la Mauritanie. Cependant, la m\u00C3\u00A9thode employ\u00C3\u00A9e par Persson et al. (ce volume) n'a pas pu \u00C3\u00AAtre appliqu\u00C3\u00A9e ici pour cause de manque de donn\u00C3\u00A9es concernant le nombre de bateaux.Tableau 1. Captures des diff\u00C3\u00A9rentes esp\u00C3\u00A8ces d'holothuries en t. Taxon 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Holothuria scabra 15,0 18,0 17,0 16,0 15,0 16,0 12,0 5,0 2,0H. fuscogilva 0,0 0,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,5 6,0 5,0 1,0H. nobilis 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,3 0,3 0,5 0,3 0,1 0,1Actinopyga palauensis 2,0 5,0 10,0 12,0 14,0 12,0 13,0 11,0 7,0H. atra 5,0 12,0 25,0 24,5 24,0 26,0 25,0 16,0 15,0Total 22,0 35,0 57,2 58,8 60,3 63,0 56,3 37,1 25,1 18\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 La p\u00C3\u00AAche r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9ativeLa p\u00C3\u00AAche r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9ative semble encore peu d\u00C3\u00A9velopp\u00C3\u00A9e et aucune \u00C3\u00A9tude concr\u00C3\u00A8te n'a encore \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 r\u00C3\u00A9alis\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A0 ce sujet. En 2008\u00E2\u0080\u009309, trois licences ont \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 octroy\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 des entreprises de p\u00C3\u00AAche sportive (Hosch 2010). Le syst\u00C3\u00A8me des licences fait \u00C3\u00A9galement \u00C3\u00A9tat de personnes poss\u00C3\u00A9dant une licence de p\u00C3\u00AAcheur non-commercial (i.e., p\u00C3\u00AAchant de mani\u00C3\u00A8re r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9ative principalement le week-end) au nombre de 60 en 2008 et 50 en 2009 (Hosch 2010). Enfin, il existe \u00C3\u00A9galement des clubs de p\u00C3\u00AAche au sein des bases militaires \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8res, comme l'ASAC P\u00C3\u00AAche de Djibouti pour l'arm\u00C3\u00A9e fran\u00C3\u00A7aise. Pour estimer les captures associ\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 ces trois types de p\u00C3\u00AAches r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9atives, nous avons proc\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9 de plusieurs mani\u00C3\u00A8res.Concernant la p\u00C3\u00AAche sportive et les entreprises touristiques associ\u00C3\u00A9es, nous avons pris contact avec la seule entreprise proposant des s\u00C3\u00A9jours de p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti pour les touristes \u00C3\u00A9trangers ('M\u00C3\u00A9moire d'un Fleuve' ; www.memoiredunfleuve.com). Cette entreprise a commenc\u00C3\u00A9 son activit\u00C3\u00A9 en 2001 et est active 20 semaines par an d'avril \u00C3\u00A0 fin juin, puis d'octobre \u00C3\u00A0 d\u00C3\u00A9but novembre. La pratique de p\u00C3\u00AAche est le no kill, c'est-\u00C3\u00A0-dire qu'il y a remise \u00C3\u00A0 l'eau syst\u00C3\u00A9matique des individus p\u00C3\u00AAch\u00C3\u00A9s. Cependant, le responsable nous a indiqu\u00C3\u00A9 que les guides sur place gardaient g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9ralement un ou deux gros Scomberomorus commerson (thazards ray\u00C3\u00A9s) p\u00C3\u00AAch\u00C3\u00A9s chaque semaine, soit environ 25 kg. Nous avons donc estim\u00C3\u00A9 que ce type de p\u00C3\u00AAche r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9ative capturait 0,5 t de thazard par an (20 x 25 = 500 kg) depuis 2001. Il existe \u00C3\u00A9galement des h\u00C3\u00B4tels, structures de vacances qui proposent des activit\u00C3\u00A9s p\u00C3\u00AAche, mais nous ne poss\u00C3\u00A9dions aucun renseignement pr\u00C3\u00A9cis sur ces acteurs. Nous avons donc consid\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A9 que les 500 kg de thazards p\u00C3\u00AAch\u00C3\u00A9s annuellement repr\u00C3\u00A9sentaient la moiti\u00C3\u00A9 des captures de 'M\u00C3\u00A9moire d'un Fleuve' (l'autre moiti\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00A9tant allou\u00C3\u00A9e au groupe g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9rique 'poissons p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques'), et que les autres sources de p\u00C3\u00AAche r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9ative repr\u00C3\u00A9sentait deux fois ces captures (toutes attribu\u00C3\u00A9es au groupe 'poissons p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques').Concernant les p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9atifs locaux pratiquant la p\u00C3\u00AAche le week-end, cette p\u00C3\u00AAche est ancienne de par la pr\u00C3\u00A9sence fran\u00C3\u00A7aise pr\u00C3\u00A9- et post-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance, et sa pratique est concentr\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti. El Gharbi (1987) mentionnait 612 p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs 'amateurs' autoris\u00C3\u00A9s \u00C3\u00A0 p\u00C3\u00AAcher en 1987. Cependant, ces chiffrens semblent \u00C3\u00AAtre tr\u00C3\u00A8s sur-estim\u00C3\u00A9s, \u00C3\u00A9tant donn\u00C3\u00A9 que la distinction entre p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9atifs et p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs artisans est difficile \u00C3\u00A0 faire \u00C3\u00A0 cause du faible co\u00C3\u00BBt de l'autorisation et la pratique de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale \u00C3\u00A0 mi-temps. En 2008, nous avons donc consid\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A9 qu'il y avait 55 p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9atifs en 2010, suivant les chiffres propos\u00C3\u00A9s par la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche (60 p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs en 2008 et 50 en 2009). Nous avons ensuite estim\u00C3\u00A9 le nombre de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9atifs annuels au pro rata du nombre d'habitants \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti-ville (Guillaume 1979 ; R\u00C3\u00A9publique de Djibouti).8 Finalement, nous avons consid\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A9 que ces p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs capturaient cinq kilos de 'poissons p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques' par sortie, 24 fois par an (i.e., deux week-ends par mois), soit 120 kg\u00C2\u00B7p\u00C3\u00AAcheur-1\u00C2\u00B7ann\u00C3\u00A9e-1. Enfin, concernant les clubs de p\u00C3\u00AAche au sein des arm\u00C3\u00A9es, comme le club ASAC de l'arm\u00C3\u00A9e fran\u00C3\u00A7aise enregistr\u00C3\u00A9 aupr\u00C3\u00A8s des Clubs Sportifs et Artistiques de la D\u00C3\u00A9fense (CSAD).9 Ces p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs pratiquent \u00C3\u00A9galement majoritairement la remise \u00C3\u00A0 l'eau, mais les guides locaux gardent une partie des poissons lors des sorties. Ainsi, en 2010, 20% des captures d'un voyage de p\u00C3\u00AAche sont all\u00C3\u00A9es aux guides (www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAjsjWg6o7o), soit 0,5 t de 'poissons p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques' (V. Cressy, comm. pers.). Nous avons donc inclus les clubs de p\u00C3\u00AAche des arm\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8res dans notre reconstruction en estimant la capture \u00C3\u00A0 0,5 t par an depuis 2000, n'ayant pas plus de d\u00C3\u00A9tails sur les effectifs historiques de l'ensemble des clubs et les pratiques associ\u00C3\u00A9es. Reconstruction des captures djiboutiennes \u00C3\u00A0 l'ext\u00C3\u00A9rieur de la ZEE nationaleLes captures djiboutiennes \u00C3\u00A0 l'ext\u00C3\u00A9rieur de la ZEE nationale sont suppos\u00C3\u00A9es assez rares, \u00C3\u00A9tant donn\u00C3\u00A9 le bon \u00C3\u00A9tat des stocks et la petite \u00C3\u00A9chelle des activit\u00C3\u00A9s (Hosch 2010). Cependant, au d\u00C3\u00A9but des ann\u00C3\u00A9es 80, certains p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs \u00C3\u00A9taient connus pour fr\u00C3\u00A9quenter les eaux somaliennes. El Gharbi (1987) estimait que 42% des captures d\u00C3\u00A9barqu\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 l'ACPM en 1986 provenaient de Somalie, soit 30,1% des captures totales de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e. En 1987, une interdiction de l'acc\u00C3\u00A8s aux zones somaliennes a \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 prononc\u00C3\u00A9e et a possiblement stopp\u00C3\u00A9 le ph\u00C3\u00A9nom\u00C3\u00A8ne (El Gharbi 1987) pour quelques temps. Pendant le conflit des ann\u00C3\u00A9es 90, les activit\u00C3\u00A9s de p\u00C3\u00AAche se sont cependant concentr\u00C3\u00A9es dans le sud du pays, engendrant une nouvelle expansion des activit\u00C3\u00A9s dans la ZEE somalienne (K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a). Enfin, une p\u00C3\u00AAche dans les eaux somaliennes est pratiqu\u00C3\u00A9e depuis 2008 par trois boutres (>16 m) poss\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9es par l'entreprise 'Red Sea Fishing' (RSF). Ces trois boutres ciblent les d\u00C3\u00A9mersaux nobles avec des nasses et parfois les crevettes au chalut. Ces techniques sont tr\u00C3\u00A8s diff\u00C3\u00A9rentes de celles pratiqu\u00C3\u00A9es par les autres p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs djiboutiens (Hosch 2010). Les informations fournies par la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche et l'entreprise RSF font \u00C3\u00A9tat de 50% des captures de RSF provenant de Somalie pour l'ann\u00C3\u00A9e 2010, avec une r\u00C3\u00A9partition par esp\u00C3\u00A8ce similaire au reste des d\u00C3\u00A9barquements. En 2010, RSF repr\u00C3\u00A9sentait 9,12% des captures nationales d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es. Il existe \u00C3\u00A9galement un armateur priv\u00C3\u00A9, 'P\u00C3\u00AAcherie de Loyada', qui op\u00C3\u00A8re quelques bateaux p\u00C3\u00AAchant presque uniquement dans les eaux somaliennes et d\u00C3\u00A9barquant \u00C3\u00A0 la fronti\u00C3\u00A8re.A partir des donn\u00C3\u00A9es pr\u00C3\u00A9sent\u00C3\u00A9es ci-dessus, nous avons estim\u00C3\u00A9 les captures faites hors de la ZEE djiboutienne en construisant une s\u00C3\u00A9rie temporelle des captures artisanales provenant des eaux somaliennes (seul pays mentionn\u00C3\u00A9 pour ces pratiques) \u00C3\u00A0 partir des donn\u00C3\u00A9es de p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es dans les eaux djiboutiennes. Pour la p\u00C3\u00A9riode pr\u00C3\u00A9-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance, nous avons consid\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A9 que la p\u00C3\u00AAche dans les eaux somaliennes \u00C3\u00A9tait nulle \u00C3\u00A0 cause des faibles moyens techniques et du bon \u00C3\u00A9tat des ressources halieutiques. Le pourcentage a ensuite augment\u00C3\u00A9 lin\u00C3\u00A9airement \u00C3\u00A0 partir de 1980 pour atteindre 30,1% en 1986 suite au d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale et un accroissement de la fr\u00C3\u00A9quentation de ces zones. Nous avons ensuite estim\u00C3\u00A9 que cette valeur a \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 nulle entre 1987 et 2007 suite \u00C3\u00A0 8 Ces deux publications nous ont permis de recr\u00C3\u00A9er une s\u00C3\u00A9rie temporelle du nombre d'habitants \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti-ville. Une interpolation lin\u00C3\u00A9aire a \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 faite entre les diff\u00C3\u00A9rents points d'ancrage.9 Ce groupe existe depuis une dizaine d'ann\u00C3\u00A9e et compte entre 10 et 25 membres selon les ann\u00C3\u00A9es (Vincent Cressy, ex-tr\u00C3\u00A9sorier ASAC, comm. pers.).Fisheries catch reconstruction for Djibouti \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter et al. 19l'interdiction de fr\u00C3\u00A9quenter les eaux somaliennes, sauf entre 1992 et 1994, o\u00C3\u00B9 elle a \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00A9gale \u00C3\u00A0 la moiti\u00C3\u00A9 de la valeur de 1986 (15,05%). En effet, il nous a sembl\u00C3\u00A9 raisonnable de consid\u00C3\u00A9rer une valeur moiti\u00C3\u00A9 moins importante afin de refl\u00C3\u00A9ter l'impact du conflit sur l'\u00C3\u00A9talement des zones de p\u00C3\u00AAche. Enfin, pour les ann\u00C3\u00A9es 2008\u00E2\u0080\u009310, nous avons estim\u00C3\u00A9 que le pourcentage des captures hors Djibouti \u00C3\u00A9tait \u00C3\u00A9gal \u00C3\u00A0 la moiti\u00C3\u00A9 du ratio des captures artisanales d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es par RSF, soit 4,56%. La r\u00C3\u00A9partition des captures par famille/esp\u00C3\u00A8ce pour ces captures est la m\u00C3\u00AAme que pour la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e dans les eaux djiboutiennes.Reconstruction des captures \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8res dans la ZEE djiboutienneLa p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8re dans les eaux djiboutiennes est une activit\u00C3\u00A9 non prise en compte dans les captures totales. Ceci est pr\u00C3\u00A9judiciable, car il appara\u00C3\u00AEt que ce ph\u00C3\u00A9nom\u00C3\u00A8ne est tr\u00C3\u00A8s important et ancien (Morgan 2006). Des bateaux \u00C3\u00A9trangers (principalement originaires du Y\u00C3\u00A9men, mais aussi de Somalie) y ont p\u00C3\u00AAch\u00C3\u00A9 depuis les ann\u00C3\u00A9es 50, notamment le long de la c\u00C3\u00B4t\u00C3\u00A9 Nord, o\u00C3\u00B9 les p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nites \"hantaient la c\u00C3\u00B4te Nord [\u00E2\u0080\u00A6] aux termes d'accords de p\u00C3\u00A9age myst\u00C3\u00A9rieux\" (Pujo 1967). Ces p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs sont mentionn\u00C3\u00A9s dans de nombreux travaux (e.g., Allain 1974 ; K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a ; Morgan 2006), et ont constitu\u00C3\u00A9 une concurrence mieux organis\u00C3\u00A9e, d\u00C3\u00A9barquant parfois \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti et submergeant ainsi le march\u00C3\u00A9 local (Clouet 1970). Apr\u00C3\u00A8s l'ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance, ces pratiques ont continu\u00C3\u00A9, les capacit\u00C3\u00A9s de contr\u00C3\u00B4le en mer restant limit\u00C3\u00A9es (Morgan 2006). A ce jour, des centaines d'embarcations g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9ralement bien plus importantes que celles utilis\u00C3\u00A9es par les djiboutiens continuent d'y prendre part, avec des captures repr\u00C3\u00A9sentant entre 30\u00E2\u0080\u009335% (Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche, donn\u00C3\u00A9es non publi\u00C3\u00A9es) et 50% (Hosch 2010) des captures totales officielles (majoritairement y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nites). Nous avons donc estim\u00C3\u00A9 une p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8re repr\u00C3\u00A9sentant 42,5% des captures totales de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e sur toute la p\u00C3\u00A9riode. Les flottilles djiboutiennes et \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8res n'ayant pas connu la m\u00C3\u00AAme vitesse de d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, nous avons utilis\u00C3\u00A9 les donn\u00C3\u00A9es de d\u00C3\u00A9barquements de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale somalienne (Persson et al., ce volume) et y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nite (Tesfamichael et al., 2012) afin d'ajuster l'allocation des captures \u00C3\u00A0 ces deux pays pour l'ensemble de la p\u00C3\u00A9riode \u00C3\u00A9tudi\u00C3\u00A9e. Nous avons consid\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A9 une p\u00C3\u00AAche y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nite repr\u00C3\u00A9sentant 35% sur les 42,5% cit\u00C3\u00A9s plus haut pour l'ann\u00C3\u00A9e 2010, et estim\u00C3\u00A9 les autres ann\u00C3\u00A9es au pro rata de l'\u00C3\u00A9volution des d\u00C3\u00A9barquements artisanaux calcul\u00C3\u00A9s par Tesfamichael et al. (2012) et Persson et al., (ce volume; au final, ces proportions ont vari\u00C3\u00A9 de 28,8 \u00C3\u00A0 39,3% de p\u00C3\u00AAche somalienne, et le reste de p\u00C3\u00AAche y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nite). Bien qu'il existe quelques informations sur les esp\u00C3\u00A8ces cibl\u00C3\u00A9s,10 nous avons gard\u00C3\u00A9 ici encore la composition taxonomique de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale.r\u00C3\u00A9sultats et disCussionReconstruction des captures domestiques dans la ZEE nationalePour la p\u00C3\u00A9riode pr\u00C3\u00A9-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance, les captures reconstruites sont bien plus faibles que celles publi\u00C3\u00A9es par la FAO.11 Ces donn\u00C3\u00A9es reconstruites offrent une lecture plus juste de l'\u00C3\u00A9volution r\u00C3\u00A9elle des p\u00C3\u00AAches \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti, avec une augmentation d'environ 130 \u00C3\u00A0 pr\u00C3\u00A8s de 300 t entre 1950 et 1978, li\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A0 l'augmentation 10 Par exemple, concernant le Y\u00C3\u00A9men, les sardinelles \u00C3\u00A9taient historiquement cibl\u00C3\u00A9es dans le Nord de Djibouti par ces op\u00C3\u00A9rations (Clouet 1970 ; Allain 1974). Les requins ont \u00C3\u00A9galement \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 historiquement cibl\u00C3\u00A9s, notamment par la tribu Hakim\u00C3\u00A9 durant des campagnes de un ou deux mois (Clouet 1970). Il semblerait que les populations de requins soient maintenant sur-exploit\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 cause de cette p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8re, qui s'est par ailleurs intensifi\u00C3\u00A9e (K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a). Ces op\u00C3\u00A9rations de p\u00C3\u00AAche cibleraient \u00C3\u00A9galement de nombreuses autres esp\u00C3\u00A8ces d\u00C3\u00A9mersales et p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques (Darar et Hosch 2010).11 Les donn\u00C3\u00A9es publi\u00C3\u00A9es par la FAO (d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es par la France) restent inexpliqu\u00C3\u00A9es, nous n\u00E2\u0080\u0099avons pu en trouver ni la source, ni des explications associ\u00C3\u00A9es. - 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 Subsistance et r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9ative Artisanale Captures rapport\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 la FAOAutresScombridae Sphyraena Lethrinidae Carangidae Scomberomorus spp. Lutjanidae - 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 Captures totales (milliers de t)Ann\u00C3\u00A9e1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 ABSerranidaeFigure 2. Captures djiboutiennes de 1950 \u00C3\u00A0 2010 dans la ZEE nationale, A) par secteurs et compar\u00C3\u00A9es aux donn\u00C3\u00A9es d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 la FAO, et B) par taxons p\u00C3\u00AAch\u00C3\u00A9s. Voir Tableau Annexe A1 et Tableau Annexe A2 pour plus de d\u00C3\u00A9tails. 20du nombre de p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs (Figure 2). Pour la p\u00C3\u00A9riode 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931967, l'hypoth\u00C3\u00A8se forte d'une CPUE constante mais plus faible que pour les ann\u00C3\u00A9es suivantes est justifi\u00C3\u00A9e par le progr\u00C3\u00A8s technique substantiel entre les deux p\u00C3\u00A9riodes (e.g., am\u00C3\u00A9lioration des bateaux, d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement du monofilament) et une dynamique plus active de la fili\u00C3\u00A8re (El Gharbi 1987 ; K\u00C3\u00BCnzel et al. 1996a). La reconstruction de la p\u00C3\u00A9riode post-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance a \u00C3\u00A9galement permis de mieux comprendre les donn\u00C3\u00A9es FAO et de mieux refl\u00C3\u00A9ter l'\u00C3\u00A9volution des p\u00C3\u00AAches \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti. Les donn\u00C3\u00A9es FAO \u00C3\u00A9taient diff\u00C3\u00A9rentes de celles de la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche jusqu'en 2005, ann\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A0 partir de laquelle plus aucune correction n'a \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 appliqu\u00C3\u00A9e. Les corrections appliqu\u00C3\u00A9es entre 1983 et 1991 (i.e., 70% des captures d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9es ; FAO 1991) ne correspondaient pas \u00C3\u00A0 70% des donn\u00C3\u00A9es que la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche nous a transmises.12 Les donn\u00C3\u00A9es reconstruites permettent de visualiser les diff\u00C3\u00A9rentes phases de l'\u00C3\u00A9volution de la p\u00C3\u00AAche post-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance (Figure 2). Les captures ont rapidement augment\u00C3\u00A9 jusqu'\u00C3\u00A0 plus de 1 000 t \u00C3\u00A0 la fin des ann\u00C3\u00A9es 80, ce qui a marqu\u00C3\u00A9 le d\u00C3\u00A9but d'un engagement r\u00C3\u00A9el des pouvoirs publics en faveur du d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale avec une am\u00C3\u00A9lioration de la qualit\u00C3\u00A9 de l'intervention et de l'appui des pouvoirs publics. Les captures ont ensuite diminu\u00C3\u00A9 jusqu'en 1995, ce qui s'explique par les difficult\u00C3\u00A9s financi\u00C3\u00A8res des g\u00C3\u00A9rants de la P\u00C3\u00AAcherie de Boulaos, mais aussi la guerre civile au Nord du pays de 1992 \u00C3\u00A0 1994. Elles ont ensuite augment\u00C3\u00A9 de nouveau jusqu'en 2004 pour atteindre plus de 2 000 t. Durant cette p\u00C3\u00A9riode, les activit\u00C3\u00A9s de p\u00C3\u00AAche se sont re-d\u00C3\u00A9velopp\u00C3\u00A9es et les infrastructures de d\u00C3\u00A9barquement de la P\u00C3\u00AAcherie de Boulaos ont \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 reprises par un op\u00C3\u00A9rateur priv\u00C3\u00A9. Apr\u00C3\u00A8s une nouvelle baisse, ce niveau a de nouveau \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 atteint en 2010. Cette derni\u00C3\u00A8re p\u00C3\u00A9riode a \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 caract\u00C3\u00A9ris\u00C3\u00A9e par (i) l'ouverture des infrastructures de d\u00C3\u00A9barquement du port de p\u00C3\u00AAche de Djibouti-ville, financ\u00C3\u00A9e par la Banque Africaine de D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement (BAD), (ii) la r\u00C3\u00A9habilitation des sites de d\u00C3\u00A9barquement d'Obock et de Tadjourah par la Coop\u00C3\u00A9ration fran\u00C3\u00A7aise, et (iii) l'arriv\u00C3\u00A9e de nouveaux op\u00C3\u00A9rateurs priv\u00C3\u00A9s. Cette volont\u00C3\u00A9 de d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement s'est surtout traduite par la concentration des moyens concernant le port de p\u00C3\u00AAche de Djibouti-ville, plus facile \u00C3\u00A0 contr\u00C3\u00B4ler. Au final, les captures de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale ont \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 d\u00C3\u00A9multipli\u00C3\u00A9es entre 1950 et 2010, sans aucune p\u00C3\u00AAche industrielle. Le d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti a donc exclusivement focalis\u00C3\u00A9 sur les p\u00C3\u00AAcheries artisanales, soutenu par une volont\u00C3\u00A9 gouvernementale en plusieurs phases au cours des soixante derni\u00C3\u00A8res ann\u00C3\u00A9es.Nous avons \u00C3\u00A9galement compl\u00C3\u00A8tement am\u00C3\u00A9lior\u00C3\u00A9 la composition taxonomique de ces captures (Figure 2B). Cette nouvelle allocation repose sur les taxons d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9s \u00C3\u00A0 la FAO dans le courant des ann\u00C3\u00A9es 80 et met en \u00C3\u00A9vidence l'importance des Serranidae (17%), des Lutjanidae (15%), des Scomberomorus spp. (13%), des Carangidae (11%) et des Lethrinidae (9%). \u00C3\u0089tant donn\u00C3\u00A9 le peu d'informations disponibles sur cette composition taxonomique, celle-ci nous para\u00C3\u00AEt \u00C3\u00AAtre une am\u00C3\u00A9lioration substantielle par rapport aux donn\u00C3\u00A9es publi\u00C3\u00A9es par la FAO, en ce qui concerne la p\u00C3\u00A9riode pr\u00C3\u00A9-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance. Un travail de reconstruction plus pouss\u00C3\u00A9 pourrait cependant \u00C3\u00AAtre envisag\u00C3\u00A9 afin de refl\u00C3\u00A9ter les changements temporels qui ont eu lieu au niveau des esp\u00C3\u00A8ces p\u00C3\u00AAch\u00C3\u00A9es.Notre reconstruction met \u00C3\u00A9galement en avant une part importante non d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e des captures djiboutiennes. Ceci est d'autant plus vrai dans le contexte de faiblesse de moyens du service de la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche et l'absence d'enqu\u00C3\u00AAte sur la consommation de poisson \u00C3\u00A0 mettre en regard avec les donn\u00C3\u00A9es de production. Il est ainsi difficile de faire des recoupements d'informations, et il existe toujours par exemple des circuits de vente directe aux restaurateurs par des personnes pour qui la p\u00C3\u00AAche est une activit\u00C3\u00A9 partielle. Pour la p\u00C3\u00A9riode pr\u00C3\u00A9-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance, ce ph\u00C3\u00A9nom\u00C3\u00A8ne \u00C3\u00A9tait d\u00C3\u00BB majoritairement \u00C3\u00A0 une fili\u00C3\u00A8re encore peu d\u00C3\u00A9velopp\u00C3\u00A9e et une commercialisation par des circuits non contr\u00C3\u00B4l\u00C3\u00A9s. Plus r\u00C3\u00A9cemment, ce ph\u00C3\u00A9nom\u00C3\u00A8ne a principalement \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 d\u00C3\u00BB aux d\u00C3\u00A9barquements faits par les p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs djiboutiens de la c\u00C3\u00B4te Nord au Y\u00C3\u00A9men o\u00C3\u00B9 les avantages \u00C3\u00A9conomiques sont nombreux (Hosch 2010). L'ensemble de ces hypoth\u00C3\u00A8ses montre l'importance d'am\u00C3\u00A9liorer les moyens de suivi et contr\u00C3\u00B4le de la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche afin de mieux conna\u00C3\u00AEtre l'importance de ces captures et leur composition sp\u00C3\u00A9cifique. M\u00C3\u00AAme si les secteurs de subsistance et de p\u00C3\u00AAche r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9ative sont marginaux en terme de tonnages, ce constat s'y applique \u00C3\u00A9galement. Ceci met en avant la n\u00C3\u00A9cessit\u00C3\u00A9 d'augmenter aujourd'hui les moyens allou\u00C3\u00A9s \u00C3\u00A0 la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche afin de mieux contr\u00C3\u00B4ler et \u00C3\u00A9valuer ces pratiques encore tr\u00C3\u00A8s peu \u00C3\u00A9tudi\u00C3\u00A9es. De plus, plusieurs indices peuvent indiquer la surexploitation de certains stocks (d\u00C3\u00A9taill\u00C3\u00A9s plus bas). Il semble donc n\u00C3\u00A9cessaire de mettre en place un processus de r\u00C3\u00A9colte de donn\u00C3\u00A9es exhaustif quant aux diff\u00C3\u00A9rents secteurs contribuant aux captures dans les eaux djiboutiennes. Ceci est n\u00C3\u00A9cessaire afin de pouvoir r\u00C3\u00A9aliser des diagnostics et avis scientifiques fiables pour une exploitation durable des ressources.Reconstruction des captures djiboutiennes en dehors de la ZEE domestique, et p\u00C3\u00AAches \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8resNotre estimation des captures hors ZEE repose sur des hypoth\u00C3\u00A8ses fortes qu'il conviendrait de pr\u00C3\u00A9ciser par l'inclusion de nouvelles donn\u00C3\u00A9es et une analyse d\u00C3\u00A9taill\u00C3\u00A9e de ce ph\u00C3\u00A9nom\u00C3\u00A8ne. Cette s\u00C3\u00A9rie temporelle repr\u00C3\u00A9sente une premi\u00C3\u00A8re approche caricaturale du ph\u00C3\u00A9nom\u00C3\u00A8ne d\u00C3\u00A9crit (Figure 3), et nous avons utilis\u00C3\u00A9 les seules mentions faites d'une p\u00C3\u00AAche djiboutienne op\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A9e en dehors de la ZEE sur l'ensemble de la p\u00C3\u00A9riode. A l'heure actuelle, les seules op\u00C3\u00A9rations recens\u00C3\u00A9es concernent l'entreprise priv\u00C3\u00A9e RSF qui pratique des techniques diff\u00C3\u00A9rentes (i.e., nasses, et chalut interdit dans la ZEE djiboutienne) et ceux sans accord particulier sign\u00C3\u00A9 avec la Somalie. Nous avons suppos\u00C3\u00A9 que la r\u00C3\u00A9partition par famille/esp\u00C3\u00A8ce \u00C3\u00A9tait la m\u00C3\u00AAme que la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e effectu\u00C3\u00A9e dans la ZEE djiboutienne, mais ceci reste \u00C3\u00A0 consolider. Il conviendrait de mieux encadrer et estimer ces pratiques aujourd'hui assez faibles afin de pouvoir \u00C3\u00A9tablir des diagnostics justes, et peut-\u00C3\u00AAtre mettre en place des accords pr\u00C3\u00A9cis avec la Somalie qui p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A9galement dans les eaux djiboutiennes. Ces captures somaliennes mais surtout y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nites dans la ZEE djiboutienne \u00C3\u00A9quivalent \u00C3\u00A0 des captures consid\u00C3\u00A9rables, puisqu'elles ont atteint plus de 1 500 t en 2010 (Figure 3). Bien que nous ayons gard\u00C3\u00A9 un ratio p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8re:p\u00C3\u00AAche domestique constant au cours du temps, il est cependant possible que ce ratio ait \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 plus important pendant la p\u00C3\u00A9riode pr\u00C3\u00A9-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance \u00C3\u00A0 cause du faible d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAche djiboutienne en 12 De 1983 \u00C3\u00A0 1985, les donn\u00C3\u00A9es FAO correspondaient \u00C3\u00A0 70% des seules captures de l'ACPM, puis \u00C3\u00A0 100% en 1986 (El Gharbi 1987). Enfin, les corrections appliqu\u00C3\u00A9es entre 1992 et 2004 n'\u00C3\u00A9taient, \u00C3\u00A0 notre connaissance, expliqu\u00C3\u00A9es nulle part.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Djibouti \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter et al. 21comparaison de celle en provenance de la Somalie et du Y\u00C3\u00A9men. Cette p\u00C3\u00AAche est majoritairement pratiqu\u00C3\u00A9e par les Y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nites dont la pr\u00C3\u00A9sence est attest\u00C3\u00A9e depuis longtemps (Clouet 1970 ; Hosch 2010 ; Morgan 2006). Les capacit\u00C3\u00A9s de patrouille en mer \u00C3\u00A9tant limit\u00C3\u00A9es et les fonds riches, il est logique qu'une telle activit\u00C3\u00A9 soit apparue de par l'importance de la flotte y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nite sur la p\u00C3\u00A9riode 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 et leur tradition de p\u00C3\u00AAche. La limite entre op\u00C3\u00A9rations djiboutiennes et \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8res dans la ZEE est cependant parfois floue. En effet, la pr\u00C3\u00A9sence y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nite ancienne se traduit aujourd'hui par des contournements, comme celui de l'obligation d'\u00C3\u00AAtre citoyen djiboutien pour obtenir une licence. Il existe apparemment des p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nites en possession d'une licence djiboutienne (et d'un bateau immatricul\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti) leur permettant de p\u00C3\u00AAcher dans la ZEE, ces captures n'\u00C3\u00A9tant ensuite pas d\u00C3\u00A9barqu\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti. Toutes sortes d'op\u00C3\u00A9rations de ce genre ont \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 report\u00C3\u00A9es. Dans cette \u00C3\u00A9tude, nous nous sommes bas\u00C3\u00A9s exclusivement sur le pavillon et la zone, mais il faut garder \u00C3\u00A0 l'esprit que cela occulte une s\u00C3\u00A9rie de comportements difficiles \u00C3\u00A0 cat\u00C3\u00A9goriser. Par manque d'information, nous avons utilis\u00C3\u00A9 la composition taxonomique des captures djiboutiennes. Il existe cependant quelques informations laissant penser que les captures y\u00C3\u00A9m\u00C3\u00A9nites laissent une plus grande part aux requins (e.g., Carcharhinus brevipinna et autres Carcharhinidae) qui sont pr\u00C3\u00A9f\u00C3\u00A9rentiellement cibl\u00C3\u00A9s, ainsi qu'aux petits p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques dont la consommation est plus r\u00C3\u00A9pandue au Y\u00C3\u00A9men (Abbes 1985 ; Clouet 1970 ; Hosch 2010). Devant l'importance de ce secteur et les captures illicites engendr\u00C3\u00A9es, il conviendrait de mieux contr\u00C3\u00B4ler ces op\u00C3\u00A9rations afin d'en conna\u00C3\u00AEtre l'\u00C3\u00A9tendu et ainsi garantir une gestion durable de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale djiboutienne. Plusieurs \u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9ments semblent en effet indiquer la surexploitation de certains stocks : les ressources en holothuries auraient d\u00C3\u00A9j\u00C3\u00A0 \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 exploit\u00C3\u00A9es jusqu'\u00C3\u00A0 \u00C3\u00A9puisement commercial, et les p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs notent que certaines strates bathym\u00C3\u00A9triques sont surexploit\u00C3\u00A9es (les vivaneaux et les m\u00C3\u00A9rous se seraient apparemment rar\u00C3\u00A9fi\u00C3\u00A9s entre 30 et 50 m), ou que les migrations saisonni\u00C3\u00A8res des grands p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques se font plus irr\u00C3\u00A9guli\u00C3\u00A8rement et moins fortement qu'avant (Hosch 2010). De plus, les p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs se plaignent d'une abondance accrue de dauphins responsables d'une d\u00C3\u00A9pr\u00C3\u00A9dation importante de leurs prises, ph\u00C3\u00A9nom\u00C3\u00A8ne pouvant \u00C3\u00AAtre li\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00A0 l'exploitation intense des requins dans la ZEE djiboutienne (Hosch 2010). Nous avons estim\u00C3\u00A9 que la capture totale de requins dans la ZEE djiboutienne s'\u00C3\u00A9levait \u00C3\u00A0 environ 116 t en 2010, ce qui est sup\u00C3\u00A9rieur au potentiel estim\u00C3\u00A9 de capture de 70 t par ann\u00C3\u00A9e (Darar 1994).ConClusionCette \u00C3\u00A9tude nous a permis de reconstruire l'ensemble des captures par la p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti de 1950 \u00C3\u00A0 2010. Nous avons ainsi pu mieux comprendre, r\u00C3\u00A9viser et compl\u00C3\u00A9ter les donn\u00C3\u00A9es de la s\u00C3\u00A9rie FAO. Les donn\u00C3\u00A9es reconstruites comprennent notamment l'\u00C3\u00A9volution de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale djiboutienne : la capture est rest\u00C3\u00A9e tr\u00C3\u00A8s limit\u00C3\u00A9e durant la p\u00C3\u00A9riode pr\u00C3\u00A9-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance avec l'ancrage d'une tradition pastorale dans les coutumes. La p\u00C3\u00A9riode post-ind\u00C3\u00A9pendance a ensuite vu le d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement d'une flottille artisanale professionnelle de par la volont\u00C3\u00A9 des pouvoirs publics. De plus, la prise en compte de plusieurs secteurs tels que la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale non-d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e, la p\u00C3\u00AAche r\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9ative, et la p\u00C3\u00AAche de subsistance affine le diagnostic sur l'\u00C3\u00A9volution du secteur de la p\u00C3\u00AAche. Il existe aujourd'hui peu de donn\u00C3\u00A9es et d'enqu\u00C3\u00AAtes pr\u00C3\u00A9cises sur ces secteurs qui, bien qu'ayant des tonnages faibles, peuvent avoir un impact substantiel sur les ressources. Il semble donc essentiel d'augmenter les moyens allou\u00C3\u00A9s \u00C3\u00A0 la Direction de la P\u00C3\u00AAche pour l'encadrement et le contr\u00C3\u00B4le des diff\u00C3\u00A9rentes activit\u00C3\u00A9s de p\u00C3\u00AAche afin d'obtenir de meilleures estimations, et ainsi garantir une exploitation durable des ressources. L'ajout des captures ill\u00C3\u00A9gales op\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00A9es par des p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs \u00C3\u00A9trangers ill\u00C3\u00A9gaux (du Y\u00C3\u00A9men majoritairement) renforce ce diagnostic puisqu'ils pr\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A8vent sans contr\u00C3\u00B4le et de mani\u00C3\u00A8re importante des ressources halieutiques. Au final, il semble aujourd'hui n\u00C3\u00A9cessaire d'\u00C3\u00A9tablir des diagnostics plus pr\u00C3\u00A9cis de l'impact de la p\u00C3\u00AAche sur les stocks cibl\u00C3\u00A9s. En effet, plusieurs \u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9ments pourraient indiquer une surexploitation de certains stocks cibl\u00C3\u00A9s, ce qui pourrait avoir des r\u00C3\u00A9percussions n\u00C3\u00A9fastes sur les \u00C3\u00A9cosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes marins djiboutiens.remerCiementsCette \u00C3\u00A9tude a \u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 r\u00C3\u00A9alis\u00C3\u00A9e dans le cadre du projet Sea Around Us, une collaboration entre l'Universit\u00C3\u00A9 de Colombie Britannique et le Pew Charitable Trusts. MC, FLM et DP remercient \u00C3\u00A9galement la Paul G. Allen Family Foundation pour son soutien financier.Captures djiboutiennesen dehors de la ZEE - 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 Captures totales (milliers de t)Ann\u00C3\u00A9e1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 SomalieY\u00C3\u00A9menFigure 3. Captures \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8res dans la ZEE djiboutienne et captures djiboutiennes \u00C3\u00A0 l'ext\u00C3\u00A9rieur de la ZEE nationale, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.(voir Tableau Annexe A1 pour d\u00C3\u00A9tails). 22r\u00C3\u00A9F\u00C3\u00A9renCesAbbes R (1985) Bilan des connaissances acquises sur la faune et la flore sous-marines de la r\u00C3\u00A9gion de Djibouti. Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Nantes (France). 6 + xxxiv p.Allain C (1974) Mission d'information sur le d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAche dans le Territoire des Afars et des Issas \u00E2\u0080\u0094 du 10 au 15 avril 1974. Office Scientifique et Technique des P\u00C3\u00AAches Maritimes (ISTPM), Nantes (France). i + 8 p.Anon. (2010) The hidden harvests \u00E2\u0080\u0094 The global contribution of capture fisheries. Agriculture and Rural Development Department, Sustainable Development Network. Prepared by The World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the WorldFish Center, Washington, DC (USA). 99 p.Anon. (2011) Pour un plan strat\u00C3\u00A9gique de recherche sur les ressources et l'environnement marins \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Compte-rendu de l'atelier sur les ressources et l'environnement marins. Universit\u00C3\u00A9 de Djibouti, Facult\u00C3\u00A9 des Sciences, Djibouti. 17 p.Augustin P (1971) Quelques d\u00C3\u00A9nombrements de la population du Territoire fran\u00C3\u00A7ais des Afars et des Issas (suite). POUNT (Bulletin de la Soci\u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 d'Etudes de l'Afrique Orientale) 4\u00C3\u00A8me Ann\u00C3\u00A9e(14): 15\u00E2\u0080\u009338.Belhabib D, Gascuel D, Kane EA, Harper S et Zeller D (2013) Preliminary estimation of realistic fisheries removals from Mauritania, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. pp. 63\u00E2\u0080\u009380, Dans: Belhabib D, Zeller D, Harper S and Pauly D (\u00C3\u00A9ds.), Marine fisheries catches in West Africa, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (3). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).Bjoerklund I et Walter-Dehnert G (1983) Baseline socio-economic and marketing study of artisanal fisheries in the Republic of Djibouti. Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'Alimentation et l'Agriculture (FAO), Rome (Italie) 80 p.Bouhlel M (1988) Poissons de Djibouti. Dubai Printing Press. 416 p.CITES (2002) Interpr\u00C3\u00A9tation et application de la Convention \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Commerce et conservation des esp\u00C3\u00A8ces \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Commerce des concombres de mer des familles Holothuridae et Stichopodidae. Douzi\u00C3\u00A8me session de la Conf\u00C3\u00A9rence des Parties (CdP 12) 45, Convention sur le commerce international des esp\u00C3\u00A8ces de faune et de flore sauvages menac\u00C3\u00A9es d'extinction (CITES), Santiago (Chili). 29 p.CITES (2006) Concombres de mer. Vingt-deuxi\u00C3\u00A8me session du Comit\u00C3\u00A9 pour les animaux (AC 22) 16, Convention sur le commerce international des esp\u00C3\u00A8ces de faune et de flore sauvages menac\u00C3\u00A9es d'extinction (CITES), Lima (P\u00C3\u00A9rou). 32 p.Clouet A (1970) La p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti. La Revue Maritime 275: 476\u00E2\u0080\u0093493.Darar A (1994) An account of fisheries development in the Republic of Djibouti with notes on the growth and mortality of three species of groupers. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly 17(2): 30\u00E2\u0080\u009332.Darar A et Hosch G (2010) Analyse des implications pour la mise en op\u00C3\u00A9ration d'embarcations de p\u00C3\u00AAche industrielles \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti. Direction des P\u00C3\u00AAches de Djibouti, Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'Alimentation et l'Agriculture (FAO), Rome (Italie). i + 9 p.Devinat P (1957) La mer Rouge et les int\u00C3\u00A9r\u00C3\u00AAts fran\u00C3\u00A7ais. Politique Etrang\u00C3\u00A8re 22\u00C3\u00A8me ann\u00C3\u00A9e(3): 311\u00E2\u0080\u0093324.El Gharbi R (1987) La p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale dans la R\u00C3\u00A9publique de Djibouti \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Analyse bio-\u00C3\u00A9conomique. Projet de d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale, Phase II, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Resource Development Associates International (RDA), Djibouti. 59 + xxix p.Emerton L (1998) Djibouti biodiversity: economic assessment. Djibouti national biodiversity strategy and action plan, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Djibouti. 54 p.FAO (1991) Fishery statistics \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Catches and landings. FAO yearbook 72, Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'Alimentation et l'Agriculture (FAO), Rome (Italie).FAO (2012) FishStat Plus \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Universal software for fishery statistical time series. v2.3. Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'Alimentation et l'Agriculture (FAO), Rome (Italie).Guillaume A (1979) Djibouti. pp. 41\u00E2\u0080\u009350 In L'\u00C3\u00A9valuation des effectifs de la population des pays africains \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Tome 1. Groupe de D\u00C3\u00A9mographie Africaine IDP-INED-INSEE-MINCOOP-ORSTOM, Paris (France).Harper S and Zeller D, editors (2012) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19 (4). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 143 p.Harper S, Zylich K, Boonzaier L, Le Manach F, Pauly D and Zeller D, editors (2012) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (5). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 134 p.Hosch G (2010) Plan d'action national visant \u00C3\u00A0 pr\u00C3\u00A9venir, \u00C3\u00A0 contrecarrer et \u00C3\u00A0 \u00C3\u00A9liminer la p\u00C3\u00AAche illicite, non d\u00C3\u00A9clar\u00C3\u00A9e et non r\u00C3\u00A9glement\u00C3\u00A9e \u00E2\u0080\u0094 R\u00C3\u00A9publique de Djibouti. Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'Alimentation et l'Agriculture (FAO), Rome (Italie). v + 54 p.IFAD (1984) Rapport de la mission de formulation de renforcement du projet pilote de d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale. Projet de d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale, Phase I, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Djibouti. 1 p.Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world's marine fisheries \u00E2\u0080\u0094 An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470, Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'Alimentation et l'Agriculture (FAO), Rome (Italie). 131 p.K\u00C3\u00BCnzel T, Darar A et Vakily JM (1996a) Composition, biomasses et possibilit\u00C3\u00A9s d'exploitation des ressources halieutiques djiboutiennes \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Tome 1 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Analyse. Minist\u00C3\u00A8re de l'Agriculture et de l'Hydraulique, Direction de l'Elevage et des P\u00C3\u00AAches, R\u00C3\u00A9publique de Djibouti, Deutsche Gesellschaft f\u00C3\u00BCr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). ix + 63 p.K\u00C3\u00BCnzel T, Darar A et Vakily JM (1996b) Composition, biomasses et possibilit\u00C3\u00A9s d'exploitation des ressources halieutiques djiboutiennes \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Tome 2 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Donn\u00C3\u00A9es. Minist\u00C3\u00A8re de l'Agriculture et de l'Hydraulique, Direction de Fisheries catch reconstruction for Djibouti \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter et al. 23l'Elevage et des P\u00C3\u00AAches, R\u00C3\u00A9publique de Djibouti, Deutsche Gesellschaft f\u00C3\u00BCr Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Djibouti. 156 p.Le Manach F, Gough C, Humber F et Harper S (2011) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Madagascar. pp. 21\u00E2\u0080\u009337 In Harper S et Zeller D (eds.), Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19 (4). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).Lewin WC, Arlinghaus R et Mehner T (2006) Documented and potential biological impacts of recreational fishing: insights for management and conservation. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14(4): 305\u00E2\u0080\u0093367.Moal RA (1969) Les perspectives de d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de Djibouti, port de p\u00C3\u00AAche industrielle. POUNT (Bulletin de la Soci\u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 d'Etudes de l'Afrique Orientale) 2\u00C3\u00A8me Ann\u00C3\u00A9e(7): 39\u00E2\u0080\u009342.Moal RA et Grateau J (1967) P\u00C3\u00AAche en Territoire Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais des Afars et des Issas. POUNT (Bulletin de la Soci\u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 d'Etudes de l'Afrique Orientale) 1\u00C3\u00A8re Ann\u00C3\u00A9e(3): 17\u00E2\u0080\u009324.Morgan G (2006) Country review: Djibouti. pp. 195\u00E2\u0080\u0093201 Dans De Young C (\u00C3\u00A9d.) Review of the state of world marine capture fisheries management: Indian Ocean. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Papers 488. Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'Alimentation et l'Agriculture (FAO), Rome (Italie).Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 11(2): 4\u00E2\u0080\u009310.Persson L, Lindop A, Harper S, Zylich K and Zeller D (this volume) Failed state: reconstruction of domestic fisheries catches in Somalia 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Pujo JM (1967) Les boutres \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti : une survivance de l'\u00C3\u00A2ge de la voile. POUNT (Bulletin de la Soci\u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 d'Etudes de l'Afrique Orientale) 1\u00C3\u00A8re Ann\u00C3\u00A9e(2): 9\u00E2\u0080\u009316.R\u00C3\u00A9publique de Djibouti (2012) Annuaire statistique de Djibouti \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Edition 2012. Minist\u00C3\u00A8re de l'\u00C3\u00A9conomie et des finances charg\u00C3\u00A9 de l'industrie et de la planification. 121 p.Rouaud A (1997) Pour une histoire des Arabes de Djibouti, 1896\u00E2\u0080\u00931977. Cahiers d'Etudes Africaines 37(146): 319\u00E2\u0080\u0093348.Tesfamichael D, Rossing P and Saeed H (2012) The marine fisheries of Yemen with emphasis on the Red Sea and cooperatives. Pp. 105\u00E2\u0080\u0093152. In Tesfamichael D and Pauly D (eds.) Catch reconstruction for the Red Sea large marine ecosystem by countries (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20(1). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727].Waldstein AS et Lampe H (1988) Djibouti fisheries development project. AID evaluation working paper 110, United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Djibouti. xiv + 45 p.Zeller D and Harper S, editors (2009) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 17 (5). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 108 p.Zeller D et Pauly D, editors (2007) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for key countries and regions (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15 (2). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 163 p. 24Tableau Annexe A1. Captures domestiques reconstruites (par secteur) et rapport\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 la FAO, et captures \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8res et en dehors de la ZEE nationale, de 1950 \u00C3\u00A0 2010.Ann\u00C3\u00A9es Captures domestiques Captures \u00C3\u00A9trang\u00C3\u00A8res dans la ZEE nationaleDans la ZEE nationale Hors ZEEArtisanales R\u00C3\u00A9cr\u00C3\u00A9atives Subsistance Total reconstruit Total rapport\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00A0 la FAO Somalie Y\u00C3\u00A9men1950 127 1 2 130 500 - 28 73 1951 131 1 2 134 800 - 29 75 1952 134 1 2 137 500 - 27 79 1953 137 1 2 140 500 - 27 82 1954 140 1 2 144 900 - 28 83 1955 144 1 2 147 800 - 26 88 1956 147 1 2 150 500 - 35 81 1957 150 1 2 154 600 - 35 84 1958 154 1 2 157 800 - 37 85 1959 157 1 2 160 600 - 35 89 1960 160 1 3 164 900 - 38 89 1961 163 1 3 167 800 - 39 90 1962 167 1 3 171 900 - 40 92 1963 170 1 3 174 1 000 - 41 93 1964 173 1 3 177 300 - 40 98 1965 177 2 3 181 300 - 41 99 1966 180 2 3 184 300 - 42 100 1967 183 2 3 188 300 - 42 103 1968 192 2 3 197 300 - 45 107 1969 202 2 3 207 300 - 48 111 1970 211 2 3 216 300 - 51 116 1971 220 2 3 226 300 - 56 118 1972 229 2 4 235 100 - 55 127 1973 239 2 4 245 200 - 49 140 1974 248 3 4 254 380 - 47 150 1975 257 3 4 264 300 - 49 154 1976 266 3 4 273 230 - 45 166 1977 275 3 4 283 230 - 47 171 1978 253 3 4 260 230 - 45 155 1979 316 3 5 325 231 - 53 197 1980 392 3 6 402 251 13 59 252 1981 486 3 8 497 385 33 76 309 1982 505 3 8 516 425 52 90 310 1983 581 4 9 594 409 79 114 346 1984 606 4 10 619 409 103 116 364 1985 529 4 8 541 380 108 95 324 1986 789 4 13 805 409 188 152 473 1987 843 4 13 861 426 - 148 520 1988 971 4 15 990 454 - 160 609 1989 807 4 13 824 399 - 119 520 1990 1 048 4 17 1 069 361 - 125 705 1991 894 4 14 912 253 - 90 618 1992 436 5 7 447 276 52 40 305 1993 260 5 4 269 301 31 21 185 1994 442 5 7 454 321 53 33 317 1995 505 5 8 518 351 - 30 370 1996 590 5 9 604 401 - 51 399 1997 962 5 15 981 501 - 87 647 1998 1 017 5 15 1 037 601 - 103 657 1999 1 066 5 16 1 088 701 - 124 674 2000 1 021 6 15 1 042 801 - 150 611 2001 1 081 8 16 1 105 901 - 149 657 2002 1 117 8 17 1 142 1 001 - 135 705 2003 1 074 8 16 1 099 1 101 - 109 712 2004 1 099 8 17 1 124 1 201 - 110 741 2005 1 983 9 31 2 023 1 571 - 229 1 342 2006 1 641 9 26 1 676 1 299 - 192 1 108 2007 1 552 9 25 1 585 1 229 - 228 1 001 2008 1 518 9 24 1 550 1 206 55 297 905 2009 1 270 9 20 1 299 1 058 46 207 799 2010 2 007 9 32 2 048 1 058 73 281 1 309 Fisheries catch reconstruction for Djibouti \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter et al. 25Tableau Annexe A2. Composition taxonomique des captures domestiques dans la ZEE djiboutienne de 1950 \u00C3\u00A0 2010.Ann\u00C3\u00A9es Epinephelus spp. Lutjanidae Scomberomorus spp. Carangidae Lethrinidae Sphyraena Scombridae Mugilidae Autres1950 15 19 25 14 14 5 10 3 26 1951 16 19 25 14 14 6 10 3 27 1952 16 20 26 15 14 6 10 3 27 1953 16 20 26 15 15 6 10 3 28 1954 17 21 27 15 15 6 11 3 29 1955 17 21 28 16 15 6 11 3 29 1956 18 22 28 16 16 6 11 3 30 1957 18 22 29 17 16 6 11 3 31 1958 18 23 30 17 16 7 12 3 31 1959 19 23 30 17 17 7 12 3 32 1960 19 24 31 18 17 7 12 3 33 1961 20 24 31 18 18 7 13 3 33 1962 20 25 32 18 18 7 13 3 34 1963 20 25 33 19 18 7 13 3 35 1964 21 26 33 19 19 7 13 4 36 1965 21 26 34 19 19 8 14 4 36 1966 22 27 35 20 19 8 14 4 37 1967 22 27 35 20 20 8 14 4 38 1968 23 29 37 21 21 8 15 4 40 1969 24 30 39 22 22 9 15 4 42 1970 25 31 41 23 23 9 16 4 44 1971 26 33 42 24 24 9 17 4 46 1972 28 34 44 25 25 10 18 5 48 1973 29 35 46 26 26 10 18 5 50 1974 30 37 48 27 27 11 19 5 52 1975 31 38 50 28 28 11 20 5 53 1976 32 40 51 29 29 11 20 5 55 1977 33 41 53 30 30 12 21 6 57 1978 30 38 49 28 27 11 19 5 53 1979 38 47 61 35 34 13 24 6 66 1980 47 58 76 43 42 17 30 8 81 1981 58 72 94 54 52 21 37 10 99 1982 61 75 97 56 54 22 39 10 103 1983 4 105 45 96 72 31 66 41 134 1984 69 54 107 103 48 48 66 12 112 1985 55 74 105 66 70 21 47 4 99 1986 157 160 210 65 78 15 44 6 71 1987 118 104 178 39 90 27 33 6 265 1988 214 125 55 112 91 32 68 15 279 1989 190 286 74 64 74 18 22 2 94 1990 239 348 164 60 83 29 58 1 87 1991 270 193 168 46 98 42 39 1 57 1992 131 94 81 22 48 20 19 0 31 1993 79 56 49 13 29 12 11 0 20 1994 134 94 83 22 49 20 19 0 32 1995 143 114 96 29 57 26 21 0 33 1996 140 112 91 28 56 28 21 0 127 1997 220 165 112 64 73 64 26 0 257 1998 221 158 95 79 71 79 24 0 309 1999 228 157 85 100 71 93 21 0 333 2000 214 148 71 107 71 95 30 0 305 2001 224 157 67 123 78 106 39 0 310 2002 236 157 63 131 84 121 47 0 302 2003 229 149 56 131 84 121 56 0 273 2004 235 150 53 137 89 128 66 0 265 2005 361 221 53 216 136 204 115 - 717 2006 244 138 374 204 158 185 134 - 240 2007 228 123 339 263 174 145 161 - 154 2008 157 214 123 257 140 212 240 - 207 2009 158 213 97 242 150 143 119 - 177 2010 250 336 154 383 237 225 188 - 275 Fisheries catch reconstructions for the \u00C3\u00AEles \u00C3\u00A9parses \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach and Pauly 27First estimate oF unreported CatCh in the FrenCh \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u00A9parses, 1950-2010*Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach1,2\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 and Daniel Pauly11 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada2 Institut de Recherche pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, UMR212 Ecosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes Marins Exploit\u00C3\u00A9s, Avenue Jean Monnet, CS 30171, 34203 S\u00C3\u00A8te cedex, France\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Current address: BLOOM Association, 77 rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris, Francefredericlemanach@bloomassociation.org; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.caabstraCtIn this report, we used the catch reconstruction approach developed by the Sea Around Us to estimate the total marine fisheries catch in the EEZs of the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses. These islands being uninhabited, there are no records of such fisheries in the official fisheries data published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and thus, our reconstruction is entirely comprised of unreported catches. Catches were estimated to around 2,800 tonnes between 1989 and 2010, essentially in the Glorieuses Archipelago. The small-scale artisanal barques from Mayotte represented 76.8% of the total, followed by the recreational and semi-industrial handline fisheries, with 14.0% and 6.7%, respectively. Lutjanus bohar represented 39.9% of the catch, followed by Serranidae, yellowfin tuna, other Scombridae and Carangidae, representing 21.5%, 7.0%, 7.3%, and 5.5% of the catch, respectively (the rest being composed of various species of groundfishes and pelagic fishes).introduCtionThe \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses (i.e., 'Scattered Islands') encompass a group of five small entities dispersed around Madagascar, in the Western Indian Ocean. Four of these islands, i.e., Europa, Bassas da India (an atoll), Juan de Nova, and the Glorieuses Archipelago (MPA since 2012; R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 2012) are located in the Mozambique Channel, while Tromelin \u00E2\u0080\u0094 which is jointly managed with Mauritius (Anon. 2010; Jupp\u00C3\u00A9 2012) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 is located northeast of Madagascar (Figure 1). Overall, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; declared in 1978; R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 1978) of these entities reaches over 640,000 km2 (Anon. 2011), i.e., more than the surface of France's mainland. However, neighbouring countries claim all of these islands: all but Tromelin are claimed by Madagascar, and as well, by Mauritius; the Glorieuses Archipelago is claimed by Comoros and, until 2001, also by the Seychelles (R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 2001).Tromelin was the first of the islands to be claimed by France in 1776 (Malick 1976), and by the end of the 19th century, all of them were under French rule (Anon. 2011). In 1960, the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses became administered by the French island of La R\u00C3\u00A9union, located east of Madagascar (R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 1960). In 2007, the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses eventually became a district of the Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises ('Territory of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands'; R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 2007), along with the islands of Kerguelen, St Paul & Amsterdam, and Crozet.1The \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses have virtually always been uninhabited (or occupied for very short periods of time), but they host early-warning meteorological stations since 1950 (this region is under cyclonic threats part of the year), as well as a small but continuous military (and sometimes scientific) presence since 1973 (IUCN 2003; d'Aboville 2007).2 This presence is used to exert sovereignty on these islands, as well as to deter illegal fishing from the coast (Anon. 2011). * Cite as: Le Manach F and Pauly D (2015) First estimate of unreported catch in the French \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Pp. 27\u00E2\u0080\u009335 In Le Manach F and Pauly D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727].1 Ad\u00C3\u00A9lie Land on the Antarctic continent also belongs to the same district, with Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty suspending all territorial claims in Antarctica (Guyomard 2010).2 Note that there was a French guano industry occurring in Juan de Nova from the late 19th century until 1972 to supply the Seychellois market (d'Aboville 2007; IUCN 2003). A coconut plantation also exists on the Glorieuses Archipelago; it was planted in the late 19th century and exploited until 1958 by Seychellois mandated by the French government (Malick 1976).Tromelin EuropaJuan deNova 0 500 kmShelfEEZ boundary\u00C2\u00B1GlorieusesBassasda IndiaFigure 1. Map of the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses showing the extent of their EEZs, as well as the -200 m isobaths (i.e., the 'shelf') in the region. 28Patrols are also carried out regularly in the Mozambique Chanel by the French Navy to prevent illegal activities in the French EEZs.Thanks to their remoteness and their uninhabited status, the waters of the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses are in an almost pristine state and host a very rich marine diversity (Le Corre and Safford 2001; Perillo 2008), compared, e.g., to its heavily populated and exploited Malagasy neighbour. An extensive mangrove of 700 ha (similar to the one found in Mayotte) is found on Europa (Barnaud 2011; Mangion et al. 2012), which largely motivated its classification as a RAMSAR site in 2011 (Barnaud 2011; RAMSAR 2014). There is also a much smaller mangrove on Juan de Nova, and minor seagrass meadows on two islands. Since 1975, all islands but Juan de Nova have benefited from a status of natural reserve (R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 1975), which aims to protect the rich flora and fauna, including turtles, cetaceans, coral reefs, and seabirds (Anon. 2011; Quod et al. 2007). Moreover, recent legislation prohibits fishing activities within the 12 nm zone (10 nm around Geyser Bank; 24 nm for purse-seiners; R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 2010a, 2013a).3Unlike their surrounding waters, the terrestrial parts of these islands have faced a high pressure due to the introduction of various exotic species over time \u00E2\u0080\u0094 including rats, cats, goats, chicken, and many plants \u00E2\u0080\u0094 which have negatively impacted the indigenous species. Some of these invasive species have been entirely extirpated, while this is still in process for some others (IUCN 2003; Anon. 2011). Given that these islands are uninhabited, there are no fisheries data currently estimated and transmitted to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and made publicly available via the FishStat fisheries database (FAO 2013). In this report, we apply to the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses the reconstruction methods developed around principles in Pauly (1998), described in Zeller et al. (2007) and applied worldwide by the Sea Around Us (see e.g., Zeller and Pauly 2007; Zeller and Harper 2009; Harper and Zeller 2012; Harper et al. 2012). Due to the severe lack of catch data, this work of reconstruction was mostly based on Fermi solutions (von Baeyer 1993; Pauly 2010). We aimed to produce a first estimate of marine fisheries catch in these waters by reviewing the existing literature on the topic and estimating the total extraction of marine fish from 1950 to 2010.material and methodsSmall-scale fisheriesRecreational fisheryVirtually all recreational fisheries occur in Bassas da India's EEZ. This is an example of a highly organized unreported, illegal recreational fishery, with over a dozen South African and Mozambican charter companies offering \"extreme adventure holiday [to] fish this mythical fishing destination\" (www.bassadaindia.com). Boats filled with tourists (mostly from South Africa) are present in the zone at least half of the year, targeting all sorts of large species ranging from tuna and sharks, to Lutjanidae (snappers) and Coryphaena hippurus (dolphinfish) with spearguns, lines, flies, jigs, and other gears.4 Note that some of these entirely unregulated practices \u00E2\u0080\u0094 such as walking directly on the reefs (see vimeo.com/41090694), may result in severe damages to the habitats and the local wildlife, on top of the major impact on some fish stocks. In order to avoid fines by the French authorities, a known trick is to use paired boats: when the patrol arrives, tourists are transferred onto the empty boat, while the catch and the gears are kept on the other boat.5 This way, the authorities cannot charge the charter companies with illegal fishing, as there are no proofs that the catch comes from these waters. However, it has to be noted that the French authorities recently improved their legislation to avoid such practices, by prohibiting the possession of fisheries products onboard boats within the no-fishing zone (10 nm around Geyser Bank, 12 nm elsewhere; R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 2013b).In order to produce a first estimate of this fishery, we considered that there were 20 boats doing each six trips per year (based on www.bassadaindia.com) for the year 2010, and that this number had increased from zero in 1989 to half of the 2010 level by 2005 (and interpolating in between; i.e., we assumed that this activity slowly expanded in its first years, and expanded more quickly in recent years). We also considered that 500 kg of fish were caught during each trip. We believe this is a conservative estimate, as one recreational fisher reported to have caught at least half a dozen 30\u00E2\u0080\u009340 kg Thunnus albacares (yellowfin tuna), many Carcharhinus longimanus (oceanic whitetip shark) and C. leucas (Zambezi shark), \"a few ignobilis kingfish [Caranx ignobilis]\", \"a number of black kingfish [C. lugubris]6\", \"some decent sized snapper\", \"a number of big wahoo [Acanthocybium solandri], [\u00E2\u0080\u00A6] the biggest estimated at over 30 kg\", and \"some other reef dwellers\" (Milford 2006).Based on this account, we considered that 50% of the catch was comprised of tunas (80% of yellowfin tuna and 20% of other species) and 20 % of selachimorpha (sharks; 80% of oceanic whitetip sharks and 20% of other species of sharks). The remaining 30% were equally distributed among Lutjanidae, Serranidae, Carangidae, Sphyraenidae, Coryphaenidae, and Istiophoridae.3 However, we know that Geyser Bank has been regularly fished by barques since at least 1997. Thus, unless there really is strict enforcement, these measures may not 'mostly protect' these waters.4 Some of these fish are released, but most are kept for consumption and we assumed 100 % mortality for all species except sharks, for which we assumed 30% survival (based on Diaz and Serafy 2005, Campana et al. 2009, and Butcher et al. 2014).5 The lead author heard this story several times during a trip to South Africa in 2012, while inquiring about a potential fishing trip to Bassas da India.6 Assumed to be the South African common name. Source: www.fishbase.org.Fisheries catch reconstructions for the \u00C3\u00AEles \u00C3\u00A9parses \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach and Pauly 29Holothurian fisherySince 2011, another illegal fishery started to operate in the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses' EEZ, from a base in Madagascar (Anon. 2013, 2014a; Pruffer 2013). What started as a small-scale fishery is increasing in organization and size with large (15+ m) mother ships deploying motorized barques and pirogues around the Glorieuses Archipelago (Geyser and other lagoons) and Juan de Nova (Anon. 2014a).7 These fishers mostly target holothurians while scuba diving, although there is an ancillary catch of sharks (fins and tails kept for the Chinese market as well) and reef fish using lines and spearguns (Anon. 2014a).Fishers likely started fishing these grounds in the early 2000s, i.e., when signs of over-exploitation of Malagasy holothurians started to be conspicuous (Le Manach et al. 2011, 2012, 2013). Noteworthy, it seems that part of this fishery is using boats owned by French expatriates who live in northwest Madagascar part of the year (and get Malagasy people to look after their boats the rest of the year). It happened several times that private sailboats were arrested by the French (or the Seychellois in their own EEZ) with Malagasy fishers and hundreds of holothurians on board, without the owner of the boat knowing that it was no longer moored in Madagascar (Pruffer 2013; G. Cripps, pers. comm. Blue Ventures Conservation).Given that this fishery only started in 2011, i.e., after the end of the time-period studied here, reconstructed catches are not included in the present report. However, for future references, at least ten Malagasy fishing operations (with several boats involved in each) can be assumed to have ventured in the Glorieuses Archipelago and Juan de Nova to catch holothurians in 2013 and early 2014. To get an idea of the catches, one operation that was blocked by the French authorities had collected around one tonne (wet weight) of holothurians (for three small-scale and two semi-industrial boats and over 100 fishers; Anon. 2014a).Reef fisheryFrom late 1989 to mid-1992, a semi-industrial exploitation of reef fish occurred around the Geyser Bank (Glorieuses Archipelago's EEZ) with the 12 m long YVALANN (see Doherty et al., this volume). It quickly stopped due to plummeting catches of the main target species, Lutjanus bohar (two-spot red snapper; Maggiorani et al. 1994; Chabanet et al. 2002). Maggiorani et al. (1994) provided catch data as well as a taxonomic breakdown. Since this vessel used handlines, we considered that all of the bycatch was released in good condition; therefore, we did not estimate any dead discards.Since 1997, fishers from Mayotte also started to travel further offshore to satisfy the local demand for reef fish and they reached the Glorieuses Archipelago's EEZ to target reef fish and some pelagic species (Wendling and Le Calv\u00C3\u00A9 1999; Herfaut 2005; Thomassin and Andrefouet 2009; Fraisse 2010; Doherty et al., this volume). These French fishers operate mostly illegally: fishing activities are forbidden within 10 nm of Geyser Bank and 12 nm of the other emerged land of the Glorieuses Archipelago (R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 2010a), except for vessels that are deemed safe-enough to travel so far and which can apply for an exemption.8 However, only one vessel was granted this authorization since 2009 (one longliner of 12+ meters), which did not declare any catch (making it illegal with regards to the exemption). As such, all other boats from Mayotte should be considered illegal. Most of this fishery occurs around Geyser Bank, but some barques (which mostly use longlines at night and other types of lines during the day) also travel further and operate around the main islands of the Archipelago.During the first couple of years, it was reported that up to one tonne of fish could be caught per boat and per trip, but this yield quickly declined to only 200\u00E2\u0080\u0093300 kg by the mid-2000s (for longer trips; Thomassin and Andr\u00C3\u00A9fou\u00C3\u00ABt 2009).9 Therefore, after a strong increase in the number of visits around Geyser bank, a decrease in the number of boats was observed due to this decreasing catch per trip (Quod 2007). Unofficial figures for 2012 suggest that at least 35 barques in Mayotte were equipped for fishing at Geyser and other offshore banks (Doherty et al., this volume).To reconstruct this sector, we considered that the number of barques slowly increased from zero in 1996 to 20 in 2000, and then more rapidly to 60 in 2005. We then considered that this number was halved by 2010, due to the decreasing catch. Regarding the catch, we considered that one tonne was caught by boat and by trip (one trip per month for each barque until 2005, and only 10 per year after 2009) during the first two years, and that this figure declined to 250 kg by boat and by trip after 2005. Regarding the taxonomic composition, we used the same as that of the YVALANN catch published by Maggiorani et al. (1994).Other fisheriesOther very anecdotal small-scale fisheries may occur in the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses' EEZ, such as the ones carried by sailboats in transit, military detachments, or even civilians staying at the islands' stations. However, regarding the latter two, it has to be noted that such activities are neither authorized by the hierarchy, nor by the Terres Australes et 7 Such fishing operations have also been reported once in Bassas da India in 2013.8 France is becoming rather worried about such fishery, as the target species (Lutjanidae) are known to be highly sensitive to fishing. The state of the resource is supposed to be assessed as part of the Regional 10th European Development Fund allocated to local French authorities (Mayotte's Conseil G\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9ral and Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises) in order to implement a \"sustainable use of natural resources in Mayotte and the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses\" (especially in the perimeter of the two Parc Naturel Marins of Mayotte and the Glorieuses Archipelago).9 These illegal fishers will often stay at sea for several days when fishing around offshore banks and risk dangerous sea conditions as well as explosions (Anon. 2014b), in order to remain profitable (Herfaut 2005; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009; Fraisse 2010). Some of these illegal fishers operating within the 12 nm are sometimes caught by the French authorities (Anon. 2014c, b). 30Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises. Although this may occur from time to time, their catch is therefore likely very low. Due to the elusive nature of these fisheries, no estimates were made here.Large pelagics industrial fisheryThe \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses are located in the second largest tuna fishing ground in the world (FAO 2012), and as such, are attractive to large-scale industrial vessels interested in pursuing this resource. Catches of these fleets were not reconstructed as part of this report. Rather, they were considered to have been reported to the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), and were dealt with as part of the global reconstruction of large pelagics catches (Le Manach et al. in press). However, we present here a brief summary of these fisheries.French fleetFrench purse-seiners (flagged in France mainland, Mayotte, or La R\u00C3\u00A9union) and longliners (flagged in La R\u00C3\u00A9union) are active in the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses' EEZ (Laurent-Monpetit et al. 2012; www.taaf.fr/Navires-autorises-293). In order to access fishing grounds of the Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises, owners of these French vessels must annually apply for a licence, pay a specific fee to contribute to the observation and surveillance program of the Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises since 2010 (R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 2010b, 2013c), and finally, pay fishing rights since 2013 (none until then; R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 2013d). Since 2008, these vessels must follow the Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises regulations (R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 2008, 2010c, 2013a, 2014),10 and take on fisheries observers (on average 10\u00E2\u0080\u009315% of trips are monitored).Foreign fleetsSpanish seiners are also authorized to fish in the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses' EEZs as part of a bilateral agreement with France. These vessels are either flagged in Spain or in the Seychelles (see Le Manach et al., this volume; www.taaf.fr/Navires-autorises-293).In 1993, there were also licenses delivered to 28 Taiwanese longliners for a trial period of one year (Ren\u00C3\u00A9 et al. 1998). It seems that very few industrial vessels have ventured into the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses' EEZs over the past couple of decades to fish illegally,11 as they are generally afraid of the increasing French military presence and are thus more inclined to fish in areas further north (known to be more productive and less tightly monitored; e.g., Kenya, Somalia).resultsOverall, catches in the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses' EEZs are estimated to have totalled over 2,800 tonnes between 1989 and 2010 (Figure 2A; mostly in the Glorieuses Archipelago with 84% of the total, Bassas da India representing only 16%). The small-scale artisanal barques from Mayotte represented 76.8% of the total (followed by the recreational and semi-industrial handline fisheries, with 14.0% and 6.7%, respectively; Figure 2A).Regarding the taxonomic breakdown, Lutjanus bohar made up 39.9% of the catch, followed by Serranidae, yellowfin 10 Regulations established by the Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises are updated every year in accordance with the best available scientific data and national or regional regulations (e.g., IOTC's recommendations and resolutions). 11 Note, however, that this concept of 'illegal' fishing does not apply for the period prior to 1978, as no EEZ existed (R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 1978).0100200300Total catch (t)Glorieuses ArchipelagoBassas da India01002003001989 1994 1999 2004 2009Total catch (t)YearABLutjanus boharSerranidaeOthersCarangidaeThunnus albacaresScombridaeFigure 2. Annual reconstructed catch (t), by A) EEZ and B) taxa. See Appendix Table A1 and Appendix Table A2, respectively, for details.Fisheries catch reconstructions for the \u00C3\u00AEles \u00C3\u00A9parses \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach and Pauly 31tuna, other Scombridae and Carangidae, representing 21.5%, 7.0%, 7.3%, and 5.5% of the catch, respectively. The rest of the catch was composed of various species including sharks, other Lutjanidae, Sphyraenidae, and undetermined groundfishes and pelagic fishes (Figure 2B).disCussionIn this report, we provide a first estimate of total marine fisheries catch in the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses' EEZs from 1950 to 2010. While the overwhelming majority of the catch is that of the large pelagics industrial fleets (consisting of longliners active since the early 1950s and purse-seiners active since the early 1980s; not included in this report), more recent fisheries are increasingly targeting vulnerable, nearshore species such as holothurians and reef species of fish in an entirely uncontrolled and unmonitored fashion. Signs of over-exploitation are already visible for some of these stocks (e.g., the ones targeted by the barques fishery in the Glorieuses Archipelago and associated banks), with important decreases reported in catch per unit of effort.While our estimates are based on assumptions and are thus perfectible, we do point out the necessity to dedicate increasing efforts towards improving the monitoring and control of these fisheries. This should include the most recent one for holothurians (not reconstructed here), in order to ensure that the exploitation of the marine resources in the biodiversity sanctuary that are the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses remains sustainable (if legal), e.g., by restricting fishing activities to areas where stocks are assessed and monitored.aCknoWledgmentsThis report is a contribution of the Sea Around Us, a collaboration between The University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. The authors would also like to acknowledge the support of the Paul G. Allen Foundation, as well as C\u00C3\u00A9dric Marteau and Emmanuel Reuillard (Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises) for their valuable input and for sharing their knowledge during meetings held in La R\u00C3\u00A9union in January 2013.reFerenCesAnon. (2010) Maurice-France : signature d'un accord cadre de cogestion de l'\u00C3\u00AEle Tromelin\u00E2\u0080\u009314 juin.Anon. (2011) Les Iles Eparses\u00E2\u0080\u0093Europa, Bassas da India, Juan de Nova, Glorieuses, Tromelin. Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises, Saint Pierre (France). 26 p.Anon. (2013) P\u00C3\u00AAche ill\u00C3\u00A9gale dans les TAAF : un voilier d\u00C3\u00A9rout\u00C3\u00A9. LINFO.re, edition of November 20, 2013.Anon. (2014a) Op\u00C3\u00A9ration de lutte contre la p\u00C3\u00AAche ill\u00C3\u00A9gale aux \u00C3\u00AEles Eparses. Pr\u00C3\u00A9fecture de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Saint-Denis (France).Anon. (2014b) P\u00C3\u00AAcheurs arraisonn\u00C3\u00A9s aux \u00C3\u00AEles Glorieuses : la pol\u00C3\u00A9mique enfle. ImazPress Reunion, edition of January 9, 2014.Anon. (2014c) 2 navires de p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A9pingl\u00C3\u00A9s aux Iles Eparses. LINFO.re, edition of January 6, 2014.Barnaud G (2011) Evaluation de trois propositions de sites Ramsar (France) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Analyse des crit\u00C3\u00A8res d'identification de zones humides d'importance internationale. Rapport SPN 2011\u00E2\u0080\u00935, Service du Patrimoine Naturel, Mus\u00C3\u00A9um National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (France). 39 p.Chabanet P, Tessier E, Durville P, Mulocheau T and Ren\u00C3\u00A9 F (2002) Peuplement ichtyologique des bancs de Geyser et Z\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9e (Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien Occidental). Cybium 26(1): 11\u00E2\u0080\u009326.d'Aboville G (2007) La p\u00C3\u00AAche et l'aquaculture en outre-mer. Avis et Rapports du Conseil Economique et Social, R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise, Conseil Economique et Social, Paris (France). 168 p.Doherty B, Herfaut J, Le Manach F, Harper S and Zeller D (this volume) Reconstructing domestic marine fisheries in Mayotte from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.FAO (2012) The state of world fisheries and aquaculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). 209 p.FAO (2013) FishStatJ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Software for fishery statistical time series. V2.1.1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Fraisse N (2010) Analyse des d\u00C3\u00A9barquements de poissons \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte par la COPEMAY de 2007 \u00C3\u00A0 2010. COPEMAY, Parc Naturel Marin de Mayotte. 17 p.Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel R, Quartararo A, Aboutoihi L, Saindou K, Sala\u00C3\u00BCn P, Ybrahim B and Arnaud JP (2009) Richesses de Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Parc naturel marin de Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Les hommes et l'oc\u00C3\u00A9an \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Mission d'\u00C3\u00A9tude pour la cr\u00C3\u00A9ation d'un parc naturel marin \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte. Agence des aires marines prot\u00C3\u00A9g\u00C3\u00A9es, Mamoudzou (Mayotte). 72 p.Guyomard A-I (2010) La protection de l'environnement en Antarctique \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Droit international et droit compar\u00C3\u00A9. PhD thesis, University of Universit\u00C3\u00A9 de Nantes, France. 806 + 484 p.Harper S and Zeller D, editors (2012) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19 (4). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 143 p.Harper S, Zylich K, Boonzaier L, Le Manach F, Pauly D and Zeller D, editors (2012) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 134 p. 32Herfaut J (2005) Evaluation de la rentabilit\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00A9conomique de l'exploitation des bancs \u00C3\u00A9loign\u00C3\u00A9s (Geyzer, Zel\u00C3\u00A9e, Castor...) par la p\u00C3\u00AAcherie artisanale mahoraise. Ing\u00C3\u00A9nierie de l'environmnement (INENV), Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches de la Direction de l'agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt, Mamoudzou, Mayotte. 22 p.IUCN (2003) Iles Eparses. pp. 107\u00E2\u0080\u0093115 In Gargominy O (ed.) Biodiversit\u00C3\u00A9 et conservation en Outre-Mer. Plan\u00C3\u00A8te Nature \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Collection du Comit\u00C3\u00A9 fran\u00C3\u00A7ais pour l'UICN \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Groupe DOM-TOM. Comit\u00C3\u00A9 fran\u00C3\u00A7ais pour l'UICN, Paris (France).Jupp\u00C3\u00A9 A (2012) Projet de loi autorisant l'approbation de l'accord-cadre entre le Gouvernement de la R\u00C3\u00A9publique fran\u00C3\u00A7aise et le Gouvernement de la R\u00C3\u00A9publique de Maurice sur la cogestion \u00C3\u00A9conomique, scientifique et environnementale relative \u00C3\u00A0 l'\u00C3\u00AEle de Tromelin et \u00C3\u00A0 ses espaces maritimes environnants. Session ordinaire de 2011\u00E2\u0080\u00932012\u00E2\u0080\u0093No 299, S\u00C3\u00A9nat, Paris (France). 39 p.Laurent-Monpetit C, Chavance P, Bourjea J and Chassot E (2012) France-Territoires \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Rapport national destin\u00C3\u00A9 au Comit\u00C3\u00A9 scientifique de la Commission des Thons de l'Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien, pour sa r\u00C3\u00A9union annuelle 2012. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. 25 p.Le Corre M and Safford RJ (2001) La R\u00C3\u00A9union and \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses. pp. 693\u00E2\u0080\u0093702 In Evans M and Fishpool L (eds.), Important bird areas in Africa and associated islands: priority sites for conservation. BirdLife International, Cambridge (UK).Le Manach F, Andrianaivojaona C, Oleson KLL, Clausen A and Lange G-M (2013) Natural capital accounting and management of the Malagasy fisheries sector \u00E2\u0080\u0094 A technical case study for the WAVES Global Partnership in Madagascar. The World Bank, New-York, NY (USA). 46 p.Le Manach F, Chavance P, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Lindop A, Padilla A, Schiller L, Zeller D and Pauly D (in press) Global catches of large pelagic fishes, with emphasis on the high seas. In Pauly D and Zeller D (eds.), Global atlas of marine fisheries: ecosystem impacts and analysis. Island Press, Washington, DC (USA).Le Manach F, Gough C, Harris A, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2012) Unreported fishing, hungry people and political turmoil: the recipe for a food security crisis in Madagascar? Marine Policy 36: 218\u00E2\u0080\u0093225.Le Manach F, Gough C, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2011) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Madagascar (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932008). pp. 21\u00E2\u0080\u009337 In Harper S and Zeller D (eds.), Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19 (4). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).Le Manach F, Bach P, Boistol L, Robinson J and Pauly D (this volume) Artisanal Fisheries in the world's second largest tuna fishing ground \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Reconstruction of the Seychelles' marine fisheries catch, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Maggiorani F, Minet J-P, Roos D and Tessier E (1994) Diagnostic sur l'\u00C3\u00A9tat de la p\u00C3\u00AAcherie des bancs Geyser et Z\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9e (Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Analyse des r\u00C3\u00A9sultats de p\u00C3\u00AAche du navire YVALANN \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte d'octobre 1989 \u00C3\u00A0 juillet 1992. Contrat-cade No. 91/1211331/F, Ifremer and Collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 Territoriale de Mayotte, Le Port (France).Malick M (1976) Notes sur les Iles Eparses de l'Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien. pp. 75\u00E2\u0080\u009381 In Gu\u00C3\u00A9z\u00C3\u00A9 P (ed.) Biologie marine et exploitation des ressources de l'Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien occidental. Travaux et Documents de l'ORSTOM 47, Paris (France).Mangion P, Lambs L and Fromard F (2012) Nutrient cycling and use by the species Rhizophora mucronata in two contrasted mangrove settings from the French Scattered Islands, Western Indian Ocean In VLIZ Special Publication. Proceedings of the international conference: meeting on mangrove ecology, functioning and management (MMM3), July 2\u00E2\u0080\u00936, 2012, Galle (Sri Lanka).Milford N (2006) Bassas da India \u00E2\u0080\u0094 A spot on the map in the middle of the ocean. SKI-BOAT 22(5): 61\u00E2\u0080\u009368.Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 11(2): 4\u00E2\u0080\u009310.Pauly D (2010) Five easy pieces: how fishing impacts marine ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. 193 p.Perillo T (2008) Iles Eparses. Revue d'Ecologie (La Terre et la Vie) 63: 115\u00E2\u0080\u0093116.Pruffer G (2013) Lutte contre la p\u00C3\u00AAche ill\u00C3\u00A9gale aux \u00C3\u00AEles Eparses. Mayotte 1\u00C3\u00A8re, edition of November 11, 2013.Quod J-P, Barr\u00C3\u00A8re A, Chabanet P, Durville P, Nicet J-B and Garnier R (2007) La situation des r\u00C3\u00A9cifs coralliens des Iles Eparses fran\u00C3\u00A7aises de l'Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien. Revue d'Ecologie (La Terre et la Vie) 62: 3\u00E2\u0080\u009316.Quod J-P, editor (2007) Suivi des peuplements ichtyologiques, des peuplements benthiques sessiles et des peuplements d'invert\u00C3\u00A9br\u00C3\u00A9s du banc du Geyser. Comparaison des peuplements ichtyologiques entre 1996 et 2006. Direction de l'Agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt, PARETO \u00C3\u00A9coconsult, and Agence pour la Recherche et la VAlorisation Marines (ARVAM), Mamoudzou (France). 107 p.RAMSAR (2014) Ramsar sites in order of their addition to the Ramsar list of wetlands of international importance. 40 p.Ren\u00C3\u00A9 F, Poisson F and Tessier E (1998) Evolution de la p\u00C3\u00AAcherie palangri\u00C3\u00A8re ciblant l'espadon (Xiphias gladius) \u00C3\u00A0 partir de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. pp. 287\u00E2\u0080\u0093312 In Cayr\u00C3\u00A9 P and Le Gall JY (eds.), Le thon : enjeux et strat\u00C3\u00A9gies pour l'oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien. ORSTOM, Paris (France).R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (1960) D\u00C3\u00A9cret n\u00C2\u00B060\u00E2\u0080\u0093555 du 1 avril 1960 relatif \u00C3\u00A0 la situation administrative de certaines \u00C3\u00AEles relevant de la souverainet\u00C3\u00A9 de la France. Journal Officiel de la R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise: 5343.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (1975) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 pr\u00C3\u00A9f\u00C3\u00A9ctoral n\u00C2\u00B0 13/DG/IOI du 18 novembre 1975.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (1978) D\u00C3\u00A9cret n\u00C2\u00B0 78\u00E2\u0080\u0093146 du 3 f\u00C3\u00A9vrier 1978 portant cr\u00C3\u00A9ation, en application de la loi du 16 juillet 1976, d'une zone \u00C3\u00A9conomique au large des c\u00C3\u00B4tes des \u00C3\u00AEles Tromelin, Glorieuses, Juan-de-Nova, Europa et Bassas-da-India. Journal Officiel de la R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise: 686\u00E2\u0080\u0093686.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2001) D\u00C3\u00A9cret n\u00C2\u00B0 2001\u00E2\u0080\u0093456 du 22 mai 2001 portant publication de la Convention entre le Gouvernement de la R\u00C3\u00A9publique fran\u00C3\u00A7aise et le Gouvernement de la R\u00C3\u00A9publique des Seychelles relative \u00C3\u00A0 la d\u00C3\u00A9limitation de la fronti\u00C3\u00A8re maritime de la zone \u00C3\u00A9conomique exclusive et du plateau continental de la France et des Seychelles, sign\u00C3\u00A9e \u00C3\u00A0 Victoria le 19 f\u00C3\u00A9vrier 2001.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2007) Loi n\u00C2\u00B0 2007\u00E2\u0080\u0093224 du 21 f\u00C3\u00A9vrier 2007 portant dispositions statutaires et institutionnelles relatives \u00C3\u00A0 l'outre-mer Journal Officiel de la R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 0045(2): 3220.Fisheries catch reconstructions for the \u00C3\u00AEles \u00C3\u00A9parses \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach and Pauly 33R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2008) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 n\u00C2\u00B0 2008\u00E2\u0080\u0093154 du 17 d\u00C3\u00A9cembre 2008 prescrivant les r\u00C3\u00A8gles encadrant l'exercice de la p\u00C3\u00AAche aux thons et autres poissons p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques autoris\u00C3\u00A9e dans les zones \u00C3\u00A9conomiques exclusives des \u00C3\u00AEles \u00C3\u0089parses (Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Bassas da Indian, Europa, Tromelin). Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises 40: 18\u00E2\u0080\u009328.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2010a) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 n\u00C2\u00B0 2010\u00E2\u0080\u0093151 du 9 d\u00C3\u00A9cembre 2010 portant interdiction de la p\u00C3\u00AAche dans les eaux territoriales des \u00C3\u00AEles Bassas da India, Europa, Juan de Nova, Glorieuses et dans les 10 milles marins autour du banc de Geyser (district des \u00C3\u00AEles Eparses). Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises 48: 14\u00E2\u0080\u009315.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2010b) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 n\u00C2\u00B0 2010\u00E2\u0080\u0093104 du 9 octobre 2010 cr\u00C3\u00A9ant une redevance annuelle de surveillance et d'observation de la p\u00C3\u00AAche dans les zones \u00C3\u00A9conomiques exclusives des \u00C3\u00AEles Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Bassas da India et Europa. Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2010c) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 n\u00C2\u00B0 2010\u00E2\u0080\u009320 du 22 mars 2010 modifiant l'arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 n\u00C2\u00B0 2008\u00E2\u0080\u0093154 du 17 d\u00C3\u00A9cembre 2008, prescrivant les r\u00C3\u00A8gles encadrant l'exercice de la p\u00C3\u00AAche aux thons et autres poissons p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques autoris\u00C3\u00A9e dans les zones \u00C3\u00A9conomiques exclusives des \u00C3\u00AEles \u00C3\u0089parses (Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Bassas da India, Europa, Tromelin). Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises 45: 15\u00E2\u0080\u009316.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2012) D\u00C3\u00A9cret n\u00C2\u00B0 2012\u00E2\u0080\u0093245 du 22 f\u00C3\u00A9vrier 2012 portant cr\u00C3\u00A9ation du parc naturel marin des Glorieuses Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises 53: 21\u00E2\u0080\u009323.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2013a) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 n\u00C2\u00B02013\u00E2\u0080\u009314 du 8 mars 2013 prescrivant les r\u00C3\u00A8gles encadrant l'exercice de la p\u00C3\u00AAche aux thons et autres poissons p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques dans les zones \u00C3\u00A9conomiques exclusives des Iles \u00C3\u0089parses (Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Bassas da India, Europa, Tromelin). Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises 57: 15\u00E2\u0080\u009323.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2013b) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 n\u00C2\u00B0 2013\u00E2\u0080\u009324 du 19 avril 2013 portant interdiction de d\u00C3\u00A9tention d'animaux marins et de produits de la mer dans les eaux territoriales des \u00C3\u00AEles Bassas da India, Europa, Juan de Nova, Glorieuses et dans les 10 milles marins autour du banc du Geyser (district des \u00C3\u00AEles \u00C3\u0089parses). Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises 58: 6\u00E2\u0080\u00936.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2013c) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 n\u00C2\u00B0 2013\u00E2\u0080\u009306 du 30 janvier 2013, cr\u00C3\u00A9ant une redevance annuelle de surveillance et d'observation de la p\u00C3\u00AAche dans les zones \u00C3\u00A9conomiques exclusives des \u00C3\u00AEles Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Bassas da India et Europa. Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2013d) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 n\u00C2\u00B0 2013\u00E2\u0080\u009308 du 8 f\u00C3\u00A9vrier 2013 fixant le montant des droits assis sur les quantit\u00C3\u00A9s p\u00C3\u00AAch\u00C3\u00A9es de thons dans les zones \u00C3\u00A9conomiques exclusives fran\u00C3\u00A7aises de Europa, Bassas da India, Juan de Nova, Glorieuses et Tromelin pour la campagne de p\u00C3\u00AAche 2013. Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises 57: 13\u00E2\u0080\u009314.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2014) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 n\u00C2\u00B0 2014\u00E2\u0080\u009351 du 23 avril 2014 prescrivant les r\u00C3\u00A8gles encadrant l'exercice de la p\u00C3\u00AAche aux thons et autres poissons p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques dans les zones \u00C3\u00A9conomiques exclusives des \u00C3\u00AEles \u00C3\u0089parses (Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Bassas da India, Europa, Tromelin). Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises 62: 13\u00E2\u0080\u009321.Thomassin BA and Andrefouet S (2009) Geyser et Z\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9e : les sommets d'un m\u00C3\u00AAme volcan sous-marin. Univers Maor\u00C3\u00A9 12: 22\u00E2\u0080\u009337.von Baeyer HC (1993) The Fermi solution: essays on science. Random House, New York City, NY (USA). 176 p.Wendling B and Le Calv\u00C3\u00A9 S (1999) Technologie et utilisation des DCP ancr\u00C3\u00A9s dans les eaux de la collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 territoriale de Mayotte (archipel des Comores, canal du Mozambique, oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien). pp. 261\u00E2\u0080\u0093275 In Le Gall J-Y, Cayr\u00C3\u00A9 P and Taquet M (eds.), P\u00C3\u00AAche thoni\u00C3\u00A8re et dispositifs de concentration de poissonsTrois-\u00C3\u008Flets, Cara\u00C3\u00AFbe-Martinique.Zeller D and Harper S, editors (2009) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 17 (5). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 108 p.Zeller D and Pauly D, editors (2007) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for key countries and regions (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15 (2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 163 p.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis GE and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for US flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266\u00E2\u0080\u0093277. 34Appendix Table A1. Total reconstructed catch (t) by EEZ, 1989\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Year Bassas da India Glorieuses Archipelago1989 - 15.6 1990 1.8 73.7 1991 3.5 55.4 1992 5.3 45.7 1993 7.1 -1994 8.8 -1995 10.6 -1996 12.3 -1997 14.1 60.0 1998 15.9 120.0 1999 17.6 160.7 2000 19.4 188.6 2001 21.2 228.0 2002 22.9 246.9 2003 24.7 245.1 2004 26.4 222.9 2005 28.2 180.0 2006 33.8 150.9 2007 39.5 123.8 2008 45.1 98.4 2009 50.8 75.0 2010 56.4 75.0 Fisheries catch reconstructions for the \u00C3\u00AEles \u00C3\u00A9parses \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach and Pauly 35Appendix Table A2. Total reconstructed catch desaggregated by taxa, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.YearCarangidaeCarcharhinus longimanusSelachimorphaGroundfishesLutjanidaeLutjanus boharPelagic fishesScombridaeSerranidaeSphyraenidaeThunnus albacares1989 2.1 -- 1.3 - 8.6 - 1.7 1.9 --1990 3.1 0.2 0.1 8.4 0.1 38.5 0.1 5.1 19.0 0.1 0.8 1991 2.7 0.4 0.1 8.8 0.2 25.5 0.2 4.6 14.7 0.2 1.5 1992 3.0 0.6 0.2 11.7 0.3 18.2 0.3 2.4 11.6 0.3 2.3 1993 0.5 0.8 0.2 - 0.5 - 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.5 3.0 1994 0.6 1.1 0.3 - 0.6 - 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.6 3.8 1995 0.7 1.3 0.3 - 0.7 - 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.7 4.5 1996 0.8 1.5 0.4 - 0.8 - 0.8 1.3 0.8 0.8 5.3 1997 4.1 1.7 0.4 9.5 0.9 28.6 0.9 5.5 15.6 0.9 6.0 1998 7.5 1.9 0.5 19.0 1.0 57.3 1.0 9.6 30.3 1.0 6.8 1999 9.8 2.1 0.5 25.5 1.1 76.7 1.1 12.5 40.4 1.1 7.5 2000 11.4 2.3 0.6 29.9 1.2 90.0 1.2 14.5 47.3 1.2 8.3 2001 13.6 2.5 0.6 36.1 1.4 108.8 1.4 17.3 57.0 1.4 9.0 2002 14.8 2.7 0.7 39.1 1.5 117.8 1.5 18.8 61.8 1.5 9.8 2003 14.8 2.9 0.7 38.9 1.6 117.0 1.6 18.8 61.5 1.6 10.5 2004 13.7 3.2 0.8 35.3 1.7 106.3 1.7 17.6 56.1 1.7 11.3 2005 11.5 3.4 0.8 28.5 1.8 85.9 1.8 14.9 45.8 1.8 12.0 2006 10.3 4.0 1.0 23.9 2.2 72.0 2.2 13.6 39.0 2.2 14.4 2007 9.2 4.7 1.2 19.6 2.5 59.1 2.5 12.4 32.8 2.5 16.8 2008 8.2 5.4 1.3 15.6 2.9 47.0 2.9 11.3 26.9 2.9 19.2 2009 7.3 6.0 1.5 11.9 3.2 35.8 3.2 10.4 21.6 3.2 21.6 2010 7.6 6.7 1.7 11.9 3.6 35.8 3.6 11.0 21.9 3.6 24.0 Fisheries catch reconstruction for Kenya \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 37tentative reConstruCtion oF kenya's marine Fisheries CatCh, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010*Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach,1,2\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Caroline A. Abunge,3 Timothy R. McClanahan4 and Daniel Pauly51 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada2 Institut de Recherche pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, UMR212 Ecosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes Marins Exploit\u00C3\u00A9s, Avenue Jean Monnet, CS 30171, 34203 S\u00C3\u00A8te cedex, France3 Wildlife Conservation Society, Kibaki Flats 12, Mombasa, Kenya\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Current address: BLOOM Association, 77 rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris, Francefredericlemanach@bloomassociation.org; cabunge@wcs.org; tmcclanahan@wcs.org; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.caabstraCtTotal marine fisheries catches were estimated for Kenya for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 time-period using the catch reconstruction approach developed by the Sea Around Us and applied to coastal countries worldwide. This included catches (including dead discards) of the industrial, artisanal, recreational, and subsistence fishing sectors. The total reconstructed catch for domestic sectors for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 time-period reached almost 985,000 tonnes. This figure is 2.8 times the official catch reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Major taxa caught were Lethrinidae (emperors; 9.0%), Scaridae (parrotfishes; 8.8%), Siganus spp. (rabbitfish; 8.6%), Elasmobranchii (sharks and rays; 5.3%), and Carangidae (jacks; 4.7%). The artisanal sector (i.e., small-scale commercial) was the most prominent, with 64% of the total catch. Unreported landings represented 63% of the total catch, whereas dead discards represented close to 2%.introduCtion Kenya is located on the east coast of Africa between Somalia and Tanzania. Its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) extends over 110,000 km\u00C2\u00B2 (97th in the World and declared in 1986; Figure 1). The coast is lined with coral reefs covering over 600 km2 (Spalding et al. 2001), except in the central part, where coral growth is prevented by inputs from the Tana River (Ungwana Bay). Mangrove stands are also abundant, especially in the northern half of the coast (UNEP 1998). Despite these rich habitats, marine fisheries are limited due to a narrow shelf, resulting in a small inshore fishing area (Chuenpagdee et al. 2006),1 where essentially all small-scale fisheries occur. Other factors influence small-scale fisheries, such as the northeast and southeast monsoons (from December-March and May-October, respectively), which further restrict fishing activities to inshore waters when the sea is too rough (Obura 2001a). Consequently, marine fisheries have been estimated to represent only 10% of Kenya's total fish catch (FAO 2012); the vast majority of the total fisheries catch comes from the thriving fisheries of Lake Victoria (one of the most important fishing areas on the African continent; FAO 2001; Anon. 2007).Kenyan marine fisheries have always been critical to food security and livelihoods for coastal communities (Devisse 1989), similarly to many developing countries around the world (see also Zeller et al. 2014). For example, Malleret-King (2000) estimated that fisheries provided 80% of the total income to 70% of some coastal communities. Although the number of fishers increased at a rate of 2% per year during the 1980s (McClanahan et al. 2008), there is now some evidence that traditional fishing activities are declining, while other sectors are developing (e.g., sport fishing). One possible explanation is that tourism-related activities play an increasing role in coastal development (Mangi et al. 2007). Thus, some fishers have found alternative livelihoods: or tourists who wish to do sport fishing or visit marine protected areas for their more diverse fauna and protected habitats (Malleret-King 2000; Obura 2001a; Pitcher and Hollingworth 2007).* Cite as: Le Manach F, Abunge CA, McClanahan TR and Pauly D (2015) Tentative reconstruction of Kenya's marine fisheries catch, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Pp. 37\u00E2\u0080\u009351 In Le Manach F and Pauly D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727].1 Defined as the area between the shoreline and either 200 m depth or 50 km distance from shore, whichever comes first.Figure 1. Map showing the extent of the Kenyan Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and shelf water (to 200 m depth), as well as the location of the major coastal cities of Kwale, Mombasa, Kilifi, Malindi and Lamu (the limits of these districts are also shown), as well as the North Kenya Banks (dotted line).0 100 kmLamuKenyaBanksMalindiKilifiMombasaKwale\u00C2\u00B1!Tana rive r!!!! 38Declining marine fisheries catches may also be related to declines in fish abundance. Reefs that sustain small-scale fisheries have been under severe pressure for decades in Kenya (see e.g., Khamala 1971; Muthiga and McClanahan 1987; Obura 2001b; Tuda et al. 2008). Their resources have been heavily exploited, and concerns of over-exploitation have been raised since the 1980s (Weber and Durand 1986; UNEP 1989). This has had impacts on both fish biomass and species composition, as evidenced by a long-term decrease in biomass and an increasing proportion of small, herbivorous species (Kaunda-Arara et al. 2003; McClanahan et al. 2008). A Beach Management Unit (BMU) system was introduced in 2006 to reverse these trends by involving communities in fisheries management (Oluoch and Obura 2008). Several gears such as spearguns and beach seines have also been forbidden, and the number of locally-managed marine protected areas (no-take zones, seasonal closures, or gear restrictions) has increased in the last decade. This shift in fisheries management has already had positive results in fish biomass and diversity (Kaunda-Arara and Rose 2004; Abunge 2011), and may lead to increased resilience for local marine ecosystems in light of changing global climate.Official fisheries statistics provided each year since 1950 to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) consist of four distinct taxonomic groups:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Reef fishes (by far the most important group; e.g., Siganidae, Lethrinidae);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Large pelagics (e.g., tunas, billfishes, and sharks);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Shrimps (i.e., 'natantia');\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Other invertebrates (e.g., oysters, squids, octopuses).Although it has been claimed in official reports that landing data were reliable (Nzungi et al. 2008), various researchers have criticized the quality of these data, underlining the poor monitoring of fishing activities along the coast, aggravated by low fishers' compliance (Oduor 1984; de Sousa 1987; Obura 2001a). This was clearly evidenced by a small-scale fisheries' reporting system designed in 1984, which determined that almost twice the officially reported amount was actually caught (Carrara and Coppola 1985). Although these new figures should have been processed and released as early as 1985, the absence of any increase in the official catch time-series documents that this was not done. More recently, McClanahan and Kaunda-Arara (1996) and McClanahan et al. (2008) showed that the actual catch per area was as high as 16 t\u00C2\u00B7km-2\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in some areas, starkly contrasting with the number based on official statistic, which oscillated between 2 and 4 t\u00C2\u00B7km-2\u00C2\u00B7year-1 (Kaunda-Arara et al. 2003). However, the situation is thought to have improved over the last decade (Obura 2001a; Muthiga et al. 2008), notably due to the implementation of frame surveys in 2004 (Republic of Kenya 2004\u00E2\u0080\u00932012). Unfortunately, the monitoring, control and surveillance capacities are still lacking, as many fishers do not report their catch and official catch data still appear to have an unreported component (UNEP 1998; Mangi et al. 2007; Tuda et al. 2008; Maina 2012).In this report, we apply to Kenya the reconstruction methods developed around principles in Pauly (1998), described in Zeller et al. (2007) and applied worldwide by the Sea Around Us (Zeller and Pauly 2007; Zeller and Harper 2009; Harper and Zeller 2012; Harper et al. 2012; Zeller et al. 2014). We aim to improve the overall quality of fisheries statistics by thoroughly reviewing the available literature and re-estimating the total extraction of marine fish since 1950.materials and methodsPreliminary re-allocation of the catchThe nominal catch provided by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC; www.iotc.org/data/datasets) was used to re-allocate the FAO catch of the large pelagics to various sectors. Given that the FAO dataset clearly includes the catch of the longline fleet (targeting swordfish) from 1980 to 1983, we assumed that the catch of this fleet was included in the FAO data for the entire period. When the IOTC catch for a given taxa was higher than the catch of this taxa reported by FAO, we assumed that it was because it was grouped in a more general taxon (due to low catches). We made the same assumption for the sport fishing fleet, thus we also assumed that at least some recreational (i.e., sport) fishing catches were included in the officially reported data. For both these fleets, the re-allocation of the FAO data was done according to Table 1.The remaining catch of 'IOTC species' was re-allocated to the small-scale coastal fleets. However, we point out that except for 'Elasmobranchii', IOTC and FAO data series exhibit considerable and unexplained discrepancies when compared to each other. However, for consistency reasons and due to the rather unrealistic IOTC series (e.g., mostly flat for K. pelamis; plateauing and then steeply dropping for Scomberomorus commerson), we only used the FAO data here. The 'non-IOTC species' catch reported to FAO was also automatically allocated to the either the reef-gleaning sector ('Brachyura', 'Crassostrea spp.', 'Crustacea', 'Holothuroidea', and 50% of 'Octopodidae') or the small-scale coastal fleet (remaining taxa).As a result, the FAO catch was reallocated to several sectors, which were then studied and reconstructed separately (Figure 2).Fisheries catch reconstruction for Kenya \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 39Table 1. Correspondence between IOTC taxa and their FAO names, from which their catch was reallocated.Fleet Original IOTC taxon Reallocated FAO taxon PeriodLongline (targeting swordfish) Acanthocybium solandri PerciformesAll years these species were reportedAlopiasElasmobranchiiCarcharhinidaeCarcharhinus falciformisC. longimanusC. obscurusIstiompax indica Makaira indica 1980\u00E2\u0080\u009383Istiophoridae 2005 onwardIstiophoridae All years these species were reportedIstiophorus platypterus Istiophorus platypterus 1981\u00E2\u0080\u009383Istiophoridae 2005 onwardIsurus oxyrinchus ElasmobranchiiAll years these species were reportedI. paucusKajikia audax IstiophoridaeKatsuwonus pelamis Katsuwonus pelamisLamna nasus ElasmobranchiiMakaira nigricans IstiophoridaeMarine fishes not identifieda PerciformesPrionace glauca OsteichthyesbPseudocarcharias kamoharai ElasmobranchiiScombridae ScombroideiSelachimorphaElasmobranchiiSphyrna lewiniS. zygaenaSphyrnidaeTetrapturus angustirostris IstiophoridaeThunnus alalunga Thunnus alalunga 1980\u00E2\u0080\u009383Perciformes 2005 onwardT. albacares Thunnus albacares 1980\u00E2\u0080\u009383Perciformes 2007 onwardT. obesus Thunnus obesus 1980\u00E2\u0080\u009383Perciformes 2005 onwardXiphias gladius Xiphias gladius 1980\u00E2\u0080\u009383Perciformes 2005\u00E2\u0080\u009308, 2010Osteichthyes 2009Sport fishing Acanthocybium solandri PerciformesAll years these species were reportedAuxis thazard thazardCarcharhinidae ElasmobranchiiCarcharhinus longimanusEuthynnus affinis PerciformesIstiompax indica 1987, 1990\u00E2\u0080\u009393, 1995, 2008Osteichthyes 1994Istiophoridae 2006\u00E2\u0080\u009307, 2009Istiophoridae Perciformes 1995Istiophoridae 2000 onwardIstiophorus platypterus Perciformes 1987, 1989\u00E2\u0080\u00931993, 1995, 2008Osteichthyes 1994Istiophoridae 1996\u00E2\u0080\u00932006, 2009\u00E2\u0080\u009310Isurus oxyrinchus Elasmobranchii All years these species were reportedKajikia audax Perciformes 1987, 1989\u00E2\u0080\u00931993, 1995Osteichthyes 1994Istiophoridae 1996 onwardKatsuwonus pelamis Katsuwonus pelamis All years these species were reportedMakaira nigricans Perciformes 1987, 1990\u00E2\u0080\u009393Osteichthyes 1994Istiophoridae 1998 onwardMarine fishes not identifieda PerciformesAll years these species were reportedPrionace glauca ElasmobranchiiScombridae PerciformesSelachimorphaElasmobranchiiSphyrna zygaenaSphyrnidaeThunnus albacaresPerciformesT. obesusXiphias gladiusa Given that the IOTC focuses on large pelagics, we changed this taxon to 'pelagic fishes' in our database.b For some reasons, the catch of that species were very high compared to the other species of sharks. Given that the catch of Prionace glauca was even higher than the total catch of sharks reported to FAO, we decided to reallocate it from the higher taxon 'Osteichthyes'. 40Domestic fisheriesSmall-scale, coastal fisheriesSmall-scale fisheries represent the bulk of total Kenyan marine fisheries and essentially involve men.2 Many species of fish are targeted, be they demersal reef species or small pelagic species roaming inshore waters, as well as commercially-important invertebrates such as shrimp, octopus, and lobster (Okechi and Polovina 1994; McClanahan and Mangi 2004; Anon. 2007; Maina and Samoilys 2011; Samoilys et al. 2011a,b). A dozen gears are used on a regular basis to target these different species, ranging from spearguns to beach seine and ring nets, and from traps to boat-operated driftnets (Samoilys et al. 2011a).3 The major fishing grounds are found around Lamu, the mouth of the Tana River, Ungwana Bay/Malindi, as well as the Mombasa area and the North Kenya Banks (see Figure 1; Oduor 1984; Fondo 2004; Maina 2012; Munga et al. 2012). Spearguns, which were introduced in the 1970s (McClanahan et al. 1997), are now commonly used by the poorest fishers because they are cheap (McClanahan et al. 2005), similarly to other less efficient gears (Ochiewo 2002). On the other hand, beach seines (now also illegal) are mostly used because their efficiency is higher than that of any other gears (however, their catch is split into more shares as it requires more men). Beach seines capture a high diversity and size range, overlapping with other gears and, by impacting on the recruitment of a wide range of species, impair the functioning of the ecosystems that are exploited (McClanahan and Mangi 2004; McClanahan et al. 2005; Mangi and Roberts 2006). Due to these different uses, numerous conflicts between gear users have been reported over access to the resource (McClanahan et al. 2005; Mangi et al. 2007; Munga et al. 2010; Fulanda et al. 2011).The pelagic component4 of the small-scale fleet (motorized boats) seems to be increasingly important due to the decline of reef fish, although this fleet is mostly active during the north-east monsoon (when non-motorized boats cannot leave the inshore area; Maina 2012). During this season, fishers that are usually active further offshore are also known to retarget to valuable invertebrate species such as lobsters, holothurians and shells (Marshall et al. 1999; Maina and Samoilys 2011).To re-estimate the total small-scale coastal fisheries, we first estimated the number of fishers from 1950 to 2010. To our knowledge, no reliable time-series of the number of fishers and fishing effort exist for this entire period, although figures have been published by the Government since the early 2000s (Republic of Kenya 2004). Officially, the Government reports that there were approximately 13,000 fishers in 2010 (Republic of Kenya 2012), but Tuda et al. (2008) and Maina (2012) suggested that these numbers were underestimated, and provided a higher figure of 15,000 fishers for as early as the 1990s. To remain conservative, we disregarded these non-official figures, and calculated the ratio of the geometric mean of the number of fishers provided by the Government for the years 2004 to 2010 (Republic of Kenya 2004\u00E2\u0080\u00932012; the 2010 figure being the average of 2008 and 2012) over the total population in 2007. We then considered this fishers:total population ratio to be constant from 1950 to 2010 and applied it to the total population time-series (Figure 3).5 We further disaggregated this fishers' time-series into five regions (roughly following the 'official districts'; see Figure 1), based on the percentage of the population living in the 15 km-band of each of them.6There also exist some indications that fishers are now active fewer days per year, with an average of 220 fishing days per year (McClanahan and Mangi 2001; Caroline A. Abunge and Timothy R. McClanahan, pers. obs.).7 We therefore assumed that fishers have been active 220 days per year since 1995, but that they used to fish 275 days per year prior to 1975 (i.e., prior to our assumed initial decline in CPUE; see Table 2).2 However, women and children are largely involved in collecting and marketing this fish, and in reef gleaning (see section below).3 Note that dynamite and poison are thought to be rarely used, except near the Tanzanian border (McClanahan et al. 2005).4 Besides medium to large pelagics such as tuna and billfishes, these offshore fishers also target sharks. They are valued as a cheap source of meat (traded up to 100 km inland) and for their dried fins exported to Asia. According to Marshall (1997), Kenya exported at least 140 t of shark fins between 1986 and 1990. Most of these exports (75%) were actually re-exports, as about 10 to 20 t (and 50 t during summer) were imported from Somalia every month. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that the domestic fishery is increasingly widespread, threatening shark populations (Spooner 2012).5 This resulted in an annual growth rate higher than the one published by McClanahan et al. (2008), i.e., +2% per year, but our estimate resulted in a more conservative number of fishers in the earlier period.6 These figures are based on the World Resource Institute's high-resolution GIS files (http://www.wri.org/publication/content/9291), from which we extracted the population living in the 15-km coastal band (assuming homogeneous distribution of the population within each polygon). 7 Note that this number is an average for the entire coastline. Some sources tend to indicate that there are more fishing days in the south, e.g., 300 fishing days (Crona et al. 2010). - 2 4 6 8 10 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Catch reported to FAO (thousand t) Year Longline (targeting swordfish) Sport-fishing fleet Small-scale, coastal fleet Reef gleaners Shrimp trawlers Figure 2. Catch reported to the FAO and reallocated to various fisheries sectors.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Kenya \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 41We then estimated a CPUE time-series for each of the five regions, based on data collected by the Kenyan branch of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) since 1995, coupled with other anchor points found in the literature (Grottanelli 1955; Samoilys et al. 2011b,c), as described in Table 2.By multiplying these regional CPUE time-series by the number of fishing days and their respective time-series of fishers (Figure 3), we obtained the total 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 small-scale, coastal fisheries catch (catches in the Tana River estuary were estimated separately; see below).With regards to the taxonomic breakdown, we first adjusted the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931974 data reported to FAO by reallocating part of the meaningless 'Osteichthyes' taxon to the various taxa reported in following years:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 From 1972 to 1974, we applied the 1975\u00E2\u0080\u009379 average taxonomic breakdown of the small-scale coastal fleet minus 'Elasmobranchii' and 'Panulirus sp.' (already reported);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 For 1970 and 1971, we applied the updated 1972\u00E2\u0080\u009376 average taxonomic breakdown of the small-scale coastal fleet minus 'Panulirus sp.' (already reported);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 From 1950 to 1969, we applied the updated 1970\u00E2\u0080\u009374 average taxonomic breakdown of the small-scale coastal fleet;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Finally, we added a new taxon, Scaridae, which seems to represent an important part of the catch according to WCS surveys, but which is absent from FAO data. For this taxon, we simply considered that it was making up 50% of the remaining groundfishes (FAO name is 'demersal perciformes) throughout the time-series.8Once these adjustments were made, we applied the same taxonomic breakdown to the unreported landings estimated above (equals 'total reconstructed' minus 'total reported').The last step was to allocate the total catch to either the subsistence or artisanal (i.e., commercial) sectors. Based on personal observations and communications with local fishers, we considered that 80% of 'Clupeoids' and 50% of 'Carangidae' and the larger groups of 'groundfishes', 'marine fishes not identified', and 'pelagic fishes' were kept for subsistence purposes, while 90% of all other taxa were sold (commercially-valuable taxa corresponding to the 'artisanal catch'; Maina 2012) and the remaining 10% (e.g., juveniles and low-value species) were kept for subsistence.Catches in the Tana River estuary were estimated separately, using shrimp and associated fish catches reported by Munga et al. (2012):8 The rest of the taxonomic breakdown was kept as is for the 1975\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period.Figure 3. Suggested time-series of the total number of fishers (solid line), given the demography of Kenya. The solid dots represent the estimates of the Government (Republic of Kenya 2004\u00E2\u0080\u00932012; the 2010 point being the average of 2008 and 2012 data). The white square represents Maina (2012)'s estimate, and is provided here as an illustration only. The dashed lines represent the estimated number of fishers in each region (see Figure 1).Table 2. Summary of the methods used to reconstruct the catch of the small-scale coastal fisheries in the five regions defined in Figure 1, 1950 to 2010.Region Period CPUE (kg\u00C2\u00B7fisher-1\u00C2\u00B7day-1) Note ReferencesMombasa 1950 16.4 Anchor point; assumed 20% higher than anchor point in 1985 Grottanelli (1955)a1951\u00E2\u0080\u00931974 16.4 Assumed similar to 1950 -1975\u00E2\u0080\u00931984 16.2\u00E2\u0086\u009213.9 Linear interpolation until 1985 -1985 13.7 Anchor point Samoilys et al. (2011b,c) 1986\u00E2\u0080\u00931994 12.8\u00E2\u0086\u00925.8 Linear interpolation until 1995 -1995\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 4.9\u00E2\u0086\u00922.5\u00E2\u0086\u00923.2 Anchor points WCS dataLamu 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931985 16.4\u00E2\u0086\u009213.7 Similar to Mombasa -1986\u00E2\u0080\u00932000 13.5\u00E2\u0086\u009210.0 1975\u00E2\u0080\u00931985 trend carried forwardb -2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 10.1\u00E2\u0086\u009211.3 Increase of 1.2% per yearc -Kilifi/Kwale 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932000 16.4\u00E2\u0086\u00922.5 Similar to Mombasa -2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 2.6\u00E2\u0086\u00922.9 Increase of 1.2% per yearc -Malindi 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 16.4\u00E2\u0086\u00927.1 Average between Lamu and Kilifi/Kwale (central position) -a This author does not provide any specifics, but based on his observations, it can be assumed that catches were abundant. Since there were already signs of over-exploitation of Kenyan reefs in the 1980s (Weber and Durand 1986; UNEP 1989), we assumed that the average CPUE was 20% higher than that reported by Samoilys et al. (2011b,c) for the mid-1980s.b We considered that the CPUE decrease in the area of Lamu was slower than in the area of Mombasa, due to a much lower population density, and thus, fishing pressure.c We considered that the trend in CPUE reversed after 2000 as well, similarly to Mombasa area. However, we considered that the recovery rate was half that of Mombasa's, due to lower enforcement of management measures.- 4 8 12 16 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total number of fishers (thousand) Year KwaleMombasaKilifiMalindiLamu 42\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 From 1963 to 1979, we considered that the entire shrimp catch reported to FAO was small-scale, as the industrial fishery started in 1980. We then applied the average 1963\u00E2\u0080\u00931979 catch (i.e., 115 t per year) back to 1950, and then from 1980 to 2000;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 From 2000 to 2006, we used Munga et al. (2012)'s small-scale catch data;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 From 2007 to 2010 (no industrial fishery), we took whichever data was the highest for any given year, between Munga et al. (2012)'s small-scale catch data and FAO data;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Munga et al. (2012) further estimated that fish were making between 87.6% and 93.5% of the small-scale catch from 2001 to 2008. We therefore applied these percentages from 2001 to 2008, and their average (i.e., 90.9%) from 1950 to 2000 and from 2009 to 2010, to estimate the fish catch by small-scale fishers in the Tana River area.We considered that the species of shrimp caught by the small-scale fishers were similar to those targeted by the industrial fleet (see below; Mutagyera 1984), i.e., Penaeus indicus (70.6%), Metapenaeus monoceros (15.6%), P. monodon (5.6%), P. semisulcatus (5.6%), and P. japonicus (2.6%). Similarly, we also used the taxonomic composition of the fish catch reported by Munga et al. (2012), which we applied throughout the time-period. We further considered that 80% of Acanthuridae, Cichlidae, Claridae, Clupeidae, and Protopteridae9 were kept for subsistence purposes (low-value fish), and that 90% of sharks, billfishes, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Mugilidae, cephalopods, Palinuridae, Scaridae, Scombridae, Serranidae, and Siganidae were sold (i.e., artisanal catch; the rest being kept for subsistence). The remaining groups (i.e., Carangidae, and mixed demersals and pelagics) were allocated to the subsistence and artisanal sectors in equal proportions.Industrial shrimp fisheriesThe shrimp fishery is the only sector with a management plan in Kenya (Republic of Kenya 2011; Maina 2012).10 The single shrimp fishing ground of commercial importance is located in the Ungwana Bay (at the mouth of the Tana River; Mwatha 2002),11 and is in fact one of the largest in east Africa (Fulanda et al. 2011). Due to important discharge of sediments and nutrient-rich freshwater from the river, the Ungwana Bay is also known as the most productive fishing ground along the Kenyan coast (Kitheka 2002; Mwangi 2002). A small fleet fluctuating between four and 20 industrial trawlers was active since the late 1970s (Mwatha 2002), but official statistics were only reported since the mid-1980s (Fulanda et al. 2011; Munga et al. 2012). Industrial trawling was restricted to waters beyond nine kilometers from shore, whereas small-scale fishers (who not only target shrimp) were allowed to fish within the 9 km zone.12 However, increasing tensions between the two sectors (e.g., due to gear destruction and resource-sharing (Mwatha 2002; Ochiewo 2002)) forced the government to implement seasonal closures for the industrial fishery in 2001 (Gazette No 7565 of October 31, 2001) and completely ban industrial trawling in 2006.The main targeted species were Penaeus indicus (70.6%), Metapenaeus monoceros (15.6%), P. monodon (5.6%), P. semisulcatus (5.6%), and P. japonicus (2.6%; Mutagyera 1984).To reconstruct the full time-series of industrial shrimp catches, we used the following methodology:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 From 1981 to 2000, we subtracted the average 1963\u00E2\u0080\u00931979 small-scale catch (i.e., 115 t; see section above) from the reported FAO data, in order to estimate the industrial component. The missing 1980 data were replaced by the average between the assumed zero in 1979 (considered to be the last year before industrial trawling for shrimp started) and the 1981 value;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 From 2001 to 2006, we took whichever data were the highest for any given year, between Munga et al. (2012)'s industrial data and FAO data.Fish accounted for between 25.6% to 56.7% of the trawlers' total catch from 2001 to 2006 (Munga et al. 2012), and were as high as 70\u00E2\u0080\u009380% of the total catch before the 2000s (Ochiewo 2002). Therefore, we considered that shrimp were only contributing 20% of the reconstructed total industrial trawler catch from 1980 to 2000, and then used the data provided by Munga et al. (2012) from 2001 to 2006. We also applied the taxonomic composition provided by Munga et al. (2012) from 1980 to 2006.Furthermore, Mwatha (2002) suggested that only adults of commercially-important bycatch species were retained. We assumed 25% of the following species were juveniles and thus discarded: Carangidae, Istiophoridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, octopodiformes, Palinuridae, Scaridae, Scombridae, Serranidae, and Siganidae. We also assumed that 80% of the 'mixed demersals' were discarded. We applied these ratios from 1980 to 2006, the only exception being Claridae13 (i.e., catfishes), for which we considered that 100% were discarded until 1999, and then only 80% from 2000 to 2006 (Mwatha 2002). The sum of these assumed discard rates applied to the taxonomic breakdown described above amounted to 79.8% of the bycatch being discarded from 1980 to 1999 and 75.1% from 2000 to 2006, in the same range as discards of 67% reported by Kelleher (2005) and the 1:7 shrimp:discard ratio reported by Mwatha (2002).9 This taxon was probably misidentified as it refers to lungfishes, which are strictly limnic.10 There have also been unsuccessful attempts of deep-water shrimp/lobsters fisheries in the Ungwana Bay, but this was not economically feasible (Mutagyera 1984).11 However, note that some Kenyan trawlers are known to have been fishing shrimp illegally in Somali waters (Anon. 2005a).12 This segregation between these two sectors is due to technology: industrial freezers are equipped with funnel-shaped otter trawls and are 25 to 40 m long (storage capacity of 30 to 350 tonnes; engines from 115 to 1,500 horsepower), while small-scale fishers use dug-out canoes and plank wood canoes, thus limiting their activity to a narrow band along the coast.13 This taxon is included in the 'miscellaneous marine fishes' category the Sea Around Us database, as at the time of writing there was no code for this taxonomic group.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Kenya \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 43Reef gleaningWomen and children have always been involved in collecting invertebrates such as crabs, holothurians and shells all along the coast at low tide (Grottanelli 1955). Overall, though, the catch of reef-gleaners is thought to be smaller than that of the reef fisheries performed by male fishers (Samoilys et al. 2011b).Shellfish account for the bulk of reef-gleaning catches and are mainly collected for the tourism market (Kimani 1995; Marshall et al. 1999), but concerns of over-exploitation have been voiced since the 1970s (Marshall et al. 1999). Holothurians are exclusively targeted for the export Chinese market, and, similarly to shells, it appears that both the average size and the density of holothurians have decreased over-time. They are now mostly targeted by scuba divers in deeper waters, similar to Madagascar (Le Manach et al. 2012) and Tanzania (Bultel et al. this volume). Crabs (mainly Scylla serrata) are consumed locally and are mainly caught in the north, where most mangroves are located (Mutagyera 1984; Kimani 1995; UNEP 1998).We assumed that the number of gleaners was equivalent to 30% of the intermediate number of male fishers (see Figure 3) from 1950 to 1970, and 20% from 2005 onwards (we linearly interpolated the values). This was based on the assumption that reef-gleaning is becoming less important due to the emergence of alternative livelihoods. We then assumed that each gleaner was active 200 days per year and was catching 4 kg\u00C2\u00B7day-1 in 1950. This catch rate was linearly interpolated to 3 kg\u00C2\u00B7day-1 in 2010, based on the aforementioned signs of over-exploitation.Due to the lack of information on this sector, we used the FAO data corresponding to these taxa, and allocated to this sector (Figure 2) to estimate a taxonomic breakdown for our reconstructed catch. For years without data, we carried backward the average percentage of each taxon, and re-scaled the total to 100%. Finally, we created another category, i.e., 'shells', which was deemed to represent the species collected for the tourism market.Longline (targeting swordfish) fleetAs far back as the 1950s, Kenyan waters have been considered to be productive, and Williams (1956) noted the possibility to develop a troll line fishery. As pointed out by de Sousa (1987), FAO data \"include the catches from two [domestic] industrial scale tuna longliners which were operated from Mombasa during the early 1980s\" (Figure 2). Although IOTC data display the same trend as the FAO data, they are slightly higher. In our database, the difference was thus included as 'unreported landing with respect to data reported by FAO on behalf of Kenya', since we deemed IOTC data to be more accurate.Since 2005, two industrial longliners targeting swordfish have also been registered in Kenya. In 2010, only one vessel remained (then owned by a Spanish company), before it was highjacked by pirates when it ventured into Somali waters (Anon. 2010; IOTC 2012); this vessel was later transferred to the Atlantic Ocean (Nyongesa Wekesa and Ndegwa 2011). Their catch was estimated by a 'liaison officer' to have declined from 730 and 156 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1. The catch of these longliners were also re-allocated from the FAO series (see above; Table 1).In this report, we did not re-estimate any discards for this sector. This was done separately as part of the Sea Around Us work on harmonizing worldwide catches of large pelagics (Le Manach et al. in press).Sport fishing fleetKenya has been a tourist destination since at least the 1950s (Williams 1970), but mass tourism started in the 1980s (Weaver 1999; Irandu 2004). This sector is now a pillar of the Kenyan economy (Mangi et al. 2007), as there are currently over 1.6 million tourists visiting Kenya every year (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics 2010). Most visitors spend part of their stay visiting places such as the Massai-Mara,Tsavo and Ambosseli National Parks for safaris (Weaver 1999), and about one third also visit coastal areas Williams 1970; Kimani 1995).Kenyan sport fishing started in the 1950s (Williams 1970) and became much more prominent in the mid-1980s (Marshall 1997), due to increased tourism. According to Marshall (1997), there were about 60 sport fishing boats (5\u00E2\u0080\u009312m long; 60 to 200 trips each per year) that were registered in the late 1990s, but we can expect this figure to have greatly increased in the 2000s. Indeed, Ndegwa (2010) reported that about 30 centers were registered along the coast in the late 2000s; thus, it is easily imaginable that each center has, on average, more than only two boats. As a matter of fact, Ndegwa (2010) also reports that there are on average nine boats per day at sea at Malindi's resort.Sport fishing mostly occurs from April to August, the weather being too rough the rest of the year (Abuodha 1999). Boats mainly use hook and line, in contrast with shore-based recreational fishing (mostly trolling, drifting, and spinning).14 The sport fishing charters generally operate from all major ports and fish the more distant Kenyan Banks, 35\u00E2\u0080\u009355 km offshore (Ndegwa 2011; Figure 1). However, it seems that, although resorts occur along the entire Kenyan coast, the resorts of Watamu, Malindi (and offshore Kenya banks), Shimoni and Mombasa make up most of the sport fishing activity (Abuodha 1999; Ndegwa 2010). Ndegwa (2010) reports that 22,000 trips were recorded between 1990 and 2008 in the resort of Malindi alone. This author notes, however, a decrease from 1,600 trips per year in the early 1990s to currently 1,200 (Ndegwa 2010).Some authors previously believed that FAO data included some recreational fisheries data at some point in the past (de Sousa 1987), but this was later questioned by Ndegwa (2010). According to the latter author, the Kenyan 14 Although a tag and release project was introduced in 1987 (Abuodha 1999), it seems that most fish are still sold on local markets. When skippers judge the fish to be in good-enough physiological condition, though, they may release it after the photo-shoot. 44Fisheries Department collected sport fisheries data since 1940, but never computerized them. In 2006, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and the Overseas Fishery Cooperation Foundation aimed to collect these data in order to create a historical database and analyze CPUE trends. This database is now available at 41.206.61.142:8080/statbase_3 and has been included in the IOTC catch database. Here, we assumed that these data were now included in the FAO data (Figure 2). These reported catches oscillated between 11 and 182 tonnes and averaged 91 tonnes between 1987 and 2010. However, Ndegwa (2010) reported that recreational catches in Malindi's resort alone consistently ranged around 100 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1, making it therefore likely that only a subset of total recreational catches were ever included in the IOTC dataset.15 As a matter of fact, Maina (2012) reported catches around 206 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1, with 318 t in 2009. He also noted that much remains to be done to improve the quality of these statistics, reinforcing the feeling that official statistics miss a large part of the recreational sector.To reconstruct this sector, we produced a set of assumptions based on data provided by Williams (1970) for the 1960s:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Sailfish were weighting on average 29.5 kg;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Sailfish were making up 30% of the total catch in weight (the author notes that both sailfish and marlin make up a majority of the catch);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Malindi's area was accounting for half of the recreational catch in Kenya.A catch of zero tonnes was set for 1950, and data were linearly interpolated to 1958, the first year for which Williams (1970) presented data.From 1987 to 2006, we used the data published by the IOTC (Ndegwa 2010), filling the gaps with linear interpolations (1988\u00E2\u0080\u009389 and 2002\u00E2\u0080\u009304). For 2007\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, we used the average of the period 1987\u00E2\u0080\u00932006; excluding interpolations). Further, we considered that this author only managed to collect half of the actual catch in the area of Malindi (Ndegwa [2010] noted that data still needed to be much improved).To scale these results to the entire Kenyan coastline, we considered that Malindi's resort made 50% of the total catch until 1980, and only 25% from 2000 onward (linearly interpolating in between). This was based on the assumption that other resorts gained a larger portion of the total share due to the tourism expansion in the 1980s.The taxonomic breakdown for this sector was based on Abuodha (1999), although some modifications were made to accommodate the data reported to FAO: Istiophorus sp. (30%) and Scombridae (20%); the rest being equally distributed among Sphyraena spp., Scomberomorus commerson, Makaira spp., Acanthocybium solandri, Elasmobranchii, and other pelagic species.16 The unreported landings were calculated by subtracting the data reported to FAO from the data estimated above (Table 3).Foreign fisheriesDistant-water tuna fleetsHistorically, offshore stocks have remained largely unexploited by local fishers (Anon. 1996), but have long been intensively exploited by distant-water fleets (FAO 2007). Indeed, Kenyan waters are located in the productive Mozambique Channel and are therefore host to highly productive tuna fisheries (Tuda et al. 2008).In recent years, dozens of purse seiners and longliners from the Seychelles, Mayotte, Spain, France and Taiwan have been reported to have fishing licenses in Kenya, with however no conclusive information.17 For example, FAO reported licenses for 33 purse seiners and 30 longliners (FAO 2007), while National reports stated that 19 and 34 licenses were active in 2008 and 2010 respectively (Sigana 2009; Nyongesa Wekesa and Ndegwa 2011); Signa et al. (2008) on the other hand reported a much higher figure of 116 vessels licensed in 2008. Therefore, it seems that many countries have fishing interests in Kenyan waters, but that they may not be legally present (i.e., licensed) every 15 Pitcher and Hemphill (1989) also collected recreational catch data from 1976 to 1987, showing that several hundred yellowfin tuna (i.e., several tonnes) were caught in the resort of Shimoni alone.16 Noteworthy, it seems that shark sightings decreased over the last few decades (Marshall 1997), similarly to most places in the world.17 Note that the EU and the Government of Kenya have been negotiating the signature of a Fisheries Partnership Agreement for several years (Anon. 2005a, 2014).Table 3. Correspondence between the reported taxa and the assumed FAO taxa, from which their catch was subtracted to calculate the 'unreported landings'.Reported taxon Assumed FAO taxonAcanthocybium solandri Acanthocybium solandriCarcharhinidaeCarcharhinus longimanusIsurus oxyrinchusPrionace glaucaSelachimorphaSphyrna zygaenaSphyrnidaeElasmobranchiiAuxis thazardEuthynnus affinisKatsuwonus pelamisScombridaeThunnus albacaresT. obesusScombridaeIstiophoridaeIstiophorus platypterus Istiophorus spp.Istiompax indicaKajikia audaxMakaira nigricansMakaira spp.Pelagic fishesXiphias gladius Pelagic fishesSphyraena spp.Scomberomorus commerson No reported catch; All 'unreported landing'Fisheries catch reconstruction for Kenya \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 45year. Indeed, the lack of monitoring and surveillance capacity is thought to be a major incentive for illegal fishing (up to 160 vessels; i.e., only 20% of tuna vessels are licensed) and underreporting (Anon. 2005a, 2007).Catches of this sector are not presented here. Rather, they are estimated as part of the global large pelagic catch reconstruction conducted by the Sea Around Us (Le Manach et al. in press).Small-scale migrant fishersKenyan waters also host migrant fishers from Tanzania. These fishers, coming from the south during the north-east monsoon season, seek calmer waters and often reach the Malindi area, about halfway up the country. These fishers mainly target highly valuable species such as sharks, Carangidae, Lethrinidae and Siganidae (Crona et al. 2010), mainly using lines in the north, and shark nets in the south. Because of the species they target and their usually higher CPUEs (i.e., 2.2 times higher than domestic artisanal fishers, on average), there are often tensions between the two groups. Here, we considered that migrant fishers had a CPUE 2.2 times higher than local fishers in the regions south of Lamu (Figure 1), that their number was equivalent to 10% of that of the local fishers, and that they fished 300 days per year (Crona et al. 2010).resultsDomestic fisheriesThe total catch by Kenyan fishers is estimated to have been almost 985,000 tonnes from 1950 to 2010, which is 2.8 times the amount reported to FAO (Figure 4). It increased from 9,600 tonnes in 1950 to a peak of nearly 27,000 tonnes in 1985. It then decreased to 12,100 tonnes in 2000 and increased again to 15,900 tonnes in 2010.Overall, artisanal, subsistence, industrial, and recreational catches made up 64%, 27%, 5%, and 4%, respectively (Figure 4).We estimated that the small-scale coastal fisheries (including those in the Tana River estuary) caught in excess of 845,000 t between 1950 and 2010 (86% of the total). Catches increased from around 9,200 t in 1950 to a peak of 20,500 t in 1985. Catches then decreased to 7,900 t in 2000 to increase again to around 13,000 t by the late 2000s. Lethrinidae, Scaridae, Siganus spp., elasmobranchii, and Carangidae were the main taxa, with 10%, 10%, 10%, 6%, and 5% of the catch, respectively, the rest being composed of other taxa of fish and various invertebrates.More marginalized than reef fishers, reef-gleaners come as the second most important group of fishers in terms of total catch. Over 55,000 tonnes of invertebrates were caught over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period (6% of the total catch). The overall catch increased from 400 tonnes in 1950 to 1,400 tonnes in 2010, out of which 25% were shells, 23% were marine crabs (mostly Scylla serrata), 19% other crustaceans, 15% holothurians, 12% octopuses, and 5% oysters.18Recreational catches by tourists steadily increased \u00E2\u0080\u0094 although fluctuating \u00E2\u0080\u0094 from 34 t in 1951 to around 1,300 t by 2010. A substantial decrease occurred in 1997\u00E2\u0080\u009398 (to around 700 t), which was caused by the collapse of coastal tourism following political riots (Obura 2001a). Overall, tourists caught 38,000 t in Kenyan waters, which still only represents around 4% of the total catch. Sailfish represented 28% of the catch and tuna 19%. The rest of the catch was composed of various species of large pelagics.Finally, the industrial shrimp sector caught 41,000 t of targeted shrimp and associated bycatch (of which almost 18,500 t were discarded) between 1980 and 2006. Total catches (including discards) have increased from 280 t to a peak at 5,000 t in 1985. After a steep decrease, another peak occurred in 1998 at 3,300 t, before the catch decreased to around 800 t when the industry ceased in 2006.18 Although the meat of the shells is consumed locally, we considered that this fishery exclusively targeted the tourist market, and was thus artisanal. Furthermore, we considered that cupped oysters and marine crustaceans were caught for subsistence purposes, and that the other categories were sold on local markets (i.e., artisanal catch).- 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total catch (thousand t) Year Recreational Industrial Subsistence Artisanal Reported to FAOFigure 4. Total reconstructed catch (from 1950 to 2010), showing the artisanal, subsistence, industrial, and recreational sectors, as well as the data reported to FAO (dashed line; see Appendix Table A1 for details). 46Overall, Lethrinidae, Scaridae, Siganus spp., Elasmobranchii, and Carangidae were the most caught taxa, with 9%, 9%, 9%, 5%, and 5% of the total catch, respectively (Figure 5).Foreign fisheriesMigrant fishers caught almost 100,000 t between 1950 and 2010, with catches increasing from 900 t in 1950 to 2,600 t in 1985, then dropping to 700 t in 2000 and then increasing again to 1,200 t in 2010 (i.e., similar pattern as the domestic small-scale coastal fisheries, due to the series of assumptions used here).disCussionIn this reconstruction, we showed that, similarly to most maritime countries around the world, official fisheries statistics in Kenya only account for a portion of small-scale fisheries, especially in the early time-period (see also Zeller et al. 2014). However, these small-scale fisheries generally constitute the pillar of coastal livelihoods (Barnes-Mauthe et al. 2013), and represent the bulk of fisheries activities. We also show that subsistence activities (e.g., reef gleaning), recreational fisheries, and industrial discards, are largely missing from official catch statistics, although they have an important social, economic, and ecological impact.19 Noteworthy, the quality of the official catch statistics has improved over time, as the reported catch was representing only 32% of reconstructed total catches in the 1950s but increased to 50% in the 2000s. However, this relatively good news should not over-shadow the fact that the annual catch per fisher has steeply declined between the 1950s and the 2000s, although this decline may have been stopped due to improved management measures and an expansion of the fleet to more offshore waters.Our results for the small-scale coastal fisheries are highly dependent on the reconstructed fishers' time-series (Figure 3). This area should be investigated further (e.g., with a sensitivity analysis), as there seems to be some Malthusian overfishing (Pauly 1990, 1994; McClanahan et al. 2008) in Kenya, with many people turning to fishing in order to feed their families (Mangi et al. 2007). Therefore, our time-series of the number of fishers shall be viewed as preliminary, and more robust estimates of the number of fishers would be welcome. We hope that these revised statistics will be taken into account by official bodies, as is the case in Mozambique (Doherty et al. this volume). Effective fisheries regulations and management must be based on comprehensive and unbiased catch statistics, accounting for all sectors including non-commercial activities.aknoWledgementsThis is a contribution from the Sea Around Us, which is supported by The Pew Charitable Trusts and Paul G. Allen Family Foundation.reFerenCesAbunge CA (2011) Managing finite marine resources the Kenyan way. Swara 3: 46\u00E2\u0080\u009347.Abuodha P (1999) Status and trends in recreational marine fisheries in Kenya. pp. 46\u00E2\u0080\u009350 In Pitcher TJ (ed.). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 7 (2). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).Anon. (1996) Towards integrated management and sustainable development of Kenya's coast \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Findings and recommendations for an action strategy in the Nyali-Bamburi-Shanzu area. Prepared by Coast Development Authority, Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, Kenya Wildlife Service, Fisheries Department, Mombasa Municipal Council, and Kenya Association of Hotelkeepers and Caterers. ix + 77 p.Anon. (2005a) Review of impacts of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing on developing countries. Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd (MRAG), London (UK). 176 p.Anon. (2005b) Kenya and EU open fisheries negotiations Agritrade \u00E2\u0080\u0094 News and Analysis, Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU (CTA), Wageningen (The Netherlands). 1 p.Anon. (2007) Kenya \u00E2\u0080\u0094 State of the coast report 2007 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Towards an integrated management of Kenya's coastal and marine resources. National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), Nairobi (Kanya). vi + 101 p.19 Pitcher and Hollingworth (2007) reported that \"a U.S. big-game fisher going on holiday in Kenya may spend more money fishing for one day (say $1,000) than many local people, including the boat crew or resort staff, might earn in 5 years\".Clupeidae Lutjanidae Carangidae Elasmobranchii Siganus spp. Scaridae Lethrinidae Others - 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total catch (thousand t) Year Figure 5. Total reconstructed catch (from 1950 to 2010), showing the main taxa (see Appendix Table A2 for details). 'Others' includes an additional 58 taxa.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Kenya \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 47Anon. (2010) Somali pirates hijack Kenyan longliner Fish Information Services, edition of March 10.Anon. (2014) An interview with Peter Sol Rogers, Head of Trade Policy and Business Development at Wanainchi Marine Products, (K) Ltd. Agritrade, edition of March 9, 2014.Barnes-Mauthe M, Oleson KLL and Zafindrasilivonona B (2013) The total economic value of small-scale fisheries with a characterization of post-landing trends: An application in Madagascar with global relevance. Fisheries Research 147(0): 175\u00E2\u0080\u0093185.Bultel E, Doherty B, Herman A, Le Manach F and Zeller D (this volume) An update of the reconstructed marine fisheries catches of Tanzania with taxonomic breakdown.Carrara G and Coppola SR (1985) Results of the first year implementation of the Kenyan catch assessment survey. Regional project for the development and management of fisheries in the southwest Indian Ocean. RAF/79/065/WP/18/85/E, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. 85 p. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/279541.htm.Chuenpagdee R, Liguori L, Palomares MD and Pauly D (2006) Bottom-up, global estimates of small-scale marine fisheries catches. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 14(8), Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 112 p.Cinner JE, Huchery C, Darling ES, Humphries AT, Graham NAJ, Hicks CC, Marshall N and McClanahan TR (2013) Evaluating social and ecological vulnerability of coral reef fisheries to climate change. PLOS ONE 8(9): e74321.Crona B, Wanyonyi I, Ochiewo J, Ndegwa S and Rosendo S (2010) Fishers' migration along the Kenyan coast Implications for management of coastal fisheries. Policy brief, Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA), Zanzibar (Tanzania). 10 p.de Sousa T (1987) Summary of fisheries and resources information for Kenya. pp. 21\u00E2\u0080\u009343 In Sanders MJ, Sparre P and Venema SC (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on the assessment of the fishery resources in the southwest Indian Ocean, September 14\u00E2\u0080\u009325 1987, Albion (Mauritius) SWIOP Document OISO RAF/79/065/WP/41/88/E. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Rome (Italy).Devisse J (1989) Les Africains, la mer et les historiens. Cahiers d'\u00C3\u00A9tudes africaines 29(115\u00E2\u0080\u0093116): 397\u00E2\u0080\u0093418.Doherty B, McBride MM, Brito AJ, Le Manach F, Sousa L, Chauca I and Zeller D (this volume) Marine fisheries in Mozambique: catches updated to 2010 and taxonomic disaggregation.FAO (2001) Fishery country profile \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Kenya. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). Available at: http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/fr/KEN/profile.htm.FAO (2007) Fishery country profile \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Kenya. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). 23 p.FAO (2012) FishStatJ, a tool for fishery statistics analysis. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Fondo EN (2004) Assessment of the Kenyan marine fisheries from selected fishing areas. The United Nations University Fisheries Training Programme, Reykjavik (Iceland). 55 p.Fulanda B, Ohtomi J, Mueni E and Kimani EN (2011) Fishery trends, resource-use and management system in the Ungwana Bay fishery Kenya. Ocean and Coastal Management 54: 401\u00E2\u0080\u0093414.Grottanelli VL (1955) Pescatori dell'Oceano Indiano \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Saggio etnologico preliminare sui bagiuni, bantu costieri dell'oltregiuba. Cremonese, Rome (Italy). xxii + 409 p.Harper S and Zeller D, editors (2012) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19 (4). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 143 p.Harper S, Zylich K, Boonzaier L, Le Manach F, Pauly D and Zeller D, editors (2012) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (5). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 134 p.IOTC (2012) Nominal catch database. Available at: http://www.iotc.org/English/data/databases.php [Accessed: March 12, 2013].Irandu EM (2004) The role of tourism in the conservation of cultural heritage in Kenya. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 9(2): 133\u00E2\u0080\u0093150.Kaunda-Arara B and Rose GA (2004) Effects of marine reef National Parks on fishery CPUE in coastal Kenya. Biological Conservation 118: 1\u00E2\u0080\u009313.Kaunda-Arara B, Rose GA, Muchiri MS and Kaka R (2003) Long-term trends in coral reef fish yields and exploitation rates of commercial species from coastal Kenya. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science 2(2): 105\u00E2\u0080\u0093116.Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world's marine fisheries: an update. Fisheries Technical Paper 470, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). 152 p.Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2010) Tourism indicators, 2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Government of Kenya, Nairobi (Kenya). Available at: http://www.knbs.or.ke/tourism_summary.php [Accessed: April 8, 2013].Khamala CPM (1971) Ecology of Echinometra mathaei (Echinoidea: Echinodermata) at Diani Beach, Kenya. Marine Biology 11(2): 167\u00E2\u0080\u0093172.Kimani EN (1995) Coral reef resources of East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania and the Seychelles. Naga, the ICLARM Quarterly 18(4): 4\u00E2\u0080\u00937.Kitheka JU (2002) Freshwater and sediment discharge in Ungwana Bay: the role of the Tana and Sabaki rivers. pp. 2\u00E2\u0080\u009316 In Current status of trawl fishery of Malindi-Ungwana Bay \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Final report. Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Mombasa (Kenya). 48Le Manach F, Chavance P, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Lindop A, Padilla A, Schiller L, Zeller D and Pauly D (in press) Global catches of large pelagic fishes, with emphasis on the high seas. In Pauly D and Zeller D (eds.), Global atlas of marine fisheries: ecosystem impacts and analysis. Island Press, Washington, DC (USA).Le Manach F, Gough C, Harris A, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2012) Unreported fishing, hungry people and political turmoil: the recipe for a food security crisis in Madagascar? Marine Policy 36: 218\u00E2\u0080\u0093225.Maina GW (2012) A baseline report for the Kenyan small and medium marine pelagic fishery. Ministry of fisheries development, South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP) and EAF-Nansen Project. 74 p.Maina GW and Samoilys MA (2011) Lamu lobsters \u00E2\u0080\u0094 a dwindling resource. Swara 3: 34\u00E2\u0080\u009335.Malleret-King D (2000) A food security approach to Marine Protected Area impacts on surrounding fishing communities: the case of Kisite Marine National Park in Kenya. PhD thesis, University of Warwick, Department of Biological Sciences, UK. xi + 307 p.Mangi SC and Roberts CM (2006) Quantifying the environmental impacts of artisanal fishing gear on Kenya's coral reef ecosystems. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(12): 1646\u00E2\u0080\u00931660.Mangi SC, Roberts CM and Rodwell LD (2007) Reef fisheries management in Kenya: Preliminary approach using the driver\u00E2\u0080\u0093pressure\u00E2\u0080\u0093state\u00E2\u0080\u0093impacts\u00E2\u0080\u0093response (DPSIR) scheme of indicators. Ocean and Coastal Management 50: 463\u00E2\u0080\u0093480.Marshall NT (1997) Trade in sharks and shark products in Kenyan waters. pp. 31\u00E2\u0080\u009338 In Marshall NT and Barnett R (eds.), The trade in sharks and shark products in the western Indian and southern Indian and south east Atlantic Oceans. TRAFFIC International, Nairobi (Kenya).Marshall NT, Milledge SAH and Afonso PS, editors (1999) Stormy seas for marine invertebrates \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Trade in sea cucumbers, seashells and lobsters in Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique. Trade Review. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa. 53 p.McClanahan TR, Glaesel H, Rubens J and Kiambo R (1997) The effects of traditional fisheries management on fisheries yields and the coral-reef ecosystems of southern Kenya. Environmental Conservation 24(2): 105\u00E2\u0080\u0093120.McClanahan TR, Hicks CC and Darling ES (2008) Malthusian overfishing and efforts to overcome it on Kenyan coral reefs. Ecological Applications 18(6): 1516\u00E2\u0080\u00931529.McClanahan TR and Kaunda-Arara B (1996) Fishery recovery in a coral-reef marine park and its effect on the adjacent fishery. Conservation Biology 10(4): 1187\u00E2\u0080\u00931199.McClanahan TR, Maina JM and Davies J (2005) Perceptions of resource users and managers towards fisheries management options in Kenyan coral reefs. Fisheries Management and Ecology 12(2): 105\u00E2\u0080\u0093112.McClanahan TR and Mangi S (2001) The effect of a closed area and beach seine exclusion on coral reef fish catches. Fisheries Management and Ecology 8(2): 107\u00E2\u0080\u0093121.McClanahan TR and Mangi SC (2004) Gear-based management of a tropical artisanal fishery based on species selectivity and capture size. Fisheries Management and Ecology 11(1): 51\u00E2\u0080\u009360.Munga CN, Mohamed MOS, Obura DO, Vanreusel A and Dahdouh-Guebas F (2010) Resource users' perceptions on continued existence of the Mombasa Marine Park and Reserve, Kenya. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science 9(2): 213\u00E2\u0080\u0093225.Munga CN, Ndegwa S, Fulanda B, Manyala J, Kimani EN, Ohtomi J and Vanreusel A (2012) Bottom shrimp trawling impacts on species distribution and fishery dynamics; Ungwana Bay fishery Kenya before and after the 2006 trawl ban. Fisheries Science 78(2): 209\u00E2\u0080\u0093219.Mutagyera WB (1984) Distribution of some deep water prawn and lobster species in Kenya's waters. In Iversen SA and Myklvoll S (eds.), Proceedings of the NORAD-Kenya seminar to review the marine fish stocks and fisheries in Kenya, Mombasa (Kenya). 18\u00E2\u0080\u009320 p.Muthiga N, Costa A, Motta H, Muhando C, Mwaipopo R and Schleyer M (2008) Status of coral reefs in East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique and South Africa. pp. 91\u00E2\u0080\u0093104 In Wilkinson C (ed.), Status of coral reefs of the World: 2008. Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre, Townsville (Australia).Muthiga NA and McClanahan TR (1987) Population changes of a sea urchin (Echinometra mathaei) on an exploited fringing reef. African Journal of Ecology 25(1): 1\u00E2\u0080\u00938.Mwangi SN (2002) Water quality and productivity of the Malindi-Ungwana Bay fishing grounds. pp. 30\u00E2\u0080\u009342 In Current status of trawl fishery of Malindi-Ungwana Bay \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Final report. Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Mombasa (Kenya).Mwatha GK (2002) Assessment of the prawn fishery, bycatch, resource use conflicts and performance of the turtle excluder device. pp. 43\u00E2\u0080\u009364 In Current status of trawl fishery of Malindi-Ungwana Bay \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Final report. Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Mombasa (Kenya).Ndegwa S (2010) Kenyan sports fishing Tuna CPUE. IOTC-2010-WPTT-42, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Victoria (Seychelles). 8 p.Ndegwa S (2011) Kenyan sports fishing Kawakawa and Frigate Tuna CPUE. IOTC\u00E2\u0080\u00932011\u00E2\u0080\u0093WPNT01\u00E2\u0080\u009328, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Victoria (Seychelles). 10 p.Nyongesa Wekesa P and Ndegwa S (2011) National report of Kenya. IOTC-2011-SC14-NR13, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Victoria (Seychelles). 9 p.Nzungi PM, Kimani EN and Okemwa G (2008) Fisheries data management in Kenya. pp. 42\u00E2\u0080\u009343 In Report of the first working party on fisheries data and statistics, Mombasa (Kenya), April 24\u00E2\u0080\u009327 2007. FAO Fisheries Report 852. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Obura DO (2001a) Kenya. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42(12): 1264\u00E2\u0080\u00931278.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Kenya \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 49Obura DO (2001b) Participatory monitoring of shallow tropical marine fisheries by artisanal fishers in Diani, Kenya. Bulletin of Marine Science 69(2): 777\u00E2\u0080\u0093791.Ochiewo J (2002) Assessment of socio-economic impacts of prawn trawling on the artisanal fisheries of Malindi and Ungwana Bay. pp. 71\u00E2\u0080\u009381 In Current status of trawl fishery of Malindi-Ungwana Bay \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Final report. Kenya Marine and Fisheries Research Institute (KMFRI), Mombasa (Kenya).Oduor BW (1984) Status of fish catches and landings in Kenya. In Iversen SA and Myklvoll S (eds.), Proceedings of the NORAD-Kenya seminar to review the marine fish stocks and fisheries in Kenya, March 13\u00E2\u0080\u009315, 1984, Mombasa (Kenya). 64\u00E2\u0080\u009372 p.Okechi JK and Polovina JJ (1994) The spiny lobster fishery of Kenya. pp. 103\u00E2\u0080\u0093107 In Phillips BF, Cobb JS and Kittaka J (eds.), Spiny lobster management. Fishing news books, Oxford (UK).Oluoch SJ and Obura DO (2008) Assessment of fisherfolk organizations and beach management units (BMU) in the management of fishery resources in Diani-Chale, southern Kenya. pp. 335\u00E2\u0080\u0093343 In Obura DO, Tamelander J and Linden O (eds.), Ten years after bleaching \u00E2\u0080\u0094 facing the consequences of climate change in the Indian Ocean \u00E2\u0080\u0094 CORDIO Status Report 2008. CORDIO and SIDA/Sarec, Mombasa.Pauly D (1990) On Malthusian overfishing. Naga, the ICLARM Quarterly 13(1): 3\u00E2\u0080\u00934.Pauly D (1994) From growth to Malthusian overfishing: stages of fisheries resources misuse. SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 3: 7\u00E2\u0080\u009314.Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 11(2): 4\u00E2\u0080\u009310.Pitcher TJ and Hemphill SC (1989) Stock assessment of indian ocean yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) based on data from a sport fishery. Fishbyte (ICLARM) 7(3): 15\u00E2\u0080\u009317.Pitcher TJ and Hollingworth CE (2007) Fishing for fun: where's the catch? pp. 1\u00E2\u0080\u009316 In Pitcher TJ and Hollingworth CE (eds.), Recreational Fisheries. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford (UK).Republic of Kenya (2004) Marine waters frame survey 2004 report. Ministry of livestock and fisheries development, Fisheries department, Nairobi (Kenya). 40 p.Republic of Kenya (2006) Marine waters frame survey 2006 report. Ministry of livestock and fisheries development, Fisheries department, Nairobi (Kenya). 47 p.Republic of Kenya (2008) Marine waters frame survey 2008 report. Ministry of livestock and fisheries development, Fisheries department, Nairobi (Kenya). 55 p.Republic of Kenya (2011) Prawn Fishery Management Plan 2010 (L.N. 20 of 2011). The fisheries act (cap. 378), legal notice No. 20, Ministry of livestock and fisheries development, Fisheries department, Nairobi (Kenya). 7 p.Republic of Kenya (2012) Marine waters frame survey 2012 report. Ministry of livestock and fisheries development, Fisheries department, Nairobi (Kenya). 78 p.Samoilys MA, Maina GW and Osuka K (2011a) Artisanal fishing gears of the Kenyan coast. CORDIO East Africa and USAID, Mombasa (Kenya). 36 p.Samoilys MA, Osuka K and Maina GW (2011b) Artisanal fishing in Kenya: what are the effects? Swara 3: 18\u00E2\u0080\u009325.Samoilys MA, Osuka K, Maina GW and Obura DO (2011c) Artisanal fishing on the Kenya coast: what are the impacts? In 7th WIOMSA Scientific Symposium, October 24\u00E2\u0080\u009329, 2011, Mombasa (Kenya).Sigana D (2009) Tuna fishery in Kenya. IOTC-2009-SC-INF09, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Victoria (Seychelles). 3 p.Signa D, Tuda PM and Samoilys MA (2008) Social, economic and environmental impacts of beach seining in Kenya \u00E2\u0080\u0094 an information review and field study. CORDIO and FAO, Mombasa (Kenya). 86 p.Spalding MD, Ravilious C and Green EP, editors (2001) World atlas of coral reefs. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA (USA). 416 p.Spooner S (2012) How demand for delicacy drives silent massacre of Kenya's sharks. Daily Nation (Kenya), edition of March 9.Tuda PM, Nyaga W, Maina GW, Wanyonyi I and Obura DO (2008) Estimating total fishing effort over tidal to annual periods in the Diani-Chale-Gazi reff fishery in Kenya. pp. 321\u00E2\u0080\u0093334 In Obura DO, Tamelander J and Linden O (eds.), Ten years after bleaching \u00E2\u0080\u0094 facing the consequences of climate change in the Indian Ocean \u00E2\u0080\u0094 CORDIO Status Report 2008. CORDIO and SIDA/Sarec, Mombasa.UNEP (1989) A coast in common: an introduction to the eastern African action plan United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi (Kenya).UNEP (1998) Eastern Africa atlas of coastal resources 1: Kenya. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi (Kenya).Weaver DB (1999) Magnitude of ecotourism in Costa-Rica and Kenya. Annals of Tourism Research 26(4): 792\u00E2\u0080\u0093816.Williams F (1956) Preliminary survey of the pelagic fishes of East Africa. Colonial Office Fishery Publications 8: 1\u00E2\u0080\u009368.Williams F (1970) The sport fishery for sailfish at Malindi, Kenya, 1958\u00E2\u0080\u00931968, with some biological notes. Bulletin of Marine Science 20(4): 830\u00E2\u0080\u0093852.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis GE and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for US flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266\u00E2\u0080\u0093277.Zeller D and Harper S, editors (2009) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 17 (5). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 108 p.Zeller D, Harper S, Zylich K and Pauly D (2014) Synthesis of under-reported small-scale fisheries catch in Pacific-island waters. Coral Reefs DOI: 10.1007/s00338\u00E2\u0080\u0093014\u00E2\u0080\u00931219\u00E2\u0080\u00931.Zeller D and Pauly D, editors (2007) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for key countries and regions (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15 (2). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 163 p. 50Appendix Table A1. Reconstructed catch (t) by sector, compared to the catch reported to FAO, as presented in Figure 4.Year Total reconstructed ReportedArtisanal Industrial Recreational Subsistence1950 6,904 - - 2,715 3,0001951 7,089 - 23 2,777 3,0001952 7,273 - 46 2,838 3,0001953 7,458 - 68 2,900 3,5001954 7,643 - 91 2,962 4,1001955 7,827 - 114 3,024 2,7001956 8,057 - 137 3,101 2,7001957 8,287 - 159 3,178 4,5001958 8,517 - 182 3,255 4,6001959 8,747 - 222 3,332 4,3001960 8,976 - 266 3,409 4,3001961 9,263 - 150 3,505 5,1001962 9,549 - 165 3,601 5,2001963 10,304 - 146 4,152 4,5001964 9,838 - 219 3,910 4,9001965 10,118 - 251 4,011 5,8001966 10,468 - 166 4,137 6,6001967 10,819 - 162 4,263 6,0001968 11,867 - 168 4,781 6,0001969 12,221 - 175 4,903 6,7001970 11,979 - 181 4,530 7,8001971 12,436 - 187 4,675 6,9001972 12,867 - 194 4,844 7,6001973 13,571 - 200 4,741 3,8001974 13,922 - 206 4,990 3,3161975 14,488 - 212 4,035 4,4591976 14,082 - 219 4,834 4,1001977 14,148 - 225 5,579 4,3191978 14,367 - 231 4,996 4,5961979 15,838 - 237 5,116 4,0551980 15,610 285 244 4,988 5,5521981 14,397 569 256 6,583 6,3161982 14,972 994 270 6,319 7,5121983 15,288 924 284 6,445 7,0701984 14,655 1,449 299 6,617 6,0411985 15,185 4,919 314 6,230 6,1961986 14,547 1,399 331 6,254 6,2121987 13,888 2,039 348 6,221 6,8751988 12,793 2,119 365 6,549 7,9701989 12,272 1,764 382 6,232 7,6101990 11,423 1,794 400 6,174 9,9051991 11,505 2,039 663 5,142 7,4191992 10,473 1,364 706 5,156 6,5661993 9,699 464 730 4,847 5,6171994 9,766 1,319 800 3,636 3,7721995 8,613 459 709 3,585 5,4651996 7,108 1,314 705 3,555 6,2961997 7,236 1,879 565 3,365 6,0991998 6,321 3,294 421 3,225 6,6001999 6,565 1,989 647 2,843 6,6342000 6,321 1,714 753 2,844 4,7632001 6,604 1,708 796 2,847 7,3882002 7,146 1,412 821 2,476 6,7202003 7,823 937 847 2,849 6,8302004 7,496 1,018 872 3,493 7,7742005 8,233 1,039 757 2,927 7,1052006 8,161 814 763 2,947 6,9552007 9,834 - 788 4,120 7,4482008 9,473 - 788 4,121 8,3012009 11,105 - 788 2,861 5,5642010 10,671 - 788 3,764 8,264Fisheries catch reconstruction for Kenya \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 51Appendix Table A2. Taxonomic breakdown of the reconstructed catch (t), as presented in Figure 5.Year Lethrinidae Scaridae Siganus spp. Elasmobranchii Carangidae Lutjanidae Clupeidae Othersa1950 1,078 1,000 1,030 629 658 513 210 4,514 1951 1,109 1,029 1,061 650 675 527 216 4,645 1952 1,140 1,058 1,091 672 693 542 222 4,775 1953 1,171 1,088 1,122 694 711 556 227 4,905 1954 1,202 1,117 1,152 715 728 570 233 5,036 1955 1,233 1,146 1,183 737 746 585 239 5,166 1956 1,272 1,183 1,221 763 768 603 246 5,320 1957 1,310 1,219 1,259 789 790 621 254 5,475 1958 1,349 1,256 1,297 815 812 639 261 5,630 1959 1,387 1,292 1,336 843 834 657 268 5,808 1960 1,426 1,329 1,374 872 856 675 276 5,990 1961 1,474 1,374 1,421 887 883 697 285 5,985 1962 1,522 1,420 1,469 917 910 720 294 6,159 1963 1,597 1,475 1,516 944 985 762 312 7,106 1964 1,613 1,509 1,563 982 956 761 310 6,392 1965 1,661 1,554 1,611 1,015 983 783 320 6,589 1966 1,721 1,611 1,670 1,041 1,018 811 331 6,663 1967 1,781 1,668 1,729 1,076 1,052 839 342 6,849 1968 1,872 1,736 1,789 1,113 1,142 890 364 8,017 1969 1,932 1,793 1,848 1,151 1,176 918 376 8,218 1970 1,957 1,892 1,915 1,215 1,144 966 296 7,414 1971 2,030 1,963 1,987 1,262 1,185 1,001 307 7,677 1972 2,131 1,935 2,064 1,294 1,260 954 497 7,890 1973 2,166 1,967 2,098 1,397 1,280 969 505 8,256 1974 2,279 2,070 2,208 1,120 1,344 1,019 531 8,677 1975 2,064 2,712 2,194 1,205 1,293 1,650 5 7,741 1976 2,406 2,066 2,299 1,866 1,192 868 6 8,569 1977 2,170 1,856 2,058 1,590 1,115 790 12 10,508 1978 1,758 2,180 1,954 3,141 1,321 722 1,215 7,452 1979 3,087 1,396 2,573 2,202 1,804 1,016 1,473 7,809 1980 2,134 2,010 2,061 2,840 1,390 627 1,124 9,153 1981 1,778 3,465 1,980 647 1,269 758 1,121 11,039 1982 2,071 2,221 1,711 778 737 860 1,188 13,268 1983 2,042 1,529 2,391 769 843 840 1,203 13,663 1984 2,228 1,336 1,946 1,023 841 667 1,358 13,837 1985 2,686 2,660 2,447 1,006 1,003 775 1,676 14,645 1986 2,081 2,150 2,156 1,004 927 627 1,324 12,502 1987 2,052 1,981 1,879 829 693 512 1,373 13,435 1988 1,563 1,515 1,276 679 671 442 1,081 14,867 1989 1,453 1,010 1,342 704 619 473 1,012 14,315 1990 1,135 1,032 1,114 522 438 410 763 14,667 1991 1,548 1,114 1,563 668 522 590 773 13,041 1992 1,188 825 1,170 498 445 411 866 12,789 1993 1,094 501 1,047 451 243 340 410 12,158 1994 1,338 779 1,319 698 374 464 607 10,496 1995 852 232 788 455 236 261 244 10,786 1996 707 953 602 383 233 264 345 9,687 1997 665 1,002 570 301 312 289 335 9,972 1998 639 821 466 228 291 211 237 10,684 1999 510 859 370 246 256 238 229 9,794 2000 651 1,091 520 290 272 259 231 8,844 2001 580 1,195 460 295 222 237 204 9,310 2002 581 956 608 258 266 262 146 9,342 2003 609 744 503 371 313 195 175 10,128 2004 612 721 490 298 353 220 158 10,630 2005 664 910 620 395 381 294 185 10,763 2006 738 953 600 308 307 313 216 10,217 2007 721 1,611 602 295 437 390 246 11,447 2008 733 1,640 618 331 403 381 214 11,031 2009 1,109 1,021 1,196 646 414 638 304 10,327 2010 982 1,211 949 493 516 477 223 11,083 a Includes an additional 58 taxa.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 53reConstruCting domestiC marine Fisheries in mayotte From 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010*Beau Doherty,1 Johanna Herfaut,2 Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach,1,3\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Sarah Harper1 and Dirk Zeller11 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada2 Agence des Aires Marines Prot\u00C3\u00A9g\u00C3\u00A9es, Parc naturel marin de Mayotte, 14 lot Darin montjoly, 97660 Iloni, France3 Institut de Recherche pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, UMR212 Ecosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes Marins Exploit\u00C3\u00A9s, Avenue Jean Monnet, CS 30171, 34203 S\u00C3\u00A8te cedex, France\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Current address: BLOOM Association, 77 rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris, Franceb.doherty@fisheries.ubc.ca; johanna.herfaut@aires-marines.fr; fredericlemanach@bloomassociation.org; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstraCtNational fisheries statistics often underestimate total catches due to a lack of available catch data from unmonitored sectors. Here, we used a catch reconstruction approach to improve the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) time-series of the domestic catches made by Mayotte (France) since 1950. Thus, we also removed FAO data corresponding to industrial tuna vessels that were deemed as non-domestic fisheries. The total reconstructed catches from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 were just nearly 84,000 tonnes, which is 1.4 times the official domestic catches reported to FAO. The main reason for this discrepancy was the limited official data prior to 1989, corresponding to unreported catches from shore-based activities and small-scale boat fisheries. This reconstructed catch time-series provides a more comprehensive view of Mayotte's historical catches, which may serve to influence future policy and management decisions regarding the sustainability of fisheries.introduCtionMayotte is composed of several islands, Grande Terre making up most of Mayotte's 375 km2 land mass (Figure 1). It is surrounded by a barrier reef with a productive (Biais et al. 1987) yet increasingly threatened lagoon,1 which contributes the bulk of the 1,100 km2 inshore fishing area in Mayotte's 63,000 km2 Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; www.seaaroundus.org). Mayotte is the most southeastern of the four islands that make up the Comoros Archipelago (Figure 1). Unlike the three other islands (i.e., the Union of the Comoros), Mayotte voted to keep its ties to France in a 1976 referendum and was recognized as one of its Overseas Territories (Dumas 2009). In 2011, Mayotte officially became the 101st French Department and France's 5th Overseas Department (Dumas 2009; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a; Hopquin 2011).2Since 1950, Mayotte's population has grown rapidly and is now following Mauritius as the second most densely populated island in the southwest Indian Ocean (500 inhabitants per km\u00C2\u00B2; IEDOM 2011). The population has increased considerably since the 1980s, from 47,000 in 1978 to 186,000 in 2007 (INS\u00C3\u0089E 2007), due to both a high birth rate and immigration. Mayotte's relatively high GDP for the region (INS\u00C3\u0089E 2011) is in large part responsible for this immigration: many Comorans have immigrated to Mayotte in search of improved economic and social security, as well as the possibility of acquiring French citizenship (IEDOM 2011). In recent years, the number of Comorans living in Mayotte has more than doubled, from 26,000 in 1997 to almost 53,000 in 2002 (IEDOM 2006). A significant portion of these immigrants is illegal and occupy jobs in the agricultural and fishing sectors (Anon. 2004; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a).* Cite as: Doherty B, Herfaut J, Le Manach F, Harper S and Zeller D (2015) Reconstructing domestic marine fisheries in Mayotte from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Pp. 53\u00E2\u0080\u009365 In Le Manach F and Pauly D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727].1 Insufficient wastewater treatment systems, increased sedimentation from erosion, and coastal development are polluting coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and the lagoon. In the most densely populated urban areas around Grande Terre and Petite Terre, some of the fringing coral reefs have an average of only 5% live coral cover (Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a; Thomassin et al. 2011). 2 Mayotte, La R\u00C3\u00A9union and eight other entities in the Indian Ocean (the Terres Autrales et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises) are sovereign to France and collectively known as France's Indian Ocean Territories (see Le Manach and Pauly, this volume). These territories occupy an important fishing zone for France, as they add 2.7 million km2 to its EEZ (Bouchard 2009), making it the world's second largest (www.seaaroundus.org).Grande Terre0 100 km\u00C2\u00B1Geyser BankPetite TerreFigure 1. Map of Mayotte and its EEZ showing the two main islands of Grande Terre and Petite Terre, as well as the extent of the continental shelf (in darker blue). The Union of the Comoros is visible in the top left corner. 54As a result of increasing pressures affecting the marine environment (e.g., demography, pollution, exploitation, urbanization), many developments have occurred in recent years. Among the most significant, is the creation of the Parc Naturel Marin de Mayotte in 2010, which encompasses the entire EEZ. Rather than an integral reserve, it aims to protect the sensitive areas within the lagoon system, while developing better-monitored inshore artisanal fisheries as well as domestic and foreign offshore pelagic fisheries (www.aires-marines.fr). Increased tourist activities such as scuba diving, whale watching and recreational fishing also provide further incentives for marine protection measures and create alternative job opportunities for locals (Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a).Mahorans (the island's native citizens) and immigrants have always depended on marine resources from the lagoon as their primary source of protein (Anon. 2004; Aboutoihi et al. 2010) and most of the population has concentrated in villages along the coast (Jacquemart 1980; Maggiorani et al. 1993; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a). For generations, they have been fishing in pirogues (locally-crafted wooden canoes) with handlines in the surrounding lagoon (Fourmanoir 1954; Biais et al. 1987; Herfaut 2006; IEDOM 2011). However, perhaps due in part to decreasing catches in the lagoon (Anon. 1994; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a), there have been major changes to Mayotte's small-scale fisheries the last few decades. Polyester motorboats, outboard motors, and anchored fish aggregating devices (a-FADs) were introduced (Table 1); consequently, offshore pelagic species have become more important in the total catch over time, as evidenced by the shift in species in the official FAO statistics (FAO 2014).Being located in the productive Mozambique Channel, Mayotte's waters have also attracted industrial tuna purse-seiners and longliners from France, Spain and the Seychelles (but actually owned by Spanish interests; see Le Manach et al., this volume). However, these foreign fleets have increasingly been perceived by the artisanal fleets as competing for local resources (Busson 2011), and industrial purse-seiners have been banned from the 24 nautical miles (nm) zone since December 2009 (R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 2009).3Other major developments have shaped Mayotte's fisheries since 1950 and are summarized in Table 1. From these developments and the obvious lack of official catch data before 1989, it was clear that the official statistics for Mayotte were incomplete. This is not unique to Mayotte, as small-scale fisheries are frequently underreported or missing from official statistics (see e.g., Van der Elst et al. 2005; Jacquet et al. 2010; Le Manach et al. 2012). Rather than accepting these missing catches as 'zero catch', a re-estimation of the missing components was completed using a catch reconstruction method, following the rationale highlighted in previous studies (Pauly 1998; Pauly and Zeller 2003; Zeller et al. 2007). These catch reconstructions have proven useful for assessing the extent of marine fisheries catches in various places (Pauly 2007), and increasingly serve as a more realistic baseline of historic catches for policy and management decisions (Pauly 1998; Zeller et al. 2007). In some cases, such new baselines were even used by official institutions to improve their records, as has been observed in Mozambique (Doherty et al. this volume). As part of the effort of the Sea Around Us to reconstruct global fisheries statistics, a reconstruction of Mayotte's catch was completed by determining the missing and underreported sectors and by adding them to official statistics to improve their overall quality.mayotte's Fisheries and reConstruCtion methodsThe FAO data for the years 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 were extracted from FAO's FishstatJ software (FAO 2014). These data contained reported landings from 11 different taxon groups, 10 of which were pelagic. The remaining category 3 However, since it became a French overseas department, Mayotte can request foreign fleets to be excluded from its 100 nm zone (i.e., the vast majority of its EEZ), according to the European common fisheries policy.Table 1. Major developments in Mayotte's fisheries.Period Changes Source1970s Appearance of outboard motors Jacquemart (1980)1977 Creation of first fishing school, l'\u00C3\u0089cole de P\u00C3\u00AAche Anon. (1994)1978 Creation of COPEMAYa fishing cooperative Anon. (1994)1980s Increased fishing effort of sites further outside of the lagoon Maggiorani et al. (1993)1980s Increased motorization of pirogues Jacquemart (1980)1980s Introduction of Yamaha polyester motor boatsb (barques), imported from Japan Biais et al. (1987), Minet and Weber (1992)1985 Increased use of trolling to target pelagicsc in areas up to 20 nautical miles offshore Biais et al. (1987)1989 Introduction of anchored FADs Wendling and Le Calv\u00C3\u00A9 (1999)1990s Subsidies by Mayotte's Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches allowed acquisition of depth sounders and radios by the COPEMAY and the distribution of iceboxes to the local fleet Anon. (1994)1990s a-FADs are more commonplace with 15 sites located in and outside lagoon Wendling and Le Calv\u00C3\u00A9 (1999)1995 10 village cooperatives (COVIPEM) in operation at this time Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. (2009a)2001 Appearance of first artisanal longliner targeting swordfish and tuna Abellard and Herfaut (2004)2004 Importing barques is bannedd Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. (2009a)2009 Industrial tuna fleets are restricted to fishing in areas that are within 24 nautical miles of Mayotte's coastGu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. (2009a), Busson (2011)a The COPEMAY has the goal of professionalizing the artisanal fishing fleet by commercializing the catch and improving the fleet through access to better equipment, boats, motors, and fuel subsidies (Anon. 1994; IEDOM 2011).b The artisanal fishery changed significantly with the introduction of barques which allowed fishers to operate further offshore and for longer trips, leading to an increased effort targeting pelagics. Since the introduction of these barques, the number of pirogues has declined (Maggiorani et al. 1993; Herfaut 2006; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a).c Target species were Thunnus albacares (yellowfin tuna), Katsuwonus pelamis (skipjack tuna), Istiophorus platypterus (Indo-Pacific sailfish), and other Istiophoridae (e.g., marlins; Biais et al. 1987).d In order to update the fishing fleet, subsidies of up to 80% were offered for new boats built between 2008 and 2014. As a result, new boats and longliners as well as several shipyards have appeared on the island in recent years (Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a). Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 55was 'marine fishes nei' and was the only category reported prior to 1994. For the purposes of this reconstruction, Mayotte's catch was considered to be all catches from fishing sectors which were owned and operated by Mayotte and fish in Mayotte's EEZ. Therefore, catches from foreign fleets registered4 and/or fishing in Mayotte's EEZ5 were excluded from the catch reconstruction outlined herein; rather, they were dealt with separately as part of the Sea Around Us' atlas of large pelagics fisheries (Le Manach et al. press). To do so, we used the \"France Overseas Territories (France OT)\" data published by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), which matched total catches of pelagic taxa reported by Mayotte to FAO for years 1995\u00E2\u0080\u00932010,6 but which also included a breakdown by gear (IOTC 2012b). Based on our knowledge of the structure of the fishing sectors in Mayotte, we determined that the data corresponding to all purse-seiners (all years) and longliners (in 1998\u00E2\u0080\u009399 and 2005; see below) were non-domestic, and were thus removed from the catch baseline used here.7 The adjusted FAO landings data with the non-domestic industrial pelagic catches removed are referred to throughout as the 'domestic FAO landings' (Figure 2).An extensive literature search and consultation with local experts provided additional sources of information, which allowed us to compare and improve the domestic FAO landings data, notably by developing anchor points for specific years to estimate the underreported (small-scale boat fishery) and unreported (shore-based and recreational) sectors.Small-scale boat fisheriesThe bulk of the small-scale fishing fleets and effort is carried out by pirogues (78% in 2005; Biais et al. 1987; Minet and Weber 1992; Herfaut 2006) and polyester motor boats (locally known as barques, generally ranging from 5 to 7 m; Herfaut 2006; Busson 2011):\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Typically non-motorized, small (3\u00E2\u0080\u00935 m) and medium pirogues (5\u00E2\u0080\u00937 m) are generally operated by one or two fishers in the lagoon and along the barrier reef (Biais et al. 1987; Minet and Weber 1992; Busson 2011). They are primarily used for subsistence purposes with only a small portion of their catch being sold (Minet and Weber 1992);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Historically, large motorized pirogues (7\u00E2\u0080\u009310 m) have been used for both artisanal and subsistence purposes (Biais et al. 1987; Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches 1990 in Minet and Weber 1992; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a), usually with two to three fishers onboard (Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches, 1990 in Minet and Weber 1992). They are used both inside the lagoon and up to five nautical miles offshore of the barrier reef.\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Motorized barques are mostly operated by two to three artisanal fishers (Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches 1990 in Minet and Weber 1992; Herfaut 2006), up to five nautical miles outside the barrier. Since their introduction in the 1980s (Biais et al. 1987), they have increasingly occupied a larger percentage of the artisanal effort and catch.Handlines remain the most common gear, accounting for 71% of effort and 57% of the catch in 2005 (Herfaut 2006). Nets and trolling occupy the bulk of the remaining effort (Biais et al. 1987; Maggiorani et al. 1993; Herfaut 2006) and have been commonly used since at least the 1980s (Jacquemart 1980; Biais et al. 1987). The proportion of the catch derived from trolling has increased dramatically over the years from 6% in 1992 (Maggiorani et al. 1993) to 32% in 2005 (Herfaut 2006), and is likely the result of increased motorization of vessels and effort targeting pelagic species.4 Some French operators flagged their vessels in Mayotte. This may be motivated by several factors such as benefiting from tax breaks, or being able to build new vessels without scrapping older ones (the EU's Common Fisheries Policy applies to Mayotte only since it became a French Department in 2011). There were between two and five such vessels from 2000 to 2010 (Anon. 2007a; IOTC 2006, 2011, 2012a). La R\u00C3\u00A9union had one Mayotte-registered vessel in 2009, and three in 2010; the other ones were operated by companies from France mainland (IOTC 2012a).5 A number of Spanish and Seychellois seiners (both requiring licenses) and French seiners (requiring a license since 2010; R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 2010; see Le Manach and Pauly, this volume) have also been regularly fishing in Mayotte's EEZ between 2000 and 2010 (Anon. 2007b; Busson 2011). Their catches were not included in the Mayotte's FAO landings data, nor the reconstructed catches presented here. Prior to 2009, Mayotte received no compensation from the French purse-seiners fishing in their waters as profits from their annual fishing licenses went to the Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises (Busson 2011).6 This is not surprising, given that none of the French \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses (Tromelin, Glorieuses Archipelago, Juan de Nova, Bassas da India and Europa) have any permanent population or their own administrative units (they are administered by the Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises since 2007; see Le Manach and Pauly, this volume), and since La R\u00C3\u00A9union's catch is recorded in a separate category by the FAO/IOTC. Therefore, Mayotte is the only 'legitimate France OT' that can be included under this name.7 In the Sea Around Us database, catches by purse-seiners were re-allocated to either La R\u00C3\u00A9union or the French mainland, based on the origin of the operator in any given year and assuming equal catches for each vessel. Catches by longliners were entirely re-allocated to the French mainland.05101520251950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Total catch (thousand t)YearNon-domestic catchDomestic catchFigure 2. FAO reported catch data and the adjusted domestic FAO catch data for Mayotte, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 (See Appendix Table A1 for annual catch data). 56The first extensive survey of the pirogue and barque fisheries was completed in 1989 by Mayotte's Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches. Since 1989, additional surveys have taken place and catch data were also available for 1992 (Maggiorani and Maggiorani 1990) and 1997\u00E2\u0080\u00932005 (Herfaut 2004, 2005b, 2006). We used the national survey data to reconstruct catch from 1989 and 1997\u00E2\u0080\u00932006, and the domestic FAO landings for 2006\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.We disregarded the 1992 survey (Maggiorani et al. 1993), because many demonstrations against Anjouan fishers working illegally in the fishing sector occurred that year. This forced many Anjouan fishers to land their catches at non-traditional landing sites in a clandestine manner (Maggiorani et al. 1993), which was likely not captured by the national surveys (Anon. 1994). Prior to 1989, FAO data were likely based on independent estimates from research for various years between 1962 and 1981 studies (Jacquemart 1980; Maggiorani and Maggiorani 1990) and catch data from the cooperatives from 1981 to 1983 (Maggiorani et al. 1993).8To reconstruct catches for data-limited years, we compiled boat effort data from national surveys, grey literature and unpublished datasets (Table 2). These data were converted to a boat per-capita rate9 for each boat type and linear interpolation was used to estimate boats per capita for years without data. A boat time-series from 1950 to 2010 was created by multiplying the boat per-capita time-series by annual population data (Figure 3). To reconstruct catches from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931988 and 1990\u00E2\u0080\u00931997, the boat time-series was then multiplied by annual catch per unit of effort (CPUE) estimated from the 1989 and 1997 surveys: 0.3, 0.6, 3.6, and 5.9 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099boat-1\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 1989 (Minet and Weber 1992) and 1.6, 0.5, 4.3, and 5.0 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099boat-1\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 1997 (Herfaut 2004), for small, medium and large pirogues, and barques, respectively. We used linear interpolations to estimate catch rates in between 1989 and 1997, and maintained a constant catch rate from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931989, given that there was no annual survey CPUE data prior to 1989. Thus, we did not account for annual variations in CPUE prior to 1989, but the 1989 CPUE estimates seemed reasonable for earlier years given the occasional observations of catch rates in the 1950s (Fourmanoir 1954) and 1970s (Barbaroux 1977; Jacquemart 1980). However, this is difficult to confirm 8 Population data from 1961\u00E2\u0080\u00932012 were extracted from the Food and Agriculture Organization statistics (faostat.fao.org) and for 1958 from France's Institut national de la statistique et des \u00C3\u00A9tudes \u00C3\u00A9conomiques (www.insee.fr). Missing years in the 1950s were linearly interpolated.9 Unofficial figures suggest that around 35 barques (J. Herfaut; unpub. data) fish year-round around Z\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9e (Mayotte) and Geyser (Glorieuses Archipelago) banks. France is rather worried about this fishery and about a possible steep decline in demersal biomass, which will be assessed thanks to a European Development Fund unlocked for the implementation of the Mayotte's Parc Naturel Marin.Table 2. Anchor points for the number of boats in Mayotte, used to reconstruct fishing effort from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Year Small pirogues Medium pirogues Large pirogues Barques Source1962 147 91 56 0 Moal (1962)a1982 486 303 272 - Le Gall (1986)1985 419 297 289 -1987 - - - 30 Biais (1987)1989 536 144 197 114 Maggiorani and Maggiorani (1990); Minet and Weber (1992)1990 - - - 140 Minet and Weber (1992)1992 580 221 185 175 Maggiorani et al. (1993)1995 365 437 108 250 (unpub. data, J Herfaut)b1997 481 575 142 240Herfaut (2004)1998 446 770 124 2351999 411 965 107 2302000 411 817 126 2482001 411 668 145 2672002 410 520 163 2852003 410 371 182 3032005 361 326 149 303 Herfaut (2006)2006 334 301 138 319 (J. Herfaut; unpub. data)c2010 325 293 134 297 (J. Herfaut; unpub. data)da 238 small/medium pirogues; proportions estimated based on 1982 data.b 910 pirogues; proportion of small, medium and large estimated based on 1997 data.c 773 pirogues; proportion of small, medium and large estimated based on 2005 data.d 752 pirogues; proportion of small, medium and large estimated based on 2005 data.- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Number of boats YearMedium piroguesSmall piroguesBarques Large piroguesFigure 3. Evolution of the number of barques and pirogues in Mayotte since 1950. Solid dots represent anchor points from the literature.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 57since catch rates vary widely depending on the area fished (e.g., interior, barrier or exterior reef) and fishing gear (e.g., hand line or troll).Most FAO landings are reported as \u00E2\u0080\u0098unidentified marine fish\u00E2\u0080\u0099 (100% of landings prior to 1995) and taxonomic breakdowns by family [1989: Maggiorani and Maggiorani (1990); 2003 and 2005: Herfaut (2004, 2006) and by species (1989: Maggiorani and Maggiorani (1990); 2003\u00E2\u0080\u00932005: Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches, unpub. data)] were developed to disaggregate catch into more specific taxonomic groups (Table 3). ). These breakdowns were used to estimate the historical taxonomic composition of catches. The 1989 breakdown was used for years 1950- 1989, and the 2003- 2o05 averaged composition for years 2003- 2010. Catch compositions between 1990-2002 were linearly interpolated.Since 1999, the taxonomic detail in the FAO landings has improved, reporting catches for 8 taxonomic groupings of large pelagics. These FAO landings of large pelagics were left unadjusted, with one exception: Elasmobranchii were unreported until 2006, at which time they were still considered underreported. As an alternative to the FAO data, catches of Elasmobranchii were estimated based on the 1989 and 2003- 2010 taxonomic breakdowns (Table 3). Catches of 6 other taxa (Acanthocybium solandri [wahoo], Istiophorus platypterus [Indo-Pacific sailfish], Istiophoridae [billfishes], skipjack tuna, Scombridae [other tuna-like species], and yellowfin tuna) were estimated by linear interpolation between the 1989 estimate (Table 3) and the first year reported in FAO landings (1995 for Scombridae and 1999 for all others). Catches of Xiphias gladius (swordfish) are only reported in the 2005 FAO domestic catch and no further additions were made. The Sea Around Us defines small-scale fishing as either 'artisanal' (i.e., small-scale commercial) or 'subsistence' (i.e., small-scale non-commercial with primary purpose being self- or family-consumption), within its global catch database to facilitate international comparisons. A subsequent split of 'small-scale' pirogue and barque catches was required to assign these catches to one of the two small-scale sectors in the database (Table 4). National estimates for total catch by boat type were available for 1989 (Minet and Weber 1992), 1997 to 2003 (Abellard and Herfaut 2004), and 2005 (Herfaut 2006). Based on this sectoral allocation, the average artisanal and subsistence components of the pirogue and barque catch were 60% and 40% (considered as our 2010 'anchor point'). Moal's 1962 catch estimate in Maggiorani et al. (1993) was approximately 47% as subsistence and 53% as artisanal; based on this estimate and the observed trend of increased artisanal caches in more recent years, it was assumed that 50% of the catch was artisanal and 50% was subsistence in 1950 (the 1951\u00E2\u0080\u00932009 proportions were linearly interpolated between our anchor points).In addition to the lagoon and relatively nearshore fisheries, more barques have been fishing around offshore banks since the late 1990s (Wendling and Le Calv\u00C3\u00A9 1999; Herfaut 2005a). In 2003, there were an estimated 405 trips by barques to offshore banks in search of demersal species to satisfy local demand. An estimated 244 of these trips were to banks outside of Mayotte's EEZ, such as Geyser Bank in the Glorieuses Archipelago and Castor banks in Madagascar's EEZ, accounting for an estimated 86 tonnes (3% of the annual pirogue and barque catch; Herfaut 2004; an estimate was done as part of the reconstruction of the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses, though; see Le Manach and Pauly, this volume).The YVALANN (a 12 nm fishing vessel) also fished the offshore banks of Z\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9e and Geyser between 1989 to 1992 and sold their catches to the COPEMAY (Maggiorani et al. 1994; see Le Manach and Pauly, this volume). Total catches over this period were 190 t (Maggiorani et al. 1994) and were included in the reconstructed artisanal estimates. Their main catches were Lutjanus bohar [two-spot red snapper], Epinephelus fuscoguttatus [brown-marbled grouper], Gymosarda unicolor [dogtooth tuna], and Lutjanus rivuletus [Blubberlip snapper; Maggiorani et al. 1994).Longline fisheryA small-scale artisanal longline fishery started in Mayotte in 2001, and as of 2010, there were three active vessels (all less than 10 m; Kiszka et al. 2010; Bein et al. 2011). The longline fishery represents a small component of Mayotte's Table 4. Sectoral allocation of artisanal and subsistence components of the pirogue and barque fleets between 1989 and 2005.aBoat type Catch Breakdown (%)Subsistence ArtisanalSmall/Medium pirogues 90 10Large pirogues 50 50Barques 10 90a These assumptions were based on the total effort and average catch rates from national surveys (Minet and Weber 1992; Herfaut 2004, 2006) and the 2004 survey of fishing households (Anon. 2004).Table 3. Taxonomic breakdowns for the pirogue and barque fisheries.Family Taxon 1989 2003-2010aCarangidae Caranx sexfasciatus - 3.3Elagatis bipinnulata - 2.1Other Carangidae 7.5 7.8Hemiramphidae Hemiramphus far 1.8 -Holocentridae Myripristis spp. 5.9 -Lethrinidae Gnathodentex aurolineatus 1.8 -Lethrinus obsoletus 8.9 -L. rubrioperculatus - 4.0Lethrinus. spp. - 3.4Lutjanidae Aphareus furca 2.4 -Aprion virescens 4.7 2.1Lutjanus bohar 4.4 2.3L. gibbus - 2.5L. kasmira 1.7 -Scaridae Scaridae - 1.9Scombridae Acanthocybium solandri - 2.7Katsuwonus pelamis - 15.3Other Scombridaeb 15.1 9.1Thunnus albacares - 9.7Serranidae Epinephelus spp. - 2.4Plectropomus pessuliferus 4.1 -Serranidae 4.3 -Variola louti 3.3 -Sparidae Sparidae 5.9 -Sphyraenidae Sphyraena spp. 4.3 6.9Othersc 23.9 24.5a The 2003- 2010 taxonomic breakdown was estimated based on the average between the 2003 and 2005 catch compositions.b It should be noted that a significant portion of Scombridae catches are likely composed of Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta), which represented 9% of the total catches in both 1989 (Maggiorani and Maggiorani 1990) and 2005 (Herfaut 2006).c Contains species belonging to 41 taxa, including Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Acanthuridae, Carangidae, Clupeidae, Mugillidae, Sphyraenidae, and Priacanthidae. 58annual catches at present, but is rapidly growing (Anon. 2007b; Kiszka et al. 2010) and as of 2012 there were two new vessels and plans to add larger vessels to fish further offshore (IOTC 2011). This fleet targets swordfish, T. alalunga (albacore tuna), T. obesus (bigeye tuna), and yellowfin tuna, but most of the bycatch species (Indo-Pacific sailfish, Sphyraena spp. [barracudas], Coryphaena hippurus [dolphinfish] and Caranx spp. [jacks]) are retained and sold (Abellard and Herfaut 2004; Kiszka et al. 2010; Bein et al. 2011).10 As previously mentioned, the IOTC longline catch reported for 'France OT' was not considered indicative of Mayotte's longline fishery in some years. The IOTC nominal catch database contains catch data for 'France OT' from 1998, 1999 and 2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932005 for 'longliners (targeting swordfish)', which match the FAO landings data for Mayotte. Since the review of literature indicated that there were no longliners based in Mayotte prior to 2001 (Abellard and Herfaut 2004; Kiszka et al. 2010; Busson 2011), it was assumed that domestic longline catches prior to 2001 for Mayotte were zero. The IOTC also reported catches of 143 tonnes for 'France OT' in 2005, much higher than what was typically landed by the domestic fleet from 2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 (Table 5). These catches could be attributed to the industrial longline vessel ALALUNGA, which was reported to have fished in the EEZs of France's Indian Ocean Territories during 2005 (Anon. 2007b). It is possible that the 1998 and 1999 catches reported by the IOTC may also be representative of similar vessels, however, no information was found to verify this.Several sources of data, including national data, IOTC nominal catch data, and data from the national fishing cooperative (COPEMAY) were used to estimate the catches of Mayotte's domestic longline fleet (Table 5). For the taxonomic breakdown, most of the artisanal longline catch data were already separated to the species or family level and were accepted. However, note that:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Catch recorded as 'non-target, associated and dependent species (NTAD)' or 'others' was assigned to the 'miscellaneous marine fishes' category;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Adjustments were made to account for shark discards and assumed unreported elasmobranch catches in instances where the reported figures were low. For example, the COPEMAY catch data contained zero shark or ray catches from 2006\u00E2\u0080\u00932009, but it is known that shark and ray catches were still occurring (Bein et al. 2011). The Bein et al. (2011) study of the Mayotte longliner MTWARO I recorded the number of shark and ray species captured, their average lengths and, if discarded, whether they were alive or dead. Using this information and length-weight conversions (www.fishbase.org; Forselledo et al. 2008; Ribeiro-Prado and Amorim 2008), it was possible to estimate the proportions of landed and discarded elasmobranch catch for years where they were underreported (Table 3). We did not estimate discard mortality of sharks released alive.Shore-based subsistence fisheriesMany shore-based fishing activities are conducted primarily for subsistence purposes. The primary shore-based fishing methods used throughout Mayotte include reef gleaning (hand collection of octopus, shellfish and fish on reef margins), djarifa fishing (using nets made from cotton sheets or mosquito nets), nets, traps and the use of toxic plants (locally known as uruva; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009b). Djarifa fishing is practiced exclusively by women (Dahalani 1997), and takes place predominantly in mangroves and shallow bays throughout the island (Aboutoihi et al. 2010). Aerial surveys of the island observed the frequency of these activities and show reef gleaning (89.5% of observations) and djarifa fishing (9.1% of observations) accounted for the majority of shore-based fishing effort (Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009b).11Catches by this sector are unreported in FAO landings and only a few recent studies have estimated fishing effort and catch (Dahalani 1997; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009b; Aboutoihi et al. 2010; Jamon et al. 2010, Anon. 2014). Djarifa catches were estimated at 121 t in 1997 (Dahalani 1997) and 26 t in 2009 (Jamon et al. 2010). Reef gleaning catches in 2012 were 38 t, 15 t and 5.5 for octopus, shellfish and fish, respectively (Anon. 2014). We convert these estimates to shore-based per capita rates and used Mayotte's population data to generate a preliminary estimate of these catches from 1950 to 2010 (Table 6). Given that there has not been a decrease in djarifa catch rates between 1997 and 2008 (Jamon et al. 2010), the difference in per-capita catch rates likely reflects a change in the proportion of the population practising this traditional activity (Anon. 2014).10 Elasmobranchii are mostly discarded, although Isurus oxyrinchus (mako shark) and Pteroplatytrygon violacea (pelagic stingray) have commercial value and are generally sold on the local markets. Sharks are reportedly not targeted for the Asian shark-fin trade (Kiszka et al. 2010).11 Although nets and uruva do not currently occupy a significant portion of fishing effort, this may not have always been the case. Uruva fishing has been banned since 1997 and net fishing has been regulated and banned in certain areas since 2004 (Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009b). These activities may have been more prevalent in the past (Fourmanoir 1954; Maggiorani and Maggiorani 1992), providing further justification for increased shore-based catch rates in earlier years.Table 5. Summary of longline catch data with assumptions and sources used.Period Reconstructed catch (t)Shark and ray catch (%) Sources CommentsUnreported DiscardsPrior to 2000 0 0 0 Abellard and Herfaut (2004), Kiszka et al. (2010)No domestic longline fleet2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932003 12\u00E2\u0080\u009317 0a 6 Abellard and Herfaut (2004), IOTC (2012b)Both sets of data were identical, suggesting that the artisanal longline fishery was properly reported to FAO2004 17 4 6 IOTC (2012b) -2005 16b 4 6 Assumptionc -2006\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 16\u00E2\u0080\u009346 4 6 Fraisse (2010) The increase from 2008 to 2010 could be attributed to increased effort, from one to three vessels circa 2006 (Anon. 2007b)a No adjustments were made for the landed sharks and rays for these years and the existing data were accepted.b No data were available for 2005; catch was estimated as an average between 2004 and 2006 values.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 59Recreational fishingIncreased tourism and immigration of French expatriates in recent years has led to an increase of recreational fishing activities (Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a; Busson 2011). Recreational fishing can be broken down into two sectors: sport fishing and spearfishing.There are currently only two commercial boats offering sport fishing trips and their annual catch for 2008 was estimated at 4.8 tonnes (Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a). This estimate was considered conservative as it did not take into account the catch from individuals who fished recreationally on their own boats, nor tourists who may have rented a boat from locals. Spearfishing has been regulated since 1991, when it was banned in the interior of the lagoon (Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a). It has been practiced for at least 20 years and now mostly takes place on the exterior slope of the barrier reef and in the open ocean. Based on information from Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. (2009a), a conservative estimate of 50 spearfishers and an average catch rate of 8.5 kg\u00C2\u00B7fisher-1\u00C2\u00B7trip-1 were used for 2008. An assumption was made that recreational spearfishers were active once every two weeks (i.e., 26 trips per year).Little recreational fishing took place prior to 1985, as there were few outboard motors at this time (Biais et al. 1987) and few French expatriates living on the island (IEDOM 2006). Due to no other available data, we made a simplifying assumption that recreational catches for 1985 and earlier years were zero, and that catches increased linearly between 1985 and 2010.Catches were allocated evenly among the target taxa, as no other information is available regarding catch composition. These boats generally target pelagic and demersal species such as barracuda, billfishes, dolphinfish, Gymnosarda unicolor (dogtooth tuna), jacks, Lutjanidae (snappers), Lethrinidae (emperors), Selachimorpha (sharks), Serranidae (groupers), Sparidae (sea breams) skipjack tuna, tuna-like species, and wahoo (Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a). Spearfishers target dogtooth tuna, groupers, jacks, Scaridae (parrotfish), sharks, snappers, swordfish, tuna-like species, and wahoo (Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a).Holothurian fisheryDespite the lack of any holothurians in the FAO data, historic evidence indicates the presence of such catches in Mayotte for export to Asian markets since as early as 1916 (Anon. 1916, in Eriksson et al. 2010). There is little information on the extent of harvesting after this, other than that harvesting of holothurians occurred from the mid-1990s until 2004 when it was declared illegal (Eriksson et al. 2010). Pouget (2004) documented exports of 5.4 tonnes of processed dried holothurians (trepang) in 2002. The species most often targeted when Mayotte's fishery was active was Holothuria nobilis (black teatfish; Pouget 2004; Eriksson et al. 2010). There were only documented exports of 422 kg of processed holothurians in 2003, which suggested unrecorded exports (Pouget 2004). Other than that, there was no data available on this fishery, and it was therefore not included in the reconstructed catches.resultsThe total reconstructed catch for Mayotte was nearly 84,000 t from 1950 to 2010, a figure that is 1.4 times the domestic portion of the FAO landings of 58,000 t (Figure 4A). The total reconstructed catches ranged from 240 t in 1950 to 2,700 tonnes in 2010 and reached peaks of 3,000 t in 1997 and 1999. The reconstructed catches were allocated to 110 taxonomic groups for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 time period of which the families Sombridae (25%), Lethrinidae (12%), Lutjanidae (12%), Carangidae (11%) and Serranidae (8%) accounted for the bulk of catch (Figure 4B). An increase in the percentage of large pelagic fish (Coryphaenidae, Scombridae, and Istiophoridae) within the total catch has occurred since 1989.These large pelagic families occupied 15- 16% of annual catch prior to 1990 and between 28\u00E2\u0080\u009348% of annual catch between 1995 and 2010, most of which are Scombridae (Figure 4B).The small-scale boat fleet accounted for 78,000 t over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period (Figure 4A). Catches were mostly from the pirogue and barque fleet (77,600 t), followed by longliners (238 t) and the YVALANN (190 t). Pirogue and barque catches increased from 200 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 1950 to 2,600 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 2010 and peaked at 2,900 t in the late 1990s. Shore-based subsistence fisheries accounted for 5,000 t from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, (Figure 4A). The total shore-based catches varied from 30 t in 1950 to 80 t in 2010 and peaked at 180 t in 1997.The total recreational catches were an estimated 220 t, estimated for the 1985\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period (Figure 4A).Table 6. Methods and sources used to derive per-capita catch rates for Mayotte shore-based fisheries, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Year or period reef gleaning djarifab2010 Anon. (2014) Jamon et al. (2010)2009 Linear interpolation2008\u00E2\u0080\u00931998 Linear interpolation1997 Dahalani (1997)1996 Maintained 1997 rate1995 Increased shellfish catch rate by 200%, maintained 2010 rate for other taxaa1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931994 1995 rate maintaineda Shellfish collectors said catch rates were 4 times higher circa 1995 (Aboutoihi et al. 2010; K. Saindou, pers. comm., Agence des aires marines prot\u00C3\u00A9g\u00C3\u00A9es)b Djarifa catches were assigned to taxonomic families based on surveyed catch composition from Jamon et al. (2010). 60disCussionThe total reconstructed catches from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 were 1.4 times the total domestic FAO reported landings. The main reason for this discrepancy was the missing catch data prior to 1989 and the assumed unreported portion of catches during the early 1990s. No system was in place prior to 1989 to record catches of the small-scale pirogue and barque fisheries, and these catches were considered underestimated. The pirogue and barque fleets were responsible for the bulk of the total landings (93%) between 1950 and 2010, most of which are locally consumed. As this fishery represents such a large component of total landings, it is important that it continues to be monitored. Although only available until 2005, national surveys of the pirogue and barque fleets are known to have continued until 2010. The Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches then ceased operations as part of Mayotte's transition to an Overseas Department of France, and future surveys are now being organized by Ifremer's Syst\u00C3\u00A8me d'Information Halieutique (d'Aboville 2007). It should be noted that the 'marine fishes nei' and pelagic catches recorded by the FAO are identical for 2007\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 and 2006\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, respectively, and thus have not been updated since 2005. These catches should be retroactively adjusted once the analyses of 2006\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 national surveys are available. The reporting of catch statistics resumed in 2013 thanks to the implementation of Ifremer's Syst\u00C3\u00A8me d'information halieutique (d'Aboville 2007) and should be visible in the version of FishStat due to be released in 2015. The reconstructed catches were allocated to 110 taxonomic groups in the reconstructed time series, whereas there are only 11 taxa in the reported FAO data. It should be noted that the taxonomic disaggregation of unidentified and unreported catches is approximate and based on data from limited years (1989, 2003\u00E2\u0080\u00932005). Several assumptions were necessary to estimate the catch composition data for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, and thus catch composition estimates will be less reliable for some years. For example, species documented in the 1989 survey may be overrepresented in earlier years. Despite the uncertainties in the allocation, this exercise is still valuable given the shifts in catch composition that have occurred as the fleet is 'professionalizing' and fishing further offshore. Our taxonomic disaggregation may prove more useful than the alternative of allocating the majority of catch as 'unidentified marine fish'. More specific information from annual surveys (Maggiorani and Maggiorani 1990, Maggiorani et al. 1993, Herfaut 2003, 2004, 2005) and historical observations (Fourmanoir 1954, Moal 1962, Maggiorani et al. 1994) may be used to improve the species disaggregation for specific years, and retroactively update landings data in the future.Historically, Mahorans depended on the reef fisheries and shore-based fishing for much of their dietary needs (Aboutoihi et al. 2010). The reef resources within the lagoon had increased fishing pressure as Mayotte's population has grown, and interviews with fishers suggested that the resource may be overfished (d'Aboville 2007; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a). Fishers now have to increase their effort and travel further offshore, regularly visiting neighbouring EEZs (Madagascar and Glorieuses Archipelago), to satisfy local demand for reef fish (Herfaut 2005a; Fraisse 2010). These fishers will often stay at sea for several days when fishing at offshore banks and risk dangerous sea conditions as well as being detained by foreign patrols, in order to remain profitable (Herfaut 2005a; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a; Fraisse 2010). The plans to expand the artisanal longline fleet, operating within 20 nm of the coast (Busson 2011), and increase the effort targeting pelagics outside the lagoon may provide a safer and more economical alternative to the dangerous fishing conditions at offshore banks.1234Total domestic catch (thousand t)Shore-basedBoat-basedRecreationalDomestic catch reported to FAO*012341950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearOthersScombridaeLutjanidaeLethrinidaeCarangidaeABSerranidaeFigure 4. A) Total reconstructed catches for Mayotte by different marine fishing sectors. The 'boat-based' component includes catches by the pirogue and barque fleet, artisanal longliners, and the YVALANN. (see Appendix Table A1 for annual catches by sector). Solid dots represent historical estimates for small-scale pirogue and barque fleets (i.e., excluding shore-based fishing; Moal 1962; Jacquemart 1980; Biais 1987; Maggiorani et al. 1993). B) Taxonomic composition of major families in total reconstructed catches for Mayotte (See Appendix Table A2 for annual catches).*FAO data are higher than reconstructed catches due to double-counting of pelagics.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 61Fishing effort and catches by the pirogue and barque fleets have also increasingly moved outside the lagoon. This is reflected in shifts in species composition of catches, as Scombridae were not commonly targeted in the 1950s (Fourmanoir 1954), but now account for up to 50% of the pirogue and barque annual catch (Herfaut 2006). The 2009 decision to restrict industrial tuna fleets from fishing within 24 nm of Mayotte (Busson 2011) may help conserve the fishing resource and provide more fishing opportunities for the local population. However, it requires enforcing, and local enforcement capacity has historically been limited (Maggiorani et al. 1993; Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009a; Busson 2011).Due to the limited availability of data for the early part of the time series and for unreported sectors, there is some uncertainty associated with the estimated catches in this study. This is particularly the case for years prior to 1989 and for the shore-based and recreational fishing sectors, which have limited data. Recently completed studies by the Parc Naturel Marin (Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel et al. 2009b; Aboutoihi et al. 2010; Jamon et al. 2010, Anon. 2014) suggest that djarifa fishing and reef gleaning are important subsistence fishing activities. The recreational fishery has increased rapidly in recent years (Busson 2011), and recording fisheries statistics from sport fishing operators may provide valuable information as it continues to grow. This study attempts to provide an improved historical time-series of Mayotte's domestic fisheries catches for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, by including estimates of unreported (shore-based subsistence fisheries, recreational fisheries and discards) and underreported sectors (small-scale boat fisheries), and by disaggregating catches by foreign industrial fleets (e.g. longliners and purse seiners). This report may also serve as a resource to identify the existing sources of catch statistics for Mayotte's domestic fisheries and provides a comprehensive view of Mayotte's different fishing sectors.aCknoWledgmentsThe authors of this report would like to acknowledge the support of the Sea Around Us, a collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. BD, FLM and DZ also thank the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation for support. reFerenCesAbellard O and Herfaut J (2004) France, Mayotte et \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u008Aparses \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Rapport national 2003. Septi\u00C3\u00A8me Session du Comit\u00C3\u00A9 Scientifique, November 8\u00E2\u0080\u009312, 2004, Victoria (Seychelles). 4 p.Aboutoihi L, Saindou K and Sala\u00C3\u00BCn P (2010) La p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 pied \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte: la pratique des p\u00C3\u00AAches traditionelles. Mission d'\u00C3\u00A9tude pour la cr\u00C3\u00A9ation d'un parc naturel marin \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte, Agence des Aires Marines Prot\u00C3\u00A9g\u00C3\u00A9es (AAMP), Mamoudzou (Mayotte). 32 p.Anon. (1916) Administrative report written by the governor of Mayotte. MAD 2D73, Madagascar et Dependances (MAD), Archives Nationales d'Outre-Mer, Antananarivo (Madagascar).Anon. (1994) Livre blanc de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale Mahoraise \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Assises de la p\u00C3\u00AAche les 6,7 et 8 d\u00C3\u00A9cembre 1994. Collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 Territoriale de Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches, Copemay, Mayotte. 105 p.Anon. (2004) Agreste Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Enqu\u00C3\u00AAte statistique sur l'agriculture et la p\u00C3\u00AAche (ESAP). Minist\u00C3\u00A8re de L'Agriculture et de l'Agroalimentaire (Agreste), Direction de l'Agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt, INS\u00C3\u0089E. 19 p.Anon. (2007a) Contrat cadre pour la r\u00C3\u00A9alisation d'\u00C3\u00A9valuations, d'\u00C3\u00A9tudes d'impact et de suivi concernant les accords de partenariat dans le domaine de la p\u00C3\u00AAche (FPA) conclus entre la Communaut\u00C3\u00A9 europ\u00C3\u00A9ene et les pays tiers, et plus g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9ralement sur le volet externe de la Politique Commune de la P\u00C3\u00AAche: \u00C3\u00A9tude de la fili\u00C3\u00A8re thoni\u00C3\u00A8re europ\u00C3\u00A9ene. Internal document, Oceanic D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, MegaPesca Ltda, Brussels (Belgium). iv+156 p.Anon. (2007b) Rapport national de la France (territoires) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 R\u00C3\u00A9union du comit\u00C3\u00A9 scientifique 2006. Minist\u00C3\u00A8re de l'Agriculture et de la P\u00C3\u00AAche, Paris (France). 6 p.Anon. (2014). La pratique des p\u00C3\u00AAches traditionnelles dans le Parc naturel marin de Mayotte: la p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 pied des poulpes et coquillages. Mission d'\u00C3\u00A9tude pour la cr\u00C3\u00A9ation d'un Parc naturel marin \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte, Agence des aires marines prot\u00C3\u00A9g\u00C3\u00A9es, 58 p.Barbaroux O (1977) Compte rendu de mission \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte (7 au 17 septembre 1977). Institut Scientifique et Technique des P\u00C3\u00AAches Maritimes. 33 p.Bein A, Kiszka J, Layssac K, Jamon A, Wickel J and Labart S (2011) Caract\u00C3\u00A9ristiques de la p\u00C3\u00AAcherie palangri\u00C3\u00A8re p\u00C3\u00A9lagique de Mayotte (2009\u00E2\u0080\u00932010). Mayshark, Mayotte. 24 p.Bell JD, Kronen M, Vunisea A, Nash WJ, Keeble G, Demmke A, Pontifex S and Andr\u00C3\u00A9fou\u00C3\u00ABt A (2009) Planning the use of fish for food security in the Pacific. Marine Policy 33(1): 64\u00E2\u0080\u009376.Biais G, Maggiorani JM and Taquet M (1987) Enqu\u00C3\u00AAte cadre sur la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale Mahoraise. Collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 Territoriale de Mayotte, Direction de l'Agriculture, Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches. 70 p.Bouchard C (2009) Fisheries in the French Indian Ocean Territories. pp. 177\u00E2\u0080\u0093193 In Rumley D, Sanjay C and Sakhuja V (eds.), Fisheries exploitation in the Indian Ocean \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Threats and opportunities. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.Busson O (2011) La p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte: entre archa\u00C3\u00AFsme et postmodernit\u00C3\u00A9. L'Harmattan, Paris (France). 183 p.d'Aboville MG (2007) La p\u00C3\u00AAche et l'aquaculture en Outre-Mer. Avis et rapports du conseil \u00C3\u00A9conomique et social, R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise. vi+48+111 p. 62Dahalani Y (1997) L'impact de la p\u00C3\u00AAche djarifa sure le recrutement des populations des poissons et des crustac\u00C3\u00A9s en face des mangroves du littoral c\u00C3\u00B4tier de Mayotte (baie de Chiconi). Msc thesis, Universit\u00C3\u00A9 de Poitiers (France). 26 p.Doherty B, McBride MM, Brito AJ, Le Manach F, Sousa L, Chauca I and Zeller D (this volume) Marine fisheries in Mozambique: catches updated to 2010 and taxonomic disaggregation. Dumas V (2009) Mayotte, \u00C3\u00AEle de France. Historia 750: 6\u00E2\u0080\u00939.Eriksson BH, Wickel J and Jamon A (2010) Mayotte commercial sea cucumber inventory and assessment 2010. Prepared for the Direction de l'Agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt de Mayotte and Conseil General, Mamoudzou (Mayotte), Stockholm University, Sweden. 26 p.FAO (2014) FishstatJ Capture Production 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932012. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Forselledo R, Pons M, Miller P and Domingo A (2008) Distribution and population structure of the pelagic stingray, Pteroplatytrygon violacea (Dasyatidae), in the south-western Atlantic. Aquatic Living Resources 21: 357\u00E2\u0080\u0093362. Fourmanoir P (1954) Ichthyologie et p\u00C3\u00AAche aux Comores. pp. 187\u00E2\u0080\u0093239 In M\u00C3\u00A9moires de l'Institut Scientifique de Madagascar S\u00C3\u00A9rie A \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Tome IX.Fraisse N (2010) Analyse des d\u00C3\u00A9barquements de poissons \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte par la COPEMAY de 2007 \u00C3\u00A0 2010. COPEMAY, Parc Naturel Marin de Mayotte. 17 p.Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel R, Quartararo A, Aboutoihi L, Saindou K, Sala\u00C3\u00BCn P, Ybrahim B and Arnaud JP (2009a) Richesses de Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Parc naturel marin de Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Les hommes et l'oc\u00C3\u00A9an \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Mission d'\u00C3\u00A9tude pour la cr\u00C3\u00A9ation d'un parc naturel marin \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte. Agence des Aires Marines Prot\u00C3\u00A9g\u00C3\u00A9es (AAMP), Mamoudzou (Mayotte). 72 p.Gu\u00C3\u00A9zel R, Sala\u00C3\u00BCn P, Arnaud JP, Aboutoihi L, Gigou A, Saindou K and Ybrahim B (2009b) La p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 pied \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte : localisation des principaux sites de p\u00C3\u00AAche et estimation de l'effort de p\u00C3\u00AAche par comptages a\u00C3\u00A9riens. Mission pour la cr\u00C3\u00A9ation d'un parc naturel marin \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte, Agence des Aires Marines Prot\u00C3\u00A9g\u00C3\u00A9es (AAMP), Mamoudzou (Mayotte). 30 p.Herfaut J (2004) Suivi statistique de la p\u00C3\u00AAcherie artisanale Mahoraise: \u00C3\u00A9valuation de l'effort de p\u00C3\u00AAche, des captures et des CPUE de 1997 \u00C3\u00A0 2003. Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches de la Direction de l'Agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt. 31 p.Herfaut J (2005a) Evaluation de la rentabilit\u00C3\u00A9 \u00C3\u00A9conomique de l'exploitation des bancs \u00C3\u00A9loign\u00C3\u00A9s (Geyzer, Zel\u00C3\u00A9e, Castor...) par la p\u00C3\u00AAcherie artisanale mahoraise. Ing\u00C3\u00A9nierie de l'environnement (INENV), Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches de la Direction de l'agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt, Mamoudzou (Mayotte). 22 p.Herfaut J (2005b). Suivie statistique de la p\u00C3\u00AAcherie artisanale mahoraise: Effort de p\u00C3\u00AAche, captures et CPUE en 2004, Direction de l'Agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt de Mayotte, Service des p\u00C3\u00AAches, 23 p.Herfaut J (2006) Suivi statistique de la p\u00C3\u00AAcherie artisanale Mahoraise: effort de p\u00C3\u00AAche, capture et CPUE en 2005. Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches de la Direction de l'Agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt. 23 p.Hopquin B (2011) Mayotte devient le 101e d\u00C3\u00A9partement de France. Le Monde, edition of March 30, 2011.IEDOM (2006) Mayotte en 2005. Institut d'\u00C4\u0096mission des D\u00C3\u00A9partements d'Outre-Mer (IEDOM). 176 p.IEDOM (2011) Mayotte rapport annuel 2010. Institut d'\u00C3\u0089mission des D\u00C3\u00A9partements d'Outre Mer (IEDOM), Paris (France). 206 p.INS\u00C3\u0089E (2007) Recensement G\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9ral de la Population de Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 186 452 habitants au 31 juillet 2007. INS\u00C3\u0089E Infos No. 32, Insitut National de la Statistique et des \u00C3\u0089tudes \u00C3\u0089conomiques (INS\u00C3\u0089E). 4 p.INS\u00C3\u0089E (2011) Produit int\u00C3\u00A9rieur brut \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte en 2009: Une croissance dynamique mais un retard \u00C3\u00A0 rattraper. INSEE Mayotte Infos No. 55, Institut National de la Statistique et des \u00C3\u0089tudes \u00C3\u0089conomiques (INS\u00C3\u0089E). 4 p.IOTC (2006) Indian Ocean tuna fisheries data summary, 1994\u00E2\u0080\u00932003. IOTC Data Summary No. 25, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). 112 p.IOTC (2012) IOTC record of authorised vessels. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Available at: http://www.iotc.org/English/record/search3.php [Accessed: April 25, 2012].IOTC (2011) France-Territoires rapport national destin\u00C3\u00A9 au Comit\u00C3\u00A9 scientifique de la Commission des Thons de l'Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien, pour sa r\u00C3\u00A9union annuelle 2011. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 19 p.IOTC (2012a) IOTC record of authorised vessels. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Available at: www.iotc.org/English/record/search3.php [Accessed: April 25, 2012].IOTC (2012b) IOTC nominal catch database. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Available at: www.iotc.org/English/data/databases.php [Accessed: April 4, 2012].Jacquemart PGF (1980) Les probl\u00C3\u00A8mes de la p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte. Doctorat V\u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9rinaire, \u00C3\u0089cole Nationale V\u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9rinaire d'Alfort, Facult\u00C3\u00A9 de M\u00C3\u00A9decine de Cr\u00C3\u00A9teil. 56 p.Jacquet J, Fox H, Motta H, Ngusaru A and Zeller D (2010) Few data but many fish: marine small-scale fisheries catches for Mozambique and Tanzania. African Journal of Marine Science 32(2): 197\u00E2\u0080\u0093206.Jamon A, Wickel J, Nicet JB, Durville P, Bissery C, Fontcuberta A and Quod JP (2010) Evaluation de l'impact de la p\u00C3\u00AAche Djarifa sur la ressource halieutiques. Mission pour la Cr\u00C3\u00A9ation d'un Parc Naturel Marin \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte, Parc Naturel Marin de Mayotte, Agence des Aires Marines Prot\u00C3\u00A9g\u00C3\u00A9es (AAMP), Mamoudzou (Mayotte). 59 p.Kiszka J, Bein A, Bach P, Jamon A, Layssac K, Labart S and Wickel J (2010) Catch and bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery around Mayotte (NE Mozambique Channel), July 2009-September 2010. Shark Research Group \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Mayshark, Institut de Recherce pour le D\u00C3\u00A9velopment (IRD), Mayotte. 6 p.Le Gall J Y (1986). \u00C3\u0089lements sur l'\u00C3\u00A9volution de la p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte (Archipel des Comores \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Ocean Indien) 1960\u00E2\u0080\u00931985. P\u00C3\u00AAche Maritime, 1301, 546\u00E2\u0080\u0093555. Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 63Le Manach F, Chavance P, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Lindop A, Padilla A, Schiller L, Zeller D and Pauly D (in press) Global catches of large pelagic fishes, with emphasis on the high seas. In Pauly D and Zeller D (eds.), Global atlas of marine fisheries: ecosystem impacts and analysis. Island Press, Washington, DC (USA). Le Manach F, Gough C, Harris A, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2012) Unreported fishing, hungry people and political turmoil: the recipe for a food security crisis in Madagascar? Marine Policy 36: 218\u00E2\u0080\u0093255.Le Manach F and Pauly D (this volume) First estimate of unreported catch in the French \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Le Manach F, Bach P, Boistol L, Robinson J and Pauly D (this volume) Artisanal Fisheries in the world's second largest tuna fishing ground \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Reconstruction of the Seychelles' marine fisheries catch, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Maggiorani F and Maggiorani JM (1990) Enqu\u00C3\u00AAte sur la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale Mahoraise. Tome 2: effort de p\u00C3\u00AAche et captures. Collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 Territoriale de Mayotte, Direction de l'Agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt, Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches. 75 p.Maggiorani F, Minet J-P, Roos D and Tessier E (1994) Diagnostic sur l'\u00C3\u00A9tat de la p\u00C3\u00AAcherie des bancs Geyser et Z\u00C3\u00A9l\u00C3\u00A9e (Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Analyse des r\u00C3\u00A9sultats de p\u00C3\u00AAche du navire YVALANN \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte d'octobre 1989 \u00C3\u00A0 juillet 1992. Contrat-cade No. 91/1211331/F, Ifremer and Collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 Territoriale de Mayotte, Le Port (France).Maggiorani JM and Maggiorani F (1992) Les techniques de p\u00C3\u00AAche utilis\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte. Enqu\u00C3\u00AAte halieutique Tome 4, Collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 Territoriale de Mayotte, Direction de l'Agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt, Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches. 47 p.Maggiorani JM, Minet J-P and Taquet M (1993) Situation de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte en 1992\u00E2\u0080\u009393 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 R\u00C3\u00A9sultats de l'enqu\u00C3\u00AAte halieutique (mars 1992\u00E2\u0080\u0093f\u00C3\u00A9vrier 1993) et comparison avec l'enqu\u00C3\u00AAte halieutique de 1988\u00E2\u0080\u009389. Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER) and Collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 Territoriale de Mayotte, Direction de l'Agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt, Service des P\u00C3\u00AAches. 34 p.Maggiorani JM and Planchot D (1995) Propositions pour le d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la p\u00C3\u00AAche mahoraise. Assises de la p\u00C3\u00AAche du 6 au 8 d\u00C3\u00A9cembre 1994. Collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 Territoriale de Mayotte, Repr\u00C3\u00A9sentation du Gouvernement, Direction de l'Agriculture et de la For\u00C3\u00AAt. 98 p.Minet JP and Weber J (1992) Perspectives de developpement du secteur des p\u00C3\u00AAches \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte. Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER) and Collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 Territoriale de Mayotte, Direction de l'Agriculture. 44 p.Moal RA (1962) La p\u00C3\u00AAche aux Comores. R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Minist\u00C3\u00A8re d'\u00C3\u00A9tat charg\u00C3\u00A9 des d\u00C3\u00A9partements et territoires d'outre-mer, Territoire des Comores \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Soci\u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 centrale pour l'\u00C3\u00A9quipement du territoire (SCET), France. 78 p.Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 11(2): 4\u00E2\u0080\u00937.Pauly D (2007) The Sea Around Us project: documenting and communicating global fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems. Ambio 36(4): 290\u00E2\u0080\u0093295.Pauly D and Zeller D (2003) The global fisheries crisis as a rationale for improving the FAO's database of fisheries statistics. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 11 (6), University of British Columbia, Vancouver. 9 p.Pouget A (2004) Sea cucumber fisheries in the Mayotte reef system, Indian Ocean. pp. 35\u00E2\u0080\u009338 In SPC B\u00C3\u00AAche-de-mer Information Bulletin #19, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC).R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2009) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 du 2 d\u00C3\u00A9cembre 2009 portant interdiction de l'usage des filets de type senne \u00C3\u00A0 moins de vingt-quatre milles marins des lignes de base \u00C3\u00A0 partir desquelles est mesur\u00C3\u00A9e la largeur des eaux territoriales fran\u00C3\u00A7aises adjacentes \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte. Journal Officiel de la R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise 0291.R\u00C3\u00A9publique Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise (2010) Arr\u00C3\u00AAt\u00C3\u00A9 n\u00C2\u00B0 2010\u00E2\u0080\u0093104 du 9 octobre 2010 cr\u00C3\u00A9ant une redevance annuelle de surveillance et d'observation de la p\u00C3\u00AAche dans les zones \u00C3\u00A9conomiques exclusives des \u00C3\u00AEles Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Bassas da India et Europa. Journal Officiel des Terres Australes et Antarctiques Fran\u00C3\u00A7aises. Ribeiro-Prado CC and Amorim AF (2008) Fishery biology on Pelagic stingray Pteroplatytrygon violacea caught off southern Brazil by longliners settled in Sao Paulo State (2006\u00E2\u0080\u00932007). ICCAT Collective Volume of Scientific Papers 62(6): 1883\u00E2\u0080\u00931891. Thomassin BA, Garcia F, Sarrazin L, Schembri T, Wafo E, Lagadec V, Risoul V and Wickel J (2011) Coastal seawater pollutants in the coral reef lagoon of a small tropical island in development: the Mayotte example (N Mozambique Channel, SW Indian Ocean). pp. 401\u00E2\u0080\u0093407 In H-J Ceccaldi, Dekeyser I, Girault M and Stora G (eds.), Global change: mankind-marine environment interactions. Proceedings of the 13th French-Japanese Oceanography Symposium. Springer, Dordrecht (The Netherlands).Van der Elst R, Everett B, Jiddawi N, Mwatha G, Afonso PS and Boulle D (2005) Fish, fishers and fisheries of the Western Indian Ocean: their diversity and status. A preliminary assessment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 363(1826): 263\u00E2\u0080\u0093284.Wendling B and Le Calv\u00C3\u00A9 S (1999) Technologie et utilisation des DCP ancr\u00C3\u00A9s dans les eaux de la collectivit\u00C3\u00A9 territoriale de Mayotte (archipel des Comores, canal du Mozambique, oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien). pp. 261\u00E2\u0080\u0093275 In Le Gall J-Y, Cayr\u00C3\u00A9 P and Taquet M (eds.), P\u00C3\u00AAche thoni\u00C3\u00A8re et dispositifs de concentration de poissons, Trois-\u00C3\u008Flets, Cara\u00C3\u00AFbe-Martinique.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for U.S. flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266\u00E2\u0080\u0093277. 64Appendix Table A1. Annual reconstructed catches (t) of domestic fleet by sector and FAO reported catchesYear Boat-based Recreational Shore-based Total reconstructed catch Domestic FAO reported catch Total FAO reported catch1950 211 - 26 237 0.25 0.25 1951 220 - 27 247 0.25 0.25 1952 226 - 28 254 0.25 0.25 1953 231 - 29 260 0.25 0.25 1954 237 - 29 266 0.25 0.25 1955 242 - 30 273 0.25 0.25 1956 248 - 31 279 0.25 0.25 1957 254 - 32 285 0.25 0.25 1958 260 - 32 292 0.25 0.25 1959 269 - 33 302 100 100 1960 274 - 34 308 100 100 1961 280 - 35 314 100 100 1962 302 - 38 339 100 100 1963 326 - 39 365 100 100 1964 353 - 40 394 100 100 1965 393 - 43 436 200 200 1966 424 - 44 469 200 200 1967 453 - 46 499 200 200 1968 485 - 47 533 200 200 1969 533 - 50 583 200 200 1970 565 - 51 617 300 300 1971 617 - 54 671 300 300 1972 654 - 56 709 300 300 1973 706 - 58 764 300 300 1974 762 - 61 823 300 300 1975 803 - 63 865 400 400 1976 863 - 65 929 500 500 1977 924 - 68 992 500 500 1978 989 - 71 1,060 600 600 1979 1,054 - 74 1,128 600 600 1980 1,122 - 76 1,199 742 742 1981 1,215 - 81 1,296 516 516 1982 1,308 - 85 1,393 420 420 1983 1,318 - 89 1,407 480 480 1984 1,323 - 93 1,416 550 550 1985 1,344 - 99 1,442 780 780 1986 1,270 1 104 1,375 800 800 1987 1,360 1 110 1,472 1,200 1,200 1988 1,493 2 115 1,610 1,000 1,000 1989 1,698 3 121 1,821 1,100 1,100 1990 1,954 3 128 2,085 1,600 1,600 1991 2,136 4 136 2,276 1,400 1,400 1992 2,323 5 144 2,472 1,100 1,100 1993 2,386 5 153 2,545 500 500 1994 2,444 6 161 2,612 600 600 1995 2,450 7 169 2,626 1,033 1,033 1996 2,659 8 176 2,842 1,553 1,553 1997 2,867 8 181 3,056 2,867 2,867 1998 1,971 9 177 2,157 1,971 3,003 1999 2,892 10 173 3,075 2,892 3,452 2000 2,234 10 168 2,412 3,047 3,048 2001 1,831 11 161 2,003 2,621 10,052 2002 2,052 12 154 2,218 3,076 4,754 2003 2,641 12 146 2,799 3,464 3,464 2004 2,319 13 138 2,470 2,306 2,306 2005 2,072 14 128 2,214 2,051 2,194 2006 2,826 14 118 2,958 2,810 5,772 2007 2,573 15 107 2,695 2,560 11,661 2008 2,608 16 95 2,719 2,560 12,677 2009 2,603 16 82 2,701 2,560 15,006 2010 2,606 17 82 2,705 2,560 20,842 Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mayotte \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 65Appendix Table A2. Reconstructed catches (t) grouped by 5 most important taxa.Year Scombridae Lethrinidae Lutjanidae Carangidae Serranidae Others1950 35 30 34 19 25 94 1951 37 31 35 20 26 98 1952 38 32 36 20 27 100 1953 39 33 37 21 28 103 1954 40 33 38 21 28 105 1955 41 34 39 22 29 108 1956 42 35 40 22 30 111 1957 43 36 41 23 30 113 1958 44 37 42 23 31 116 1959 45 38 43 24 32 120 1960 46 39 44 24 33 122 1961 47 39 45 25 34 125 1962 51 42 48 27 36 134 1963 55 46 52 29 39 144 1964 60 50 57 32 42 154 1965 66 55 63 35 47 169 1966 72 60 68 38 51 181 1967 76 64 73 40 54 191 1968 82 68 78 43 58 203 1969 90 75 85 47 64 221 1970 95 80 91 50 68 233 1971 104 87 99 55 74 252 1972 110 92 105 58 78 266 1973 119 99 113 63 85 285 1974 128 107 122 68 91 306 1975 135 113 129 72 96 321 1976 145 122 138 77 104 343 1977 156 130 148 82 111 365 1978 167 139 159 88 119 389 1979 178 148 169 94 126 412 1980 189 158 180 100 135 437 1981 205 171 195 108 146 471 1982 220 184 210 116 157 505 1983 222 186 211 117 158 513 1984 223 186 212 118 159 518 1985 226 189 216 120 161 531 1986 214 179 204 113 152 513 1987 230 192 218 121 163 547 1988 252 210 240 133 179 596 1989 286 237 279 152 204 664 1990 342 265 331 184 233 730 1991 399 293 338 217 239 789 1992 458 320 350 253 244 848 1993 503 334 336 277 231 864 1994 541 342 332 299 223 875 1995 739 311 292 285 191 808 1996 1,040 296 270 285 171 780 1997 949 354 312 355 192 893 1998 921 194 166 204 99 573 1999 829 389 322 422 186 928 2000 763 282 226 317 126 697 2001 790 207 160 241 86 518 2002 1,023 207 155 248 80 504 2003 820 367 274 438 141 759 2004 1,154 236 177 283 91 529 2005 1,023 210 158 252 81 489 2006 794 410 307 490 157 799 2007 794 359 269 429 138 705 2008 806 359 269 429 138 717 2009 802 359 269 429 138 704 2010 810 359 269 430 138 699 Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mozambique \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 67marine Fisheries in mozambique: CatChes updated to 2010 and taxonomiC disaggregation*Beau Doherty,1 Margaret M. McBride,2 Atan\u00C3\u00A1sio J. Brito,3 Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach,1,4\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Lizette Sousa,3 Isabel Chauca3 and Dirk Zeller11 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada2 Institute of Marine Research, P.O Box 1870 Nordnes, 5817 Bergen, Norway3 Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira, P.O. Box 4603, Maputo, Mozambique4 Institut de Recherche pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, UMR212 Ecosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes Marins Exploit\u00C3\u00A9s, Avenue Jean Monnet, CS 30171, 34203 S\u00C3\u00A8te cedex, France\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Current address: BLOOM Association, 77 rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris, Franceb.doherty@fisheries.ubc.ca; margaret.mcbride@imr.no; atanasio.brito@iip.gov.mz; fredericlemanach@bloomassociation.org; mlpsousa@hotmail.com; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.ca; ichauca@yahoo.com.brabstraCtReconstructed catch and discard estimates for Mozambique's marine fisheries sectors (small-scale and industrial) were updated from a 2007 contribution by J. Jacquet and D. Zeller to encompass the entire 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. The species composition of the reconstructed catches was also estimated for each year. The total reconstructed catch for 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 was approximately 8.2 million tonnes (t), which is 4.6 times the official data reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), i.e., landings of 1.8 million t over this 61-year period. However, significant improvements have occurred in the data reported to FAO for recent years (2003\u00E2\u0080\u00932010), specifically in 2009 and 2010, when small-scale catches were comprehensively reported. FAO data prior to 2003 remain incomplete, with large unreported catches and poor taxonomic resolution for small-scale fisheries. Mozambique's total marine fisheries catch for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period were composed largely of the families Clupeidae (11%), Engraulidae (9%), and Penaeidae (8%). However, historical data from the 1970s suggest significant changes in overall species composition of small-scale fisheries that are unaccounted for in official catch statistics. introduCtionMozambique stretches along the coast of East Africa, between South Africa and Tanzania (Figure 1), where its mangroves, coral reefs, and seagrass beds support a variety of marine life (Bandeira et al. 2002). Of the 1,425 marine finfish species known to occur within Mozambique's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), nearly 300 are of commercial importance (www.fishbase.org). At least 14 species of shrimps are of commercial importance (Appendix Table A1), while other valuable fisheries are conducted for Metanephrops mozambicus (African lobster), Palinurus delagoae (Natal spiny lobsters), Chaceon macphersoni (pink geryons), holothurians, and sharks (contributions in Pauly 1992; Groeneveld and Melville-Smith 1995; Fennessy and Groeneveld 1997; Abdula 1998; Kroese and Sauer 1998; de Sousa 2001; Pierce et al. 2008). A listing of valuable species across Mozambique's different fishing sectors is presented in Appendix Table A1. Officially, marine capture fisheries account for more than 90% of Mozambique's total fish catch (FAO 2007) and coastal communities depend on the sea and its resources for survival, with fish accounting for 50% of the population's protein intake (Hara et al. 2001; van der Elst et al. 2005). National catch data show that small-scale fisheries account for over 80% of landed marine captures and thus play a significant role in the national economy (e.g., providing direct employment in fishing, fish processing and marketing). Industrial/semi-* Cite as: Doherty B, McBride MM, Brito AJ, Le Manach F, Sousa L, Chauca I and Zeller D (2015) Marine fisheries in Mozambique: catches updated to 2010 and taxonomic disaggregation. Pp. 67\u00E2\u0080\u009381 In Le Manach F and Pauly D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727].Figure 1. Map of Mozambique and its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), as well as the extent of the continental shelf (in darker blue). The various districts are also delimited by dotted lines.GazaSofalaZambeziaNampulaInhambaneCabo DelgadoMaputo0 250 kmInhacaIsland Sofala Bank 68industrial fisheries are mostly export-oriented, targeting mainly penaeid shrimp, and represent an important source of export income (Pinto 2001; FAO 2007). Despite the importance of marine fisheries for food security and the national economy, fisheries statistics for Mozambique and much of the region remain underreported, mainly due to underestimates of landings by the small-scale fisheries (van der Elst et al. 2005; Blythe et al. 2013). FAO catch statistics for Mozambique's industrial fisheries are also underreported (Jacquet et al. 2010) and do not include discards, which are substantial for the industrial crustacean fisheries (Fennessy 1994; Fennessy and Groeneveld 1997; Pinto 2001). A shallow-water shrimp fishery has been present since the 1950s (FAO 2013), mostly operating at depths below 50m off Sofala Bank (Fennessy and Isaksen 2007). On average about 15% of the landings are shrimp, while about 85% is bycatch (Brito and Abdula 2008). Most shrimp catch is composed of Fenneropenaeus indicus (Indian white prawns) and Metapenaeus monoceros (speckled shrimp), but Marsupenaeus japonicus (Kuruma shrimp), Melicertus latisulcatus (western king prawns), Penaeus monodon (giant tiger prawns), and P. semisulcatus (green tiger prawns) are also landed (Fennessy and Groeneveld 1997; IIP 2003; Pinto 2001). Since circa 1986 (FAO 2013), Mozambique has also had a deep-water crustacean fishery that fishes at depths around 300\u00E2\u0080\u0093500 m (Groeneveld and Melville-Smith 1995), landing predominantly Haliporoides triarthrus (knife shrimp), African lobster, and pink geryons (Tortensen and Pacule 1992; de Sousa 1992; IIP 2008, 2009). A bottom trawl fishery targeting Decapterus russeli, D. macrosoma, and Selar crumenophthalmus (three species of scads), and Rastrelliger kanagurta (Indian mackerel) also operated in Sofala Bank and Boa Paz from 1977 to 1992 as part of the Mozambique-USSR joint venture, MOSOPESCA (Silva and Sousa 1988; Sousa 1992).Mozambique began its sampling program for multi-national industrial and semi-industrial fisheries with the founding of the Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (Fisheries Research Institute) in 1977 (Bandeira et al. 2002). Since the early 1980s, the program has included the collection of fishery-dependent data via logbooks of commercial catch categorized taxonomically (by order, family, or species), and publications of the Revista de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (Fisheries Research Journal; Bandeira et al. 2002). This program was broadened during the 1980s to include an onboard observer-sampling component. Fishery-independent data have also been collected through a series of scientific surveys that were conducted occasionally between 1976 and 1991 depending on the availability of vessels, but have been conducted systematically after 1991. Collection of data (catch, effort, and species composition) from Mozambique's small-scale fisheries began in 1997 in two provinces (Inhambane and Nampula), but has now been expanded to cover all coastal provinces (Dias and Afonso 2011). The composition of species discarded from industrial shallow-water shrimp fisheries was first reported in 2008 and 2009 (IIP 2008, 2009). Additional studies for South African shrimp fisheries also provided valuable information for Mozambique fisheries (Fennessy 1994; Fennessy et al. 1994; Groeneveld and Melville-Smith 1995; Fennessy and Groeneveld 1997; Fennessy and Isaksen 2007; Olbers and Fennessy 2007), as they have historically fished in Mozambique, and have similar target species and bycatch compositions (Groeneveld and Melville-Smith 1995; Fennessy et al. 2004).The sustainable management of fisheries is imperative for food and job security in Mozambique. In many countries, catch data are often the only data available for such management (Kleisner et al. 2012; Pauly 2013) and may be underreported by 100% or more (see, e.g., Zeller et al. 2007; Wielgus et al. 2010; Le Manach et al. 2012). Historical baselines and improved catch statistics, such as those presented in this study, are needed to better understand the impacts of Mozambican fisheries on its diverse marine ecosystems and inform fisheries policies (Pauly 1998, 2007; Pandolfi et al. 2003; McClenachan et al. 2012). The previous catch reconstruction for Mozambique (Jacquet and Zeller 2007; Jacquet et al. 2010) included reconstructed catches from domestic small-scale fisheries, industrial fisheries and discards from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932004. Jacquet et al. (2010) total reconstructed catches over this period were 6.2 times those supplied to FAO by Mozambique, largely due to a lack of resources for collecting catch statistics for small-scale fisheries and their consequent under-reporting. This research updates the original work, extending catch estimates up to 2010 and providing an improved taxonomic disaggregation by sector. This work focuses on Mozambique's domestic fisheries and does not include estimates of industrial fishing by foreign-owned vessels operating in Mozambique's EEZ, although these are substantial (see, e.g., Silva and Sousa 1988; van der Elst et al. 2005).1methodsUpdate of marine catchesCatch data for marine fisheries for 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 were extracted from FishStatJ (FAO 2012), the fisheries database of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The most recent FAO dataset shows significant increases in the reported catches for 2003 and 2004, compared to the FAO landings data used in the original catch reconstruction (Jacquet et al. 2010). FAO landings for 2005\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, which were not reviewed in Jacquet and Zeller (2007) and Jacquet et al. (2010), have also significantly increased compared to previous levels and are further discussed herein.1 There are significant catches by industrial purse seiners (mostly European) and longliners (mostly Central and Eastern Asian) targeting tuna, billfish and sharks in Mozambique (www.transparentsea.co). The Mozambique government issues licenses to many of these vessels, however, it is also thought that there is up to 100 unlicensed longline vessels fishing illegally in the Mozambique channel (Anon. 2008; www.transparentsea.co).Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mozambique \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 69Sectoral catch as defined by the Sea Around UsThe Sea Around Us uses the following fishing sectors in its global catch database: 'industrial' (i.e., large-scale commercial), 'artisanal' (i.e., small-scale commercial), and 'subsistence' (i.e., small-scale non-commercial activities whose primary purpose is self- or family-consumption). For this study, small-scale fisheries are defined as fisheries that use small (or no) vessels, have a low capital investment, and generally fish inshore waters of Mozambique. Industrial fisheries are defined as fisheries that use larger vessels with more advanced equipment and have a higher capital investment (www.fao.org). This study classified both semi-industrial and industrial fisheries as industrial.2 National fisheries catch statistics from 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 (obtained from the Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento de Aquacultura; National Institute of Aquaculture Development) form the basis of the FAO landings data and are separated into 3 sectors, i.e., 'commercial', 'artisanal', and 'aquaculture'. The national commercial catches include Mozambique fisheries classified as both industrial and semi-industrial, while the artisanal catch data were considered representative of small-scale fisheries. With the freshwater taxa and aquaculture production removed, both sector's catches were segregated into 10 separate taxa and the total catches matched exactly with FAO landings data from 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Landings data from the Direc\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Nacional das Pescas (Fisheries Department; DNP 1976), Krantz et al. (1986), and Charlier (1994) also provided an indication of the catch by industrial and semi-industrial sectors. Based on these data we allocated reported FAO landings for different taxa to small-scale (clams, holothurians, miscellaneous marine crabs, and elasmobranchs) or industrial sectors (penaeid shrimp, knife shrimp, lobsters, pink geryons, and cephalopods) for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931999 period. Unidentified marine fish in FAO landings were allocated to both small-scale and industrial sectors, based on the portion of industrial catch reported in DNP (1976), Krantz et al. (1986), and Charlier (1994).Small-scale fisheriesJacquet et al. (2010) estimated that the nationally reported catches from the Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (National Institute of Fisheries Research; IIP) for 2003 and 2004 accounted for approximately 62% of small-scale fishers. Therefore, they assumed that 38% of catches within the small-scale sector had been unreported and adjusted the catch accordingly. We applied the same approach as Jacquet et al. (2010) to small-scale catches from 2003\u00E2\u0080\u00932007 as the methods of national data collection did not change over this period and small-scale catches were in the same range (58,000\u00E2\u0080\u009365,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1).In 2008, a new methodology was introduced to extrapolate surveyed catches to a larger geographical area in the Sofala bank region and, since 2009, this method has been used for all areas. Small-scale catches in 2009 and 2010 showed substantial increases and were in the same range (93,000\u00E2\u0080\u0093112,000 t) as reconstructed catches for years 2002\u00E2\u0080\u00932007. As such, the 2009 and 2010 small-scale catches were considered fully-reported and no adjustment was made for these years. As the new extrapolation methodology in 2008 was not applied to all areas, 2008 catches were considered underreported. To estimate 2008 catches we applied an average catch rate of 0.69 t\u00C2\u00B7fisher-1\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in conjunction with estimates of small-scale fishers (see Table 1).Industrial fisheriesWe assumed industrial landings form the basis for most taxa in the FAO landings (other than those reported as 'unidentified marine fish') prior to 2000, and comparison with other data sets confirms this (DNP 1976; de Freitas 1989; Charlier 1994; de Sousa 2001). The FAO landings data did not contain MOSOPESCA catches of small pelagics (unless they are allocated as 'unidentified marine fish') from 1977\u00E2\u0080\u00931987 (Sousa 1992) and 1988\u00E2\u0080\u00931992 (unpub data, provided by L. Sousa),3 nor did they contain a small amount of catches for select taxa (demersals, sharks and large pelagics) reported in Charlier (1994). Thus we supplemented the FAO data in the 1970s-1990s with unreported industrial catches from the MOSOPESCA shad fishery from Sousa (1992) and Charlier (1994) to create an industrial time-series (Table 2).2 Depending on the fidelity of coverage and sampling procedures, the lines of distinction between catch removals from industrial/semi-industrial and small-scale fisheries may become blurred. Since the 1970s, there are accounts of small-scale fishers in Nampula, Zamb\u00C3\u00A9zia, and Sofala provinces collecting bycatch from industrial/semi-industrial shrimp trawlers. These collections are realized through an exchange program: artisanal fishers or collectors exchange their agricultural produce or money for the fish bycatch of industrial/semi-industrial vessels. The fish is either sold fresh for local consumption or dried for more distant markets (Menezes 2008).3 Catches from the scad fishery for the 1988\u00E2\u0080\u00931992 period were obtained from unpublished data presented at the 1993 Master Fisheries Plan seminar.Table 1. Mozambique inhabitants, fishers and associated catch rates for 2007\u00E2\u0080\u00932009Year Populationa Number of fishers Catch rate (t\u00C2\u00B7fisher-1\u00C2\u00B7year-1 )Method for calculating catch rates2007 21,811,326 135,529b 0.69 Reconstructed catches/# fishers2008 22,332,900 138,687c 0.69 Average of 2007 and 2009 catch rates2009 22,858,607 141,952c 0.69 Reconstructed catches/# fishersa Source: http://data.worldbank.org.b Source: IDPPE (2009).c Estimate based on 2007 ratio of 6.21 fishers for every 1,000 inhabitants.Table 2. Source of reported industrial catches from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010Period Catch (t) Source1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931954 3,300 Jacquet et al. (2010)1955\u00E2\u0080\u00931960 3,300\u00E2\u0080\u00933,900 Krantz et al. (1986)1961\u00E2\u0080\u00931975 3,285\u00E2\u0080\u009315,655 DNP (1976)1976\u00E2\u0080\u00931999 13,893\u00E2\u0080\u009331,207 FAO (2012); Sousa (1992); Charlier (1994); unpub. data, provided by L. Sousa)2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 7,724\u00E2\u0080\u009313,723 FAO (2012); National Statistics from INAQUAaa Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento de Aquacultura. 70DiscardsEstimates of bycatch to landings ratios from South African and Mozambique shallow-water shrimp fisheries range from 2.3:1 to 5:1 (Fennessy and Groeneveld 1997; Pinto 2001). Most bycatch is comprised of small non-marketable fish and juvenile shrimp that are discarded (Schultz 1992). We used these studies to develop estimates of discard to landings ratios for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period (Table 3). The FAO landings data included catches for three different shrimp groupings: 'Penaeus shrimps', 'knife shrimp', and 'Tsivakihini paste shrimp' (Acetes erythraeus). Discards associated with shallow-water shrimp fisheries were calculated by multiplying the discard to shrimp landings ratios from Table 3 by FAO 'penaied shrimp' landings, present in FAO data since 1958. Discard and catch data from Fennessy and Groeneveld (1997) indicated a ratio of target landings (knife shrimp, African lobster, deep-sea crab) to discards of 1:2.7 in 1992. Discards associated with deep-water crustacean fisheries were calculated by multiplying this ratio by FAO landings of knife shrimp, African lobster and pink geryons, present in the FAO data since 1986. We ignored any discards from Tsivakihini paste shrimp fisheries, as these are generally caught in coastal areas using push nets, bag nets and seines by small-scale fisheries with lower bycatch rates (Chen 1994; Chan 1998; Gillett 2008).Bycatch data for MOSOPESCA were available from 1980\u00E2\u0080\u00931985 (Krantz et al. 1986), and we applied the median discard to landings ratio of 0.4 to estimate bycatch for years without data (1977\u00E2\u0080\u00931979, 1987\u00E2\u0080\u00931996).Taxonomic disaggregationThe FAO landings data extracted from FishStatJ (FAO 2012) were allocated to 30 different taxa. The taxonomic allocation of the FAO landings were accepted without further disaggregation, with the exception of the 'marine fishes nei' category, which accounted for 34\u00E2\u0080\u009399 % of reported landings per year. The IPP began regular publication of industrial/semi-industrial and small-scale fisheries statistics in 2001. These reports (IIP 2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932010) were used to estimate the catch composition for Mozambique's marine fishing sectors during the 2000s (Table 4). They included bycatch composition of shallow-water industrial shrimp fisheries and catch composition of small-scale fisheries from select provinces from 2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Additional available information included: a Portuguese Research Report to the International Commission for the South-East Atlantic Fisheries (ICSEAF) that provided estimates of percent catch composition by family for 1972\u00E2\u0080\u00931973 (Monteiro 1973), and additional bycatch studies from shallow-water shrimp fisheries in the region (Fennessy et al. 1994; Pinto 2001).Reported estimates of species catch composition were therefore unavailable for periods extending from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931971 and 1974\u00E2\u0080\u00931999. Accordingly, assumption-based estimations, interpolations, extrapolations and averaging have been used to derive estimates for these periods, with input and expert advice from experienced senior scientists at the IIP (Table 4).Small-scale sectorSmall-scale FAO landings of specific taxa were left unadjusted, while unreported landings and FAO catches allocated as 'unidentified fish' were assigned to specific taxa (Table 4). We assigned 500 t and 700 t of unreported catch in 1990 and 1993, respectively, as holothurian catch based on estimates reported in Abdula (1998) which are missing from the FAO database.Table 3. Discards to shrimp landings (D/L) rates used to estimate discards in Mozambique shallow water shrimp trawl fisheriesPeriod D/L Source1958\u00E2\u0080\u00931979 2.9 Carried back 1980 rate1980 2.9a Pelgr\u00C3\u00B6m and Sulemane (1982)1981\u00E2\u0080\u00931982 2.9\u00E2\u0080\u00933.0 linear interpolation1983\u00E2\u0080\u00931984 3.1a Gislason (1985), in Pinto (2001)1985 3.5 linear interpolation1986\u00E2\u0080\u00931990 3.8b Pacule and Baltazar (1995), in Pinto (2001)1991 3.8 Fennessy and Groeneveld (1997)1992 2.9 Fennessy and Groeneveld (1997)1993 4.5b Anon. (1994), in Pinto (2001)1994\u00E2\u0080\u00931999 4.3\u00E2\u0080\u00933.0 linear interpolation2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 2.8 Jacquet et al. (2010)a Assuming 5% of bycatch is retained (Pelgr\u00C3\u00B6m and Sulemane 1982). b Assuming 11% of bycatch is retained (Anon. 1994).Table 4. Reconstructed catch compositions for small-scale fisheries and industrial crustacean fisheries discards in Mozambique from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Taxa Catch Composition (in %)Small-scale Discards1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931973 2003a 2004\u00E2\u0080\u00932010a 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010InvertebratesBrachyura - - - 1.7Cephalopoda 0.8 0.6 0.4\u00E2\u0080\u00931.3 1.5Nephropodidae 0.1 - 0.0\u00E2\u0080\u00930.2 -Penaidae 5.3 8.7 1.5\u00E2\u0080\u00938.7 3.8Portunidae 0.4 0.5 0.2\u00E2\u0080\u00930.8 4.4ChondrichthyesElasmobranchii 1.1 0.6 0.2\u00E2\u0080\u00932.8 1.0TeleostsAriidae 0.9 1.3 1.3 5.3Caesionidae 1.4 1.9 2.0 -Carangidae 7.8 10.9 11.1\u00E2\u0080\u009311.6 0.6Clupeidae 12.3 17.2 17.4\u00E2\u0080\u009318.2 2.3Cynoglossidae - - 1.5Drepaneidae - - 2.2Engraulidae 9.8 13.7 13.9\u00E2\u0080\u009314.5 2.8Haemulidae 10.7 2.9 3.0\u00E2\u0080\u00933.1 3.7Leiognathidae 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5Lethrinidae 8.5 3.1 3.2\u00E2\u0080\u00933.3 -Lutjanidae 6.4 0.3 0.3\u00E2\u0080\u00930.4 -Mugilidae 1.2 1.6 1.6\u00E2\u0080\u00931.7 -Mullidae 1.1 1.5 1.5\u00E2\u0080\u00931.6 1.7Polynemidae - - - 2.0Scaridae 3.0 1.1 1.1 -Sciaenidae 2.2 3.1 3.1\u00E2\u0080\u00933.2 25.9Scombridae 3.4 4.7 4.8\u00E2\u0080\u00935.0 -Serranidae <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 -Siganidae 6.3 2.0 2.0\u00E2\u0080\u00932.1 -Synodontidae - - - 2.2Trichiuridae 1.5 2.1 2.1\u00E2\u0080\u00932.2 4.7Tetraodontidae - - - 2.7Othersb 15.6 21.9 22.1\u00E2\u0080\u009323.1 29.6a A separate breakdown for 7 major groups was available for the small-scale sector for each year from 2003\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. The values for 5 major groups and the disaggregated teleost component are shown for 2003 as well as the range of maximum and minimum values for 2004\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. b Small-scale includes 10 taxa, each occupying <1%, and marine fishes not identified. Discards includes 6 families and unidentified species.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mozambique \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 71The IIP Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Anual report series contained annual estimates of catch composition by family for small-scale fisheries for select coastal provinces between 2001 and 2010. These reports provided national catch compositions for the small-scale sector from 2003\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 that separated catches into seven groups; shrimps, cephalopods, crabs, lobster, sharks, fish and others. The latter two groups were combined as teleosts (encompassing both the 'fish' and 'others' categories) as shown in Table 4, and these annual catch compositions were used to further disaggregate unidentified taxa in the reconstructed small-scale catches from 2003\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. The average catch composition from 2003\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 was applied to disaggregate the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931973 small-scale reconstructed catches and catch compositions from 1974 to 2002 were interpolated between the assumed 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931973 and 2003 breakdowns. The catches were composed mostly of teleost families (90\u00E2\u0080\u009395% of total catches) and a further disaggregation of the teleost component was attempted.Mozambique's national data have only provided complete estimates covering all coastal areas for 2009 and 2010, and as a result, these years were considered the best representation of catch composition for Mozambique's small-scale fishing sector. Mozambique's national fisheries surveys (IIP 2009, 2010) provide small-scale catch compositions for all coastal provinces (Cabo Delgado, Nampula, Zambezia, Sofala, Inhambane, and Maputo) except Gaza. We converted these provincial catch compositions into a national catch composition,4 which was weighted proportionally to the reported 2010 small-scale catches by province (IIP 2010). This 2010 small-scale catch composition was used to disaggregate the teleost component from 2003\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 (Table 3).There was little information regarding the catch composition of Mozambique's fisheries prior to 2000; however, a survey by Monteiro (1973) provided some indication of the major taxa present in catches during the earlier period. Monteiro (1973) recorded the catch composition of 39 beach seines, hauled by tractor winches, in the province of Inhambane between September 1972 and September 1973. Their catch composition was compared with the 2010 small-scale catch compositions for Inhambane in an attempt to estimate a 1973 national catch composition. Based on this comparison, the 5 major taxa (Haemulidae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Scaridae and Siganidae) observed by Monteiro (1973) were adjusted to levels which were assumed more representative for the entire coastline (Table 5). This left approximately 62% of catches as 'others', which were allocated proportionally to other families in the 2010 small-scale teleost catch composition. This 1973 catch composition was used to disaggregate the teleost component from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931973 (Table 4), and catch compositions from 1974 to 2002 were interpolated between the assumed 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931973 and 2003 breakdowns.For the purposes of the Sea Around Us database, small-scale catches were further subdivided into artisanal and subsistence components. It is often difficult to distinguish between these two sectors as most small-scale fishers fish for both subsistence and artisanal purposes, selling the more valuable species landed and taking the rest home for consumption. The collection of landings data did not record this information and we found no other studies that distinguished between these sectors in Mozambique. We thus employed the same approach as Le Manach et al. (this volume), assigning 90% of catch from taxa associated with higher commercial values (Decapoda, Elasmobranchii, Haemulidae, Istiophoridae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Scaridae, Sciaenidae, Scombridae, Serranidae, Siganidae and Sparidae) as 'artisanal' and the remaining 10% as 'subsistence' to account for spoilt and undersized catches. The remaining taxa were considered less commercially important and we allocated 80% of these catches as 'subsistence' and 20% as 'artisanal'. For species where the distinction was less obvious, i.e., Carangidae and unidentified marine fish, we used an even split, allocating 50% to each small-scale sector. All holothurian catches were considered 'artisanal' (Abdula 1998).Industrial sectorCatches from the MOSOPESCA shad and mackerel trawl fishery were disaggregated based on the 1986 and 1987 species compositions reported in Sousa (1992). These two years were then averaged to estimate species composition for all other years.4 The 2010 catch composition (IIP 2010) was used for all provinces except Maputo, which used the 2009 catch composition (IIP 2009) since it was not available in the 2010 report.Table 5. Development of the 1973 teleost breakdown (%) for Mozambique's small-scale fisheryTaxa 1972/1973 catch composition for Inhambanea2010 teleost catch composition for Inhambaneb1972/1973\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 ratio 2010 national teleost catch compositionb,cEstimated 1973 national teleost catch compositiondHaemulidae 11.3 3.2 3.5 3.3 11.6Lethrinidae 28.7 10.8 2.7 3.5 9.3Lutjanidae 4.5 0.25 18.3 0.38 6.9Scaridae 12.3 4.6 2.7 1.2 3.2Siganidae 24.2 7.8 3.1 2.2 6.9Other taxa 19 73 - 90 62a Source: Monteiro (1973).b Source: IIP (2010).c See Table 3.d 1973 national catch composition was estimated based on the ratio of the 2010 Inhambane catch composition to the 1973 Inhambane catch composition. These are the percentages used to disaggregate the teleost component and thus are not equivalent to the percentages of total catch shown in Table 4. 72DiscardsThe IIP Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Anual reports contained bycatch data from 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, and discard data for 2008\u00E2\u0080\u00932009 from select industrial shrimp fishing companies sampled. The 2004 bycatch data and the 2008 discard data were disregarded as they contained high penaeid shrimp discards, which were not considered representative of the entire fleet. The annual 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932003, 2005\u00E2\u0080\u00932008, 2010 bycatch and 2009 discard compositions were averaged to estimate an average composition of discards (Table 4). The average was composed of 11% invertebrates and 89% teleosts, 1/3 of which were unidentified species listed as 'others'. A small amount of the unidentified component (5%) was redistributed to 'missing' teleost families (Ariommatidae, Congridae, Platycephalidea, Pristigasteridae, Soleidae and Tetraodontidate) based on the proportions observed in commercial prawn trawls in Tugela Bank in the early 1990s (Fennessy et al. 1994). Another 1% was allocated to elasmobranchs5 based on estimates by Schultz (1989) and Sousa (1990; see also Le Manach et al. 2012).resultsTotal marine fisheries catches, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010The total catch for Mozambique during the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, as reconstructed here, was nearly 8.2 million t, i.e., 4.6 times the 1.8 million t reported by FAO on behalf of Mozambique for the same period (Figure 2). The total reconstructed catch (including discards) ranged from 55,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 1950 to 138,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 2010, and reached a peak of nearly 208,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 1986.Total small-scale catch for the 61-year period from 1950 to 2010 was over 6.2 million t, of which 55% was deemed artisanal (i.e., mainly for commercial purposes) and 45% was subsistence (Figure 2). Small-scale catches (i.e., artisanal and subsistence combined) increased from nearly 52,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 1950 to 108,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 2010. Catches from this sector peaked in 1982 at 148,500 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1, and accounted for 76% of the total reconstructed catches for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period (annual reconstructed catches by sector are available in Appendix Table A2).Discards and landings from industrial fisheries contributed 14% and 10% to total reconstructed catches, respectively (Figure 2). Industrial catches peaked at around 32,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 1988, ranging from around 3,300 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 1950 to 10,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 2010. Discards from industrial fisheries were also highest in 1988 at 44,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1, and ranged from around 1,500 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 1958 to 20,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 2010 (Figure 2).Noteworthy is the significant improvement in the data provided to the FAO for the 2003\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period since the previous reconstruction (see Jacquet and Zeller 2007 and Jacquet et al. 2010). Annual reconstructed catches for years 2003\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 were on average 1.6 times the reported FAO landings for the same period, while they were on average 6.4 times the reported landings for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932002 period (Figure 2).Taxonomic disaggregationReconstructed catches were allocated to one of 83 taxa or higher order groupings. Results for the total catches from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 for all of Mozambique's marine fishing sectors indicate Clupeidae (11%), Engraulidae (9%), Penaeidae (8%), Carangidae (7%), Haemulidae (6%), Sciaenidae (5%) and Lethrinidae (5%) families have historically composed large portions of the catch (Figure 3). Annual reconstructed catches grouped by important taxa are shown in Appendix Table A3.5 See Fennessy (1994) for common elasmobranch species in shrimp bycatch.Figure 2. Total reconstructed catches by sector (subsistence, artisanal, industrial catches, and discards) for Mozambique compared to the landings reported by FAO (dashed line). Total small-scale catches are the sum of 'artisanal' and 'subsistence'.0 50 100 150 200 250 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total catch (thousand tonnes) Year Discards ArtisanalIndustrial Subsistence Reported t o FAOFisheries catch reconstruction for Mozambique \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 73The catches of the small-scale sector were dominated by 28 groups of teleosts (92%), followed by shrimps (6%). The five most important taxa in small-scale catches were Clupeidae (14%), Engraulidae (12%), Carangidae (9%), Haemulidae (7%) and Lethrinidae (6%). The reconstructed catch composition, based on Monteiro (1973) study, suggests that the familes Haemulidae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Scaridae, and Siganidae were more prominent in the catches in early years, accounting for 35% of small-scale catches from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931973 compared to 10% of catches for 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.The taxonomic breakdown of Mozambique's industrial sector indicated that total catches during the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period were dominated by penaeid shrimp (34%), scads (Decapterus spp.; 7%) and knife shrimp (6%), with other teleost species composing most of the remaining catches (49%). Discards from shrimp fisheries consisted primarily of teleosts (88%), with Sciaenidae (26% of discards) being the most common family discarded.disCussionThe 2003 and 2004 FAO reported landings have increased since the previous reconstruction by Jacquet et al. (2010), as have the reported catches for the 2005\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period in comparison with earlier years. It is evident that Mozambique's IPP has substantially improved their system of national data collection for small-scale fisheries and has retroactively adjusted the 2003 and 2004 data reported to FAO. The small-scale catch component within the FAO data for 2009 and 2010 were in the same range as the reconstructed small-scale catches (90,000\u00E2\u0080\u0093120,000) for the last decade and were considered fully reported. This is a significant improvement and Mozambique is one of the few countries in the world where this change has been observed by the Sea Around Us.The FAO landings data, however, still do not account for many sources of fisheries removals, particularly from the small-scale sector prior to 2003 and discards from industrial fleets. Discards from industrial shrimp fisheries \u00E2\u0080\u0094 which have one of the largest discard rates of any fishing gear (Kelleher 2005) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 have historically been responsible for significant removals from Mozambique's marine ecosystems and are not included in FAO landings data. This is the case for Otolithes ruber (tigertooth croaker) from the highly discarded Sciaenidae family (Olbers and Fennessy 2007). The decline of this species and potentially other bycatch species that are targeted by small-scale fishers, such as Thryssa vitrirostris (Mualeque and Santos 2011), may have important implications for food security in the region (Olbers and Fennessy 2007). Practices such as the collecting of bycatch from industrial shrimp trawlers by small-scale fishers, may serve as a means of reducing overall waste and improving food security for coastal fishers (Olbers and Fennessy 2007; Le Manach et al. 2012). In fact, Mozambique regulations require that a 2:1 bycatch to shrimp ratio is landed for this purpose, however the measure is not enforced (Banks and Macfayden 2011). It is clear that monitoring of discards is still inadequate among industrial fisheries in Mozambique, and this component requires further study.Although there has been an improvement in the total small-scale catches reported to FAO, much of the catch is still reported only as unidentified marine fishes. Despite the lack of a full time-series data for Mozambique's coastal provinces, this study attempted to disaggregate historical catch into more specific taxonomic groups (e.g., families, genus, species). Catch estimates for Inhambane, home to 15% of the country's artisanal fishers (IDPPE 2004, in Jacquet and Zeller 2007), indicate that there have been shifts in the dominant species removed by capture fisheries during the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 time period. Reports from this province indicate that catches from the small-scale beach seine fishery during 1972\u00E2\u0080\u00931973 were dominated by demersal species from the families Haemulidae, Lethrinidae, Lutjanidae, Scaridae, and Siganidae (Monteiro 1973). The proportions of each of these families in Inhambane beach seine catches are now less than half of what they were in the 1970s (IIP 2010). Surveys of fisherman on Inhaca island (de Boer et al. 2001) confirmed this trend as fishers noted that Carangoides spp. and Scomberoides spp. (both from the Carangidae family), Pomadasys spp. (Haemulidae), Lutjanus spp. (Lutjanidae), Rhabdosargus spp. (Sparidae), Dasyatidae and Myliobatidae (rays), squid and cuttlefish were more abundant in historical catches. De Boer et al. (2001) found that large predatory fish from higher trophic levels were absent from catches and suggested these trends may be indicative of overfishing (see also Pauly et al. 1998).Whereas information on family-level catch composition was available for all sectors between 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 (IIP 2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932010), the only detailed catch composition data for the small-scale sector were from the study of Monteiro (1973). A Figure 3. Taxonomic breakdown of total marine fisheries catches by major taxa for Mozambique (includes small-scale fisheries, industrial fisheries and discards). 'Others' includes 58 taxonomic groupings. Others PenaeidaeEngraulidae Clupeidae CarangidaeLethrinidaeSciaenidaeHaemulidae0 50 100 150 200 250 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total catch (thousand tonnes) Year 74variety of assumptions were necessary to extrapolate the available catch composition data to the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, and as there was little catch sampling and reporting from any sectors occurring prior to 2000 these estimates are approximate. It is possible that the catch composition of demersal families from the Monteiro (1973) report, as well as some pelagic families from the 2010 catch composition (IIP 2010) may have been given too much weight in the earlier time series and this will have significantly impacted estimated catch compositions for the small-scale sector from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932002. Groupers (Serranidae) were not listed in the Monteiro (1973) catch composition and made up a small portion of national catches in recent years (IIP 2010). It is quite possible that groupers were more abundant in earlier catches in Mozambique (Kaunda-Arara et al. 2003; Sadovy de Mitcheson et al. 2013) than what is reflected in the catch compositions used in this study.Similarly, we used bycatch data from 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 to estimate taxonomic composition of discards for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, which will not reflect changes in bycatch composition over time (Groeneveld and Melville-Smith 1995; Olbers and Fennessy 2007) and should be taken as approximate. For example, the proportion of Trichiurus lepturus (largehead hairtail) and Pellona ditchela (Indian pellona) were highly variable in bycatch from different surveys between 1995 and 2010 (Fennessy and Groeneveld 1997; IIP 2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932010; Pinto 2001; Fennessy and Isaksen 2007). Given the limited bycatch data prior to 2000 for Mozambique shrimp fisheries, it is difficult to assess if this variation is due to sampling or indicative of larger spatial and temporal changes in bycatch species composition. Due to lack of data for deep-water crustacean fisheries, we assumed a similar composition of families in the discards of shallow-water shrimp fisheries, and thus differences in their bycatch are not reflected in our estimates.It is well established that catch data reported by Mozambique to the FAO has historically been underreported (DNP 1976; van der Elst et al. 2005; Jacquet et al. 2010; Blythe et al. 2013). Van der Elst et al. (2005) reports that national estimates under Mozambique's National Fisheries Master Plan were actually 200,600 t and 87,700 t for 1988 and 1995, despite catches reported to the FAO of less than 32,200 t and 22,500 t for the same years. In comparison, our reconstructed catches, excluding discards, are 152,000 t and 147,000 t for years 1988 and 1995. It is clear that considerable uncertainty remains regarding the catch totals for Mozambique fisheries, and although we will never know the 'true' catches for most of this period, this study provides estimates that are much closer to the Mozambican reality than those present in FAO data. FAO data suggests that catches in the Western Indian Ocean peaked circa 1999 (van der Elst 2005), however, this may be the result of improved reporting and underreporting in earlier years. For example, FAO landings data for Mozambique show that catches peaked in 2010 and 2011, the last two years reported. However, reconstructed estimates peaked in the mid-1980s. Similarly, trends observed for increased numbers of species in catch data in later years (van der Elst et al. 2005) are also likely the result of improved reporting of more detailed taxa in the FAO catch data.There was high variability in the discard rates observed since the 1980s for industrial shrimp fisheries, some of which were based on small sample sizes that may not have been representative of the average discard rate for the entire commercial fleet. Our discard estimates were based on landings reported to the FAO and were likely a minimum estimate for most years given historical under-reporting of industrial fisheries (see Jacquet et al. 2010) and that 40% of vessels do not submit their logbooks (Banks and Macfayden 2011). These estimates provide a good starting point for understanding the scale of discards and the major taxonomic groups affected. Future work that considers temporal and spatial variation in discard rates and taxonomic composition (Fennessy et al. 1994) could provide more accurate accounting for discards. Taxonomic compositions in the reconstructed data remain coarse, and was often left at the family level or higher. Despite the uncertainties in historical taxonomic catch compositions for the last six decades, this exercise was valuable given changes in the catch composition that have likely occurred i) in species composition due to fishing pressure, or other changes in the ecosystem (see de Boer et al. 2001); and/or ii) in the species targeted by fishers/fishing sectors. For example, the bottom trawl fleet targeting pelagic fishes such as mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta) and scad (Decapterus spp.) during the 1980s (Silva and Sousa 1988) was closed in 1993 (L. Sousa, unpub. data). Similarly, some artisanal fishers may have transitioned from shallow waters to areas with deeper water, in which case species catch composition could have undergone corresponding changes. Increased market demand for new seafood products (e.g., holothurians, sea urchins, shark fins, paste shrimps and other non-traditional species) are rapidly gaining economic importance and changing the focus of fisheries in Mozambique (Abdula 1998; Pierce et al. 2008). Since circa 2000, there has been a large increase in the number of small-scale fishers targeting sharks for the Asian shark fin trade (Pierce et al. 2008; Gekoski 2011; Smith 2013). There is little data specific to the small-scale shark fishery in Mozambique (Pierce et al. 2008) and thus elasmobranch catches from this sector may well be underestimated in this study (Kroese and Sauer 1998; Pierce et al. 2008). Catch data from bather-protection gillnets off the coast of KwaZulu-Natal showed declines of some shark species that may be attributed to shark bycatch in Mozambique's small-scale and shrimp fisheries (Dudley and Simpfendorfer 2006).Other forces, such as changing environmental conditions may also impact species composition (Cheung et al. 2009; Meyer and Weerts 2009; Cheung et al. 2010; P\u00D3\u00A7rtner and Peck 2010; Perry 2011; Blythe et al. 2013). However, without accurate catch time series, it is very difficult to assess the magnitude of these changes and what may have caused them (see also de Boer et al. 2001 and Blythe et al. 2013). Our findings highlight the importance of recording fisheries statistics for all sources of removals (e.g. small-scale fisheries, industrial fisheries and discards), and also retroactively improving catch statistics for earlier years. Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mozambique \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 75aCknoWledgmentsThe authors of this report would like to acknowledge the support of the Sea Around Us, a collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. BD, FLM and DZ also thank the Paul G. Allen Family Foundation for support. reFerenCesAbdula R (1998) A summary about holothurians in Mozambique. SPC B\u00C3\u00AAche-de-mer Information Bulletion #10, Secretariat of Pacific Community. 34\u00E2\u0080\u009335 p.Anon. (1994) Projecto de recolha da fauna acompanhante em Quelimane: an\u00C3\u00A1lise da informa\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o recolhida pelos fiscais. IDPPE, Maputo. 6\u00E2\u0080\u009315 p.Anon. (2008) Stop illegal fishing in Southern Africa. Stop Illegal Fishing, Gaborone (Botswana). vi+85 p.Bandeira SO, Paula e Silva R, Paula J, Macia A, Hernroth L, Guissamulo AT and Gove DZ (2002) Marine biological research in Mozambique: past, present and future. AMBIO: a Journal of the Human Environment 31(7): 606\u00E2\u0080\u0093609.Banks R and Macfayden G (2011) A blueprint for sustainable tropical shrimp trawl fisheries. Prepared for WWF by Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd. 125 p.Blythe JL, Murray G and Flaherty MS (2013) Historical perspectives and recent trends in the coastal Mozambican fishery. Ecology and Society 18(4): 65.Brito AJ and Abdula S (2008) Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio de Cruzeiro de investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o de camar\u00C3\u00A3o no Banco de Sofala realizado de 29 de Janeiro a 17 de Fevereiro de 2007. Relatorio de Cruzeiro n.46, IIP, Maputo (Mozambique). 62 p.Chan TY (1998) Shrimps and prawns. pp. 851\u00E2\u0080\u0093864 In Carpenter KE and Nierm VH (eds.), FAO species identification guide for fishery purposes. The living marine resources of the Western Central Pacific. Vol 2. Cephalopods, crustaceans, holothurians and sharks. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Chen A (1994) The stow net fishing situation and management in the Zhejiang coastal area. Journal Zhejiang College of Fisheries 13(3): 218\u00E2\u0080\u0093221.Cheung WWL, Lam VWY, Sarmiento JL, Kearney K, Watson R and Pauly D (2009) Projecting global marine biodiversity impacts under climate change scenarios. Fish and Fisheries 10: 235\u00E2\u0080\u0093251.Cheung WWL, Lam VWY, Sarmiento JL, Kearney K, Watson R, Zeller D and Pauly D (2010) Large-scale redistribution of maximum fisheries catch potential in the global ocean under climate change. Global Change Biology 16: 24\u00E2\u0080\u009335.de Boer WF, van Schie AM, Jocene DF, Mabote AB and Guissamulo A (2001) The impact of artisanal fishery on a tropical intertidal benthic fish community. Environmental Biology of Fishes 61(2): 213\u00E2\u0080\u0093229.de Freitas AJ (1989) Shrimps and prawns. pp.81\u00E2\u0080\u009390 In Payne AIL and Crawford JM (eds.) Oceans of Life Off Southern Africa. VlaeBurg Publishers, Cape Town (South Africa).de Sousa P (1992) Stock assessment of the deep-water spiny lobster Palinurus delagoae of Mozambique. Population dynamics of exploited fishes and crustaceans in Mozambique. Revista de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira 21.de Sousa BP (2001) Fishery for the deep-water spiny lobster Palinurus delagoae in Mozambique, 1980 to 1999. Marine and Freshwater Research 52(8): 1535\u00E2\u0080\u00931540.Dias N and Afonso P (2011) Overview of fisheries and data information. IndiSeas \u00E2\u0080\u0094 SWIOFP Meeting/Workshop, January 18\u00E2\u0080\u009319, 2011, Cape Town (South Africa).DNP (1976) Estadisticas basicas de pescas de Mocambique 1961\u00E2\u0080\u00931975. Direc\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3ao Nacional de Pescas, Maputo (Mozambique).Dudley SF and Simpfendorfer CA (2006) Population status of 14 shark species caught in the protective gillnets off KwaZulu\u00E2\u0080\u0093Natal beaches, South Africa, 1978\u00E2\u0080\u00932003. Marine and freshwater research 57(2): 225\u00E2\u0080\u0093240.FAO (2007) National fishery sector overview \u00E2\u0080\u0094 The Republic of Mozambique. 17 p.FAO (2013) FishStatJ \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Software for fishery statistical time series. V2.1.1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Fennessy S (1994) Incidental capture of elasmobranchs by commercial prawn trawlers on the Tugela Bank, Natal, South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 14(1): 287\u00E2\u0080\u0093296.Fennessy S and Groeneveld J (1997) A review of the offshore trawl fishery for crustaceans on the east coast of South Africa. Fisheries Management and Ecology 4(2): 135\u00E2\u0080\u0093147.Fennessy S and Isaksen B (2007) Can bycatch reduction devices be implemented successfully on prawn trawlers in the Western Indian Ocean? African Journal of Marine Science 29(3): 453\u00E2\u0080\u0093463.Fennessy S, Mwatha G and Thiele W, editors (2004) Report of the regional workshop on approaches to reducing shrimp trawl bycatch in the Western Indian Ocean. Mombassa (Kenya), April 13\u00E2\u0080\u009315 2003. FAO Fisheries Report 734. 49 p.Fennessy S, Villacastin C and Field J (1994) Distribution and seasonality of ichthyofauna associated with commercial prawn trawl catches on the Tugela Bank of Natal, South Africa. Fisheries Research 20(2): 263\u00E2\u0080\u0093282.Gekoski A (2011) Shark Hunters. The Dive Site.Gillett R (2008) Global study of shrimp fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 475, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). xxiii+331 p. 76Gislason H (1985) A short note on available information about demersal fish on shallow water part of Sofala Bank. RIP No. 13, Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira, Maputo (Mozambique). 83\u00E2\u0080\u009395 p.Groeneveld J and Melville-Smith R (1995) Spatial and temporal availability in the multispecies crustacean trawl fishery along the east coast of South Africa and southern Mozambique, 1988\u00E2\u0080\u00931993. South African Journal of Marine Science 15(1): 123\u00E2\u0080\u0093136.Hara MW, Deru J and Pitamber S (2001) Artisanal fisheries development project \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Republic of Mozambique. African Development Fund. 31 p.IDPPE (2004) Censo Nacional da Pesca Artesanal Aguas Maritimas (2002). Instituto de Desenvolviment de Pesca de Pequena Escala (IDPPE), Maputo (Mozambique). 76 p.IDPPE (2009) Recenseamento da Pesca Artesanal 2007. Principais Resultados Instituto de Desenvolviment de Pesca de Pequena Escala (IDPPE), Maputo (Mozambique). 83 p.IIP (2001) Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Annual. Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (IIP), Maputo (Mozambique). 56 p.IIP (2002) Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Annual. Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (IIP), Maputo (Mozambique). 60 p.IIP (2003) Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Annual. Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (IIP), Maputo (Mozambique). 60 p.IIP (2004) Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Annual. Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (IIP), Maputo (Mozambique). 56 p.IIP (2005) Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Annual. Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (IIP), Maputo (Mozambique). 55 p.IIP (2006) Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Annual. Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (IIP), Maputo (Mozambique). 60 p.IIP (2007) Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Annual. Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (IIP), Maputo (Mozambique). 64 p.IIP (2008) Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Annual. Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (IIP), Maputo (Mozambique). 64 p.IIP (2009) Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Annual. Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (IIP), Maputo (Mozambique). 70 p.IIP (2010) Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio Annual. Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (IIP), Maputo (Mozambique). 70 p.Jacquet J, Fox H, Motta H, Ngusaru A and Zeller D (2010) Few data but many fish: marine small-scale fisheries catches for Mozambique and Tanzania. African Journal of Marine Science 32(2): 197\u00E2\u0080\u0093206.Jacquet JL and Zeller D (2007) National conflict and fisheries: reconstructing marine fisheries catches for Mozambique. pp. 35\u00E2\u0080\u009347 In Zeller D and Pauly D (eds.), Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for key countries and regions (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15(2). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).Kaunda-Arara B, Rose GA, Muchiri MS and Kaka R (2003) Long-term trends in coral reef fish yields and exploitation rates of commercial species from coastal Kenya.Kelleher MK (2005) Discards in the world's marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 470, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). xix+131 p.Kleisner K, Zeller D, Froese R and Pauly D (2012) Using global catch data for inferences on the world's marine fisheries. Fish and Fisheries [doi: 10.1111/j.1467\u00E2\u0080\u00932979.2012.00469.x].Krantz L, Sorensen NK, Olesen J, Kotalova J, editors (1986) Nordic support to the fisheries in Mozambique: a sector study. Gothenburg: National Swedish Board of Fisheries.Kroese M and Sauer W (1998) Elasmobranch exploitation in Africa. Marine and Freshwater Research 49(7): 573\u00E2\u0080\u0093577.Le Manach F, Abunge CA, McClanahan TR and Pauly D (this volume) Tentative reconstruction of Kenya's marine fisheries catch, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Le Manach F, Gough C, Harris A, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2012) Unreported fishing, hungry people and political turmoil: the recipe for a food security crisis in Madagascar? Marine Policy 36: 218\u00E2\u0080\u0093255.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\u00E2\u0080\u0093359.Menezes A (2008) Mozambique: fishery country review \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Big number. Unpublished BNP working document.Meyer AA and Weerts S (2009) Trends in the Indian Ocean climatology due to anthropogenic induced global warming. South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission, Fourth Session, Stellenbosch (South Africa). 8 p.Monteiro CC (1973) Report B \u00E2\u0080\u0094 The beach-seine fishery of Inhassoro \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Mozambique. pp. 51\u00E2\u0080\u009359 In de Freitas AJ (ed.) Portuguese research report 1972 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1973: sub area 2 (Mozambique Channel).Mualeque D and Santos J (2011) Biology, fisheries and distribution of Thryssa vitrirostris (Gilchrist & Thompson 1908) and other Engraulidae along the coast of the Sofala Bank, western Indian Ocean. African Journal of Marine Science 33(1): 127\u00E2\u0080\u0093137.Olbers J and Fennessy S (2007) A retrospective assessment of the stock status of Otolithes ruber (Pisces: Sciaenidae) as bycatch on prawn trawlers from KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 29(2): 247\u00E2\u0080\u0093252.Pacule H and Baltazar L (1995) A fauna acompanhante de camar\u00C3\u00A3o no Banco de Sofala. An\u00C3\u00A1lise preliminar. RIP No. 20 (1), Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira, Maputo (Mozambique). 79\u00E2\u0080\u009395 p.Pandolfi JM, Bradbury RH, Sala E, Hughes TP, Bjorndal KA, Cooke RG, McArdle D, McClenachan L, Newman MJH, Paredes G, Warner RR and Jackson JBC (2003) Global trajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301(5635): 955\u00E2\u0080\u0093958.Pauly D (1992) Population dynamis of exploited fishes and crustaceans in Mozambique. In Use of Computers for Fisheries Research, 23 February to 15 March 1988, Instituto de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira, Maputo, Mozambique.Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 11(2): 4\u00E2\u0080\u009310.Pauly D (2007) The Sea Around Us project: documenting and communicating global fisheries impacts on marine ecosytems. Ambio 36(4): 290\u00E2\u0080\u0093295.Pauly D (2013) Does catch reflect abundance? Yes, it is a crucial signal. Nature 494: 303\u00E2\u0080\u0093306.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mozambique \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 77Pauly D, Christensen V, Dalsgaard J, Froese R and Torres Jr. F (1998) Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279: 860\u00E2\u0080\u0093863.Pelgr\u00C3\u00B6m H and Sulemane M (1982) Regional and country developments \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Mozambique. pp. 139\u00E2\u0080\u0093140 In Fish by-catch \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Bonus from the sea: report of a technical consultation on shrimp by-catch utilization held in Georgetown (Guyana), October 27\u00E2\u0080\u009330 1981. FAO/IDRC, Ottawa (Canada).Perry RI (2011) Potential impacts of climate change on marine wild capture fisheries: an update. The Journal of Agricultural Science 149: 63\u00E2\u0080\u009375.Pierce SJ, Trerup M, Williams C, Tilley A, Marshall AD and Raba N (2008) Shark fishing in Mozambique: a preliminary assessment of artisanal fisheries. Eyes on the Horizon, Maputo (Mozambique). iv+23 p.Pinto M (2001) Gear selectivity for three by-catch species in the shallow-water shrimp trawl fishery at the Sofala Bank, Mozambique. WIOMSA Book Series 1: 489\u00E2\u0080\u0093506.P\u00C3\u00B6rtner HO and Peck MA (2010) Climate change effects on fishes and fisheries: towards cause-and-effect understanding. Journal of Fish Biology 77(8): 1745\u00E2\u0080\u00931779.Sadovy de Mitcheson Y, Craig MT, Bertoncini AA, Carpenter KE, Cheung WW, Choat JH, Cornish AS, Fennessy ST, Ferreira BP and Heemstra PC (2013) Fishing groupers towards extinction: a global assessment of threats and extinction risks in a billion dollar fishery. Fish and Fisheries 14(2): 119\u00E2\u0080\u0093136.Schultz N (1989) Programa dos recursos costeiros de peixe do Banco Sofala. Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio 9, Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira, Maputo (Mozambique).Schultz N (1992) Preliminary investigations on the population dynamics of Otolithes ruber (Sciaenidae) on Sofala Bank, Mozambique. pp. 41\u00E2\u0080\u009349 In Pauly D (ed.) Population dynamics of exploited fishes and crustaceans in Mozambique: contributions from a course on the \"Use of Computers for Fisheries Research\", held at the Instituto de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira, 23 February to 15 March 1988 in Maputo (Mozambique). Revista de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira (21).Silva C and Sousa MI (1988) Summary description of the marine fisheries and resources for Mozambique. In Sanders MJ, Sparre P and Venema SC (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on the assessment of fishery resources in the southwest Indian Ocean. RAF/79/065/WP/41/88/E. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Albion (Mauritius).Smith D (2013) Chinese appetite for shark fin soup devastating Mozambique coastline. The Guardian, edition of February 14, 2013.Sousa MI (1990) Informa\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o sobre a fauna acompanhante de camar\u00C3\u00A3o da Baia de Maputo, de Janeiro/80 a Agosto/81. Relat\u00C3\u00B3rio 14, Instituto Nacional de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira, Maputo (Mozambique).Sousa MI (1992) Seasonal growth of five commercially important fishes at Sofala Bank, Mozambique. p. 79- 97. In Pauly D (ed.) Population dynamics of exploited fishes and crustaceans in Mozambique: Revista de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira Maputo No. 21.Torstensen E and Pacule H (1992) Stock assessment of Haliporoides triarthurus (Fam. Solesoceridae) off Mozambique: a preliminary analysis. Population dynamics of exploited fishes and crustaceans in Mozambique. Revista de Investiga\u00C3\u00A7\u00C3\u00A3o Pesqueira 21. 14- 28 p.van der Elst R, Everett B, Jiddawi N, Mwatha G, Afonso PS and Boulle D (2005) Fish, fishers and fisheries of the Western Indian Ocean: their diversity and status. A preliminary assessment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 363(1826): 263\u00E2\u0080\u0093284.Wielgus J, Zeller D, Caicedo-Herrera D and Sumaila UR (2010) Estimation of fisheries removals and primary economic impact of the small-scale and industrial marine fisheries in Colombia. Marine Policy 34: 506\u00E2\u0080\u0093513.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for U.S. flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266\u00E2\u0080\u0093277. 78Appendix Table A1. Mozambique common species in capture fisheries by sector.Family Scientific name Common name Small-scale Indust. DiscardEnglish Local (Portuguese)CrustaceansAristeidae Aristeus antennatus Blue and red shrimp alistado/gamba rosada P PA. virilis Stout red shrimp gamba vermelho forte P PAristaeopsis edwardsianus Scarlet shrimp gamba carabineira P PAristaeomorpha foliacea Giant gamba prawn gamba vermelha P PGeryonidae Chaceon macphersoni Pink geryon caranguejo de profundidade P PNephropidae Nephropsis stewarti Indian ocean lobsterette lagostim indiano P PMetanephrops andamanicus Andaman lobster lagostim comum P PM. mozambicus African lobster lagostim P PPalinuridae Panulirus versicolor Painted rock lobster lagosta pintada P PP. ornatus Coral crayfish lagosta costeira P P PP. homarus Scalloped spiny lobster lagosta escamosa P P PP. delagoae Natal spiny lobster lagosta de profundidae P P PPenaeidae Fenneropenaeus indicus Indian white prawn camar\u00C3\u00A3o branco P P PMetapenaeus monoceros Speckled shrimp camar\u00C3\u00A3o castanho P P PM. stebbingi Peregrine shrimpPenaeopsis balssi Scythe shrimp camar\u00C3\u00A3o foice P PPenaeus monodon Giant tiger prawn camar\u00C3\u00A3o tigre gigante P P PP. japonicus Kuruma shrimp camar\u00C3\u00A3o flor P P PP. latisulcatus Western king prawn camar\u00C3\u00A3o real P PP. semisulcatus Green tiger prawn camar\u00C3\u00A3o tigre P P PPortunidae Scylla serrata Green mangrove crab caranguejo do mangal P PPortunus sanguinolentus Three-spot swimming crab caranguejo sangrador P P PSergestidae Acetes erythraeus Tsivakihini paste shrimp camar\u00C3\u00A3o mundehe P PSolenoceridae Haliporoides triarthrus Knife shrimp gamba rosa PBivalvesVeneridae Eumarcia paupercula Beaked clam am\u00C3\u00AAijoa fina P PMeretrix meretrix Asiatic hard clam am\u00C3\u00AAijoa dura P PCephalopodsOctopodidae Octopus macropus White spotted octopus polvo manchado P PSepiidae Sepia pharaonis Pharaoh cuttlefish choco tigre P PFinfishAcanthuridae Acanthurus leucosternon surgeonfish cirurgi\u00C3\u00A3o poeirento P PAcropomatidae Neoscombrops cynodon Silver splitfin maconde sombreado P PAnguillidae Anguilla mossambica African longfin eel enguia mo\u00C3\u00A7ambicana P PA. bengalensis labiata African mottled eel enguia africana P PA. marmorata Giant mottled eel enguia gigante P PAriidae Plicofollis dussumieri Blacktip sea catfish bagre P PAtherinidae Hypoatherina temminckii Samoan silversides rei samoano P PBalistidae Rhinecanthus rectangulus Wedge-tail triggerfish porco rectangular P PBelonidae Ablennes hians Flat needlefish agulha lisa P PCarangidae Alepes djedaba Shrimp scad xar\u00C3\u00A9u camaroneiro P PDecapterus russelli Indian scad carapau P PD. macrosoma Shortfin scad carapau barbatana P PSelar crumenophthalmus Big-eye scad carapau preto P PCarangoides malabaricus Horse mackerel malabar cavalla P PCentrophoridae Centrophorus moluccensis Smallfin gulper shark lixa barbatana curta P P PChirocentridae Chirocentrus nudus Whitefin wolf herring machope espinhoso P PClupeidae Hilsa kelee Kelee shad magumba P PClupeidae Herklotsichthys quadrimaculatus bluestripe herring sardinha banda azul P PSardinella albella White sardinella sardinha branca P PS. gibbosa Gold stripe sardinella sardinha dourada P PPellona ditchela Indian pellon sardinia de indico P PDrepaneidae Drepane longimana Concertina fish enxada concertina P PEngraulidae Thryssa vitrirostris Orangemouth anchovy ocares P PT. setirostris Longjaw thryssa ocar cornudo P PEncrasicholina heteroloba Shorthead anchovy anchoveta aduaneira P PGerreidae Gerres filamentosus Whipfin silver-biddy melan\u00C3\u00BAria filamentosa P PHaemulidae Pomadasys kaakan Javelin grunter peixe pedra P PP. maculatus Saddle grunt gonguri P PP. olivaceus Olive grunt roncador oliva P P PPlectorhinchus flavomaculatus Lemonfish owa-owa P PIstiophoridae Kajika audax Striped marlin espadim raiado P PIstiompax indica Black marlin espadim negro P PIstiophorus platypterus Indo-pacific sailfish veleiro P PLeiognathidae Leiognathus equulus Common ponyfish patana comum P PGazza minuta Toothpony sabonete dentu\u00C3\u00A7o P PSecutor insidiator Pugnose ponyfish chita boxeira P PLethrinidae Lethrinus lentjan Redspot emperor ladr\u00C3\u00A3o de lentejoulas P P PFisheries catch reconstruction for Mozambique \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 79Appendix Table 1. Mozambique common species in capture fisheries by sector (continued).Family Scientific name Common name Small-scale Indust. DiscardEnglish Local (Portuguese)L. borbonicus Snubnose emperor xegugo PLutjanidae Lutjanus sanguineus Humphead snapper pargo vermelh\u00C3\u00A3o P P PL. fulviflamma Dory snapper thana PMullidae Upeneus vittatus Yellowstriped goatfish salmonete P P PU. japonicus Bensasi goatfish salmonete bensasi P PMugilidae Chelon macrolepis Largescale mullet tainha god\u00C3\u00A9 P PMuraenesocidae Muraenesox bagio Common pike conger enguia/safio comum P PNemipteridae Nemipterus bipunctatus Delagoa threadfin bream baga delagoa P PParalichthyidae Pseudorhombus natalensis Natal flounder areeiro P PPolynemidae Polydactylus sextarius Blackspot threadfin barbudo de mancha P P PScaridae Scarus ghobban Yellowscale parrotfish papagaio de escamas amarelas P P PLeptoscarus vaigiensis Marbled parrotfish lundu P PSciaenidae Otolithes ruber Tigertooth croaker corvina P P PJohnius amblycephalus Bearded croaker corvina P P PJ. dussumieri Sin croaker macujana de barba P P PArgyrosomus hololepidotus Southern meagre corvina real P P PScombridae Rastrelliger kanagurta Indian mackerel cavala P P PScomberomorus commerson Narrow-barred spanish mackerelserraP P PThunnus albacares Yellowfin tuna albacora P P PT.alalunga Albacore voador P P PT. obesus Bigeye tuna patudo P P PKatsuwonus pelamis Skipjack tuna gaiado P P PSerranidae Gracila albomarginata White-edged grouper garoupa bordo branco P P PEpinephelus andersoni Catface grouper garoupa gato P P PE. tukula Potato bass garoupa batata P P PSiganidae Siganus canaliculatus White-spotted spinefoot babi P PSillaginidae Sillago sihama Silver sillago pescadinha comum P PSparidae Chrysoblephus puniceus Slinger seabream marreco P PC. gibbiceps Red stumpnose seabream marreco P PCrenidens crenidens Karanteen seabream esparo PDentex macrophthalmus Large-eye dentex cachucho P PSphyraenidae Sphyraena spp. Barracuda bicuda P P PSynodontidae Saurida undosquamis Brushtooth lizardfish mbolopfuma P P PTrichiuridae Trichiurus lepturus Largehead hairtail peixe fita P P PXiphiidae Xiphias gladius Swordfish espadarte P PSharks, rays and skatesCarcharhinidae Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos Grey reef shark Marracho enlutado PC. leucas Bull shark Marracho touro P PC. limbatus Blacktip shark Marracho macuira PC. plumbeus Sandbar shark Marracho de Milberto PGaleocerdo cuvier Tiger shark Marracho tigre PNegaprion acutidens Sicklefin lemon shark Lim\u00C3\u00A3o foi\u00C3\u00A7ador PTriaenodon obesus Whitetip reef shark Marracho de covas PDasyatidae Dasyatis kuhlii Bluespotted stingray Uge ponteado PD. microps Smalleye stingray PHimantura cf. uarnak Honeycomb stingray Bur\u00C3\u00A1 alveolado PHemigaleidae Hemipristis elongata Snaggletooth shark Tubar\u00C3\u00A3o doninha PMobulidae Manta birostris Manta Jamanta gigante PMyliobatidae Aetobatus narinari Spotted eagle ray Ratau ponteado PRhinidae Rhina ancylostoma Bowmouth guitarfish PRhynchobatidae Rhynchobatus djiddensis Giant guitarfish PSphyrnidae Sphyrna lewini Scalloped hammerhead Tubar\u00C3\u00A3o martelo comum PS. zygaena Smooth hammerhead shark tubar\u00C3\u00A3o martelo liso P PStegostomatidae Stegostoma fasciatum Zebra shark P'\u00E2\u0088\u009A' indicates that capture of this species contributes significantly to the total catch.Sources: Silva and Sousa (1988); Pauly (1992); Sousa (1992); Abdula (1998); Lee et al. (1999); de Boer et al. (2001); IIP (2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932010); Motta et al. (2002); Kelleher (2005); B\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9 et al. (2007); FAO and WorldFish Center (2008); Jacquet et al. (2010); www.fishbase.org; www.sealifebase.org; www.marinespecies.org, http://species-identification.org. 80Appendix Table A2. Annual reconstructed catches by sector, and FAO reported landings (t).Year Industrial Discards Small-scaleTotal reconstructed catchesFAO reported landings1950 3,300 - 51,627 54,927 7,8001951 3,300 - 52,005 55,305 8,2001952 3,300 - 52,760 56,060 8,0001953 3,300 - 53,516 56,816 7,8001954 3,300 - 54,272 57,572 7,7001955 3,300 - 55,027 58,327 9,3001956 3,300 - 55,783 59,083 9,3001957 4,100 - 56,538 60,638 11,5001958 4,100 1,450 57,294 62,844 12,1001959 4,700 1,160 58,050 63,910 12,7001960 3,900 1,160 59,309 64,369 11,9001961 3,285 1,380 60,785 65,450 11,3001962 3,256 1,186 62,262 66,704 11,3001963 3,425 1,122 63,738 68,285 12,0001964 4,428 1,282 65,214 70,924 12,4001965 4,181 1,621 66,690 72,492 14,2001966 5,347 2,955 71,007 79,309 15,3001967 5,047 3,007 75,447 83,501 15,0001968 5,907 3,103 80,010 89,020 15,7001969 7,328 3,263 84,696 95,287 17,0001970 7,934 3,271 89,505 100,710 17,6001971 10,523 7,407 96,459 114,389 20,4001972 10,513 7,798 103,671 121,982 20,4001973 13,538 9,982 111,141 134,661 23,3001974 15,895 17,609 118,869 152,373 25,6601975 11,636 12,583 126,854 151,073 22,4901976 13,893 18,850 132,182 164,925 24,9001977 15,396 15,620 133,584 164,601 23,9501978 29,146 20,684 138,643 188,473 22,9401979 21,505 18,070 147,445 187,021 25,1301980 24,900 34,887 145,907 205,694 30,3501981 26,699 35,470 142,553 204,722 37,1301982 23,384 28,969 148,465 200,818 34,6801983 24,371 30,469 145,720 200,560 37,5161984 20,734 21,491 142,871 185,096 31,8361985 23,002 23,842 139,921 186,765 33,3061986 29,566 41,233 136,875 207,674 38,6711987 31,207 41,538 133,738 206,482 36,3211988 32,075 44,117 130,512 206,705 32,1851989 27,841 35,064 130,221 193,126 27,5601990 31,473 37,364 129,754 198,591 32,9191991 26,856 40,145 129,108 196,109 25,5361992 30,899 27,329 128,277 186,505 27,8081993 20,066 40,046 127,256 187,368 18,5061994 23,673 35,959 126,042 185,674 22,5311995 22,568 37,012 124,630 184,210 21,7411996 20,993 35,845 121,182 178,020 29,3411997 18,840 40,072 117,622 176,534 25,6581998 16,701 34,112 118,847 169,660 21,0101999 15,295 31,766 119,508 166,569 21,8522000 13,723 30,849 119,613 164,185 22,1982001 13,425 30,659 116,042 160,126 21,3402002 12,685 29,574 112,224 154,483 20,5452003 12,134 25,933 104,503 142,570 76,9262004 11,450 26,231 97,384 135,065 71,8282005 13,257 29,475 93,142 135,874 71,0062006 11,909 26,111 103,182 141,202 75,8822007 10,494 24,165 93,056 127,715 68,1882008 8,382 19,485 95,490 123,357 93,4152009 7,724 18,419 98,009 124,152 105,7342010 9,974 20,051 107,876 137,901 117,850Fisheries catch reconstruction for Mozambique \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Doherty et al. 81Appendix Table A3. Reconstructed catches (t) grouped by the seven most important taxa. Year Clupeidae Engraulidae Penaeidae Carangidae Haemulidae Sciaenidae Lethrinidae Others1950 6,389 5,115 2,510 4,071 5,543 1,140 4,445 25,7161951 6,439 5,155 2,508 4,103 5,586 1,149 4,480 25,8841952 6,530 5,228 2,559 4,161 5,665 1,165 4,543 26,2091953 6,621 5,300 2,610 4,219 5,744 1,181 4,607 26,5341954 6,713 5,374 2,656 4,277 5,824 1,197 4,671 26,8611955 6,822 5,461 2,611 4,347 5,918 1,217 4,746 27,2041956 6,915 5,536 2,651 4,406 5,999 1,233 4,811 27,5321957 7,022 5,622 2,617 4,474 6,092 1,253 4,886 28,6731958 7,154 5,742 3,179 4,546 6,231 1,645 4,955 29,3921959 7,240 5,808 3,109 4,604 6,301 1,587 5,019 30,2421960 7,395 5,932 3,176 4,702 6,435 1,615 5,127 29,9881961 7,580 6,082 3,352 4,818 6,600 1,704 5,252 30,0621962 7,761 6,225 3,329 4,935 6,753 1,687 5,381 30,6331963 7,908 6,342 3,480 5,029 6,880 1,696 5,484 31,4661964 8,121 6,514 3,536 5,164 7,067 1,775 5,630 33,1161965 8,327 6,683 3,678 5,293 7,252 1,898 5,768 33,5921966 8,893 7,149 4,379 5,642 7,766 2,339 6,141 37,0001967 9,440 7,588 4,633 5,990 8,241 2,450 6,521 38,6381968 10,002 8,039 4,915 6,347 8,731 2,575 6,911 41,5001969 10,581 8,503 5,225 6,715 9,236 2,718 7,311 44,9971970 11,173 8,977 5,484 7,092 9,749 2,826 7,722 47,6861971 12,106 9,766 7,434 7,651 10,630 4,046 8,306 54,4491972 13,012 10,495 7,971 8,226 11,423 4,307 8,931 57,6181973 13,979 11,290 9,202 8,823 12,298 5,036 9,569 64,4631974 15,303 12,426 12,653 9,602 13,099 7,215 10,016 72,0601975 16,380 13,239 11,351 10,331 13,406 6,127 10,445 69,7931976 17,436 14,146 14,070 10,951 13,854 7,912 10,656 75,9001977 17,742 14,348 12,604 11,183 13,489 6,858 10,527 77,8491978 18,605 15,033 12,857 11,738 13,591 6,864 10,667 99,1181979 20,038 16,186 13,640 12,645 14,070 7,268 11,083 92,0911980 20,493 16,743 21,240 12,771 14,253 12,298 10,691 97,2041981 20,344 16,615 20,440 12,683 13,605 12,050 10,229 98,7571982 21,249 17,276 18,224 13,314 13,493 10,591 10,377 96,2931983 21,146 17,190 17,544 13,252 12,892 10,458 9,940 98,1381984 20,756 16,797 14,805 13,072 11,967 8,319 9,467 89,9131985 20,656 16,747 15,102 12,983 11,491 9,081 9,023 91,6831986 20,837 17,051 17,149 12,963 11,504 13,186 8,588 106,3971987 20,566 16,830 17,113 12,793 10,899 13,046 8,136 107,0971988 20,294 16,640 17,288 12,596 10,402 13,717 7,674 108,0951989 20,236 16,516 15,810 12,626 9,735 11,700 7,402 99,1001990 20,328 16,620 16,965 12,658 9,431 12,496 7,096 102,9971991 20,558 16,831 18,221 12,782 9,182 13,230 6,848 98,4591992 20,318 16,519 17,173 12,732 8,340 10,105 6,557 94,7621993 20,565 16,861 18,435 12,765 8,444 13,869 6,232 90,1971994 20,609 16,856 17,689 12,828 7,945 12,835 5,982 90,9291995 20,569 16,834 18,793 12,793 7,575 13,096 5,677 88,8731996 20,300 16,607 18,286 12,632 7,076 12,751 5,327 85,0411997 19,933 16,356 20,229 12,362 6,738 13,762 4,937 82,2171998 20,158 16,477 19,173 12,556 6,261 12,284 4,767 77,9831999 20,453 16,689 19,362 12,764 5,906 11,739 4,588 75,0672000 20,459 16,685 19,880 12,775 5,528 11,507 4,335 73,0162001 20,121 16,413 19,801 12,562 5,109 11,398 4,012 70,7102002 19,556 15,950 19,380 12,211 4,637 11,021 3,663 68,0642003 18,483 15,055 17,956 11,558 4,017 9,902 3,250 62,3482004 17,852 14,552 14,834 11,153 3,919 9,866 3,134 59,7552005 17,305 14,147 13,860 10,777 3,932 10,594 3,021 62,2372006 18,943 15,425 11,739 11,850 4,102 10,030 3,333 65,7832007 17,200 14,010 9,321 10,756 3,739 9,223 3,024 60,4422008 17,508 14,210 8,778 10,991 3,638 8,086 3,099 57,0482009 17,866 14,486 8,538 11,228 3,664 7,878 3,169 57,3242010 19,354 15,694 10,726 12,163 3,972 8,560 3,432 64,001Fisheries catch reconstruction for La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 83reConstruCtion oF the domestiC and distant-Water Fisheries CatCh oF la r\u00C3\u00A9union (FranCe), 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010* Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach,1,2\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Pascal Bach,2 L\u00C3\u00A9o Barret,3 David Guyomard,4 Pierre-Gildas Fleury,5 Philippe S. Sabarros2,6 and Daniel Pauly11 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada2 Institut de Recherche pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, UMR212 Ecosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes Marins Exploit\u00C3\u00A9s, Avenue Jean Monnet, CS 30171, 34203 S\u00C3\u00A8te cedex, France3 Institut des Sciences de la Mer, 310 all\u00C3\u00A9e des Ursulines, CP 3300, Rimouski, G5L 3A1, Canada4 Comit\u00C3\u00A9 R\u00C3\u00A9gional des P\u00C3\u00AAches Maritimes et Elevages Marins (CRPMEM), 47 rue Evariste de Parny, BP 295, 97827 Le Port cedex, France5 Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer, Rue Jean Bertho, BP 60, 97822 Le Port cedex, France6 Institut de Recherche pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, UMR 212 Ecosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes Marins Exploit\u00C3\u00A9s, Station marine ARDA, Magasin 10, Darse de p\u00C3\u00AAche hauturi\u00C3\u00A8re, Port Ouest, 97420 Le Port, France\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Current address: BLOOM Association, 77 rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris, Francefredericlemanach@bloomassociation.org; pascal.bach@ird.fr; leo.barret@hotmail.com; dguyomard.crpm@wanadoo.fr; pierre.gildas.fleury@ifremer.fr; philippe.sabarros@ird.fr; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.caabstraCtTotal marine fisheries catches were estimated for the island of La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France) for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 time-period using the catch reconstruction approach developed by the Sea Around Us. This included total catches (i.e., with estimates of dead discards) of the industrial, artisanal, and recreational sectors. The reconstructed catch for domestic sectors (i.e., excluding the distant-water fleets registered elsewhere, but belonging to firms in La R\u00C3\u00A9union) for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 time-period reached over 199,000 t (of which 60.8% were caught in La R\u00C3\u00A9union's EEZ). This figure is 1.6 times higher than the 127,800 t officially reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The major taxa in the catches were Thunnus albacares (yellowfin tuna; 15.5%), Lethrinus mahsena (sky emperor; 14.4%), Xiphias gladius (swordfish; 14.2%), Prionace glauca (blue shark; 6.0%), T. alalunga (albacore tuna; 5.7%), and Carangidae (jacks and pompanos; 5.2%). The industrial and artisanal sectors were the most prominent, with 60.7% and 31.2% of the total catch, respectively. Unreported landings represented 39.9% of the total catch, including 14.2% of dead discards. Total catch of non-domestic fleets totalled over 300,000 t from 1950 to 2010, including 121,700 t of Dissostichus eleginoides (Patagonian toothfish), 31,500 t of Jasus palensis (Saint Paul rock lobster), and 32,200 t of other demersal species caught in the French Southern and Antarctic Lands, as well as 117,000 t of large pelagics caught throughout the Western Indian Ocean.introduCtionLa R\u00C3\u00A9union is a 3 million year old volcanic island of 30 km of diameter, located in the Mascarene Archipelago between the east coast of Madagascar and Mauritius (Figure 1). It is characterized by a very steep slope and two volcanoes at its center: the Piton des Neiges (inactive and culminating at 3,070 m), and the Piton de la Fournaise (active). The continental shelf is limited mostly to the west coast, where there is a narrow fringing coral reef, which is small in comparison to that of the neighbouring island of Mauritius (David and Mirault 2006). The growth of a fringing reef elsewhere is inhibited by meteorological conditions, as well as volcanic eruptions and regular hurricanes during the warm season (November to May). Thanks to its location and history, La R\u00C3\u00A9union has always been at an important social and cultural crossroad. It was discovered by the Arabs in the 10th century, and re-discovered in 1512 by Pedro de Mascarenhas (hence the name of the archipelago to which it belongs). Since the 17th century, the French have been interested in this island and have gradually colonized it. In the 18th century, the Compagnie Fran\u00C3\u00A7aise des Indes Orientales started to develop the national economy via the production and export of spices, coffee and sugar cane. In 1946, La R\u00C3\u00A9union became a French Overseas Department, and integrated the European Community in 1997. The economy of La R\u00C3\u00A9union still relies on agriculture, but also increasingly on construction, services and tourism (INSEE 2006). Despite delays in infrastructure development (Fleurant 1989), tourists (mostly from France mainland) currently account for approximately one-third of the resident population, and the trend is going upward. All major cities are located along the coast, concentrating most infrastructure and population in a narrow band, while the interior is subject to lower human exploitation. The coastal band is thus under a high anthropogenic pressure (e.g., runoff, industrial wastes, erosion, urbanization; Faure 1982; Letourneur and Chabanet 1994; Conand 2002).* Cite as: Le Manach F, Bach P, Barret L, Guyomard D, Fleury P-G, Sabarros PS and Pauly D (2015) Reconstruction of the domestic and distant-water fisheries catch of La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France), 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Pp. 83\u00E2\u0080\u009398 In Le Manach F and Pauly D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727]. 84Numerous studies since the 1970s have allowed to monitor these changes (Bouchon 1978; Faure 1982; Conand 2002; Anon. 2012), and it is clear that coral reefs of La R\u00C3\u00A9union \u00E2\u0080\u0094 once home to over 200 species of madreporan corals and 320 species of fish (Faure 1982; Chabanet 1994) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 have been visibly degraded since the mid-1980s (Conand 2002). It is thought that 30% of local reefs are currently degraded, and 50% are still threatened (Anon. 2012). However, conservation measures are being taken,1 and the fringing reef on the west coast \u00E2\u0080\u0094 by far the largest of the island \u00E2\u0080\u0094 is currently almost entirely protected (80%; not its southernmost section) by a 35 km2 marine protected area created in 2007.2Although surrounded by the ocean, inhabitants from La R\u00C3\u00A9union have never really relied on it to provide food. This is largely explained by the limited shelf and by the often rough conditions at sea. This also has historical roots, as slaves were not allowed to fish from a boat, in order to limit risks of escape (David and Mirault 2006; M\u00C3\u00A9ralli-Ballou 2008). The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of La R\u00C3\u00A9union extends well over 300,000 km2, and several categories of fishers are now active within and around it. Until the early 1980s, the fisheries contribution to the island's economy was low (limited to inshore fisheries and some distant fisheries), despite motorization of the entire fleet by the mid-1960s (Bertrand 1985). However, it soon became more important, particularly in the 1990s with the expansion of the tuna and billfish (mostly swordfish) fisheries, as well as the development of the Dissostichus eleginoides (Patagonian toothfish) and Jasus palensis (Saint Paul rock lobster) fisheries in the French Southern and Antarctic Lands (Bertrand 1985; Roos et al. 1998; Guyomard et al. 2006; M\u00C3\u00A9ralli-Ballou 2008; Palomares and Pauly 2011; Pruvost et al. 2015). These distant fisheries have gradually become of prime importance to the economy of the island, and largely contribute to the fact that the fishing industry is the second largest exporting sector, just behind sugar cane (M\u00C3\u00A9ralli-Ballou 2008).According to several authors, official statistics are solely based on declarations of commercial fishers (both artisanal and industrial), and therefore only account for the 'legal portion' of all fisheries (Biais 1987; Roos et al. 1998; David and Mirault 2006). However, it is acknowledged that unreported commercial activities, as well as subsistence and recreational fisheries widely occur (Bertrand 1985; Biais and Taquet 1992; Roos et al. 1998; David and Mirault 2006), and the lack of enforcement and observers makes this difficult to monitor despite important catches (David and Mirault 2006). Adding to the problem, the accuracy of official fisheries statistics pertaining to the commercial sector has long been criticized, notably by Biais and Tacquet (1992) and Tessier and Poisson (1997). Indeed, artisanal fishers are known to under-report their catches to pay less revenue taxes, while over-reporting the number of trips to benefit more from fuel tax breaks (Roos et al. 1998). Also, landing surveys do not cover fishing activities occurring at night, thus missing substantial catches. Lastly, the statistics reported to FAO are confusing with regards to some distant sectors whose ownership is from La R\u00C3\u00A9union. The rock lobster fishery in Saint Paul and Amsterdam (partly reported by La R\u00C3\u00A9union in the early time-period; see below) is also reported as 'French Southern Territories' catches; (Pruvost et al. in press), similarly to the finfish (mostly Patagonian toothfish) fishery in Kerguelen and Crozet (Palomares and Pauly 2011); and vessels from the tropical purse-seine fishery are reported as 'Mayotte' catches (Doherty et al. this volume).3 Official fisheries statistics are therefore of poor quality and mis-represent the true extent of fisheries activities by La R\u00C3\u00A9union's fishers. In this report, we apply to La R\u00C3\u00A9union the reconstruction methods developed around principles in Pauly (1998), described in Zeller et al. (2007) and applied worldwide by the Sea Around Us (see, e.g., Zeller and Pauly 2007; Zeller and Harper 2009; Harper and Zeller 2012; Harper et al. 2012). We aim to improve the overall quality of fisheries statistics of La R\u00C3\u00A9union by thoroughly reviewing the available literature, re-allocating the FAO catch to the various fisheries sectors, and re-estimating the missing catches since 1950. Fishing seCtors and methodsPelagic fisheriesA substantial part of the FAO data for La R\u00C3\u00A9union is composed of large pelagic taxa (FAO 2012): major tunas (Katsuwonus pelamis [skipjack tuna], Thunnus alalunga [albacore tuna], T. albacares [yellowfin tuna], T. obesus [bigeye tuna]), other Scombridae (Acanthocybium solandri [wahoo], Euthynnus affinis [kawakawa], and 1 The first coral reef conservation measures occurred in 1969, when it was forbidden to use live coral for construction (Faure 1982). In 1976, spearfishing was forbidden, and the lagoon was also protected (David and Mirault 2006).2 Critics have been raised about this MPA, as it is in a heavily populated area, highly impacted by coastal activities such as tourism. For example, over 20,000 persons meet along its beach for New Year's Eve, pouring various liquids in the lagoon, walking on the reef, and leaving tonnes of detritus behind. A recent surge in shark attacks also pointed at the MPA as a potential reason for it (Anon. 2012).3 Mayotte became a French Department in 2011, and these purse-seine vessels have started to reflag elsewhere, e.g., in Mauritius.Figure 1. Map showing the location of La R\u00C3\u00A9union as well as the extent of its EEZ (light blue) and continental shelf (dark blue).0 100 kmShelfEEZ boundary\u00C2\u00B1Fisheries catch reconstruction for La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 85'Scombroidei nei'), billfishes (Istiophorus platypterus [Indo-Pacific sailfish], Tetrapturus angustirostris [shortbill spearfish], Xiphias gladius [swordfish], and 'Istiophoridae nei'), and Elasmobranchii (sharks, rays, skates, etc.). These pelagic species comprise 12 out of the overall 31 taxa reported for La R\u00C3\u00A9union and compose 52.1% of the total catch reported by FishStat over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, and 80.6% over the 1990\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period.The FAO data for these 12 taxa are nearly identical to the data available in the nominal catch database of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (www.iotc.org/English/data/databases.php).4 Therefore, we re-allocated the FAO catch of large pelagics to various gears using the annual IOTC gear breakdown by taxon. Taxon names appearing in both datasets were consistent for the most part with the exception of Indo-Pacific sailfish, which was reported at the family level ('Istiophoridae nei') in FAO data. We used the annual IOTC data to reallocate a portion of the 'Istiophoridae nei' FAO catches to Indo-Pacific sailfish from 1993 to 2010, and used the average 1993\u00E2\u0080\u00931995 IOTC breakdown to reallocate catches from 1991 to 1992, as there were no IOTC data for Indo-Pacific sailfish during these two years. Also, we used the previous years' breakdown to reallocate the FAO catch of skipjack tuna in 2009\u00E2\u0080\u009310, and 'Scombroidei nei' (IOTC name was 'Scombridae') in 2003 and 2006\u00E2\u0080\u009307.This re-allocation allowed us to treat the different sectors more accurately, as the artisanal fleet (using handlines and troll lines) and the industrial fleet of longliners targeting swordfish were separated. The remaining catches of 'non-IOTC species' were re-allocated to other sectors: (i) the artisanal demersal fishery in coastal waters, (ii) the industrial demersal fishery on distant banks, and (iii) the shrimp trawl fishery in Madagascar (see below).Longline fleet targeting swordfishFollowing up on the success of the Asian fleet that started to target large pelagics in the Indian Ocean in the early 1950s (Allain 1974; Marsac and Stequert 1984; Poisson and Taquet 2001), a domestic fleet of longliners targeting swordfish was created in 1991 (Poisson et al. 1994; Poisson and Taquet 2001), and quickly became one of the major fishing sectors in La R\u00C3\u00A9union (Ren\u00C3\u00A9 et al. 1998). These vessels are active at night, using drifting longlines of 20\u00E2\u0080\u0093100 km equipped with baited hooks. Each vessel can deploy hundreds to several thousands of hooks per set (Poisson and Taquet 2000; Evano and Bourjea 2012).Only two fishing boats were active the first year, but thanks to an agreement signed between La R\u00C3\u00A9union and Mauritius as well as a tax-exemption regime, the number of longliners quickly rose to 31 in 2000 (INSEE 1991, 1996, 2000, 2002; Ren\u00C3\u00A9 et al. 1998; Poisson et al. 1999; Poisson and Taquet 2001).5 Due to the resulting high fishing pressure, the biomass of some stocks of targeted species was reduced, which resulted in longliners exiting the fishery in 2002\u00E2\u0080\u00932003 (INSEE 2003, 2005; Evano and Bourjea 2012). However, the number of longliners was soon back to the 2000 level, with 34 vessels active in 2005 (INSEE 2008; Evano and Bourjea 2012). In 2010, around 20% of all registered vessels in La R\u00C3\u00A9union (i.e., 45) were longliners targeting swordfish (Leblond et al. 2011; Evano and Bourjea 2012).Longliners were first active in La R\u00C3\u00A9union's EEZ beyond 12 nautical miles (nm) to minimize competition with the artisanal fleet, as well as in Mauritian waters, Tromelin (now jointly managed by France and Mauritius),6 and around a bank situated 90 nm northwest of La R\u00C3\u00A9union (INSEE 1997, 1998, 2000). Since then, the fleet has expanded towards the Mozambique Channel and now operates in the entire western Indian Ocean (Ren\u00C3\u00A9 et al. 1998; Poisson and Taquet 2001; Guyomard et al. 2006; Evano and Bourjea 2012), although most catches occur in the waters east of Madagascar and southwest of La R\u00C3\u00A9union (Poisson and Taquet 2001; Guyomard et al. 2006). The fleet has also somewhat changed its target species, targeting more bigeye tuna for the sashimi market (Ren\u00C3\u00A9 et al. 1998; Poisson and Taquet 2001), as well as other species of tuna (Evano and Bourjea 2012). Since 2010, the largest longliners operate in the Mozambique Channel from Madagascar (i.e., they only go to La R\u00C3\u00A9union to land their catch), which effectively resulted in an increase in total fishing effort (Chavance et al. 2012). Although INSEE (1998, 1999) reporeted that catches of this sector were likely underestimated, it seems that the current version of reported data includes everything but discards of target species (undersized and depredated individuals) and bycatch species (Bach et al. 2008, 2013). Most of the bycatch consists of unwanted sharks (mostly Prionace glauca [blue shark]; Poisson and Taquet 2001; Poisson 2010; Sabarros et al. 2013), pelagic stingrays, epipelagic billfishes, dolphinfish, wahoo, oilfish, as well as various species of fish referred to as 'snoek' (Bach et al. 2013; Sabarros et al. 2013). The economic interest on sharks has changed over time: at the beginning of the pelagic longline fishery in the 1990s, most Carcharhinus longimanus (oceanic whitetip shark) and mako shark were regularly kept onboard, whereas blue sharks where only kept from time to time (Poisson 2010). Currently, blue sharks are always discarded, while oceanic whitetip sharks and Isurus sp. (mako sharks) may be commercialized in some instances (Sabarros et al. 2013). 'Snoek' and other minor species of fish are mostly discarded, similarly to rays (Chavance et al. 2012). Discards may also consist of target species (swordfish) and other bycatch of economic importance (e.g., tuna and other billfishes) made unmarketable due to the depredation by sharks (all year round) and toothed whales (seasonal). Depredated catches are estimated to make up 10\u00E2\u0080\u009315% of the landings of target species (e.g. swordfish, tuna and other billfishes; Poisson and Taquet 2001; Romanov et al. 2013). However, they are 4 The IOTC data is thought to be the source of FAO data for pelagic catches, however, this is often not the case (see, e.g., Kenya; Le Manach et al. this volume). There are a couple of discrepancies, though: in 1970 (higher IOTC data) and 2009\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 (higher FAO data). 5 The Compagnie des Long Liners operated some of these tax-exempted vessels, and exported most of the catch to Europe (Poisson and Tacquet 2001). Noteworthy, most of the tax-exempted longliners are currently abandoned at port. The size of the largest vessels have decreased from 24m to 20 m and can no longer take on observers (Bach et al. 2010). Consequently, the French Research Institute for Development (IRD) has initiated a self-reporting program in 2011 to collect bycatch and depredation data (Bach et al. 2013).6 It was forbidden to fish within the 30 nm zone until 1995 (Ren\u00C3\u00A9 et al. 1998). 86sometimes kept for self-consumption (Sabarros et al. 2013), but not declared. This undeclared portion is difficult to estimate, and to distinguish from discards. Here, we considered that the non-reported component of the catch exclusively consisted of discards. To estimate them, we assumed that 15%, 25%, 95%, and 50% of the landings of major tunas, swordfish, sharks, and other species, respectively, were unreported (Bach et al. 2011; P. Bach, pers. obs.).7 Due to the lack of data, we considered that these proportions remained constant from 1991 to 2010. The only exception was for sharks, where we assumed the total mortality rate linearly decreased from 80% during the 1991\u00E2\u0080\u00932006 period (e.g., when finning was prevalent) to 30% by 2010 when finning was no longer occurring and the use of 'circle hooks' reduced mortality (estimate of mortality based on Diaz and Serafy 2005; Campana et al. 2009; Butcher et al. 2014). The final step of the reconstruction of this sector was to split the total catch (landings and discards) among the various EEZs within which the fleet is active. We used the IOTC data spatialized by 1\u00C2\u00B0x1\u00C2\u00B0 cells (www.iotc.org/sites/default/files/documents/2014/05/IOTC-2014-DATASETS-CELongline.zip).8 This allowed us to estimate the proportion of the total catch in the EEZs of La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Madagascar, Mauritius, and the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses, as well as the High Seas from 2009 to 2012. Based on the history of the fishery (see above), we set the 1991 proportions at 80% in La R\u00C3\u00A9union and 10% in Madagascar, and interpolated to the 2009 value. We allocated 5% to Mauritius in 1991 and linearly interpolated to a 2008 value corresponding to the 2009\u00E2\u0080\u00932012 level. For the High Seas and the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses, we distributed the remaining percentages proportionately to their 2009\u00E2\u0080\u00932012 contribution. For all areas, we used the 2009\u00E2\u0080\u009310 IOTC proportions 'as is'.Artisanal fleetThis sector represents the majority of the commercial fishing effort within La R\u00C3\u00A9union's EEZ. In 2008, over 70% of the artisanal vessels' activity occurred between 3 and 12 nm (5.5 to 22.2 km), which represented almost half of the registered fishers (Leblond et al. 2007). The fleet of artisanal fishers is largely composed of small boats (generally smaller than 12 m), trips are short (at most four days; generally less than 24 h), and landings are usually rapidly sold on local markets or to restaurants (Leblond et al. 2007). However, due to a large and rising seafood demand, these landings are not sufficient, and substantial quantities of fish must be imported to satisfy the local market demand (Biais and Taquet 1992). Three types of boats are used by artisanal fishers:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Traditional wooden boats, of which the range of action is limited to 5 nm (trips of less than 12 h);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Fibreglass boats (locally known as 'vedettes'), which can go further offshore (up to 20 nm) and are mostly used for trips longer than 12 h;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Mini-longliners smaller than 10 m, which are also active within 20 nm from the coast.A wide array of gears is used, including longline, handline, trap, beach seine, troll line, electric reel, and gillnet. This results in a large variety of species targeted by artisanal fishers (INSEE 2006), including large pelagics (e.g., Istiophoridae, Scombridae, Xiphiidae), small pelagics (e.g., Carangidae) and demersal species (e.g., Serranidae, Lethrinidae).9Historically, the artisanal fleet focused very little on the pelagic resources. However, the first anchored fishing aggregating device (a-FAD) was tried out in 1987 under the supervision of the French Research Institute for the Exploration of the Sea's (IFREMER), and starting in 1988, many other a-FADs (managed by the regional fisheries committee [CRPMEM]) were put in place around the island to increase the artisanal fleets' efficiency and to limit the fishing pressure on reefs (Biais and Taquet 1992; Leblond et al. 2007, 2010, 2011). After a production peak in 1994\u00E2\u0080\u009395 and the consequent price collapse (Roos et al. 1998), the fishery became less viable, and several a-FADs were abandoned. The management (funding and maintenance) of the a-FAD network was handed over to the CRPMEM, and the total number of a-FADs reached 30 by the late 1990s (Rey-Valette et al. 2000). Nowadays, there are 34 active a-FADs around the island,10 and it is estimated that almost 50% of the time spent fishing by artisanal fishers is around a-FADs (Tessier et al. 2000). Over 90 barques (6 m and 20 kW) and 75 vedettes (6\u00E2\u0080\u009312m; 50\u00E2\u0080\u0093200 kW) are active around La R\u00C3\u00A9union's a-FADs, mostly using handlines (Guyomard et al. 2012). Since the appearance of the fleet of mini-longliners in the mid-2000s, conflicts with the other fleets in the artisanal sector have emerged (Chavance et al. 2012).The implementation of this network of a-FADs resulted in higher catches of pelagic species, more registered professional fishers, as well as in an increased duration of the trips (Biais and Taquet 1990; INSEE 1991; Rey 1998; Rey-Valette et al. 2000). The development of the pelagic fishery benefited the nearshore resource by reduced the fishing effort targeting shallow-water demersal species (INSEE 1991, 1996; Rey 1998; Rey-Valette et al. 2000). 7 Data compiled by Bach and Sabarros (unpub. data) originating from the regional observer program (Bach et al. 2008) and the self-reporting data collection program (Bach et al. 2013) for 2011, 2012, and 2013 show different numbers. Here, we relied on historical knowledge based on empirical evidence rather than the self-reported data (longer 'times-series').8 Data by 5\u00C2\u00B0x5\u00C2\u00B0 cells are also available but less precise, so we disregarded them for the purpose of this spatial allocation.9 As an aside, there is a small but extremely valuable fishery controlled by a few families for bichiques, which are larvaes of Sicyopterus spp. and Gobius spp. (gobies). There is also a fishery for bait (mostly Selar crumenophtalmus, but also Decapterus macarellus and small tunas; Roos et al. 1998).10 Mostly active in the western part of the island (Tessier and Poisson 1997). In particular, it seems that the quality of the FADs has degraded since 2009, since maintenance subsidies were considered illegal by the European Union after 2007 (Guyomard et al. 2012). The new reform of the EU common fisheries policy has re-introduced these subsidies in 2014.Fisheries catch reconstruction for La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 87These reef resources are now mostly targeted when the sea is too rough to venture offshore (Biais and Taquet 1992; Conand and Tessier 1996). We considered two distinct groups of reported catch data for this sector: i) catch of species recorded in both IOTC and FAO database (the 'IOTC species'), but not allocated to the longline fleet targeting swordfish (see above), and ii) catch of species reported only in FAO database (the 'non-IOTC species', i.e., reef species).IOTC speciesThe FAO data follow a similar pattern and are very close to those provided by Biais (1991), Biais and Taquet (1992), and DMSOI/SIH since 1980 (FAO data slightly higher in the 1970s, and slightly lower in the 1990s-early 2000s; r2 = 0.89). Here, we kept the FAO data for reasons of consistency, but applied two corrections:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 From 1950 to 1966, the total FAO catch data were replaced with the data from Tessier and Poisson (1997), to which the FAO species breakdown was applied (the catch in excess, when any, was re-allocated to the generic 'groundfishes' grouping and allocated to the distant-bank fishery; see below);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Catches data in 1970 steeply dropped, and as we found no evidence to support such a large decline in catch, we assumed that this was an issue of underreporting and disregarded the 1970 FAO data. We estimated the 1970 catch as the average of 1969 and 1971 catches.Several authors have also reported that 'informal fishers' (i.e., non-registered commercial fishers; labeled as 'artisanal' for the purpose of the Sea Around Us database) and recreational fishers using the same gears and targeting the same species frequently used the a-FAD network (Biais and Taquet 1992). Non-professional and tourism boats were estimated to represent 57% and 16%, respectively, of the total fleet in the late 1990s (CRPMEM 2006; Bouchard 2009). Although these non-registered artisanal and recreational fishers are allowed to fish on a-FADs during weekends (Roos et al. 1998), it seems that this regulation is not really enforced (Tessier and Poisson 1997; Rey 1998), and that their total catch is of the same magnitude of the registered fishers (Guyomard et al. 2012). Thus, they form an entirely cryptic component of the artisanal sector, for which no data are reported (Biais and Taquet 1992; Tessier and Poisson 1997; Chavance et al. 2012). These fishers are also known to target deep-water demersal species (mostly snappers; between 200 and 600 m) with electric reels, and sell most of their catches. Large commercial stocks of such species were identified at the end of the 1990s, and numerous fishers (mostly non-registered) started employing electric reels to exploit them (around 100 tonnes were caught in 2006 by the only registered professional fisher). However, as deep demersal stocks are fragile, their biomass rapidly decreased. A study conducted in 2011 confirmed their overexploited status in the western and northern part of La R\u00C3\u00A9union (Fleury et al. 2012a).11We assumed that non-registered artisanal and recreational fishers occupied half of the total fishing effort (e.g.. number of total boat fishing days) as that of registered artisanal fishers, and half of the annual CPUE of registered fishers (D. Guyomard, pers. obs.). We reconstructed these two missing sectors by multiplying the FAO catch of the registered artisanal fishers by 0.5 (to account for reduced fishing effort) and another 0.5 (to account for reduced CPUE), maintaining the same taxonomic breakdown. For the 2007\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, though, we considered that the effort of both non-registered and recreational fishers doubled compared to the previous period, since the end of fuel subsidies resulted in an important exit from the registered fleet towards the informal one. Finally, we also considered that the unreported catch of the registered artisanal fishers was representing 10% of their reported catch (D. Guyomard, pers. obs.). Non-IOTC species12For this sector, we used demersal and small pelagic total catch data extracted from previous studies (Biais and Taquet 1992), which we believe are the one that were transmitted to FAO.13The taxonomic breakdown provided in several studies was used to disaggregate these totals from 1950 to 1969 (Biais 1991; Biais and Taquet 1992; Tessier and Poisson 1997; DMSOI/SIH, unpub. data). From 1970 to 1998, crabs and Clupeidae were excluded from this breakdown, as they were already included in FAO data. Two adjustments were also made to correct unexplained drops in FAO catches:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 From 1950 to 1953, the average catch and breakdown of the next five years was carried backward;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 For 1965, an interpolation was done between 1964 and 1966.For the 1999\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, the total catch of demersal species that was extracted from the various studies cited above were proportionately re-allocated from the remaining FAO data. For small pelagics (Carangidae and Clupeoids), we kept the FAO data for consistency, since trends and values of the two datasets were very similar.We used the same set of assumptions used for the IOTC species (see above) to estimate the unreported catch of non-registered and recreational fishers. For the registered fleet, we assumed 25% of the declared catch was unreported (D. Guyomard, pers. obs.).11 Stocks are smaller along the eastern and southern coasts, but their catch rates are higher.12 The 'natatian decapods' category was dealt with separately, as it corresponds to rock lobsters targeted in Saint Paul and Amsterdam, as well as shrimp targeted in Madagascar (see below).13 We disregarded a seemingly official third dataset (available at: http://41.206.61.142:8080/statbase_3), because we could not determine its origin. We also made an adjustment in 1977, because the remaining FAO data (total minus the catch already re-allocated to the longliners targeting swordfish, and the artisanal fishers targeting IOTC species) was 65 t lower than the data extracted from these various studies. Therefore, were reallocated 65/2 t from both demersal and small pelagic reported components to 'unreported landing'. 88Sport fishing by touristsThe tourist population is currently a third of that of the residents and given the nature of the island, an overwhelming part of these tourists stay on the coast during their trip. From the plethora of internet fora describing and praising La R\u00C3\u00A9union's sport fishing activities, there is no doubt that this sector is important in terms of its economic contribution, as well as in terms of its catch. However, skippers working for sport fishing centers are required to own a professional license; therefore, catches of this sector are thought to be included in the artisanal sector, although usually sold to restaurants and fishmongers (where tourists can therefore enjoy a small piece of their trophies). Here, we conservatively assumed that the sport (i.e., recreational) catch by tourists was included in the reported artisanal statistics (since professional licenses are required to operate sport fishing boats), and as such, we did not reconstruct any catches.Distant banks fisheryThe Soci\u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 Franco-Mauricienne de P\u00C3\u00AAche et d'Industrie (SFMPI; Armement des Mascareignes from 1965 onward) carried out an exploratory demersal fishery in 1961 on distant banks north of Mauritius Biais and Taquet (1992). Several gears were tried out, but only handlines operated from dories yielded economically-viable catches (Lebeau and Cueff 1975; Biais and Taquet 1992; Roos et al. 1998), which consisted of 80\u00E2\u0080\u009390% of Lethrinus mahsena alone (sky emperor), as well as L. variegatus (slender emperor) and other demersal species (Roos et al. 1998). Biais (1987) reported that gutted weight increased from 370 t in 1967 to 640 t in 1972 for the Saya de Malha bank alone. These values (for a single bank) are about half of the remaining FAO data to be allocated (minus 'natatian decapods nei', which are dealt with separately; see below), and show a similar trend. Lebeau and Cueff (1975) reported gutted weight oscillating between 600 t and 900 t per year between 1975 and 1985, and then a decrease to 400\u00E2\u0080\u0093500 t. Again, these values are in the same range as the remaining FAO data. More recently, another fleet of a smaller scale has been active around the distant banks, increasing from two vessels in 1990 to six/seven vessels by the mid-1990s (Biais 1987). These vessels also targeted groupers and snappers with bottom longlines, around the Mauritian banks and along the coast of Madagascar, thanks to access agreements negotiated by the European Commission (Roos et al. 1998), and troll for large pelagics when moving between fishing areas. This sector was nearly phased out by the early 2000s (European Economic Community 1989a,b; European Community 1996\u00E2\u0080\u00932007; Roos et al. 1998), which is also consistent with the remaining unallocated FAO catch. Since 2010, two boats (BABOUK and BIGOUDEN) have regularly fished on these distant banks.Based on this information, we considered that the remaining FAO catch to be allocated (except 'natatian decapods nei'; see below) were representing the distant bank sector. Four adjustments were made:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The 'zero catch' in 1977 was replaced by interpolated values between 1976 and 1978;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The 'marine fishes nei' catches (excluding the part reallocated from the artisanal fleet) were multiplied by 1.2 to account for the conversion factor from gutted weight to live weight (FAO 2000);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The 'marine fishes nei' taxon was split between sky emperor (70%), slender emperor (10%), and other demersal species (20%); \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The final catch was allocated to Mauritius (80%) and Madagascar (20%) waters.Shrimp fishery in MadagascarIn the late 1960s, the only vessel operating on distant banks also started to target shrimp in the northwest of Madagascar (94 and 48.6 tonnes in 1969 and 1971, respectively), and this second fishery soon became important with the construction of 8 trawlers (Anon. 2011a, b). However, this activity collapsed in 1974 due to the political instability in Madagascar (213.5 and 422.8 in 1971 and 1972, respectively; Bertrand 1985; Roos et al. 1998; M\u00C3\u00A9ralli-Ballou 2008).FAO data include significant 'Natatian decapods nei' (i.e., shrimp and lobsters) catches from 1950 to 1974. However, catches prior to the mid-1960s, as well as catches of up to 1,000 tonnes per year in the second half of the 1960s indicated that this taxon also included catches from elsewhere, probably rock lobsters from Saint Paul and Amsterdam. Therefore, we allocated the entirety of the FAO catch to the shrimp sector in Madagascar from 1971 to 1974 (year of the collapse), and linearly interpolated from 0 in 1966 (the sector started around 1967\u00E2\u0080\u009368) to the 1971 FAO catch (i.e., 300 t). We also applied the weighted discard rate of tropical shrimp fisheries published by Kelleher (2005; amounts similar to those published by Bertrand 1985), i.e., 67.8%, in order to estimate the discards of the sector.The remaining 'Natatian decapods nei' catches from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931971 were reallocated to the rock lobster fishery in Saint Paul and Amsterdam (see below). Small catches of this taxon after 1974 were allocated to the artisanal fleet.With that last sector (i.e., shrimp fishery in Madagascar), the total FAO catch was entirely re-allocated to the sectors mentioned above (Figure 2). The following sectors thus entirely constitute add-ons to the data reported to FAO.Fisheries catch reconstruction for La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 89Shorefishing and spearfishing by residentsLa R\u00C3\u00A9union only has slightly over 1,000 hectares of coral reef, exclusively along the southern coast (80% of this reef is protected since 2007 via the R\u00C3\u00A9serve Naturelle Marine; www.reservemarinereunion.fr). The recreational reef fishing and gleaning sectors have therefore always been limited. However, reef gleaners are active on these reefs and target most edible fish (over 200 species of commercial interest; Deschamps 2005), but also invertebrates such as crabs, clams and octopuses, locally called 'zourites' (David and Mirault 2006). Fleury et al. (2012b) described the recent activity of this sector in the MPA, which can provide us with a general idea of fishing practices and impact on shore resources. Four fishing techniques are authorized within the protected area (Fleury et al. 2012b):\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Beach-seines to catch Mulloidichthys flavolineatus (yellowstripe goatfish);14\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Sticks to catch octopuses ('zourites'); \u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Handlines (from the shore) and spearguns (external slope) to catch various reef species.These techniques (especially handlines) are also used elsewhere along the coast. There is very little information regarding historical catches of this recreational sector, but Bertrand (1985) reported that this sector was substantial, although not included in reported data (authorities only report commercial activities). Here, we applied a simple Fermi solution as a first approximation of this sector (von Baeyer 1993; Pauly 2010). Population data were extracted from Sandron (2007) and INSEE (2014), and we conservatively assumed that 1% of the population was catching 20 kg of fish per person and per year. Due to the rather low total resulting from this set of assumptions, we did not apply any taxonomic breakdown.French Southern and Antarctic LandsRock lobster and patagonian toothfish fisheriesSaint Paul rock lobsters have been exploited around the French islands of Saint Paul and Amsterdam since the late 18th century (Angot 1951), in waters up to 700 meters deep (www.sapmer.com/Fishing_technique_St_Paul_Rock_Lobster.html). Most catches are exported to Japan and this sector has represented a major sector of La R\u00C3\u00A9union's fishing industry in terms of value throughout its existence (INSEE 1988, 1991, 1993). However, its importance has decreased since the expansion of the Patagonian toothfish and tropical tuna fisheries in the late 1980s.Reconstructions for these two sectors were published separately (Palomares and Pauly 2011; Pruvost et al. 2015). These catches represented 121,700 t of Patagonian toothfish, 31,500 t of Saint Paul rock lobster, and 32,200 t of other demersal species.Mozambique Channel tuna fisheryDuring the 2000s, some French purse-seiners (including from La R\u00C3\u00A9union) were flagged in Mayotte (IOTC 2012; Doherty et al. 2015).15 These vessels were active in both Mayotte's EEZ as well as neighboring EEZs in the area, and their catches have been wrongly attributed to Mayotte in the FAO landings data (i.e., vessels were owned by firms outside Mayotte and landed in ports outside of Mayotte). Catches from purse seiners owned by companies based in La R\u00C3\u00A9union (i.e., 117,000 t of large pelagics) were reassigned in the Sea Around Us database as catches from La R\u00C3\u00A9union and spatialized in Le Manach et al. (in press).14 This technique may result in some discards of bycatch. However, given the overall low catches and lack of information, no discards were estimated.15 Tuna seiners registered in Mayotte because it offered them certain tax advantages over being registered in the European Union. Notably, these included the ability to benefit from certain tax exemptions while avoid being constrained by limitations to engine power or tonnage (Busson 2011). Vessels rarely stopped in Mayotte other than for technical purposes or repairs, though, as being registered in Mayotte only required one stopover in Mayotte port per year (Busson 2011). 0 1 2 3 4 5 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total catch reported to FAO (thousand t) Year Lobster fishery in St. Paul and Amsterdam Longline (targetingswordfish) Shrimp trawlersin Madagascar Small-scale fleets Banks fisheriesFigure 2. Breakdown of the data reported to FAO by fisheries sectors. 90results and disCussionSectors reported to FAO by La R\u00C3\u00A9unionOverall, the total reconstructed catch of La R\u00C3\u00A9union's domestic sectors totalled over 199,000 t over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. These catches show a bimodal trend, increasing from just over 1,500 t per year in the early 1950s, to almost 4,300 t per year in the early 1970s. Catches then decreased to around 1,400 t per year in 1990. The second peak occurred in the late 1990s at 8,000 t per year due to the expansion of the longline fleet, after which it declined again to reach around 5,000 t per year in the late 2000s (Figure 3). The current decrease in total catch is consistent with the reported perception by many fishers that there are now less fish under the a-FADs scattered around the islands (Guyomard et al. 2012). Also, the longline fleet has experienced a normal initial decrease in catches, which substantially contributed to that decline. Finally, it also appears that the number of fishers has been decreasing, which also may be contributing to reduced catch.Of the total catches over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, 39.9% were unreported (either landed, 25.7%; or discarded, 14.2%), whereas 60.1% were reported to FAO (Figure 3). The amount of unreported catches was estimated to have remained rather constant over time (Figure 3). It is thought that a redesign of the data collection scheme of IFREMER, the Syst\u00C3\u00A8me d'Information Halieutique in 2007 will result in improved quality of the domestic catch data in future years. However, our report suggests that three sectors remain entirely unreported in official data source: (i) the non-registered artisanal fishers targeting large pelagics, (ii) the recreational sector by locals targeting demersal species or reef gleaning/fishing from the shore, and (iii) the registered artisanal fishers active at night. Non-registered artisanal fisheries contribute substantial catches and have led to increasing tensions with registered fishers. Unreported catches by night-fishers are likely less important in terms of the magnitude of catch but probably equally important for their of impact on some species. It must be noted that the distinction between the registered and non-registered sector should be seen as a first attempt, as many fishers move from one sector to the other, depending on available subsidies and bureaucratic constraints. Therefore, further studies are necessary to better quantify them and include them in domestic policies.The majority of this total catch was taken in the EEZ of La R\u00C3\u00A9union (60.8%). Mauritius and Madagascar were the following most fished EEZs, with 20.7% and 16.4%, respectively, whereas the remaining was caught in the \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses and in the High Seas (Figure 4).The most prominent sector is by far the industrial one, with almost 60.7% of the total catch from 1950 to 2010. The artisanal sector comes second with 31.2%, whereas the recreational sector makes up the remaining 8.1%. The share of the industrial sector steadily decreased through the 1950s to early 1990s, after which it bounced back and reached its highest level ever (over 76% in 2010), mostly thanks to the development of the longline fleet (Figure 5). On the other hand, the artisanal sector has been decreasing for the last 15 years, due to the fact that it targets overfished reef species, and increasingly targeted (and already fully exploited) large pelagics. This decrease is also the result of the 0 3 6 9 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total catch (thousand t) Year Discards Unreported landing Reported landing Figure 3. Total reconstructed catch disaggregated by catch type (reported vs. unreported landings, and discarded catches), from 1950 to 2010. See Appendix Table A1 for details. 0 3 6 9 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total catch (thousand t) Year La R\u00C3\u00A9unionMadagascarMauritiusIles Eparses & High SeasFigure 4. Total reconstructed catch disaggregated by fishing zone (EEZs of neighboring countries or High Seas), from 1950 to 2010. Fisheries catch reconstruction for La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 91decreasing number of registered artisanal fishers (which is partially counter-balanced by their re-entry into the non-registered sector). The most important taxa with regards to the taxonomic composition of the total catch (i.e., including discards) were yellowfin tuna (15.5%), sky emperor (14.4%), swordfish (14.2%), blue shark (6.0%), albacore tuna (5.7%), and jacks and pompanos (5.2%; Figure 6). Since the inception of the pelagic longline fleet, however, large pelagics occupy the majority of the catch. On the other hand, sky emperor, which represented the bulk of the catch in the earlier time period, are now virtually absent from La R\u00C3\u00A9union's catch, since the banks fishery has mostly been phased out (Figure 6).ConClusionLa R\u00C3\u00A9union is a great example of how fisheries have expanded over-time, in oder to target new species in ever farther and deeper waters. During the first half of the 20th century, local fishing companies started to explore offshore banks between Mauritius and Madagascar, but also some fishing grounds in the Southern Ocean. Later, during the second half of the 20th century, they also started to expand towards the eastern coast of Africa to target large pelagics such as tuna and swordfish. Paradoxically, the coastal artisanal fleet lagged behind in terms of diversification, as it is only in the 1990s that La R\u00C3\u00A9union's fishers truly started to explore waters closer to home, with the implementation of a network of a-AFDs (at least partly due to decreasing coastal resources), and in more recent years, with the development of deep-sea fisheries. Historically, local fishers were indeed satisfied with abundant inshore reef resources, but the increasing competition with recreational fishers may have been one of the main drivers for this late development.Although we acknowledge that the reconstruction presented here is sometimes based on strong assumptions (notably with regards to these unreported catches), we feel confident regarding the reallocation of the reported catch to the different sectors, which helps clarify the situation. The sectorial allocation of the data now allows us to easily follow the successive steps in the development of La R\u00C3\u00A9union's fisheries briefly summarized in the previous paragraph. One can now easily identify the industrial fleets expanding from banks in Mauritius and Madagascar to the French Southern and Antarctic Lands and tropical waters throughout the Western Indian Ocean on the one side; and on the other side, the artisanal fleets diversifying their fisheries slightly later, by expanding further offshore notably via the implementation of the network of a-FADs. These developments resulted in a shift in the composition of the landed catch, from mostly demersal and reef species, to mostly large pelagics. Positively, this reconstruction also shows that the mortality of sensitive species, notably sharks, is decreasing. This is the result of a shift in gear (from regular 'J hooks' to 'circle hooks'), the end of 'finning' practices after 2006, and the phasing out of coastal fisheries targeting sharks (the marketing of coastal species is now banned). We hope that this reconstruction will trigger further research, notably to fill the gaps in the data-collection system. It shows that the extent of unreported catches is still important with around 40% of the total catch from 2000 to 2010, notably due to the fleets of non-registered artisanal fishers, and recreational fishers. Figure 5. Total reconstructed catch disaggregated by sector, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. See Appendix Table A1 for details. 0 3 6 9 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total catch (thousand t) Year RecreationalIndustrialArtisanalFigure 6. Total reconstructed catch disaggregated by species and higher taxa (top-seven taxa shown; the rest being aggregated as 'others'), from 1950 to 2010. See Appendix Table A2 for details.Others Threadfins Jacks and pompanos Albacore Blue shark Swordfish Sky emperor Yellowfin tuna 0 3 6 9 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total catch (thousand t) Year 92Although part of these catches do not enter the market, such activities will have to become better monitored in future years, and we recommend that this sector should be accounted for during decision processes related to domestic fisheries management. The official accounting of these unreported catches is of prime importance for the sound management of fisheries. aCknoWledgementsThis report is a contribution of the Sea Around Us, a collaboration between The University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. FLM and DP would also like to acknowledge the support of the Paul G. Allen Foundation. The authors would finally like to thank G\u00C3\u00A9rard Biais and Emmanuel Tessier for their input and for sharing their knowledge.reFerenCesAllain C (1974) La p\u00C3\u00AAche maritime et la recherche scientifique \u00C3\u00A0 La R\u00C3\u00A9union \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Rapport de mission du 2 au 10 avril 1974. Office Scientifique et Technique des P\u00C3\u00AAches Maritimes (ISTPM), Nantes (France). 24 p.Angot M (1951) Observations sur la faune marine et la p\u00C3\u00AAche aux \u00C3\u00AEles Saint-Paul et Amsterdam. M\u00C3\u00A9moires de l'Institut Scientifique de Madagascar S\u00C3\u00A9rie A \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Tome VI(fascicule 1): 51.Anon. (2011a) Convention Sp\u00C3\u00A9cifique n\u00C2\u00B033 : Ex-post evaluation of the current protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement (FPA) between the European Union and Madagascar, and analysis of the impact of the future protocol on sustainability, including ex-ante evaluation. Contrat-cadre pour la r\u00C3\u00A9alisation d'\u00C3\u00A9valuations, d'\u00C3\u00A9tudes d'impact et de suivi concernant les Accords de Partenariat dans le domaine de la P\u00C3\u00AAche conclus entre la Communaut\u00C3\u00A9 et les Pays Tiers et plus g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9ralement sur le volet externe de la Politique Commune de la P\u00C3\u00AAche \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Projet FISH/2006/20, Oceanic D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement and MegaPesca Lda, Brussels (Belgium). xx + 109 p.Anon. (2011b) Convention Sp\u00C3\u00A9cifique n\u00C2\u00B034 : ex-ante evaluation of existing conditions in the fisheries sector in Mauritius with a view to concluding a new Fisheries Partnership Agreement and Protocol. Framework Contract for performing evaluations, impact analyses and monitoring services in the context of Fisheries Partnership Agreements concluded between the Community and non-member coastal states and more generally of the external strand of the Common Fisheries Policy \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Project FISH/2006/20, Oceanic D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement and MegaPesca Lda, Brussels (Belgium). xii + 94 p.Anon. (2012) Rapport d'activit\u00C3\u00A9 2012. GIP R\u00C3\u00A9serve nationale marine de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, La Saline-les-Bains (France). 63 p.Bach P, Rabearisoa N, Filippi T and Hubas S (2008) The first year of SEALOR : database of SEA-going observer surveys monitoring the local pelagic LOngline fishery based in La R\u00C3\u00A9union. IOTC \u00E2\u0080\u0094 2008 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 WPEB \u00E2\u0080\u0094 13, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Victoria (Seychelles). 19 p.Bach P, Romanov E, Rabearisoa N and Sharp A (2011) Note on swordfish catches collected during commercial operations and research cruises onboard pelagic longliners of the La Reunion fleet from 2006 to 2010. IOTC\u00E2\u0080\u00932011\u00E2\u0080\u0093WPB09\u00E2\u0080\u0093INFO11, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Victoria (Seychelles).Bach P, Romanov EV, Rabearisoa N, Filippi T and Sharp A (2010) Note on yellowfin and bigeye catches collected during fishing and research cruises onboard pelagic longliners of the La R\u00C3\u00A9union fleet in 2008 and 2009. IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tuna (WPTT), Victoria (Seychelles), October 18\u00E2\u0080\u009325, 2010. IOTC-2010- WPTT-11, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Victoria (Seychelles). 13 p.Bach P, Sabarros S, Le Foulgoc L, Richard E, Lamoureux J-P and Romanov EV (2013) Self-reporting data collection project for the pelagic longline fishery based in La Reunion. IOTC\u00E2\u0080\u00932013\u00E2\u0080\u0093WPEB09\u00E2\u0080\u009342, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Victoria (Seychelles). 10 p.Bertrand J (1985) La p\u00C3\u00AAche maritime \u00C3\u00A0 La R\u00C3\u00A9union : trente ann\u00C3\u00A9es d'effort de d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement de la production. L'\u00C3\u00A9conomie de La R\u00C3\u00A9union 15, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE), Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France). 3\u00E2\u0080\u00938 p.Biais G (1987) Summary of fisheries and resources information for La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Pp. 108\u00E2\u0080\u0093115 In Sanders MJ, Sparre P and Venema SC (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on the assessment of the fishery resources in the southwest Indian Ocean, September 14\u00E2\u0080\u009325, 1987, Albion (Mauritius). SWIOP Document OISO RAF/79/065/WP/41/88/E. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Rome (Italy).Biais G (1991) Etudes descriptives de la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale \u00C3\u00A0 La R\u00C3\u00A9union et \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte. Pp. 319\u00E2\u0080\u0093324 In Durand J-R, Lemoalle J and Weber J (eds.), La recherche face \u00C3\u00A0 la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale, symposium international ORSTOM-IFREMER, Montpellier (France), July 3\u00E2\u0080\u00939, 1989. Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer (ORSTOM), Paris (France).Biais G and Taquet M (1990) Technologie des dispositifs de concentration de poissons et techniques de p\u00C3\u00AAche aux gros p\u00C3\u00A9lagiques. Compte rendu d'essais effectu\u00C3\u00A9s pendant l'\u00C3\u00A9t\u00C3\u00A9 austral 1989\u00E2\u0080\u009390. Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Paris (France). 49 p.Biais G and Taquet M (1992) La p\u00C3\u00AAche locale aux abords de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Rep\u00C3\u00A8res Oc\u00C3\u00A9ans 2, Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Plouzan\u00C3\u00A9 (France). 77 p.Bouchard C (2009) Fisheries in the French Indian Ocean Territories. Pp. 177\u00E2\u0080\u0093193 In Rumley D, Sanjay C and Sakhuja V (eds.), Fisheries exploitation in the Indian Ocean \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Threats and opportunities. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore.Fisheries catch reconstruction for La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 93Bouchon C (1978) Etude quantitative des peuplements \u00C3\u00A0 base de Scl\u00C3\u00A9ractiniaires d'un r\u00C3\u00A9cif frangeant de IIe de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. PhD thesis, University of Aix-Marseille 2 (France). 144 p.Busson O (2011) La p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 Mayotte: entre archa\u00C3\u00AFsme et postmodernit\u00C3\u00A9. L'Harmattan, Paris (France). 183 p.Butcher PA, McGrath SP and Peddemors VM (2014) Why do they die? Mortality indices of elasmobranchs caught on demersal long lines in a south-east Australian commercial shark fishery. Sharks International, June 2\u00E2\u0080\u00936, 2014, Durban (South Africa).Campana SM, Joyce W and Manning MJ (2009) Bycatch and discard mortality in commercially caught blue sharks Prionace glauca assessed using archival satellite pop-up tags. Marine Ecology Progress Series 387: 241\u00E2\u0080\u0093253.Chabanet P (1994) Etude des relations entre les peuplements benthiques et les peuplements ictyologiques sur le complexe r\u00C3\u00A9cifal de Saint-Gilles/La Saline (Ile de la R\u00C3\u00A9union). PhD thesis, University of Aix-Marseille 2, Marseille (France). 235 p.Chavance P, Chassot E, Bourjea J, Evano H, Nadeau A, Bach P, Marsac F and Dagorn L (2012) UE-France \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Rapport national destin\u00C3\u00A9 au Comit\u00C3\u00A9 scientifique de la Commission des Thons de l'Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien, 2011\u00E2\u0080\u00932012. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. 36 p.Conand C (2002) Marine ecology of La R\u00C3\u00A9union: an overview of recent research. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 31(7): 602\u00E2\u0080\u0093605.Conand F and Tessier E (1996) FAD deployments around Reunion Island: background, development and influence on catches and activity in the coastal fishery. SPC Fish Aggregating Device Bulletin 1: 3\u00E2\u0080\u00936.CRPMEM (2006) Etude d'int\u00C3\u00A9gration et de professionnalisation des p\u00C3\u00AAcheurs informels \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Rapport final. Comit\u00C3\u00A9 R\u00C3\u00A9gional des P\u00C3\u00AAches Maritimes et Elevages Marins (CRPMEM) and Armeris, Le Port (France). 40 p.David G and Mirault E (2006) L'\u00C3\u00A9puisement de la ressource r\u00C3\u00A9cifale de la R\u00C3\u00A9union : confrontation des perceptions et r\u00C3\u00A9gulation de l'activit\u00C3\u00A9 halieutique. Pp. 127\u00E2\u0080\u0093140 In Chaussade J and Guillaume J (eds.), P\u00C3\u00AAche et aquaculture, pour une exploitation durable des ressources vivantes de la mer et du littoral : ouvrage en l'honneur de J.P. Corlay. Presses Universitaires, Rennes (France).Deschamps G (2005) Nomenclature des esp\u00C3\u00A8ces commerciales \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Esp\u00C3\u00A8ces p\u00C3\u00AAch\u00C3\u00A9es \u00C3\u00A0 La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Le Port (France). 56 p.Diaz GA and Serafy JE (2005) Longline-caught blue shark (Prionace glauca): factors affecting the numbers available for live release Fishery Bulletin 103(4): 720\u00E2\u0080\u0093724.Doherty B, Herfaut J, Le Manach F, Harper S and Zeller D (this volume) Reconstructing domestic marine fisheries in Mayotte from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.European Community (1996) Protocol defining, for the period 21 May 1995 to 20 May 1998, the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of the Republic of Madagascar on fishing off Madagascar. Official Journal L 75: 2\u00E2\u0080\u00937.European Community (1997) Protocol fixing, for the period 1 December 1996 to 30 November 1999, the fishing opportunities and the financial consideration provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of Mauritius on fishing in Mauritian waters. Official Journal L 163: 29\u00E2\u0080\u009333.European Community (1998) Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial compensation provided for in the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Madagascar on fishing off Madagascar for the period from 21 May 1998 to 20 May 2001. Official Journal L 295: 34\u00E2\u0080\u009339.European Community (2000) Protocol defining, for the period 3 December 1999 to 2 December 2002, the fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for by the Agreement between the European Community and the Government of Mauritius on fishing in the waters of Mauritius. Official Journal L 180: 30\u00E2\u0080\u009338.European Community (2001) Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the agreement between the European Economic Community and the Democratic Republic of Madagascar on fishing off Madagascar for the period from 21 May 2001 to 20 May 2004. Official Journal L 296: 10\u00E2\u0080\u009318.European Community (2004) Protocol defining, for the period 3 December 2003 to 2 December 2007, the fishing opportunities and the financial compensation provided for by the Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of Mauritius on fishing in Mauritian waters. Official Journal L 348: 3\u00E2\u0080\u009313.European Community (2005) Protocol defining for the period 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2006 the Tuna fishing opportunities and the financial contribution provided for in the agreement between the European Economic Community and the Democratic Republic of Madagascar on fishing off Madagascar. Official Journal L 94: 5\u00E2\u0080\u009344.European Community (2007) Protocol setting out the fishing opportunities and financial contribution provided for in the Agreement between the European Community and the Republic of Madagascar on fishing off the coast of Madagascar for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2012. Official Journal L 331: 11\u00E2\u0080\u009330.European Economic Community (1989a) Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Government of Mauritius on fishing in Mauritian waters. Official Journal L 159: 2\u00E2\u0080\u00936.European Economic Community (1989b) Protocol No 1 on the fishing opportunities accorded by Mauritius and the financial contribution accorded by the Community. Official Journal L 159: 7\u00E2\u0080\u00937.Evano H and Bourjea J (2012) Atlas de la p\u00C3\u00AAche palangri\u00C3\u00A8re r\u00C3\u00A9unionnaise de l'oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien. Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Le Port (France).FAO (2000) Conversion factors \u00E2\u0080\u0094 landed weight to live weight. FAO Fisheries Circular C847, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). 192 p.FAO (2012) FishStatJ, a tool for fishery statistics analysis. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). 94Faure G (1982) Recherches sur les peuplements de Scl\u00C3\u00A9ractiniaires des r\u00C3\u00A9cifs coralliens de l'archipel des Mascareignes (Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien occidental). PhD thesis, University of Aix-Marseille 2 (France). 246 p.Fleurant Y-E (1989) La R\u00C3\u00A9union : un tourisme tropical diff\u00C3\u00A9rent ? Cenadom, Talence (France). 107 p.Fleury P-G, Cadet C, Turban S and Le Bonniec S (2012b) Suivi des p\u00C3\u00AAches \u00C3\u00A0 pied traditionnelles et de la chasse sous-marine de 2008 \u00C3\u00A0 2011 dans la R\u00C3\u00A9serve Naturelle Marine de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Rapport Ifremer RST-DOI-2012\u00E2\u0080\u009303, Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Le Port (France). 83 p.Fleury P-G, Evano H, Le R\u00C3\u00BB L and Aureche V (2012a) Synth\u00C3\u00A8se de l'\u00C3\u00A9tude et des campagnes \u00C3\u00A0 la mer 2011 sur l'exploitation aux vire-lignes des esp\u00C3\u00A8ces d\u00C3\u00A9mersales profondes autour de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Rapport Ifremer RST-DOI-2012\u00E2\u0080\u009313, Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Le Port (France). 45 p.Guyomard D, Hohmann S, Fleury P-G and Bissery C (2012) Etude technico-\u00C3\u00A9conomique sur les DCP ancr\u00C3\u00A9s de La R\u00C3\u00A9union \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Rapport final. Comit\u00C3\u00A9 R\u00C3\u00A9gional des P\u00C3\u00AAches Maritimes et des Elevages Marins de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Le Port (France). 204 + annexes p.Guyomard D, Poisson F and Stretta J-M (2006) Synopsis de la p\u00C3\u00AAche palangri\u00C3\u00A8re r\u00C3\u00A9unionnaise. Pp. 79\u00E2\u0080\u009391 In Petit M and Huynh F (eds.), Halieutique et environnement oc\u00C3\u00A9anique : le cas de la p\u00C3\u00AAche palangri\u00C3\u00A8re \u00C3\u00A0 l'espadon depuis l'\u00C3\u00AEle de la R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut de Recherche pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, Paris (France).Harper S and Zeller D, editors (2012) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19 (4). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 143 p.Harper S, Zylich K, Boonzaier L, Le Manach F, Pauly D and Zeller D, editors (2012) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (5). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 134 p.INSEE (1988) La p\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 112\u00E2\u0080\u0093113 In L'\u00C3\u00A9conomie de La R\u00C3\u00A9union \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Panorama. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (1991) Agriculture \u00E2\u0080\u0094 P\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 134\u00E2\u0080\u0093135 In L'\u00C3\u00A9conomie de La R\u00C3\u00A9union \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Panorama. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (1993) Agriculture \u00E2\u0080\u0094 P\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 130\u00E2\u0080\u0093131 In Tableau \u00C3\u00A9conomique de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (1996) Agriculture \u00E2\u0080\u0094 P\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 136\u00E2\u0080\u0093137 In Tableau \u00C3\u00A9conomique de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (1997) Agriculture \u00E2\u0080\u0094 P\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 136\u00E2\u0080\u0093137 In Tableau \u00C3\u00A9conomique de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (1998) Agriculture \u00E2\u0080\u0094 P\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 178\u00E2\u0080\u0093179 In Tableau \u00C3\u00A9conomique de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (1999) Agriculture \u00E2\u0080\u0094 For\u00C3\u00AAt \u00E2\u0080\u0094 P\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 202\u00E2\u0080\u0093203 In Tableau \u00C3\u00A9conomique de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (2000) Agriculture \u00E2\u0080\u0094 P\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 172\u00E2\u0080\u0093173 In Tableau \u00C3\u00A9conomique de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (2002) Agriculture \u00E2\u0080\u0094 P\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 172\u00E2\u0080\u0093173 In Tableau \u00C3\u00A9conomique de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (2003) Agriculture \u00E2\u0080\u0094 P\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 172\u00E2\u0080\u0093173 In Tableau \u00C3\u00A9conomique de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (2005) P\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 178\u00E2\u0080\u0093179 In Tableau \u00C3\u00A9conomique de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (2006) La R\u00C3\u00A9union en 2005. Rapport Annuel, Institut d'Emission des D\u00C3\u00A9partements d'Outre-Mer, Paris (France). 262 p.INSEE (2008) P\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 184\u00E2\u0080\u0093185 In Tableau \u00C3\u00A9conomique de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Service R\u00C3\u00A9gional de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Sainte Clotilde (France).INSEE (2014) \u00C3\u0089volution de la population. In Tableau \u00C3\u00A9conomique de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE).IOTC (2012a) IOTC record of authorised vessels. Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Available at: www.iotc.org/English/record/search3.php [Accessed: April 25, 2012].Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world's marine fisheries: an update. Fisheries Technical Paper 470, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). 152 p.Le Manach F, Abunge CA, McClanahan TR and Pauly D (this volume) Tentative reconstruction of Kenya's marine fisheries catch, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Le Manach F, Chavance P, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Lindop A, Padilla A, Schiller L, Zeller D and Pauly D (in press) Global catches of large pelagic fishes, with emphasis on the high seas. In Pauly D and Zeller D (eds.), Global atlas of marine fisheries: ecosystem impacts and analysis. Island Press, Washington, DC (USA).Lebeau A and Cueff J-C (1975) Biologie et p\u00C3\u00AAche du capitaine Lethrinus enigmatus (Smith 1959) du banc de Saya de Malha (Ocean Indien). Revue des Travaux de l'Institut des P\u00C3\u00AAches Maritimes 39(4): 415\u00E2\u0080\u0093442.Leblond E, Demaneche S, Le Blond S, Merrien C, Berthou P, Daur\u00C3\u00A8s F, Le R\u00C3\u00BB L and Laurence A (2011) Activit\u00C3\u00A9 2009 des navires de p\u00C3\u00AAche du quartier maritime Saint-Denis de la R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Le Port (France). 10 p.Fisheries catch reconstruction for La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 95Leblond E, Demaneche S, Le Blond S, Merrien C, Berthou P, Daur\u00C3\u00A8s F, Pitel-Roudaut M, Le R\u00C3\u00BB L, Lajeunesse M, Laurence A and Evano H (2010) Activit\u00C3\u00A9 2008 des navires de p\u00C3\u00AAche du quartier maritime Saint-Denis de la R\u00C3\u00A9union. Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Le Port (France). 11 p.Leblond E, Merrien C, Berthou P, Demaneche S and Miossec D (2007) L'activit\u00C3\u00A9 des navires de p\u00C3\u00AAche du Quartier Maritime de La R\u00C3\u00A9union en 2006. Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Le Port (France). 9 p.Letourneur Y and Chabanet P (1994) Variations spatio-temporelles de l'ichtyofaune des platiers r\u00C3\u00A9cifaux \u00C3\u00A0 La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Cybium 18(1): 25\u00E2\u0080\u009338.Marsac F and Stequert B (1984) Bilan des prospections sur les ressources thoni\u00C3\u00A8res de surface effectu\u00C3\u00A9es depuis 1971 dans l'Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien Occidental. La P\u00C3\u00AAche Maritime 1271: 1\u00E2\u0080\u009312.M\u00C3\u00A9ralli-Ballou P (2008) Homme libre, toujours... \u00E2\u0080\u0094 La p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 l'\u00C3\u00AEle de La R\u00C3\u00A9union depuis le XVIIe si\u00C3\u00A8cle. Comit\u00C3\u00A9 R\u00C3\u00A9gional des P\u00C3\u00AAches Maritimes et des \u00C3\u0089levages Marins (CRPMEM) de La R\u00C3\u00A9union, Le Port (France). 111 p.Palomares MLD and Pauly D (2011) A brief history of fishing in the Kerguelen Islands, France. pp. 15\u00E2\u0080\u009320 In Harper S and Zeller D (eds.), Fisheries catch reconstructions: Islands, Part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19 (4). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 11(2): 4\u00E2\u0080\u009310.Pauly D (2010) Five easy pieces: how fishing impacts marine ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC. 193 p.Poisson F (2010) Catch, Bycatch of Sharks, and Incidental Catch of Sea Turtles in the Reunion-Based Longline Swordfish Fishery (Southwest Indian Ocean) Between 1997 and 2000. 163\u00E2\u0080\u0093165.Poisson F and Taquet M (2000) French swordfish longline fishery in the south west Indian Ocean: preliminary results from the PPR program. IOTC Proceedings, WPB00\u00E2\u0080\u009306 3, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Victoria (Seychelles). 169\u00E2\u0080\u0093201 p.Poisson F and Taquet M (2001) L'espadon : de la recherche \u00C3\u00A0 l'exploitation durable. Programme Palangre R\u00C3\u00A9unionnais \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Rapport final, Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Le Port (France). 247 p.Poisson F, Guyomard D and Ren\u00C3\u00A9 F (1999) Collection of statistical and biological information of the R\u00C3\u00A9union Islands swordfish fishery. Proceedings of the 7th Expert consultation on Indian Ocean Tunas, Victoria (Seychelles), November 9\u00E2\u0080\u009314, 1998, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, Victoria (Seychelles). 268\u00E2\u0080\u0093276 p.Poisson F, Tessier E, Roos D and Ren\u00C3\u00A9 F (1994) Recent development of swordfish, Xiphias gladius, longline fisheries near Reunion Island, southwestern Indian Ocean. Pp. 89\u00E2\u0080\u0093100 In Barrett I, Sosa-Nishizaki O and Bartoo N (eds.), Biology and fisheries of swordfish, Xiphias gladius \u00E2\u0080\u0094 International Symposium on Pacific swordfish, December 11\u00E2\u0080\u009314, 1994, Ensenada (Mexico). NOAA Technical Report NMFS 142 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce, Washington, DC (USA).Pruvost P, Duhamel G, Le Manach F and Palomares ML (2015) Reconstruction of the fisheries in Saint Paul and Amsterdam (France), 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. pp. 36- 44. In: MLD Palomares and D Pauly (eds.) Marine Fisheries Catches of Sub- Antarctic Islands, 1950 to 2010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(1). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).Ren\u00C3\u00A9 F, Poisson F and Tessier E (1998) Evolution de la p\u00C3\u00AAcherie palangri\u00C3\u00A8re ciblant l'espadon (Xiphias gladius) \u00C3\u00A0 partir de La R\u00C3\u00A9union. Pp. 287\u00E2\u0080\u0093312 In Cayr\u00C3\u00A9 P and Le Gall JY (eds.), Le thon : enjeux et strat\u00C3\u00A9gies pour l'oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien. Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer (ORSTOM), Paris (France).Rey H (1998) Dispositifs de concentration de poissons (DCP) dans les pays de la Commission de l'oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien (COI) : innovation ou r\u00C3\u00A9volution dans les pratiques de p\u00C3\u00AAche. Pp. 313\u00E2\u0080\u0093334 In Cayr\u00C3\u00A9 P and Le Gall J-Y (eds.), Le thon : enjeux et strat\u00C3\u00A9gies pour l'Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien, Proceedings of the lnternational Tuna Conference, Mauritius, November 27\u00E2\u0080\u009329, 1996. Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) and Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer (ORSTOM), Paris (France).Rey-Valette H, Cillaurren E and David G (2000) Evaluation pluridisciplinaire de la durabilit\u00C3\u00A9 des p\u00C3\u00AAcheries artisanales autour des DCP. Aquatic Living Resources 13: 241\u00E2\u0080\u0093252.Romanov EV, Sabarros PS, Le Foulgoc L, Richard E, Lamoureux J-P, Rabearisoa N and Bach P (2013) Assessment of depredation level in Reunion Island pelagic longline fishery based on information from self-reporting data collection programme. Presented at the 9th IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch (WPEB), La R\u00C3\u00A9union, September 12\u00E2\u0080\u009316, 2013. IOTC\u00E2\u0080\u00932013\u00E2\u0080\u0093WPEB09\u00E2\u0080\u009347. 20 p.Roos D, Tessier E and Guyomard D (1998) Evolution de l'activit\u00C3\u00A9 halieutique \u00C3\u00A0 La R\u00C3\u00A9union de 1990 \u00C3\u00A0 1996. DRV/RH/RST/98\u00E2\u0080\u009314, Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Le Port (France). 67 p.Sabarros PS, Romanov EV, Le Foulgoc L, Richard E, Lamoureux J-P and Bach P (2013) Commercial catch and discards of pelagic longline fishery of Reunion Island based on the self-reporting data collection program. Presented at the 9th IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch (WPEB), La R\u00C3\u00A9union, September 12\u00E2\u0080\u009316, 2013. IOTC\u00E2\u0080\u00932013\u00E2\u0080\u0093WPEB09\u00E2\u0080\u009337 Rev_1. 29 p.Sandron F (2007) Dynamique de la population r\u00C3\u00A9unionnaise (1663\u00E2\u0080\u00932030). pp. 27\u00E2\u0080\u009341 In Sandron F (ed.) La population r\u00C3\u00A9unionnaise \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Analyse d\u00C3\u00A9mographique. IRD Editions, Paris (France).Tessier E and Poisson F (1997) Bilan sur la mise en place d'un syst\u00C3\u00A8me de r\u00C3\u00A9colte de donn\u00C3\u00A9es sur la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale sur DCP. Document scientifique no. 34 du projet thonier r\u00C3\u00A9gional II. Action I : statistiques thoni\u00C3\u00A8res. Rapport final, Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Le Port (France). 48 p.Tessier E, Rey-Valette H, Ah-Ni\u00C3\u00A8me D, Bargain R-M, Venkatasamy A and Wendling B (2000) Syst\u00C3\u00A8mes halieutiques et DCP dans l'Oc\u00C3\u00A9an Indien : une revue de la diversit\u00C3\u00A9 des exp\u00C3\u00A9riences et des r\u00C3\u00A9sultats en termes d'int\u00C3\u00A9gration et de durabilit\u00C3\u00A9. Pp. 159\u00E2\u0080\u0093183 In Le Gall J-Y, Cayr\u00C3\u00A9 P and Taquet M (eds.), P\u00C3\u00AAche thoni\u00C3\u00A8re et dispositifs de 96concentration de poissons, Trois-\u00C3\u008Elets (Martinique), October 15\u00E2\u0080\u009319, 1999. Actes de Colloques 28). Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER), Plouzan\u00C3\u00A9 (France).von Baeyer HC (1993) The Fermi solution: essays on science. Random House, New York City, NY (USA). 176 p.Zeller D and Harper S, editors (2009) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 17 (5). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 108 p.Zeller D and Pauly D, editors (2007) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for key countries and regions (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15 (2). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 163 p.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis GE and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for US flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266\u00E2\u0080\u0093277.Fisheries catch reconstruction for La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France) \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 97Appendix Table A1. Reconstructed catch by sector compared to total catch reported to FAO, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Year Reconstructed catch Reported to FAOArtisanal Industrial Recreational Total1950 649 772 143 1,564 8001951 660 750 146 1,556 8001952 672 728 149 1,548 8001953 662 1,028 149 1,838 1,1001954 554 1,,284 135 1,973 1,4001955 548 1,052 137 1,737 1,2001956 704 1,426 162 2,292 1,6001957 821 1,320 183 2,324 1,5001958 685 600 163 1,448 9001959 650 1,224 161 2,035 1,4001960 602 1,254 155 2,011 1,4001961 585 1,266 155 2,005 1,4001962 550 1,290 152 1,992 1,4001963 688 1,436 174 2,298 1,6001964 884 1,068 207 2,159 1,3001965 633 592 171 1,396 7001966 912 840 216 1,968 1,1001967 810 1,170 203 2,183 1,3601968 988 1,344 233 2,564 1,5201969 1,093 1,218 249 2,560 1,3801970 1,166 1,584 264 3,014 1,3411971 1,378 2,095 298 3,771 2,1011972 1,553 2,355 325 4,233 2,1011973 1,446 1,939 309 3,693 2,0011974 1,461 2,559 314 4,334 2,5331975 1,308 1,352 291 2,951 1,9051976 1,220 1,501 280 3,001 1,9811977 1,178 1,354 274 2,806 6211978 1,335 1,207 300 2,842 1,8071979 1,245 896 286 2,427 1,5941980 1,044 788 257 2,090 1,3741981 1,091 763 265 2,118 1,3711982 802 976 223 2,001 1,4421983 756 836 218 1,811 1,2541984 770 1,003 222 1,995 1,4191985 578 738 196 1,512 1,0561986 568 1,528 197 2,293 1,7051987 633 788 208 1,629 1,0941988 743 851 227 1,821 1,2201989 713 561 225 1,499 9691990 704 548 226 1,478 9111991 733 511 233 1,477 8871992 870 705 258 1,832 1,1031993 1,375 1,236 336 2,947 1,6791994 1,525 2,170 363 4,058 2,5311995 1,430 2,245 350 4,026 2,5001996 1,840 3,563 415 5,818 3,6071997 1,723 5,072 399 7,194 4,2881998 1,367 6,169 347 7,883 4,5791999 1,331 5,095 345 6,771 4,0432000 1,455 4,964 366 6,784 4,0822001 1,553 4,587 383 6,523 3,8892002 1,415 3,250 363 5,029 2,8702003 1,246 3,367 340 4,953 2,9022004 1,429 3,847 371 5,646 3,3712005 1,376 5,417 364 7,157 4,2812006 1,276 4,374 349 5,999 3,5462007 1,359 5,237 472 7,069 3,9882008 1,064 3,718 408 5,189 2,9812009 983 3,707 389 5,079 3,0512010 803 3,684 351 4,838 3,051 98Appendix Table A2. Total reconstructed catch by taxon, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Year Yellowfin tuna Sky emperor Swordfish Blue shark Albacore Jacks and pompanos Threadfins Others1950 29 484 - - 2 71 - 977 1951 29 469 - - 2 89 - 967 1952 29 453 - - 2 107 - 957 1953 44 670 - - 3 107 - 1,014 1954 58 857 - - 4 125 - 929 1955 117 722 - - 9 53 - 835 1956 132 991 - - 10 53 - 1,106 1957 270 924 - - 21 36 - 1,073 1958 146 420 - - 11 53 - 818 1959 146 857 - - 11 107 - 914 1960 102 857 - - 8 89 - 955 1961 102 865 - - 8 107 - 923 1962 102 882 - - 8 53 - 946 1963 117 991 - - 9 71 - 1,110 1964 312 748 - - 24 160 - 916 1965 132 407 - - 10 53 - 794 1966 353 588 - - 27 178 - 822 1967 292 689 - - 22 125 - 1,056 1968 438 680 - - 33 160 - 1,252 1969 438 462 - - 33 231 - 1,395 1970 585 588 - - 44 239 - 1,558 1971 731 815 - - 57 257 - 1,911 1972 731 563 - - 57 330 - 2,552 1973 585 706 - - 46 367 - 1,990 1974 705 1,140 - - 56 257 - 2,177 1975 525 947 - - 41 312 - 1,127 1976 561 1,051 - - 44 257 - 1,089 1977 472 948 - - 37 234 - 1,116 1978 651 845 - - 52 220 - 1,073 1979 577 197 - - 44 257 615 737 1980 481 165 - - 37 160 552 695 1981 451 175 - - 35 239 513 706 1982 352 55 - - 28 138 898 532 1983 339 144 - - 26 145 630 527 1984 322 179 - - 26 191 747 530 1985 266 118 - - 20 83 569 455 1986 279 688 - - 22 68 545 690 1987 315 310 - - 24 127 345 509 1988 387 328 - - 30 149 382 546 1989 366 90 - - 28 130 433 452 1990 366 257 - - 28 218 181 428 1991 473 247 3 - 61 152 103 439 1992 670 323 87 - 82 142 - 529 1993 701 310 398 175 159 254 - 952 1994 848 541 999 146 235 222 - 1,068 1995 664 512 1,043 175 224 196 - 1,211 1996 1,019 412 1,804 350 444 338 - 1,450 1997 1,015 854 2,138 933 402 295 - 1,558 1998 884 648 2,791 1,298 406 229 - 1,628 1999 829 30 2,590 962 456 214 57 1,633 2000 1,003 80 2,345 846 733 260 6 1,511 2001 895 38 2,248 832 892 262 13 1,343 2002 826 65 1,092 775 473 308 8 1,481 2003 843 60 1,061 714 466 286 7 1,516 2004 1,090 61 1,311 744 556 286 7 1,593 2005 1,294 11 1,616 1,056 951 196 8 2,025 2006 1,130 13 1,219 846 633 168 14 1,976 2007 1,006 - 1,545 945 988 129 8 2,447 2008 754 - 1,316 515 685 19 3 1,897 2009 720 16 1,282 408 708 19 3 1,924 2010 683 52 1,285 309 723 19 2 1,764 Fisheries catch reconstruction for the Seychelles \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 99artisanal Fisheries in the World's seCond largest tuna Fishing ground \u00E2\u0080\u0094 reConstruCtion oF the seyChelles' marine Fisheries CatCh, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010*Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach,1,2\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Pascal Bach,2 L\u00C3\u00A9a Boistol,1 Jan Robinson3,4 and Daniel Pauly11 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada2 Institut de Recherche pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, UMR212 Ecosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes Marins Exploit\u00C3\u00A9s, Avenue Jean Monnet, CS 30171, 34203 S\u00C3\u00A8te cedex, France3 Seychelles Fishing Authority, Fishing Port, Victoria, Mah\u00C3\u00A9, the Seychelles4 ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Current address: BLOOM Association, 77 rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris, Francefredericlemanach@bloomassociation.org; pascal.bach@ird.fr; lea.boistol@laposte.net; jan.robinson@my.jcu.edu.au; d.pauly@fisheries.ubc.caabstraCtTotal marine fisheries catches were estimated for the Seychelles for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 time-period using the catch reconstruction approach developed by the Sea Around Us and applied to coastal countries worldwide. This included catches (including dead discards) of the industrial, artisanal, and recreational fishing sectors. The total reconstructed catch for domestic sectors (i.e., excluding the foreign-owned but Seychelles-flagged vessels) for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 time-period reached almost 290 000 t. This figure is 1.3 times the catch officially reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Major taxa in catches were jacks and pompanos (Carangidae; 26.5%), snappers (Lutjanidae; 18.7%), Indian mackerels (Rastrelliger kanagurta; 6.4%), emperors (Lethrinidae; 6.2%), kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis; 4.0%), and groupers (Serranidae; 3.5%). The artisanal sector accounted for the vast majority of the catch, with 95.2% overall. introduCtion The Republic of the Seychelles (referred throughout as 'the Seychelles') is the least populated country in Africa, with a population of around 90,000 inhabitants. It is an archipelago located north of Madagascar that is composed of 115 islands, 42 of which are granitic mountainous islands of continental origin, and the others which are flat and of coralline origin (Figure 1). Although discovered by the Arabs in the 9th century, it is only in 1756 that France set its flag in the Seychelles and inhabited it since 1770 (Filliot 1983; Doumenge 1987).1 Half a century later, the Seychelles were ruled by the United Kingdom, and this until their independence in 1976 (Doumenge 1987). Nowadays, most of its inhabitants live on the island of Mah\u00C3\u00A9, mainly in the capital city of Victoria.Victoria hosts the largest tuna hub in the Indian Ocean, with around 80% of the tuna caught in the region transiting every year through its infrastructures, which include the Indian Ocean Tuna (IOT) cannery (Mart\u00C3\u00ADn 2011).2 Canned tuna is the main good exported by the Seychelles (primarily for the European market), although there are also substantial exports of fish meal/oil, as well as dried holothurians and shark fins3 to Asia (Marshall 1997; Robinson et al. 2006; SFA 2014). With between 5,000\u00E2\u0080\u00936,000 direct and indirect jobs, i.e., 15% of the total of formal jobs in the Seychelles, the fisheries sector is the main pillar of the national economy, along with the tourism industry. Activities linked to the industrial tuna fisheries are the most important foreign exchange earners, with revenues generated by goods and expenditures (e.g., processing at the cannery, and goods and services procured by purse-seiners in Port Victoria; see Robinson et al. 2010), and * Cite as: Le Manach F, Bach P, Boistol, L, Robinson J and Pauly D (2015) Artisanal fisheries in the world's second largest tuna fishing ground \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Reconstruction of the Seychelles' marine fisheries catch, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Pp. 99\u00E2\u0080\u0093110 In Le Manach F and Pauly D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727].1 Several expeditions from Portugal, the United Kingdom, or France set foot on the various islands prior to 1756 (Filliot 1983; Doumenge 1987).2 This is one of the largest canneries in the world, with over 90,000 t of tuna processed for canning every year. It is known as a highly efficient one with regards to water use and production by employees (Michaud 2003; Mart\u00C3\u00ADn 2011).3 Sharks have been caught in the Seychelles waters for centuries to such an extent that populations were already considered as over-exploited by the end of the 1950s (Marshall 1997; Nevill et al. 2007).0 250 km\u00C2\u00B1Mah\u00C3\u00A9Figure 1. Extent of the Seychelles EEZ, as well as itsInshore Fishing Area (IFA; i.e., the 'shelf'). 100licensing fees playing the most prominent roles (Ghosh 1990; Parks 1991; Robinson et al. 2006). Around half of these 5,000\u00E2\u0080\u00936,000 jobs happen to be at the national cannery, while approximately 1,500 of them consist of active fishers (Robinson et al. 2006; SFA 2013, 2014).4 Historically, however, copra, cinnamon, and vanilla used to be the most important drivers of the economy, while the tourism industry took off only in 1971, after the inauguration of the international airport (Doumenge 1987; Kimani 1995; Ellis 1996). The industrial fisheries sector only started to develop in the mid-1980s with the arrival of European and Japanese funds linked to fishing access agreements. These funds were used to develop tuna-related infrastructures, such as the port and the cannery in Victoria, as well as infrastructure and fleets for semi-industrial5 and artisanal fisheries (Michaud 1991, 2003; Robinson and Shroff 2004; Alexis and Chang-Sam 2006; Mart\u00C3\u00ADn 2011).Thanks to these two recent, yet thriving industries, the Seychelles have become an exception in the region (notwithstanding Mauritius), with high social and economic indexes. However, its status of middle income country limits international aid, and that issue was reinforced during the global financial crisis of 2007\u00E2\u0080\u009308, due to a high external debt (Anon. 2004a). Also, the Seychelles are beset by strong socio-economic inequalities, with a substantial part of the population having very low incomes (Doumenge 1987; Khan 1994), although not as pronounced as comparable countries (Republic of the Seychelles 2013).The Seychelles' EEZ (declared in 1978; Republic of the Seychelles 1978) extends over almost 1.4 million km2, which is the largest in the Western Indian Ocean (www.seaaroundus.org). Coral reefs are well developed around the main group of granitic islands located on the Mah\u00C3\u00A9 plateau, as well as around the satellite coral islands, with a total cover of 1,700 km2 (Spalding et al. 2001).6 Due to the high population density and reliance on the coastal environment for development, tourism, transport and fisheries, coral reefs around the main granitic islands are under high pressure, whereas those farther from these heavily populated areas are relatively well preserved (Spalding et al. 2001). Consequently, remote stocks appear to be under-exploited (Anon. 2004a), while inshore fisheries around the main islands and some Mah\u00C3\u00A9 Plateau fisheries are fully exploited or over-exploited (Mees et al. 1998; Wakeford 2001; Grandcourt and Cesar 2003; Robinson and Shroff 2004). Historically, fisheries were mostly restricted to inshore areas around the main islands, but were expanded to the plateau and outer islands as motorized fleets developed in the 1960s (Wakeford 2001). Fisheries fleets in the Seychelles consist of three main types:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 A fleet of small and large (5\u00E2\u0080\u009313 m LOA) outboard- or inboard-powered boats targeting demersal and pelagic species on or near shallow waters (typically 0\u00E2\u0080\u009360 m) of the banks and reefs. Most catches of this artisanal fisheries sub-sector are consumed locally (Ghosh 1990; Alexis and Chang-Sam 2006);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 A semi-industrial fleet of small longliners targeting large pelagics (mostly swordfish and tuna) further offshore (Wendling et al. 2003; Kolody et al. 2011). This fleet started to develop in 1995 (Wendling et al. 2003);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 An industrial fleet of foreign-owned and foreign or Seychelles-flagged purse-seiners and longliners targeting large pelagics throughout the region. This fleet developed in the mid-1980s.In an effort to preserve marine habitats and resources from degradation and overexploitation, the Government of the Seychelles adopted a number of precautionary fisheries management measures in the early stages of fisheries development. Licenses are required for all vessels longer than seven meters and for smaller vessels with engines or those that target sensitive species such as holothurians (Michaud 1995; Mart\u00C3\u00ADn 2011).7 Also, demersal trawling and spearfishing are forbidden in the entire EEZ, and there are limits on the total number of licenses allocated every year for the holothurian and lobster fisheries (Michaud 1995). Also, Seychelles-flagged and foreign industrial fleets are excluded from the shallow banks and reefs, and exploitation of all species except large pelagics is reserved for nationals. Last but not least, there was a network of 17 marine protected areas as of 2008 (UNEP 2008), including the Natural World Heritage Site of Aldabra Atoll (enlisted in 1982; whc.unesco.org/en/list/185).Catch assessment surveys were first implemented in 1985 following the establishment of the Seychelles Fishing Authorities (SFA; Robinson and Shroff 2004). However, SFA noted in its 2012 report than lower catch data might result from a lack of coverage of landing sites (SFA 2014). Although there have been significant improvements in the last couple of decades (for example thanks to the implementation of logbooks on both purse-seiners and longliners), effective monitoring, control and surveillance of this large EEZ is still lacking (Michaud 1995; Wakeford 2001; Anon. 2004a; SFA 2014), with only two long-range patrol vessels (which spent between seven and 107 days at sea annually in recent years) and marginal aircraft surveillance (3.2\u00E2\u0080\u0093216 hours per year; Anon. 2004a; SFA 2014). However, the coverage by vessel monitoring system is high (SFA 2014).In this report, we apply to the Seychelles the reconstruction methods developed around principles in Pauly (1998), described in Zeller et al. (2007) and applied worldwide by the Sea Around Us (see, e.g., Harper and Zeller 2012; Harper et al. 2012; Zeller and Harper 2009; Zeller and Pauly 2007). We aim to improve the overall quality of fisheries statistics by thoroughly reviewing the available literature and re-estimating the total extraction of marine fish since 1950.4 Noteworthy, 30% of the artisanal fleet was damaged by the December 2004 tsunami, but the sector quickly recovered (SFA 2007).5 In the Sea Around Us database, this 'semi-industrial' sector is labeled as 'industrial', in order to allow the data to be spatially allocated to the entire EEZ, rather than solely to the inshore fishing area.6 These coral reefs, like all those of the region, were highly impacted by the 1997\u00E2\u0080\u009398 El Ni\u00C3\u00B1o event, with a 50\u00E2\u0080\u009390% mortality rate (Spalding et al. 2001; Spalding and Jarvis 2002). This El Ni\u00C3\u00B1o event also resulted in decreases in fish abundance, even in protected areas (Pistorius and Taylor 2009). The Seychelles also host a marginal mangrove forest, as well as small seagrass beds (Spalding et al. 2001).7 Interestingly, fishers must also apply for a special license to fish outside the EEZ (Mart\u00C3\u00ADn 2011).Fisheries catch reconstruction for the Seychelles \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 101material and methodsThe fisheries statistics software of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FishStat (FAO 2013), includes catch data for up to 35 taxa (in 2009) in five FAO Areas. Based on a preliminary review of the literature, it appeared that catch data reported by FAO on behalf of the Seychelles include catches by foreign-owned vessels that are Seychelles-flagged. The first step of the reconstruction was therefore to separate the truly domestically owned catch from the foreign owned catch.'Domestic' vs. 'Foreign' catchOf the 46 taxa reported by FAO, eight are exclusively caught in FAO Areas other than Area 51 (Western Indian Ocean), to which the Seychelles belong (i.e., Merluccius hubbsi [Argentine hake], Thunnus thynnus [Atlantic bluefin tuna], Macruronus magellanicus [Patagonian grenadier], Loligo gahi [Patagonian squid], Dissostichus eleginoides [Patagonian toothfish], Genypterus blacodes [pink cusk-eel], Rajiformes [rays, stingrays, mantas nei], and Salilota australis [tadpole codling]). Since there is no distant-water fishing by Seychellois vessels, the entire catch of these eight taxa were not treated here but rather considered as if the Seychelles was acting as a flag of convenience (unknown beneficiary).Of the remaining 38 taxa reported to be caught in the Western Indian Ocean, 19 were species of large pelagics. The catch for these 19 large pelagic taxa is virtually identical to the data published by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) for the Seychelles in the Western Indian Ocean, as part of its nominal database (which contains information regarding gears; IOTC 2014). Therefore, it was possible to re-allocate the FAO catch of these taxa to various gears. To do this, we applied the gear breakdown published by IOTC to the FAO data. Once this step was performed, it was possible to determine whether a gear was used by the artisanal or semi-industrial domestic fleets, or the large-scale industrial foreign fleet. For this, we deemed both 'purse seine' and industrial 'longline' gears to belong to foreign fleets, whereas the other gears were automatically considered to be part of the domestic fleets (the rest of the FAO data \u00E2\u0080\u0094 consisting of taxa not accounted for by IOTC \u00E2\u0080\u0094 was automatically allocated to the domestic fleet). This re-allocation was motivated by the fact that both industrial purse-seiners and longliners, although flagged in the Seychelles, are owned by foreign interests. In 2012, there were six Spanish-owned purse-seiners and 23 Japanese- and Taiwanese-owned longliners (SFA 2012a).This re-allocation allowed us to distinguish the different components of the reported data based on the ownership of the catch and vessel: only the catch whose ownership was from the Seychelles was treated here. The catch whose ownership was foreign (industrial purse-seine and longline fleets owned by European and Asian firms, but flagged in the Seychelles) represented 79.1% of the total FAO catch and was dealt with as part of the global tuna atlas produced by the Sea Around Us (Le Manach et al. in press).This methodology produced data that formed the basis for the reconstruction presented in this report. This baseline is compatible with first-hand data published by the Seychelles Fishing Authority from 1985 to 2005 (r2 = 0.89; de Moussac 1987a,b, 1988; SFA 1989, 1990a, 1991\u00E2\u0080\u00932003, 2005\u00E2\u0080\u00932008, 2012b), and 50% higher but with a similar trend from 2005 onward.Artisanal fisheriesComposition and evolution of the fleetThe artisanal fleet is the only historical fishing sector in the Seychelles, and is of paramount importance to the population of the Seychelles, notably with regards to its daily animal protein needs.Historically, this fleet essentially consisted of pirogues, which were increasingly replaced by other types of boats called whalers and schooners (the latter being introduced in 1974; Payet 1996), which are usually equipped with freezers and inboard motors. Furthermore, plastic and fiber-glass hull outboards equipped with motors were introduced in the early 1970s, and considerably changed the structure of the fleet (Bach 1992; Payet 1996). This shift in the fleet composition allowed local fishers to expand their fishing grounds by going farther offshore (Bach 1988; de Moussac and Bach 1988).Despite precise number regarding the composition of the fleet since the mid-1980s, there is no time-series covering the entire 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. As a first step in the reconstruction process, we re-estimated the number of boats by type since 1950 (Figure 2), following a series of simple assumptions:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Based on Bach (1992) and Payet (1996), we set the number of schooners at zero in 1973. To reflect an important increase in the number of boats during the first few years of a fishery, we then assumed that their number reached half of the first anchor point found in the literature (26 in 1985, but assumed similar in 1983\u00E2\u0080\u009384; de Moussac 1987a; Payet 1996) five years later (i.e., 13 schooners in 1978). The rest of the time-series was provided in other reports (Payet 1996; SFA 1999, 2002, 2005\u00E2\u0080\u00932008, 2012b);88 SFA (1990a) reported somewhat different numbers for 1989, but we chose to use the updated numbers reported by SFA (2002), as they may have included corrections. 102\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 For whalers, we set their number at zero in 1957 based on Wakeford (2001). Similarly to schooners, we then assumed that their number reached half of the first anchor point found in the literature (37 in 1985 and 53 in 1986; de Moussac 1987a; SFA 2002), i.e., 18.5 whalers in 1962. The rest of the time-series was provided in other reports (Payet 1996; SFA 1999, 2002, 2005\u00E2\u0080\u00932008, 2012b);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Based on Wakeford (2001), we set the number of outboards at zero in 1980. Given that the first anchor point found in the literature (222 in 1985, but assumed similar in 1983\u00E2\u0080\u009384; Payet 1996; 171 in 1989; SFA 2002) was only 3 years later, we simply interpolated their number between 1980 and 1983. The rest of the time-series was provided in other reports (Payet 1996; SFA 1999, 2002, 2005\u00E2\u0080\u00932008, 2012b);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Finally, going backward from the first anchor point found in the literature (125 in 1985; de Moussac 1987a; Payet 1996), we assumed that the number of pirogues declined by 12.5% since the introduction of whalers (in 1983), another 12.5% between the introduction of schooners (in 1974) and whalers, and another 12.5% between the introduction of outboards (in 1971) and schooners. Between 1950 and 1970, the ratio of the number of pirogues to the total population in 1971 was applied throughout (i.e., one pirogue for 307 inhabitants).9 The rest of the time-series was provided in other reports (Payet 1996; SFA 1999, 2002, 2005\u00E2\u0080\u00932008, 2012b).The resulting time-series (Figure 2) was used in the next section to re-estimate the catch of the Seychelles artisanal fleet prior to the establishment of SFA in 1984 and the implementation of a proper catch survey.Catches and reconstructionThe artisanal fleet mostly uses handlines and traps (traps are essentially used by small boats, whereas whalers and schooners virtually use only handlines; Alexis and Chang-Sam 2006; Bach 1988, 1992; Bach and Lablache-Carrara 1991; de Moussac and Bach 1988; Mart\u00C3\u00ADn 2011; SFA 2002; SFA 2003). The target species are snappers, jobfishes, groupers, threadfins, emperors (mainly Lethrinus variegatus), rabbitfishes, various species of crustaceans (such as Ranina ranina [Kona crab]),10 and medium pelagics such as jacks and small tunas. Except Carangidae, which are actively targeted at times, large pelagics are mostly caught by troll when moving between fishing areas (Bach 1992). A commercial fishery for deep-water snappers started in the late 1980s (Intes and Bach 1989), with electronic reels, drop lines, sonars and GPS (dropline boats are included in the 'schooners and other types of boats' category in Figure 2; Mees and Rousseau 1997). A fishery for live reef food fish trialed in 1998 and 1999, after which it was closed and later prohibited by law (in 2005) due to concerns of over-exploitation and lack of technical means to carry out this fishery properly (Aumeeruddy and Robinson 2006).In addition to these 'regular' reef and medium pelagics components of the artisanal fleet, there are two distinct sub-fisheries:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 A spiny lobster fishery, which is active 3\u00E2\u0080\u00934 months per year around the months of December and January. The main targeted species are Panulirus penicillatus, P. longipes, P. versicolor, and P. ornatus, which are mostly caught at night by snorkelers and divers (Mart\u00C3\u00ADn 2011).This fishery is very lucrative despite low catches and overfishing has probably occurred recently (SFA 2012b, 2014). For this reason, the number of licenses is controlled, sizes are regulated, and the fishery is closed most of the year (and sometimes the full year; Michaud 1995; SFA 2012b, 2014);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 A small holothurian (b\u00C3\u00AAche-de-mer) fishery has been present since colonization, but catches increased rapidly in the 1990s due to rising demand by Asia and subsequent high prices (Aumeeruddy and Conand 2007, 2008; Pinault and Conand 2007; SFA 2013). There has been signs of over-exploitation (typical for these 'boom and bust' fisheries; Anderson et al. 2010), as divers now fish in deeper waters, similar to Madagascar (Le Manach et al. 2011, 2012). This fishery has been regulated since 1999 (i.e., poorly reported before; Pinault and Conand 2007; Aumeeruddy and Conand 2008), and there are currently around 25 licenses distributed annually (SFA 2014).Given that the catch assessment surveys implemented in 1985 are considered to be accurate, the reconstruction of the artisanal sector only focused on the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931984 period. For each type of vessels, we extracted from these surveys the information on the contribution of each gear towards the total catch (three anchor points in 1985\u00E2\u0080\u009387 and one anchor point in 2002 for each series; de Moussac 1987a,b, 1988; SFA 2002, 2003). We then calculated an average 9 The population time-series was extracted from the UN's demographic yearbook series from 1950 to 1959 (United Nations 1953\u00E2\u0080\u00931959), and from the Seychelles' National Bureau of Statistics (www.nsb.gov.sc/statistics/demography) from 1960 onward.10 The Kona crab fishery only started in the mid-1980s, thanks to European funds (de Moussac and de San 1987). - 200 400 600 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Number of boats Year OutboardsWhalersPiroguesSchooners and other types of gearsTime-period used for the reconstructionof the artisanal sector:a prioria posterioriFigure 2. Reconstructed time-series of the number of artisanal boats by type, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. This time-series was only used from 1950 to 1975 to reconstruct artisanal catches.Fisheries catch reconstruction for the Seychelles \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 103contribution for each series and applied it back to the first year each type of vessel existed (see Figure 2). We also extracted CPUEs for each of these series from the catch assessment surveys,11 and estimated them for missing years using different methods depending on the available data:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 For outboards, we used the 1986\u00E2\u0080\u009387 average throughout back to 1981;\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 For handlines used on whalers (traps were disregarded due to lack of data), we used the 2001\u00E2\u0080\u009302 average CPUE throughout since their introduction in 1958. We also considered that there was an average of 6.5 crew members per boat (Bach 1988);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 For schooners, we used the 2001 CPUE throughout since their introduction in 1974. The average crew was assumed to be consisting of 6 members per boat (Bach 1988; Payet 1996).\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 For pirogues, we considered that the CPUE of handlines in 1950 was 25% lower than in 1985. For traps and nets, we used the 1986\u00E2\u0080\u009387 average throughout.Finally, we assumed that all gears were active on average five days a week throughout the year, as fishers usually go out most days, except during the monsoon season. By multiplying the contribution of each gear by its CPUE, as well as the corresponding number of boats (and seamen if needed) and days at sea, the total catch of the artisanal fleet was reconstructed. This reconstructed time-series happen to almost match the FAO time-series in 1975, i.e., just a few years before the implementation of catch surveys by SFA. Therefore, we only replaced the FAO time-series by our reconstructed series from 1950 to 1974 (not 1984, as originally planned), and then used the data as provided by FAO.However, it is fairly well accepted that poaching still occurs in most MPAs (Jennings et al. 1996; Wood 2004), but also that some components have been historically under-estimated (e.g., schooners and whalers until 1990; SFA 1991). Furthermore, although fisheries based on other islands are thought to be rather small (Bach 1988; de Moussac and Bach 1988), the catch survey implemented by SFA in the mid-1980s only accounts for the main three islands (SFA 1990b). Consequently, due to improving yet lacking monitoring capacities (Michaud 1995; Wakeford 2001; Anon. 2004a; SFA 2014), SFA still recently noted that a lack of coverage of landing sites and landing times likely resulted in under-estimated catches (SFA 2014). Therefore, we assumed that unreported catches decreased from 30% in 1978 (which is in line with the proportion of unreported catches in 1975\u00E2\u0080\u009377 estimated above) to 15% in 1995 and then stabilized at that level.With regards to the taxonomic breakdown, we applied the 1978\u00E2\u0080\u00931982 proportions to both the unreported and reported components prior to 1978, and for 1978\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, the annual FAO breakdown was applied to the unreported component.Semi-industrial fleetA fleet of semi-industrial longliners was created in 1995, with the aim to target large pelagics.12 It is the only industrial sector in the Seychelles that is truly domestic.13 The number of active vessels increased from two in 1995 to 10 in 2001 (Wendling et al. 2003; Anon. 2004b). The number of vessels then dropped to four in 2004, increased again to reach ten by 2009\u00E2\u0080\u009310, and decreased to four in 2011 and seven in 2012 (SFA 2014). These longliners target tuna and swordfish around the Mah\u00C3\u00A9 plateau and in the northeastern part of the EEZ (Kolody et al. 2011), and usually catch between 200 and 300 tonnes annually (SFA 2014). Noteworthy, it is reported that there is a high depredation by false killer whales and sharks (Alexis and Chang-Sam 2006), similarly to La R\u00C3\u00A9union (Le Manach et al. this volume).In the early 2000s, this fleet of longliners shifted to target sharks rather than tuna and swordfish, due to a European ban caused by high levels of cadmium (SFA 2005).14 Sharks were finned for the Asian market, and carcasses were mostly discarded at sea due to the low value of the meat at local markets (SFA 2007). The EU removed the ban on tuna and swordfish imports in 2005, but longliners continued to target shark fins up until circa 2009. Blue sharks, oceanic whitetip sharks, silky sharks, mako sharks, and tiger sharks were the main target species (SFA 2012b).For this sector, we assumed that the landings were correctly reported. However, based on information reported on depredation by cetaceans, we considered that discards were making 26%, 19%, 30%, 22%, 15%, and 11% of the total catch from 1995 to 2000, respectively (SFA 1996\u00E2\u0080\u00931998, 2000, 2001). From 2001 to 2010, we used the average discard rate from 1999\u00E2\u0080\u00932000 as real estimates are not available due to piracy in the area (SFA 2012b). We also assumed that half of the discarded sharks were unreported from 1995\u00E2\u0080\u00932000. From 2001 to 2005 (i.e., during the EU ban of tuna and swordfish) we estimated shark discards using a linear regression of the decreasing discard rates between 1995 and 2000. As no longliners were engaged in shark finning in 2010 we estimated these discards as the average from the 1995\u00E2\u0080\u00932000 period. Discards from 2006 to 2009 were linearly interpolated. 11 Some of the CPUEs provided in de Moussac (1987a,b, 1988) and SFA (2002, 2003) seemed very different than other values in the time-series, so we did not use them. This was the case for the CPUEs of handlines and traps used on pirogues, in 2001 and 2002, respectively. 12 Catches by longliners targeting swordfish were reported prior to 1994. Given the lack of information regarding this catch, we accepted as is.13 A bait fishery for Decapterus spp. was tested in the early 1980s to develop a pole-and-line fishery (Hallier 1989), but has not continued..14 This ban was criticized for its lack of coherence, as European vessels were still allowed to catch and land the same fish (Lahnalampi 2009). 104Recreational fisheryUntil 2002, annual SFA reports included estimates of catch by recreational fishers. The number of boats was low in the 1980s, ranging from 4\u00E2\u0080\u00937 (Payet 1996).15 During the 1990s, their number steeply increased, to reach 40 by 2000 (SFA 2005). Since 2003, logbooks are poorly transmitted, precluding catch data from being estimated and included in national data (SFA 2006\u00E2\u0080\u00932008, 2012b). To date, there are no real estimates with regards to the number of vessels participating in this activity (SFA 2013, 2014).For the purpose of this reconstruction, and in order to produce a time-series reflecting the aforementioned trends in this sector, we assumed that recreational fisheries started in 1971 (opening of the airport; i.e., no catch in 1970), reached 10% of the unreported artisanal fleet catches by 1990, and 25% by 2010 (proportion held constant afterward). We reallocated part of the unreported artisanal fleet catches rather than adding a whole new sector in order to avoid double-counting, as a portion of the recreational fishery's catch might have been included in official statistics, at least prior to 2003.results and disCussionOverall,16 the reconstructed domestic catch totalled nearly 320,000 t from 1950 to 2010 (of which 30% were unreported), and averaged 4,000 t annually until 1970 and then steeply increased with the introduction of outboards and schooners to reach almost 8,000 tonnes by the early 1980s. Since then, catches have been fluctuating, mostly between 4,500 and 8,000 t per year (Figure 3). The proportion of unreported catch decreased from slightly less than 80% of the total catch in 1950 to 15% by 2010. Discards have only existed since the mid-1990s and the inception of the domestic longline fleet, but they are marginal.The artisanal has dominated the total catch, with an overwhelming 95.6% since 1950. The recreational sector, however, has increased its share (around 3.5% in 2010), similarly to the semi-industrial longline fleet, which made up on average 8.5% of the annual catch (Figure 3).Jacks and pompanos (Carangidae) are the most widespread species, with 26.5% of the catch since 1950, followed by snappers (Lutjanidae), Indian mackerel (Rastrelliger kanagurta), emperors (Lethrinidae), kawakawa (Euthynnus affinis), and groupers (Serranidae), with 18.7%, 6.4%, 6.2%, 4.0%, and 3.5%, respectively (Figure 4).The reconstructed time-series discussed here provides a more credible estimate of early catches, in contrast with the step-like increases in FAO data. However, the situation steeply increased in the early 1980s with the implementation of catch surveys, but also with the increasing enforcement and monitoring of 15 This figure may, however, be an under-estimate, as the original catch assessment survey reported 17 sport fishing boats (SFA 1990b). This report also notes that the survey does not include catches on Sundays and public holidays (SFA 1990b), nor catches made by pleasure boats (which were estimated to be 50 in 1989; SFA 1990a).16 Only including the truly domestic catches, i.e., not including catches of the Seychelles-flagged vessels targeting tuna in the region, or other species in other oceans. 2 4 6 8 - 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total reconstructed catch (thousand t)Year ArtisanalReported to FAODiscardsIndustrialRecreational 2 4 6 8 - 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total reconstructed catch (thousand t)Year SnappersJacks and pompanosIndian mackerelOthersEmperorsKawakawaGroupersFigure 3. Total reconstructed catch by sector, compared to the data reported to FAO from 1950 to 2010 (dashed line). See Appendix Table A1 for details.Figure 4. Total reconstructed catch by taxon, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. See Appendix Table A2 for details.Fisheries catch reconstruction for the Seychelles \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 105fishing activities. After the early 1980s, the increased reconstructed catches mostly account for poaching and under-reporting by artisanal and recreational sectors, but the situation is improving due to stricter enforcement.We hope this improved time-series highlights some fundamental biases in official catch statistics, and will encourage improved data collection for fisheries operating in Seychelles' waters. For example, we believe that our recreational catch estimates are conservative, given the number of boats and economic opportunities associated with this sector. Therefore, real catches are probably higher, but difficult to record as they are likely landed outside official landing sites, or consumed by tourists without being declared. Further research would provide a better assessment of the recreational fishery, including its contribution to the national economy and implications for target species' stocks (see, e.g., reconstruction for La R\u00C3\u00A9union Island; Le Manach et al. this volume). Another important issue in the official statistics is the lack of accounting of shark catches by the semi-industrial fleet of longliners. Whereas official reports state that sharks have been increasingly targeted for their fins after the 2003 European ban on exports, official statistics show almost no shark catches at all. Our reconstructed time-series proposes an alternative catch for this group of vulnerable species, but better accounting would be needed.aCknoWledgementsThis report is a contribution of the Sea Around Us, a collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. FLM and DP would also like to thank The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation for their support.reFerenCesAlexis M and Chang-Sam A (2006) Fisheries industry of the Seychelles: at a crossroad. First Quarterly Review XXIV, Central Bank of Seychelles, Victoria (Seychelles). 29 p.Anderson SC, Flemming JM, Watson RA and Lotze HK (2010) Serial exploitation of global sea cucumber fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 12(4): 317\u00E2\u0080\u0093339.Anon. (2004a) Convention Sp\u00C3\u00A9cifique n\u00C2\u00B08 : Seychelles. Evaluation ex-post du protocole d'accord de p\u00C3\u00AAche entre les Seychelles et la Communaut\u00C3\u00A9 europ\u00C3\u00A9enne, et analyse de l'impact du futur protocole sur la durabilit\u00C3\u00A9, incluant une \u00C3\u00A9valuation ex-ante \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Rapport final. Contrat-cadre pour la r\u00C3\u00A9alisation d'\u00C3\u00A9valuations, d'\u00C3\u00A9tudes d'impact et de suivi concernant les Accords de Partenariat dans le domaine de la p\u00C3\u00AAche conclus entre la Communaut\u00C3\u00A9 et les Pays Tiers \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Projet Fish/2003/02, Oceanic Developpement and Megapesca, Concarneau (France). ix + 147 p.Anon. (2004b) Convention Sp\u00C3\u00A9cifique n\u00C2\u00B08 : Seychelles. Evaluation ex-post du protocole d'accord de p\u00C3\u00AAche entre les Seychelles et la Communaut\u00C3\u00A9 europ\u00C3\u00A9enne, et analyse de l'impact du futur protocole sur la durabilit\u00C3\u00A9, incluant une \u00C3\u00A9valuation ex-ante. Contrat-cadre pour la r\u00C3\u00A9alisation d'\u00C3\u00A9valuations, d'\u00C3\u00A9tudes d'impact et de suivi concernant les Accords de Partenariat dans le domaine de la P\u00C3\u00AAche conclus entre la Communaut\u00C3\u00A9 et les Pays Tiers \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Projet FISH/2003/02, Oceanic D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement and MegaPesca Lda, Brussels (Belgium). ix + 147 p.Aumeeruddy R and Conand C (2007) Seychelles' sea cucumber fishery: data on processed products and other parameters. SPC Beche de Mer Information Bulletin 26: 19\u00E2\u0080\u009325.Aumeeruddy R and Conand C (2008) Seychelles: a hotspot of sea cucumber fisheries in Africa and the Indian Ocean region. pp. 195\u00E2\u0080\u0093209 In Toral-Granda V, Lovatelli A and Vasconcellos M (eds.), Sea cucumbers. A global review of fisheries and trade. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Aumeeruddy R and Robinson J (2006) Closure of the live reef food fish fishery in Seychelles. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin 16: 3\u00E2\u0080\u00939.Bach P (1988) La p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale aux Seychelles. Rapport Scientifique 7, Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer (ORSTOM), Victoria (Seychelles). 44 p.Bach P (1992) Production et niveau d'exploitation des ressources d\u00C3\u00A9mersales et semi-pelagiques exploit\u00C3\u00A9es par la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale seychelloise sur le plateau de Mah\u00C3\u00A9. Cybium 16(4): 345\u00E2\u0080\u0093360.Bach P and Lablache-Carrara G (1991) La p\u00C3\u00AAche \u00C3\u00A0 la ligne \u00C3\u00A0 main aux Seychelles. pp. 295\u00E2\u0080\u0093307 In Durand J-R, Lemoalle J and Weber J (eds.), La recherche scientifique face \u00C3\u00A0 la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale. Symposium International ORSTOM-IFREMER, July 3\u00E2\u0080\u00937, 1989, Montpellier (France). Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer (ORSTOM), Paris (France).de Moussac G (1987a) Seychelles artisanal fisheries statistics for 1985. Technical Report SFA/R&D/004, Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 86 p.de Moussac G (1987b) Seychelles artisanal fisheries statistics for 1986. Technical Report SFA/R&D/003, Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 84 p.de Moussac G (1988) Seychelles artisanal fisheries statistics for 1987. Technical Report SFA/R&D/005, Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 87 p.de Moussac G and Bach P (1988) Coup d'oeil sur la p\u00C3\u00AAche artisanale aux Seychelles. La P\u00C3\u00AAche Maritime 1317: 101\u00E2\u0080\u0093110.de Moussac G and de San M (1987) The Kona crab fishery \u00E2\u0080\u0094 The Seychelles experience. SWIO Fisheries Bulletin, RAF/79/065. 5 p. Doumenge J-P (1987) Les \u00C3\u00AEles Seychelles. Annales de G\u00C3\u00A9ographie 96(533): 78\u00E2\u0080\u0093102.Ellis S (1996) Africa and international corruption: the strange case of South Africa and Seychelles. African Affairs 95: 165\u00E2\u0080\u0093196. 106FAO (2013) FishStatJ\u00E2\u0080\u0094Software for fishery statistical time series. V2.1.1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Filliot J-M (1983) D\u00C3\u00A9couvreurs des Seychelles. La Nouvelle Revue Maritime: 46\u00E2\u0080\u009360.Ghosh R (1990) The fisheries sector in the economy of the Seychelles. Pp. 111\u00E2\u0080\u0093120 In Appleyard R and Ghosh R (eds.), Economic planning and performance in Indian Ocean Island States. National Centre for Development Studies, Australian National University, and Centre for Migration and Development Studies, University of Western Australia, Canberra (Australia).Grandcourt HSJ and Cesar HSJ (2003) The bio-economic impact of mass coral mortality on the coastal reef fisheries of the Seychelles. Fisheries Research 60(2\u00E2\u0080\u00933): 539\u00E2\u0080\u0093550.Hallier J-P (1989) Aspects of the biology of the major tuna baitfishes from the Seychelles. ACIAR Proceedings 30, Seychelles Fishing Authority, Victoria (Seychelles). 60\u00E2\u0080\u009369 p.Harper S and Zeller D, editors (2012) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19 (4). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 143 p.Harper S, Zylich K, Boonzaier L, Le Manach F, Pauly D and Zeller D, editors (2012) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part III. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 20 (5). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 134 p.Intes A and Bach P (1989) La campagne \"CEPROS\" du N.O. ALIS sur les accores du plateau Seychellois. Convention France/Seychelles No 87/206/01, Institut Fran\u00C3\u00A7ais de Recherche Scientifique pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement en Coop\u00C3\u00A9ration (ORSTOM), and Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 119 p. IOTC (2014) Nominal catch database (updated: May 20, 2014).Jennings S, Marshall SS and Polunin NVC (1996) Seychelles' marine protected areas: comparative structure and status of reef fish communities. Biological Conservation 75(3): 201\u00E2\u0080\u0093209.Khan Q (1994) Republic of Seychelles \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Poverty in paradise. The World Bank, Population and Human Resources Division, Washington, DC (USA). iv + 20 p.Kimani EN (1995) Coral reef resources of East Africa: Kenya, Tanzania and the Seychelles. Naga, the ICLARM Quarterly 18(4): 4\u00E2\u0080\u00937.Kolody D, Robinson J and Lucas V (2011) Swordfish catch rate standardization for the Seychelles semi-industrial and industrial longline fleets. IOTC-2010-WPB-04, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC), Victoria (Seychelles).Lahnalampi R (2009) Why coherence counts for development. OECD Observer 270/271.Le Manach F, Bach P, Barret L, Guyomard D, Fleury P-G, Sabarros PS and Pauly D (this volume) Reconstruction of the domestic and distant-water fisheries catch of La R\u00C3\u00A9union (France), 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Le Manach F, Chavance P, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Lindop A, Padilla A, Schiller L, Zeller D and Pauly D (in press) Global catches of large pelagic fishes, with emphasis on the high seas. In Pauly D and Zeller D (eds.), Global atlas of marine fisheries: ecosystem impacts and analysis. Island Press, Washington, DC (USA).Le Manach F, Gough C, Harris A, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2012) Unreported fishing, hungry people and political turmoil: the recipe for a food security crisis in Madagascar? Marine Policy 36: 218\u00E2\u0080\u0093225.Le Manach F, Gough C, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2011) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Madagascar (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932008). Pp. 21\u00E2\u0080\u009337 In Harper S and Zeller D (eds.), Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19(4). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).Marshall NT (1997) The Seychelles shark fishery. Pp. 13\u00E2\u0080\u009318 In Marshall NT and Barnett R (eds.), The trade in sharks and shark products in the western Indian and southern Indian and south east Atlantic Oceans. TRAFFIC International, Nairobi (Kenya).Mart\u00C3\u00ADn JI (2011) Fisheries in the Seychelles and fisheries agreements with the EU. Note IP/B/PECH/NT/2011_04, European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies\u00E2\u0080\u0094Fisheries, Brussels (Belgium). 58 p.Mees CC and Rousseau J (1997) The potential yield of the lutjanid fish Pristipomoides filamentosus from the Mah\u00C3\u00A9 Plateau, Seychelles: managing with uncertainty. Fisheries Research 33: 73\u00E2\u0080\u009387.Mees CC, Shotton R and Margueritte M (1998) An inshore fisheries management strategy for Seychelles. FAO/TCP/SEY/6713(A), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). 117 p.Michaud P (1991) Impact d'un d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement thonier sur une \u00C3\u00A9conomie insulaire : l'exemple des Seychelles. Pp. 33\u00E2\u0080\u009338 In Le Gall J-Y, Reviers X and Roger C (eds.), Actes de la Conf\u00C3\u00A9rence Thoni\u00C3\u00A8re R\u00C3\u00A9gionale, May 9\u00E2\u0080\u009312, 1990, Antananarivo (Madagascar). Office de la Recherche Scientifique et Technique Outre-Mer (ORSTOM), Paris (France).Michaud P (1995) Coastal legislation for the sustainable development of marine resources. Seminar on coastal zone protection, January 23\u00E2\u0080\u009327, 1995. 17 p.Michaud P (2003) Experience from the bilateral fisheries access agreement, impact on the economy and implications for Seychelles of the outcome of the WTO mediation on the case of tuna between the EU and Thailand and the Philippines. Seminar on ACP-EU fisheries relations: towards a greater sustainability, ACP Secretariat, April, 7\u00E2\u0080\u00939 2003 Brussels (Belgium). 12.Nevill J, Robinson J, Giroux F and Isidore M (2007) Seychelles national plan of action for the conservation and management of sharks. Seychelles Fishing Authority, Victoria (Seychelles). 59 p.Parks WW (1991) A Review of Indian Ocean Fisheries for Skipjack Tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, and Yellowfin Tuna, Thunnus albacares. Marine Fisheries Review 53(1): 1\u00E2\u0080\u00939.Pauly D (1998) Rationale for reconstructing catch time series. EC Fisheries Cooperation Bulletin 11(2): 4\u00E2\u0080\u009310.Fisheries catch reconstruction for the Seychelles \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 107Payet RJ (1996) Artisanal fishing boats in Seychelles. Technical Report SFA/R&D/041 Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). v + 25 p.Pinault M and Conand C (2007) Sea cucumber fisheries in WIO: Masma project Seychelles \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Field survey 20\u00E2\u0080\u009326 May 2007. Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association.Pistorius PA and Taylor FE (2009) Declining catch rates of reef fish in Aldabra's marine protected area. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19(S1): S2-S9.Republic of the Seychelles (1978) Exclusive economic zone (No.2) Order, 1978.Republic of the Seychelles (2013) Millennium Development Goals\u00E2\u0080\u0094Status report 2013. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Victoria (Seychelles). v + 126 p.Robinson J and Shroff J (2004) The fishing sector in Seychelles: an overview, with an emphasis on artisanal fisheries. Seychelles Medical and Dental Journal 7(1): 52\u00E2\u0080\u009356.Robinson J, Aumeeruddy R, Isidore M, Payet RJ, Marguerite MA, Laval M, Domingue G and Lucas V (2006) Southwest Indian Ocean \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Seychelles. Pp. 425\u00E2\u0080\u0093435 In De Young C (ed.) Review of the state of world marine capture fisheries management: Indian Ocean. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 488 (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Robinson J, Guillotreau P, Jim\u00C3\u00A9nez-Toribio R, Lantz F, Nadzon L, Dorizo J, Gerry C and Marsac F (2010) Impacts of climate variability on the tuna economy of Seychelles. Climate Research 43(3): 149\u00E2\u0080\u0093162.SFA (1989) Annual report 1988. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 17 p.SFA (1990a) Annual report 1989. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 21 p.SFA (1990b) Artisanal catch assessment survey \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Notes for implementation \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Updated August 1990. Research section, Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 36 p.SFA (1991) Annual report 1990. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 19 p.SFA (1992) Annual report 1991. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 18 p.SFA (1993) Annual report 1992. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 17 p.SFA (1994) Annual report 1993. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 21 p.SFA (1995) Annual report 1994. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 34 p.SFA (1996) Annual report 1995. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 33 p.SFA (1997) Annual report 1996. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 40 p.SFA (1998) Annual report 1997. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 46 p.SFA (1999) Annual report 1998. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 54 p.SFA (2000) Annual report 1999. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). v + 52 p.SFA (2001) Annual report 2000. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). 72 p.SFA (2002) Seychelles artisanal fisheries statistics for 2001. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). xi + 85 p.SFA (2003) Seychelles artisanal fisheries statistics for 2002. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). x + 85 p.SFA (2005) Annual report 2003. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). iv + 64 p.SFA (2006) Annual report 2004. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). v + 75 p.SFA (2007) Annual report 2005. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). vi + 74 p.SFA (2008) Annual report 2006. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). vi + 65 p.SFA (2012a) Information on Seychelles Flag vessel for 2012. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles).SFA (2012b) Annual report 2007\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). ix + 96 p.SFA (2013) Annual report 2011. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). x + 93 p.SFA (2014) Annual report 2012. Seychelles Fishing Authority (SFA), Victoria (Seychelles). xiii + 75 p.Spalding MD and Jarvis GE (2002) The impact of the 1998 coral mortality on reef fish communities in the Seychelles. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44(4): 309\u00E2\u0080\u0093321.Spalding MD, Ravilious C and Green EP, editors (2001) World atlas of coral reefs. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA (USA). 416 p.UNEP (2008) National and regional networks of marine protected areas: a review of progress. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, United Nations Environment Programme, Cambridge (UK) vi + 144 p.United Nations (1953a) Demographic yearbook \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1952. Department of Economic Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, NY (USA). 518 p.United Nations (1953b) Demographic yearbook \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1953. Department of Economic Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, NY (USA). 441 p.United Nations (1954) Demographic yearbook \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1954. Department of Economic Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, NY (USA). 729 p.United Nations (1955) Demographic yearbook \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1955. Department of Economic Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, NY (USA). xii + 781 p.United Nations (1956) Demographic yearbook \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1956. Department of Economic Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, NY (USA). viii + 744 p.United Nations (1957) Demographic yearbook \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1957. Department of Economic Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, NY (USA). viii + 656 p.United Nations (1958) Demographic yearbook \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1958. Department of Economic Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, NY (USA). viii + 541 p. 108United Nations (1959) Demographic yearbook \u00E2\u0080\u0094 1959. Department of Economic Affairs, Statistical Office of the United Nations, New York, NY (USA). x + 719 p.Wakeford RC (2001) Management of the Seychelles artisanal fishery. PhD thesis, University of London, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London (UK). 377 p.Wendling B, Lucas V, Bargain R-M, Poisson F and Taquet M (2003) Characteristics of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) catches achieved by experimental fishing using instrumented longline in the Seychelles exclusive economic zone (EEZ): preliminary results of an experimental long line fishing program: \"Programme d'Action de la P\u00C3\u00AAche Palangri\u00C3\u00A8re Seychelloise \u00E2\u0080\u0094 PAPPS\". Pp. 315\u00E2\u0080\u0093324 In 3rd Session of the IOTC Working Party on Billfish, November 10\u00E2\u0080\u009312, 2003, Perth (Australia). Wood L (2004) Motives for poaching in Marine Protected Areas in the Seychelles. Western Indian Ocean Journal of Marine Science 3(2): 199\u00E2\u0080\u0093208.Zeller D and Harper S, editors (2009) Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part I. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 17(5). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 108 p.Zeller D and Pauly D, editors (2007) Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for key countries and regions (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15(2). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada). 163 p.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis GE and Pauly D (2007) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for US flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266\u00E2\u0080\u0093277.Fisheries catch reconstruction for the Seychelles \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Le Manach et al. 109Appendix Table A1. Total reconstructed catch by sector compared to the data reported to FAO, as well as total catch by Seychelles-flagged but foreign-owned vessels as reported to FAO.Year Domestic catch Foreign-owned catchReconstructed catch Reported to FAOArtisanal Industrial Discards Recreational Total Asia Flag of convenience Spain1950 3,018 - - - 3,018 1,000 - - -1951 3,081 - - - 3,081 1,000 - - -1952 2,977 - - - 2,977 1,000 - - -1953 3,038 - - - 3,038 1,500 - - -1954 3,015 - - - 3,015 1,500 - - -1955 3,153 - - - 3,153 1,500 - - -1956 3,207 - - - 3,207 1,500 - - -1957 3,258 - - - 3,258 1,800 - - -1958 3,322 - - - 3,322 1,800 - - -1959 3,383 - - - 3,383 1,800 - - -1960 3,260 - - - 3,260 1,800 - - -1961 3,339 - - - 3,339 2,000 - - -1962 3,379 - - - 3,379 2,000 - - -1963 3,442 - - - 3,442 2,000 - - -1964 3,511 - - - 3,511 2,000 - - -1965 3,542 - - - 3,542 2,000 - - -1966 3,568 - - - 3,568 2,500 - - -1967 3,597 - - - 3,597 2,500 - - -1968 3,632 - - - 3,632 2,500 - - -1969 3,674 - - - 3,674 2,500 - - -1970 3,726 - - - 3,726 3,001 - - -1971 3,767 - - 7 3,774 3,001 - - -1972 3,662 - - 16 3,678 3,001 - - -1973 3,555 - - 26 3,581 3,000 - - -1974 3,600 - - 28 3,628 3,500 - - -1975 4,543 - - 31 4,573 3,950 - - -1976 4,612 - - 43 4,655 4,010 - - -1977 5,290 - - 39 5,329 4,600 - - -1978 6,210 - - 93 6,303 5,400 - - -1979 5,641 - - 91 5,731 4,905 - - -1980 5,318 - - 91 5,409 4,624 - - -1981 5,944 - - 107 6,051 5,169 - - -1982 4,592 - - 86 4,678 3,993 - - -1983 4,335 117 - 84 4,536 3,886 - - -1984 3,912 283 - 78 4,273 3,684 - - -1985 4,392 290 - 90 4,771 4,108 - - 01986 5,178 30 - 107 5,315 4,532 - - 01987 4,450 21 - 93 4,564 3,890 - - 01988 4,956 24 - 104 5,084 4,333 - - 01989 5,042 18 - 106 5,166 4,402 - - 01990 6,192 43 - 130 6,364 5,427 - - 01991 6,757 47 - 144 6,947 5,922 - - 2,2181992 6,581 66 - 141 6,788 5,788 - - 8751993 5,896 51 - 127 6,074 5,178 - - -1994 5,028 88 - 107 5,222 4,459 - - -1995 4,495 94 71 95 4,755 4,003 - - 51996 5,055 245 90 112 5,502 4,641 - - 661997 4,308 377 194 101 4,979 4,122 6 2,302 7,6131998 3,483 414 190 86 4,172 3,442 103 3,886 16,4551999 5,514 538 150 142 6,343 5,333 438 22 28,4322000 5,155 534 155 138 5,982 5,016 1,342 320 26,1002001 5,119 472 281 143 6,015 4,924 2,514 4,168 41,9862002 6,006 203 244 175 6,628 5,425 5,007 3,475 49,4762003 4,684 116 266 142 5,209 4,190 12,496 732 68,6042004 5,086 178 283 160 5,707 4,601 13,289 623 82,1582005 5,550 423 340 181 6,494 5,249 12,798 155 90,4782006 5,732 235 288 194 6,448 5,219 5,710 288 81,5222007 6,602 238 253 230 7,324 5,979 7,118 712 51,7052008 6,690 252 185 241 7,368 6,069 5,044 1,702 56,3852009 6,838 298 202 254 7,593 6,244 5,241 1,875 67,7372010 5,155 277 177 198 5,806 4,760 5,623 1,502 75,224 110Appendix Table A2. Total reconstructed catch by taxon, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Year Jacks and pompanos Snappers Indian mackerel Emperors Kawakawa Sea basses and groupers Others1950 773 475 208 172 116 100 1,173 1951 789 485 213 176 118 102 1,198 1952 762 469 205 170 114 99 1,158 1953 778 479 210 173 117 101 1,181 1954 772 475 208 172 116 100 1,172 1955 807 497 218 180 121 105 1,226 1956 821 505 221 183 123 106 1,247 1957 834 513 225 186 125 108 1,267 1958 851 523 229 189 127 110 1,292 1959 866 533 233 193 130 112 1,315 1960 835 514 225 186 125 108 1,268 1961 855 526 230 190 128 111 1,298 1962 865 532 233 193 130 112 1,314 1963 881 542 238 196 132 114 1,338 1964 899 553 242 200 135 117 1,365 1965 907 558 244 202 136 118 1,377 1966 914 562 246 203 137 118 1,387 1967 921 567 248 205 138 119 1,399 1968 930 572 251 207 139 121 1,412 1969 941 579 254 209 141 122 1,428 1970 954 587 257 212 143 124 1,449 1971 966 595 260 215 145 125 1,467 1972 942 579 254 210 141 122 1,430 1973 917 564 247 204 137 119 1,392 1974 929 572 250 207 139 120 1,410 1975 1,171 721 316 261 175 152 1,778 1976 1,192 733 321 265 179 154 1,810 1977 1,364 839 368 304 204 177 2,072 1978 1,867 700 350 350 292 467 2,276 1979 1,637 677 526 347 347 573 1,625 1980 1,545 434 501 499 554 275 1,600 1981 1,447 369 926 446 480 172 2,211 1982 1,379 252 469 318 525 173 1,563 1983 1,204 438 283 612 368 203 1,428 1984 1,261 357 318 386 638 151 1,162 1985 1,677 657 232 345 383 156 1,321 1986 1,595 1,066 41 466 379 335 1,433 1987 1,456 1,044 129 362 322 290 962 1988 2,042 876 352 353 180 217 1,064 1989 1,649 1,073 346 363 272 275 1,188 1990 2,068 1,625 238 359 221 404 1,450 1991 1,765 1,842 476 583 344 386 1,552 1992 2,261 1,356 362 657 308 336 1,509 1993 1,753 1,595 357 417 191 292 1,468 1994 1,252 1,311 688 335 200 156 1,281 1995 1,508 1,092 378 345 147 83 1,202 1996 1,843 996 500 347 109 78 1,630 1997 1,838 831 351 259 114 146 1,440 1998 1,188 1,209 29 330 48 53 1,315 1999 1,739 1,550 119 336 186 169 2,244 2000 2,083 903 348 500 89 66 1,993 2001 1,519 1,543 215 571 57 126 1,984 2002 2,417 1,303 333 398 69 88 2,022 2003 1,532 1,245 244 277 140 109 1,661 2004 1,396 1,460 486 306 76 114 1,869 2005 1,310 1,768 772 270 84 110 2,180 2006 912 1,931 219 200 74 145 2,969 2007 935 2,224 393 225 90 176 3,280 2008 1,470 2,152 348 405 156 185 2,652 2009 645 1,344 107 260 161 98 4,977 2010 811 1,093 208 116 45 93 3,441 Fisheries catch reconstruction for Somalia \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Persson et al. 111Failed state: reConstruCtion oF domestiC Fisheries CatChes in somalia 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010*Lo Persson,1 Alasdair Lindop,2 Sarah Harper,2 Kyrstn Zylich2 and Dirk Zeller21 Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet, Ume\u00C3\u00A5, Sweden2 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canadalo.persson@slu.se; a.lindop@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; k.zylich@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstraCtSomalia is a country in north eastern Africa that has suffered a high degree of political and social instability since the collapse of its last national government in 1991. This study reconstructed domestic fisheries catch data between 1950 and 2010, including the industrial, artisanal, subsistence and recreational sectors. We found that the Somali reconstructed total catch was nearly two times the landings reported by the FAO on behalf of Somalia, most of which was attributed to the reconstructed small-scale sector. Although there was an initial decline in catches after the collapse of government, small-scale catches strongly increased after the mid-1990s, as a result of increased private investment in artisanal fisheries, changes in seafood consumption habits and population displacement to the coast due to the civil war. However, the absence of monitoring and enforcement in Somali waters, coupled with the lack of transparency amongst international monitoring agencies in the Indian Ocean, resulted in a lack of reliable data for the significant level of illegal and semi-illegal foreign fishing activity also taking place in Somalia's Exclusive Economic Zone. Therefore, such activities were not included in this study.introduCtionThe Federal Republic of Somalia (referred to here as 'Somalia') is located on the Horn of Africa, has an extensive Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ; over 830,000 km2, i.e., the 5th largest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of any country in Africa; www.seaaroundus.org), and is bordered in the north by the Gulf of Aden and in the east by the Indian Ocean (Figure 1). The marine ecosystem is characterized by seasonal monsoons driving a strong south-north current along the east African coast, resulting in a significant upwelling off the coast of northeast Somalia. This system is highly productive, but the great quantity of small pelagic fish usually found in upwelling areas (Rykaczewski and Checkley 2008) does not occur to the same extent in the upwelling area off Somalia. However, the region is known for the seasonally high abundance of large pelagic fish (tuna and billfishes) that has attracted distant-water fleets (mainly from Europe and East Asia) to fish for these high value species (Bakun et al. 1998). In contrast, the environmental conditions have not been quite as favorable for the domestic fisheries sector; the coast does not have many natural harbours, and climate and ocean features give rise to large variation in the available resources between seasons and years (Haakonsen 1983). The Somali people have historically had a nomadic or agro-pastoral culture (Mukhtar 1996; UNEP 2005), similarly to other countries in the region, e.g., Djibouti; see Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter et al. this volume). Thus, despite their abundant fish resources, the Somalis in general have had very limited interest in fishing1 and their seafood consumption is thought to be among the lowest in the world. However, the coastal communities have a tradition of fishing, but the fraction of fishers compared to the total population has always been small (UNEP 2005).Somalia gained its independence in 1960, when the former colonial territories of Italian Somalia and British Somaliland united and became the Somali Republic. During the 1960s, two elections were held. In 1969 the sitting president was assassinated and Mohamed Siad Barre came into power (UNEP 2005). He declared Somalia a socialist state, and the establishment of co-operatives became the basis for the socio-economic development in the country * Cite as: Persson L, Lindop A, Harper S, Zylich K and Zeller D (2015) Failed state: reconstruction of domestic fisheries catches in Somalia 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Pp. 111\u00E2\u0080\u0093127 In Le Manach F and Pauly D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727].1 Fish has actually been considered as unfit for human consumption in many parts of Somalia (Simoons 1974).0 250 km\u00C2\u00B1Figure 1. The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Somalia, based on general UNCLOS principles, and the shelf waters to 200 m depth. 112(Laitin and Samatar 1984). Despite the introduction of around 500 mechanized boats in the early 1970s, the lack of any fishing tradition and poor maintenance resulted in poor outcomes (Anon. 1982; FAO 2005a). In the late 1980s, a civil war started in the northwestern part of Somalia, and in 1991 the Siad Barre regime ended. The fight among different clans for power and control of the capital city of Mogadishu and other areas has impacted the country ever since. In 1991, former British Somaliland in the northwest claimed independence (as 'Somaliland'), and in 1998 the northeastern part of Somalia claimed an autonomous state of Puntland (UNEP 2005). Neither Somaliland nor Puntland have been recognized by the international community (UNEP 2005). The population in Somalia was about 2.2 million at the time of independence in 1960, and in the most recent census in 1986, it was 6.4 million (www.populstat.info; accessed January 2010). Due to the fighting, recent population numbers are highly uncertain and range from about 8\u00E2\u0080\u009310 million (Kelleher 1998; Anon. 2009b).After the fall of the Siad Barre regime in 1991, Somalia was not able to effectively manage its natural resources due to the lack of effective national governance (Kelleher 1998; Jennings 2001). Although foreign fishing in the offshore waters off Somalia was prevalent during the early decades from 1950 to 1980, no major illegal fishing incidents or confrontations with foreign vessels was reported during that time period (Sabriye 2005). Given that EEZs were not internationally recognized until the late 1970s or early 1980s, and Somalia's status and recognition of their claim for jurisdiction beyond 12 nm territorial waters remains uncertain and challengeable (but see below), any such offshore fishing was only considered 'illegal' in the context of international law with the ratification of UNCLOS by Somalia in 1989. As Somalia declared a 200 nm territorial sea in 1971 that is contested and not based on accepted international law (Schofield 2008), but ratified UNCLOS in 1989, this ratification could be argued to supersede Somalia's previous territorial sea claim and replace it with a legitimate 200 nm EEZ since 1989 (C. Schofield, pers. comm.). Furthermore, the effective collapse of the national government in 1990 also exposed its coastal waters to uncontrolled access by foreign fleets (Samatar 2007). During the post-regime period, the state failed to exercise its rights both at land and sea due to a dysfunctional government (Dupont 2003).Several issues contributed to the problem with unregulated and unlicensed fishing vessels. The majority of Somalia's maritime neighbours are not equipped with adequate monitoring, control and surveillance infrastructure to address violations by foreign fishing vessels. This includes Kenya (Anon. 2008a,b,d; also see Le Manach et al. this volume), Tanzania (Anon. 2008e; also see Bultel et al. this volume),2 and Yemen (Anon. 2009a). None of these countries have regular or adequate fisheries observer schemes, port state control, mandatory vessel monitoring system requirements or aerial surveillance for foreign vessels operating in their own EEZs. After the fall of Siad Barre regime in the early 1990s, the majority of Somali licensed foreign vessels re-flagged their vessels to Kenya or Flag of Convenience countries (e.g., Belize, Honduras) to conduct illegal fishing operations in Somali waters (Kulmiye 2001; Anon. 2008c). Starting in the mid 1990s, foreign illegal fishing vessels started encountering increasing resistance from local clans along Somalia's coastline, and started paying local warlords and militia a nominal amount for protection to fish in local waters. The majority of fishing vessel arrests locally during this time appear to be for failing to pay the clans for illegal fishing, rivalries between two clans claiming authority over the same territory (Anon. 2005; von Hoesslin 2006) or for fishing too close to the coast (Anon. 1998).For the purpose of the present catch reconstruction, we did not deal with the illegal foreign fishing presence in Somali waters, despite its historic significance and likely massive scale. Data presented here pertain only to domestic Somali fisheries and licensed foreign and joint venture operations.material and methodsFisheries developmentOf the two former colonial powers, the United Kingdom and Italy, only Italy is known to have tried to establish a fishing industry (e.g., by building three canning factories on the north shore in the mid-1930s), but without much success (Haakonsen 1984). After independence in 1960, the fisheries sector was not paid much attention until Siad Barre came to power in the late 1960s. To increase fisheries production, the government launched fisheries development programs and created about 20 fishing co-operatives that were supplied with, e.g., motorized boats, fuel, and fishing gear. In 1974, the nomadic population was heavily affected by a severe drought that killed much of their livestock. Consequently, fifteen thousand nomads were resettled into four fishing co-operatives. The fisheries development programs were largely supported by the former Soviet Union.Pre-1991: industrial and foreign fishingSomalia has never had a large domestic industrial fishing fleet, and most of the industrial fishing in Somali waters has been carried out by what were essentially foreign fleets, for many years through so-called 'joint ventures'. During the 1950s, the Italians were fishing mostly for their canning industry on the north coast, with 95% of the production exported to Italy and the remainder marketed locally or sent to Yemen. Occasional Japanese longlining occurred offshore on the east coast (Johnson 1956), and in the 1960s, Japan undertook test fishing for tuna (Lawson et al. 1986). Some Greek trawlers also operated in Somali waters in the mid-1960s (Haakonsen 1983). In 1974, SOMALFISH was established as a joint venture between Somalia and the Soviet Union. It operated ten trawlers and one fishmeal factory ship until late 1977, when political relations between the two countries broke down and the 2 \"Tanzania, SADC join forces against illegal fishing\". Available at: www.stopillegalfishing.com [Accessed in February 2010].Fisheries catch reconstruction for Somalia \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Persson et al. 113Soviet Union withdrew their boats and support (Haakonsen 1983). According to national statistics, these vessels caught 2,000\u00E2\u0080\u00935,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 of finfish and spiny lobster (FAO 1978; Haakonsen 1983). However, according to Yassin (1981) SOMALFISH exported between 10,000\u00E2\u0080\u009320,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1. After the Soviets terminated their operations in Somalia, industrial fishing was carried out through joint ventures and licensing of foreign vessels from countries such as Italy, Japan, Greece, Singapore and Egypt (Van Zalinge 1988) as well as China.3 SOMALFISH itself purchased two Australian-built shrimp trawlers and nine Yougoslavian-built trawlers (Lawrence 1980). The two Australian vessels started operating in the late 1970s, but it is unclear if the nine Yugoslavian trawlers ever operated (Haakonsen 1983). An Italian company called 'Amoroso e Figli' operated three freezer trawlers off the north east coast in 1978 and 1979 (Stromme 1987). SIDACO, a joint venture between Somalia and Iraq was formed in 1977 (FAO 1978). However, according to Haakonsen (1983), their vessels never operated, while another source stated that in 1982, SIDACO operated four trawlers (Anon. 1982). SOMITFISH, a joint venture between Somalia and Italy, operated three Italian-built trawlers between 1981 and 1983 (Van Zalinge 1988). In 1983, ten Japanese longliners were fishing for large pelagic fish, and in 1984 six Japanese and eighteen Korean longliners fished in Somali waters. In 1983 and 1984, Romanian trawlers fished for small pelagic fish as a scientific expedition. Italian and Japanese bottom trawlers as well as several pelagic pair trawlers from Singapore operated in Somali waters in late 1984 (Elmer 1985). In 1985, ten licenses were issued to foreign vessels from four different countries (Anon. 1987). After a few years of inactivity, SOMITFISH was re-established as SHIFCO, and with new and rehabilitated vessels started operations in 1987 (Anon. 1988; Sabriye 2005). In addition, five Italian trawlers and one French trawler were licensed to fish in Somali waters (Anon. 1988). During the 1980s, China increasingly supported the Siad Barre regime with direct supplies of weapons and other military supplies. In exchange, Somalia transferred fishing rights to China, which was formalized through an agreement signed in 1989. It is likely that with the fall of the Siad Barre in 1990, this fishing may have continued uncontrolled for some time.Post-1991: collapsed governmentThe Siad Barre regime maintained a surveillance force to protect the offshore waters of Somalia, although nothing is known about its effectiveness. When the government collapsed in 1991, the waters were left unmonitored and unguarded, and this was exploited by fishing vessels from various countries (Qayad 1997; Jennings 2001; Mohamed and Herzi 2005; UNEP 2005; Mwangura 2006b; Samoilys et al. 2007; Schofield 2008; Weir 2009). This unlicensed exploitation by foreign vessels has been proposed as a major reason for the initial rise of piracy in the waters of Somalia (Lehr and Lehmann 2007). It is argued that local fishers who were deprived of their livelihoods, and the warlords who saw an opportunity to make money, formed 'coast guards' to enforce the waters of their perceived 'territories'. These 'coast guards' attacked foreign fishing vessels and demanded compensation for fish caught. Local warlords also started to sell 'licenses' for fishing (Jennings 2001; Menkhaus 2009), thus creating what can be called 'semi-illegal' licensing schemes for foreign vessels.For example, in 1996\u00E2\u0080\u009397, 43 longliners, 61 purse seiners and a few Kenyan trawlers were fishing in Somali waters through such local warlord agreements. In addition, four Saudi-Arabian trawlers and some Pakistani vessels occasionally fished along the coast, and three Sri Lankan vessels based in Berbera fished for sharks. Two Syrian and one Taiwanese vessel were captured and accused of illegal fishing by the 'Somali Salvation Army' (Kelleher 1998). In 2005, Somaliland had about 36 Egyptian trawlers operating in their waters, landing about twice as much as the small-scale fleet was assumed to land (Gulaid 2004). Interestingly, the remaining 'domestic' industrial fleet (operating under the joint venture SHIFCO) had been operating out of Aden (Yemen) since the late 1990s (Jennings 1998; FAO 2005).Small-scale fisheriesThe small-scale fisheries development programs during the Siad Barre era were not only supported by the Soviet Union, but by other countries through foreign aid. However, the desired growth of the sector failed to materialize. The absence of fishing traditions translated into a lack of fishing experience and infrastructure such as storage and processing facilities. There was also a lack of equipment and knowledge on how to repair boats, which made it hard to maintain the fishing fleet. For example, more than 50% of the new motorized boats distributed in the mid-1970s were out of commission after only a few years. The marketing of fish from the co-operatives was centralized during the 1970s and early 1980s, diminishing incentives for increased production (Haakonsen 1983). Fishing activities increased when the government started to liberalize the sector during the 1980s (Pierconti and Dunn 1990).After the collapse of the central government in 1991 and during the ensuing civil war, much of the existing small-scale fishing sector was reduced, which amplified the already existing shortage of spare parts and infrastructure. The small-scale fishers also suffered from the cessation of government support (Lovatelli 1996) and their catches declined (Kelleher 1998). However, in later years, the absence of government control of the fishing industry resulted in increased influence of the private sector and entrepreneurs, which was the main force behind the gradual revival of the fishing trade (Lovatelli 1996). In more recent times, the investment from the private sector together with foreign aid, and also the change in consumption habits of Somalis seem to have resulted in an expansion of the small-scale fisheries sector and substantially increased small-scale catches in the post-war period (Gulaid 2004; Mohamed and Herzi 2005; Sabriye 2005).3 Country Studies Series by Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. Available at www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-12055.html [Accessed August 2012]. 114Lack of statistics and reliable dataLack of sufficient and reliable statistics was identified as a major problem for the development and management of fisheries in the Indian Ocean (IOFC 1982). The Somali Ministry of Fisheries does not seem to have had a tradition of collecting fisheries statistics. For example, Elmer (1985) reported that it was difficult to make the Ministry pay the people responsible for gathering of data, as there was a lack of understanding of the importance of data collection. The national legislation in Somalia (i.e., the Maritime Code) also hindered the gathering of fisheries statistics since it did not give the Ministry of Fisheries the authority to collect fishing data. The national statistics law did cover data collection to some extent, however, it did not include provisions ensuring the Ministry of Fisheries would receive data on fisheries (Lawrence 1980). The absence of workable government institutions since the late 1980s prolonged and exacerbated the problem of unreliable data (UNEP 2005).The existing fisheries statistics from the 1970s and the 1980s are thought to be incomplete. For example, the 'production from all sectors' in 1985 as reported by the Somali government (Anon. 1985), was based solely on catches by the 23 co-operatives and re-settlements, the offshore catches, and the purchases by companies from small-scale artisanal fishers. The reported production from the cooperatives and re-settlements was deemed to represent the artisanal (i.e., small-scale, commercial) production and was reported as 6,223 t in 1985. This is thought to be an underestimate, since it excluded data from fishing villages along the coast that were not part of a co-operative. For example, Jennings (1998) reported 31 fishing communities, while Mohamed and Herzi (2005) suggested that before the civil war there were about 50 fishing villages. Furthermore, the FAO also reported in its country profile that there were about 50 fishing villages along the coast (FAO 2005). Hence, the artisanal fish production from villages that were not associated with the 20 co-operatives or the three re-settlements, together with non-commercial catch (i.e., subsistence catch), seemed to be missing from reported data. In addition, the Ministry of Fisheries acknowledged that a substantial part of the landed catch was sold directly at the beach landing sites to the public, and deemed the amount sold as 'unquantifiable' (Anon. 1987). Shaves (1984) also reported that sales of fish occurred outside the controlled market during the time when, according to national law, all fish had to be sold through the co-operatives at a fixed price.Furthermore, the total production reported by the Ministry in 1985 was 11,938 t (Van Zalinge 1988). This included 2,039 t of artisanal landings that were purchased by public companies, 1,130 t of large pelagic fish caught by Korean longliners, and 240 t of small pelagic fish caught by Romanian survey trawlers (Van Zalinge 1988). If the artisanal catch component and the Korean and Romanian catches were subtracted, the remaining production (i.e., 8,529 t) matched what was reported as demersal industrial production (i.e., 8,528 t) in 1985 (Van Zalinge 1988).The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is mandated to report data provided by their member countries. The examples described above matched what FAO reported as Somali catch for 'marine fishes nei' in FAO FishStat for 1985. This suggests that FAO data for Somalia are incomplete due to the use of national data reported by the Somali Ministry of Fisheries.4DiscardsIndustrial fisheriesTropical waters have a large number of species, and one species rarely makes up more than 20% of the catch (Tussing et al. 1974). In Somali waters, there is a large diversity of fish, but only a few species are of commercial interest (Lovatelli 1996). Trawl surveys in the late 1970s reported non-commercial bycatch of more than 50% (Kelleher 1998). Van Zalinge (1988) reported that only the high value species, accounting for less than 50% of the catch, were retained on demersal trawlers. Therefore, discarding was likely high in demersal trawl fisheries. Depending on the species composition, the acceptability for various species by markets, onboard storage capacity, and distance to port, between 40% and 80% of the total catch was discarded (Tussing et al. 1974). In the shrimp trawl fishery, discards may have been as high as 90% (Hariri 1985). For later years, Kelleher (2005) reported that the general discard rates in the western Indian Ocean were 9% in the tuna fishery, 92.3% in the shark fin fishery, 30\u00E2\u0080\u009340% in the long-range longline fishery, 5% in the purse seine fishery, and 21.7% in regular longline fisheries. Kelleher (2005) did not report a specific demersal trawling discard rate for the western Indian Ocean, but his global weighted average discard rate for demersal finfish trawling was 19.6%.Small-scale fisheriesIn the small-scale fishery, a large number of different species are fished and consumed (Mohamed and Herzi 2005), although pelagic species such as tuna and mackerel are commonly favoured (Costello et al. 2012). Furthermore, in some cases or areas, this fishery may focus on a narrow range of species for retention (UNEP 2005). Kelleher (2005) reported that east African artisanal fisheries have negligible discards. However, due to the eating habits of the Somalis, the lack of storage/processing facilities and market opportunities, some sources acknowledged that discarding occurred also in the small-scale fishery (e.g. Lovatelli 1996; Mohamed and Herzi 2005).4 As part of our search for information on Somali fisheries statistics, we attempted repeatedly to contact Mr. Graham Farmer who apparently is (or was) the officer in charge of the FAO Somali program, but without success.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Somalia \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Persson et al. 115Here, discarding by small-scale fisheries was considered negligible overall, and was not included in the catch reconstruction. Discarding of shark meat as part of the shark fin fishery, however, has been estimated here. Many of the small-scale fishers target shark for their fins and only a few of the fishers retain the meat (Lovatelli 1996).Overall, we followed a catch reconstruction approach as described by Zeller et al. (2007), with the main purpose of comprehensively estimating total catches taken from the EEZ-equivalent waters of Somalia since 1950, by domestic fisheries.methodsSomalia's domestic fisheriesLandings data for Somalia supplied to FAO were reported as 'marine fishes nei', 'cephalopods nei' and 'tropical spiny lobster nei', and were assumed to represent industrial catches, the production from the co-operatives and purchases of some artisanal catches by smaller companies. Here, the total reported landings were assigned to small-scale and industrial fisheries based on a breakdown of landings between 1974 and 1987 reported by the Ministry of Fisheries (Van Zalinge 1988). For the years where no breakdown was available (prior to 1974 and after 1987) the averages of the first and last three years of the breakdown were used, respectively. Thus, prior to 1974, 25% of landings were assigned to industrial landings, and after 1987, 49% were assigned to industrial. 'Tropical spiny lobsters nei' were split using these proportions with no further adjustments made. The 'marine fishes nei' and 'cephalopods nei' were then added together and the total was split using the proportions listed above. This was done because all cephalopod catches were determined to be small-scale, and doing the split this way allows the total catch to be split using the determined proportions, while allowing allocation of a greater proportion of the 'marine fishes nei' to the industrial sector and all. This is addressed further in the description of the species breakdown below. The FAO data that were assigned to industrial fisheries were taken at face value, while a separate reconstruction of the small-scale fisheries allowed us to determine an add-on to the small-scale portion of reported FAO data derived here. For this reconstruction, we used the 2010 FAO data as our baseline.Small-scale catchesSmall-scale catches (i.e., artisanal and subsistence catches) were estimated using the number of operational boats and catch rate per operational boat per year. The earliest reported small-scale catch (Thurow and Kroll 1962) was taken at face value and extrapolated back to 1950. The most recent records of catches were reports for the fisheries in the three regions of former Somalia: southern central Somalia (Sabriye 2005), Puntland (Mohamed and Herzi 2005), and Somaliland (Gulaid 2004). The reported catches for Puntland and southern central Somalia were taken at face value. For the third region, Somaliland, shark catches were missing and were estimated based on the fraction of shark in catches in southern central Somalia. The estimated shark catch was then added to the reported fish catch for Somaliland (Table 1), and these data were used as the 2005 anchor point.The total estimated small-scale catch for 2005 (Table 1) was carried forward to 2010 unchanged. For 1962, Thurow and Kroll (1962) report small-scale catches of 16,500 t, which we carried back to 1950 unaltered (Table 2). The small-scale catches in the period between 1963 and 2004 were estimated by deriving anchor points for the number of operational boats for 1978, 1980, 1988, and 1995 based on available information and assumptions (see below). The number of operational boats was then multiplied by a catch rate per boat based on Elmer (1985) to create anchor points for small-scale catch (Table 2). To complete the time series, linear interpolation was done between the derived catch anchor points and the catches reported in 1962 and 2005 (Table 2).Number of operational boatsThe traditional boats in Somalia are the wooden canoe called 'houri', and the less common sail boats called 'beden' or 'mashua' (Lovatelli 1996). According to Thurow and Kroll (1962), the small-scale fishing fleet in the early 1960s Table 1. Small-scale catches reported and estimated for 2005 for Somalia.Region Fish (t) Shark (t) Total (t) Shark (%) SourceSouth-central Somalia 14,825 6,113 20,938 29 Sabriye (2005)Puntland 2,144a 8,990 11,134 81 Mohamed and Herzi (2005)Somaliland 6,030 2,486b 8,516 29 Gulaid (2004)Total Somalia 22,999 17,589 40,588 43 -a A substantial part of the finfish catches from Puntland are sold to Yemen and not included in the reported catches for Puntland; b Estimated using the fraction of shark catches from south-central SomaliaTable 2. Anchor points used for interpolation of small-scale catch for Somalia. Values in italics are interpolated.Year Operational boatsaCatch anchor points (t) Source1950 - 16,500b -1962 - 16,500 Thurow and Kroll (1962)1978 1,874 18,740c Thurow and Kroll (1962), Haakonsen (1983)1980 1,725 17,250c Lawrence (1980)1988 1,725 17,250c -1995 792 7,920c Kelleher (1998)2005 - 40,588d Gulaid (2004), Mohamed and Herzi (2005), Sabriye (2005)2010 - 40,588e -a See text for sources; b Assumed equal to 1962 value; c Based on average catch rate of 10 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099boat-1\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 (Elmer 1985); d Estimated shark catches for Somaliland were added; e Assumed equal to 2005 value. 116consisted of 1,875 houris (of which 1,500 were always active), 175 beden (of which 150 were always active), and 25 other boats (called 'dunnis'), together accounting for a total catch of 16,500 t (Table 2). Thus, the fraction of traditional boats that were operational at any one time was about 80%. This fraction was applied to the reported total number of traditional fishing boats in later years (see below).During the 1970s, a number of motorized boats were issued through fisheries development programs. Haakonsen (1983) reported that 685 motorized boats had been provided during the previous years and that 500 of those boats were issued during the five year development program 1974\u00E2\u0080\u00931978. According to Hariri (1985), 700 motorized boats were issued from 1972 onwards, and by the late 1970s only 40% were working. UNDP/FAO (1992) reported that 600 motorized boats were issued between 1974\u00E2\u0080\u00931978 and that in 1979, 150 new engines were provided by the UK to rehabilitate some of these boats. Jennings (1998) reported that 600 motorized boats were issued and that within five years only 20% were working. According to Lovatelli (1996), 450 boats had been issued by 1982. As the number of motorized boats reported by the above sources are all in the same range, we used the earliest source (i.e., Haakonsen 1983). The year 1978 is in the middle of the ten year period reported on by Haakonsen (1983) for the distribution of 685 boats, hence we assumed that all boats were distributed by 1978 to create an anchor point. By the time the report was written (1983), more than 50%, and maybe as much as 75%, of the distributed motorized boats were not operating due to lack of spare parts and knowledge on maintenance (Haakonsen 1983). Hence, we assumed that 40% were working and applied this to the total number of motorized boats to derive a total of 274 operational motorized boats for 1978 (i.e., 685 \u00C3\u0097 0.4 = 274).The traditional boats are thought to have had a much higher fraction that were operational, due to lower mechanization and easier, more traditional maintenance requirements. Therefore, the fraction of operating traditional boats (80%) from Thurow and Kroll (1962) was used. Haakonsen (1983) reported that the traditional fleet was 2,250 boats, but he also mentioned that use of traditional boats was declining due to the introduction of motorized boats and lack of maintenance. Therefore, for 1978, we assumed 2,000 traditional boats and a working rate of 80%. Together with the assumed 274 working motorized boats, this resulted in an anchor point in 1978 of a total of 1,874 operational boats (Table 2).In 1980, Lawrence (1980) reported that about 125 motorized boats were working and that the traditional fleet was about 2,000. Hence, we derived a 1980 anchor point of 1,725 working traditional and motorized boats ([2,000 \u00C3\u0097 0.8] + 125 = 1,725; Table 2).In 1988, the civil unrest started in northern Somalia, and by 1991 the government had collapsed. The civil war damaged much of the fishing sector; hence, there was a decline in the number of operational boats after 1988. Due to lack of other information, the anchor point in 1980 was carried forward to 1988 (i.e., 1,725 operational boats; Table 2).Kelleher (1998) reported that the artisanal fleet in 1995 was made up of 627 houris and sailboats (i.e., 627 \u00C3\u0097 0.8 = 502 operational traditional boats) and 290 functional motorized boats. This was used to form an anchor point of 792 operational boats in 1995 (Table 2).Catch rateElmer (1985) reported that around 737 operational boats caught 8,288 t. Thus, the average catch rate was 11.25 t per operational boat per year (8,288 / 737 = 11.25). To remain conservative, we used a catch rate of 10 t per operational boat per year as a default measure to derive the estimated tonnage of small-scale catch for 1978, 1980, 1988 and 1995 (Table 2). For years between anchor points, data were linearly interpolated.Small-scale catches: artisanal versus subsistenceAlthough the majority of data sources used here for estimating small-scale catches related to artisanal fisheries, we assumed that a fraction of these catches could be deemed subsistence, i.e., were not for sale but for direct consumption or local barter. Thus, we assumed that the estimated total small-scale catches derived here were split into the two sectors as follows: For 2010, we assumed 80% artisanal and 20% subsistence, while for 1950 we assumed a 60% artisanal and 40% subsistence split. We interpolated these percentages over time to derive full time-series for each sector.Species compositionWe assigned the estimated catch to different species, by sector, based on information found in various sources (see Table 3).Industrial catchThe domestic industrial catch was assumed to consist of demersal species caught by trawl (80%), and pelagic species (20%). The pelagic catch was in turn split between large (80%) and small (20%) pelagic taxa. Individual taxa were assigned percentages within each category (Table 4) based on the general information contained in the sources in Table 3.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Somalia \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Persson et al. 117Small-scale catchMuch of the literature suggested that sharks and rays made up a substantial part of the small-scale catch (artisanal sector only; shark fishing assumed to be a commercial endeavour); therefore they were treated as their own category. Thurow and Kroll (1962) reported that sharks made up 21% of the total catches in the early 1960s. The fraction of sharks and rays in the small-scale catch increased to about 40% during the 1980s (Anon. 1987), and to 55\u00E2\u0080\u009365% by the 1990s (Lovatelli 1996). We assumed 55% of the catch in the mid-1990s was sharks. For each of these anchor points, in order to be conservative, it was assumed that these percentages applied to the artisanal catch only. For the most recent time periods, the fraction of sharks was 29% of the total small-scale catch in southern central Somalia (Sabriye 2005), whereas in Puntland it was 81% of the reported catches, although substantial finfish catches were missing from the data (Mohamed and Herzi 2005). We estimated the shark catches in Somaliland by assuming the same shark to finfish ratio as for south-central Somalia (i.e., 29%; Table 1), and added them to the reported artisanal catches (Gulaid 2004), which resulted in a total fraction of sharks of 43% in 2005 for Somalia (Table 1). Considering that the Puntland percentage was an over-estimate and that the Somaliland tonnage had to be estimated, we applied the 43% in 2005 to the artisanal catch only, in order to remain conservative. Note that this in turn resulted in a slightly lower shark tonnage for 2005 within our reconstruction than was found in the literature. All of this information was used to create a time series of the shark and ray fraction within the artisanal sector. Linear interpolation was done between the anchor points in 1962 (21%), 1985 (40%), 1995 (55%) and 2005 (43%). Data for 1962 was carried back to 1950 unaltered and the anchor point in 2005 was carried forward to 2010 unaltered. Species composition of shark catches were derived from a variety of sources (Table 3) and applied in seven taxonomic groups (3 species, 2 families and 2 general groupings, Table 5).The remaining, non-shark artisanal catch was split into demersal (40%) and pelagic (60%) catches, based on information from sources in Table (3). Artisanal finfish catch is thought to be dominated by pelagic taxa (60%), in contrast to industrial catch, in which demersal taxa (80%) predominate (Tables 4, 6). Individual taxonomic assignment of catches (Table 6) was derived from sources in Table 3.The breakdown for the subsistence catches was derived from the artisanal breakdown, taking into account sectoral differences. Sharks and rays were excluded and the proportion of large pelagic fish was greatly reduced. Subsistence catches were disaggregated using the proportions shown in Table 9.Table 4. Species breakdown of industrial catches for Somalia, as derived for the present study, based on qualitative information from sources listed in Table 3. Percentage breakdown relates to the total industrial catch.Category Sizea Family/group Species Common name Industrial catch (%)Pelagic Large Scombridae Thunnus albacares Yellowfin tuna 7.7Pelagic Large Scombridae T. obesus Bigeye tuna 5.9Pelagic Large Istiophoridae Tetrapturus audax Striped marlin 0.7Pelagic Large Istiophoridae Makaira mazara Indo-Pacific blue marlin 0.3Pelagic Large Xiphiidae Xiphias gladius Swordfish 0.4Pelagic Large misc. billfish - Other billfish 0.1Pelagic Large misc. pelagic fishes - Pelagic fishes 0.9Pelagic Small Clupeidae Sardinella longiceps Indian oil sardine 1.9Pelagic Small Clupeidae Etrumeus teres Round herring 0.8Pelagic Small Scombridae Scomber japonicus Chub mackerel 0.8Pelagic Small Carangidae Decapterus spp. Scad 0.3Pelagic Small misc. pelagic fishes - Pelagic fishes 0.2Sub-total pelagic 20.0Demersal Lethrinidae Lethrinus nebulosus Spangled emperor 11.3Demersal Lethrinidae L. lentjan Pink ear emperor 5.7Demersal Lethrinidae L. olivaceus Longfaced emperor 5.7Demersal Lethrinidae - Misc. emperors 5.7Demersal Serranidae Epinephelus areolatus Areolate grouper 10.4Demersal Serranidae - Misc. groupers 2.6Demersal Lutjanidae Etelis spp. - 4.1Demersal Lutjanidae Aprion spp. - 4.1Demersal Lutjanidae - Misc. snappers 2.0Demersal Haemulidae Diagramma pictum Painted sweetlips 19.0Demersal Mullidae Parupeneus indicus Indian goatfish 9.4Sub-total demersal 80.0Total 100.0a Large = 80%, small =20% of the pelagic fraction of the industrial catch.Table 3. Sources used for species composition for the catch reconstruction for Somalia, by fishing sector.Source Fisheries sectorIndustrial Artisanal Pelagic Demersal Sharks & raysCorfitzen and Kinzy (1950) POgilvie et al. (1954) P P PJohnson (1956) P P PThurow and Kroll (1962) P P PLosse (1970) P P P PFAO (1972) P PFAO (1978) P PAnonymous (2011) P P P PBihi (1984) P PJohnsen (1985) P PAnonymous (1985) P PVan Zalinge (1988) P P P PSanders and Morgan (1989) P P P PLovatelli (1996) P P P PMarshall (1997) P PKelleher (1998) P P P P PJennings (1998) P P P P PAnonymous (2004) P PSabriye (2005) P PUNEP (2005) P P PIUCN (2006) PIOTC databasea P Pa Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) database available at www.iotc.org/English/index.php [Accessed: March, 2011] 118Catches reported to FAO included cephalopods. However, there was no specific information on cephalopod catches in our sources. Therefore, the reported cephalopod catches were proportionally assigned to the artisanal and subsistence sectors using the same proportional split applied to the total small-scale catches. The tonnage determined for each sector was then assumed to be contained within the 'marine fishes nei' tonnage that was estimated above and subtracted out to determine the remaining amount of 'marine fishes nei' for each sector.DiscardsIndustrial fisheriesDue to a lack of gear specific information in the Somali domestic industrial fisheries, we assumed that half of the pelagic fish in the industrial catch was caught with longliners and half with purse seiners, and applied associated discard rates (21.7% for longliners and 5% for purse seiners) reported by Kelleher (2005). For the demersal fraction of the domestic industrial catch, the global average discard rate for demersal finfish trawlers of 19.6% (Kelleher 2005) was used, as specific discard rates for demersal fisheries in the western Indian Ocean were not available. The bycatch of sharks in industrial trawlers has been estimated to be 5% of the total weight of the catch. Of this bycatch, only the fins were kept and the rest was discarded (Marshall 1997). The discard of shark meat was assumed to be included as part of the 19.6% discard rate. The demersal discard rate was split between sharks (4.5%) and fishes (15.1%). The sharks were taxonomically disaggregated using the artisanal shark breakdown, and fishes were disaggregated by family using the industrial demersal breakdown (Table 7). Pelagic discards were broken down using the proportions shown in Table 8.The crustacean fishery incurred a small amount of discards as well. Discards were estimated to equal 1.1% of the crustacean landings.Small-scale fisheriesAlthough references have been made to some discarding of fish in the small-scale fisheries (e.g., Lovatelli 1996; Jennings 1998; Mohamed and Herzi 2005), they may be low (except for artisanal fisheries supplying Yemeni mother boats).Here, we focused specifically on discards in the shark fin fishery which have been estimated. In Somalia, dried shark meat was an export commodity, hence, sharks were not only targeted for their fins (Lovatelli 1996; Jennings 1998). In 2005, it was reported that dried shark meat was collected in Mogadishu from all regions and thereafter exported to Mombasa in Kenya (Sabriye 2005). In the mid-1990s, Lovatelli (1996) reported that only a small percent of fishers retained the meat, and Gulaid (2004) reported that only fins were retained by fishers in Somaliland. Thus, overall discards of sharks (except fins) were assumed to be relatively large. To estimate the shark discards in the small-scale fisheries, data from IUCN (2003) and Mohamed and Herzi (2005) were used. According to IUCN (2003), the Table 8. Breakdown by family name for industrial pelagic discards.Family PercentageScombridae 20.0Istiophoridae 20.0Coryphaenidae 20.0Clupeidae 20.0Marine fishes nei 20.0Table 7. Breakdown by family name for industrial demersal fish discards.Family PercentageLethrinidae 28.4Serranidae 13.0Lutjanidae 10.2Haemulidae 19.0Mullidae 9.4Table 6. Species breakdown of artisanal catches (excluding sharks and rays) for Somalia, based on qualitative information from sources listed in Table 3.Category Family Species Common name Catch (%)Pelagic Scombridae Thunnus albacares Yellowfin tuna 15.0T. tonggol Longtail tuna 5.0Euthynnus affinis Kawakawa (Little tuna) 5.0Scomberomorus commersonNarrow-barred Spanish mackerel10.0- - 5.0Clupeidae Sardinella longiceps Indian oil sardine 4.0- - 1.0Carangidae Selar crumenophthalmus Bigeye scad 2.0Trachurus indicus Arabian scad (Horse mackerel) 2.0- - 1.0Coryphaenidae Coryphaena hippurus Common dolphinfish 5.0Istiophoridae Tetrapturus audax Striped marlin 1.7Makaira mazara Indo-Pacific blue marlin 0.8Xiphiidae Xiphias gladius Swordfish 2.0Misc. billfish - Other billfish 0.5Sub-total pelagic 60.0Demersal Lethrinidae Lethrinus nebulosus Spangled emperor 8.0L. lentjan Pink ear emperor 4.0L.olivaceus Longfaced emperor 4.0- Emperors 4.0Lutjanidae Etelis spp. - 2.0Aprion spp. - 2.0- Snappers 1.0Serranidae Epinephelus areolatus Areolate grouper 4.0- Groupers 1.0Mullidae Parupeneus indicus Indian goatfish 2.5Misc. marine fish - - 7.5Sub-total demersal 40.0Total 100.0Table 5. Species breakdown of small-scale shark and ray catches for Somalia, based on sources in Table 3.Category Family Species Common name Catch (%)Sharks Carcharhinidae Carcharhinus melanopterus Blacktip reef shark 15.0C. amblyrhynchos Grey reef shark 7.5Alopiidae Alopias vulpinus Thintail thresher 15.0Lamnidae - Mako sharks 15.0Sphyrnidae - Hammerhead sharks 15.0- - Other sharks 7.5Rays - - Rays and mantas 25.0Fisheries catch reconstruction for Somalia \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Persson et al. 119community of Eyl produced 200 t of shark fins, which requires about 10,000 t of live-weight sharks. In addition, Mohamed and Herzi (2005) stated that Eyl's estimated yearly locally landed and utilized shark catch (not finned) was 1,830 t in 2004. Thus, we assumed that the discards of shark meat in Eyl due to shark finning alone were about 8,170 t (10,000 t minus 1,830 t = 8,170 t), which was 69% of the total estimated shark and ray catch in 2004 in Eyl (8,170 t / 11,830 t = 0.69). In order to remain conservative, and also because the retained fin weight was not taken into account in this calculation, we reduced this to 49.1%, and used this as a total small-scale shark discard rate in 2004 for all of Somalia. Half of the 2004 discard rate was used as an anchor point in 1990 (i.e. 24.5%) to reflect the rapidly growing demand for shark fins reported during the 1990s (Clarke 2004). Thurow and Kroll (1962) reported that dried sharks were exported from Somalia and that shark fins fetched a higher price, however, there were no indications of shark meat discards in the report. Therefore, we conservatively assumed that shark discards were 0% in 1960. Linear interpolation was done between the 1960, 1990 and 2004 discard rates to derive the fraction of artisanal shark meat discards over time, and the 2004 rate was carried forward to 2010 unaltered.AdjustmentsFrom 1992 to 1996, reported catches were greater than reconstructed catches. Therefore, catches in these years were assumed to be 100% reported (except for discards which are known to be unaccounted for in reported data) and a negative adjustment of the reported data was done. Previously, when the reported cephalopod catches were subtracted from the total artisanal and subsistence 'marine fishes nei', the result was a negative catch in these years (1992\u00E2\u0080\u00931996). Therefore, the cephalopods were adjusted independently of the rest of the catch. All of the 'marine fishes nei' were assigned as cephalopods for 1992\u00E2\u0080\u00931996 and the difference was allocated as a negative adjustment to the reported cephalopod catches. 'Tropical spiny lobster' catches were left unadjusted as they were assumed to be well reported. The remaining catch was compared to the 'marine fishes nei' reported catch. The difference between these totals represents the negative adjustment applied to the 'marine fishes nei' category of the reported data. Please note that all comparisons of reconstructed data to the reported FAO data refer to the adjusted baseline derived here.resultsReported catchesTotal landings reported by FAO on behalf of Somalia were 922,930 t (944,999 t before adjustment) from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, with catches varying between 5,000\u00E2\u0080\u009315,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 from 1950 to the early 1980s, before increasing rapidly to around 25,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 by the early 1990s. Following a decline in landings during the 1990s, reported landings increased again to 30,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the early 2000s and have been fixed at this amount since (Figure 2A). Here, we split these data into assumed industrial and small-scale components of reported landings, and added unreported catches as well as discarding to both components.Table 9. Breakdown for subsistence catches.Taxon Percentage (%)Marine fishes nei 7.50Scombridae 10.00Clupeidae 2.04Indian oil sardine 8.15Carangidae 2.04Bigeye scad 4.07Arabian scad/Horse mackerel 4.07Lethrinidae 8.15Spangled emperor 16.30Pink ear emperor 8.15Long faced emperor 8.15Lutjanidae 2.04Aprion spp. 4.07Serranidae 2.04Areolate grouper 8.15Mullidae 5.09-10203040506070IndustrialSubsistenceArtisanal discardsIndustrial discardsReported to FAOArtisanalA-102030405060701950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearOthersDiagramma pictumEpinephelus areolatusThunnus albacaresLethrinus nebulosusBCatch (thousand t)BatoideaFigure 2. Reconstructed total catch in Somali waters, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, A) by sector with reported catches overlaid as a dashed line, B) by major taxa. 'Others' includes 42 additional taxonomic categories. See Appendix Table A1 and Appendix Table A2 for details 120Industrial catchOf the total FAO reported landings, about 420,700 t, or 46%, were assigned to industrial landings from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 (Figure 2A). Prior to 1975, industrial landings accounted for about 25% of total landings reported by Somalia to FAO. After the mid 1970s, industrial landings started to increase until 1995, when they peaked at around 15,700 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1, or 66% of total FAO reported landings (Figure 2A). The erratic nature of reported industrial landings, especially during the 1980s, was largely driven by serial failures of joint venture operations. The only source of unreported catch we examined and estimated for the industrial fishery was discards, which contributed 15% of the reconstructed total industrial catch (75,200 t).The overall species composition of the industrial catches suggested that Diagramma picta was the most important individually identifiable taxon for the industrial fisheries (15.7%), consistently contributing between 14.5\u00E2\u0080\u009316.1% of the catch each year. This was followed by Lethrinus nebulosus (9.3%) and Epinephelus areolatus (8.6%), while the most important pelagic species were yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares; 6.4%) and bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus; 4.9%). Discards accounted to 15% of the reconstructed total industrial catches (Figure 2A).Small-scale catchReconstructed total small-scale catches were over 1.3 million t for the entire period (Figure 2A), which was just over 2.6 times the volume of FAO landings assumed to represent small-scale catches. The reconstructed total small-scale catches during the colonial era (1950s) were estimated to be 16,500 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1. After 1960, total small-scale catches started to increase to almost 20,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 by 1977, before declining during the 1980s to about 18,500 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1. After the collapse of the national government in the early 1990s, catches dropped substantially to a low of 9,200 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 1995. Small-scale catches increased substantially thereafter to approximately 47,700 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 by the late 2000s. Small-scale catches were estimated to consist to 74% of artisanal catches and 26% subsistence catches. Discards contributed 10% to the overall artisanal catch.The species breakdown of small-scale catches, based on information available to us, suggested that sharks and rays dominated catches. Their fraction of the landed artisanal catch (subsistence fisheries were assumed not to target sharks) increased from about 21% in the earlier period (2,100 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1), steadily rising from the mid-1960s to a peak of almost 54% in 1996 (4,600 t), and then declined to about 43% (14,000 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1) in the most recent years (2005\u00E2\u0080\u00932010). Discards of shark meat (the result of targeted shark finning) were estimated at around 100,000 t between 1950 and 2010.Although sharks and rays as a group were dominant in the small-scale catches, the most dominant individual taxa in the total small-scale catch were Lethrinus nebulosus (7.5%) and Thunnus albacares (6.1%).Total catchesThe reconstructed total catch was around 1.8 million t from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, which was 98% larger than the adjusted landings of 922,930 t reported to FAO on behalf of Somalia for the same period (Figure 2A). For the first 20 years (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931969), reconstructed total catches averaged around 18,600 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1. During the 1970s and the 1980s, catches increased to around 22,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 and 28,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1, respectively. After the government collapsed in 1991, total catches stabilized at 28,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 until 1995, before rapidly increasing to 41,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 by the end of the decade. This increase continued into the 21st century and levelled out at almost 65,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 after 2006.The spangled emperor (Lethrinus nebulosus) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) were the most prevalent species in the total reconstructed catch, contributing 8.0% and 6.2% respectively. Rays and mantas (Batoidea) made up 6.0%, whilst the areolate grouper (Epinephelus areolatus) was 5.1% of the total catch, followed by the painted sweetlip (Diagramma pictum) at 4.3% (Figure 2B).disCussionSince the early 1990s, Somalia has been a failed state without a functioning central government (Nincic 2008). The country is suffering extensively from poverty and violence, and its fisheries statistics are highly unreliable (Anon. 2001). Based on the information and data available to us, and the assumptions outlined in the methods, catches from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 were reconstructed in an attempt to gain a better understanding of likely total Somali domestic catches. The reconstructed total catch estimates were nearly two times the data reported by FAO on behalf of Somalia, with reconstructed small-scale catches as the major contributor to the difference.Interestingly, industrial catches showed an increase during the initial phase of the civil war instead of the expected decline. This reflects the loss of monitoring and enforcement capacity of Somalia during that time, which seems to have been taken advantage of by foreign vessels engaging in illegal fishing. Unlike industrial catches, the reconstructed small-scale catches were thought to better reflect the unstable situation in Somalia starting in the late 1980s, with a rapid decline after the collapse of the legitimate government in 1991. After this initial decline, small-scale catches started to increase substantially after 1995. Increased involvement and private investments in the domestic artisanal fisheries sector was the main reason for the observed increase in catches (Lovatelli 1996). Fisheries catch reconstruction for Somalia \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Persson et al. 121Other contributing factors could have been the change in seafood consumption habits among the Somalis (Gulaid 2004), the relocation of displaced people due to war, and the increased use of motorized boats by artisanal fishers (Anon. 2001).The landings data reported by FAO on behalf of Somalia were for many years incomplete or highly uncertain. This is not surprising, given the lack of a central government and administration, and FAO is to be commended for being able to provide any estimates at all, given that national reporting of catches collapsed in the late 1980s due to civil unrest (Anon. 2001).Foreign illegal and semi-illegal fishingSince the Siad Barre regime collapsed in 1991 (and possibly even before that), Somalia has not been able to comprehensively patrol and protect its waters. Numerous vessels from various countries are thought to have exploited the situation by fishing illegally in Somali waters (e.g. Qayad 1997; Jennings 2001; Mwangura 2006b; Schofield 2008). There are contradictory reports about the number of illegal fishing vessels operating off the Somali coastline. Some of the more recent numbers suggest a decline from 500 foreign fishing vessels in 2006 (Mwangura 2006a) to 200 fishing vessels in 2009 (Anon. 2009c). However, exact numbers are not known due to the absence of monitoring and enforcement capacity within Somali waters. Furthermore, the number of foreign fishing vessels operating in Somali waters is also difficult to monitor due to the lack of transparency in data sharing among international monitoring agencies working in the Indian Ocean. As a matter of fact, misleading the public seems commonplace, as many fishing vessels, even while being attacked by Somali pirates, systematically withheld accurate position reports from relevant agencies, such as the International Maritime Bureau and International Maritime Organization, and these agencies avoid reporting positions in favour of likely dubious self-reporting by vessels (Hansen 2009). In contrast, the commercial MaRisk system, using position data collected via satellites and remote sensors from the military coalition fleet, showed that fishing vessels were deep within Somalia's EEZ when captured by pirates (Hansen 2009).The autonomous, but unrecognized territories of Somaliland and Puntland had some limited success in controlling illegal fishing for short periods. For example, the Puntland administration assigned responsibility for controlling coastal resources to private security companies such as Hart Security (British) for 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932001, SOMCAN (United Arab Emirates) from 2001\u00E2\u0080\u00932006, and Al Hababi Marine Services (Saudi Arabia) in 2006 (Hansen 2008). However, these initiatives met with limited success as most foreign vessels escaped into international waters whenever the private security vessels approached. Thus, for example, only four fishing vessels were arrested by Hart Security. None of the private security arrangements survived the interplay of local clan politics and changing political equations in these territories (Hansen 2008; Kinsey 2009).It has been suggested that illegal foreign fishing in Somali waters has been the social reason for the resurgence of piracy in the region during the 2000s (Jennings 2001; Lehr and Lehmann 2007; Menkhaus 2009). Our catch reconstruction illustrates that domestic artisanal catches did decline after the start of the civil war and the collapse of central governance control. At the same time, foreign fishing fleets started to substantially increase their illegal fishing activities in Somali waters. The initial decline of artisanal catches was most likely caused by the lack of gear and boats, as well as the increased risk due to civil war, but might also have been impacted by the illegal foreign fleets. It has been reported that foreign vessels fished very close inshore and destroyed local fishing gears (Lehr and Lehmann 2007), which would have fuelled anger towards foreign fishers. Irrespective of the initial reasons and drivers for the resurgence of piracy, it did not take long for it to grow into big business for warlords and criminals utterly unrelated to domestic fisheries, who increasingly used foreign fishing as an excuse to hijack vessels and demand ransoms (Menkhaus 2009).One example was the 'National Volunteer Coast Guard of Somalia' which in 2005 took over three Taiwanese-owned trawlers and demanded ransom for the crew, claiming it was a fine for fishing illegally within Somali waters (Lehr and Lehmann 2007). At the time (2005), the argument that pirates were deprived local fishers appeared to be already out of date, since our reconstruction suggests that by the mid-late 2000s, domestic artisanal fisheries catches had increased considerably. This is also supported by other observations (Gulaid 2004; Mohamed and Herzi 2005; Sabriye 2005). Therefore, the increasing piracy activities in the 2000s may have reduced illegal foreign fishing in coastal waters, permitting and enabling an increasing domestic artisanal sector to re-emerge.Irrespective of the issue of piracy, the problem of foreign fishing fleets illegally exploiting Somali waters illustrates a severe failure of flag-state control, and further illustrates that illegal fishing is a matter of international, trans-boundary criminal activity rather than a fisheries management failure (\u00C3\u0096sterblom et al. 2011; UNODC 2011). The value of illegal catches taken out of Somali waters in 2005 was estimated as being at least US$300 million (Lehr and Lehmann 2007). This lucrative illegal business is thought to have contributed to the prolongation of instability in the country, since neither foreign fishing interests or local authorities (warlords) would have benefited as much from properly controlled legal operations (Coffen-Smout 1998; Jennings 2001). Importantly, the value taken out of Somali waters by the illegal foreign fleets would not be available to the Somali people and society (David Ardill pers. comm.). In contrast, with fully transparent and legal licensing through foreign fishing access agreements, a functional national government would have been able to derive benefits for all of Somali society from one of their largest natural resources. Such controlled access would be an important source of foreign exchange income for legal national authorities, and may contribute to stability in the country (UNEP 2005).If one examines semi-illegal fishing, i.e., foreign fishing based on 'licenses' and protection bought from local or regional authorities in contravention of international law, one finds that fishing companies that bought semi-illegal 122licenses were often treading a thin line, as being licensed by one warlord or local authority did not ensure safe treatment by another if the vessel entered the perceived local territories of another warlord. Furthermore, the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia has documented misuse of revenues generated from the sale of semi-illegal fishing licenses to the benefit of local warlords to maintain militias and purchase weapons (UN 2006). This concern is not restricted to central and southern Somalia, but is also prevalent along the coast of Somaliland, where Yemeni vessels exchanged arms for fishing rights (UN 2008).ConClusionsOverall, the likely total catches taken from the waters of Somalia by domestic vessels, as derived through our catch reconstruction, increased from 18,250 t in 1950 to 64,900 t in 2010, and total catches were 98% higher than officially reported data. The occurrence of extensive illegal foreign fishing in the waters of a sovereign state, mainly during a time of severe internal instability, although not quantified here, illustrates an astounding lack of flag-state control by predominantly European and Asian fleets, and a global failure of control over rampant unregulated fisheries exploitation. It seems a poor testimony of international affairs that, in the 21st century, the global community continues to be incapable or unwilling to act decisively in the interest of poor and developing countries. The clear show of unanimous inaction with respect to the renewable resources in the waters of Somalia can only be called 'commercial colonialisms' in the name of globalization and the pursuit of unfettered profit.aCknoWledgementsThis is a contribution of Sea Around Us, a collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. AL, SH, KZ and DZ also thank the Rockefeller Foundation for funding support.reFerenCesAnon. (1982) Somali fishing industry has potential for growth. Foreign Fishery Developments, Marine Fisheries Review 44: 25\u00E2\u0080\u009326.Anon. (1985) Fisheries joint venture guidlines. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Somali Democratic Republic, Mogadishu. 18 p.Anon. (1987) Yearly fishery report 1986/87. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Transport, Somali Democratic Republic, Mogadishu. 46 p.Anon. (1988) Yearly fisheries and marine transport report 1987/1988. Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Transport, Somali Democratic Republic, Mogadishu.Anon. (1998) Taiwanese fishermen fined for fishing in Somalia. Agence France Presse, February 28, 1998.Anon. (2001) Strategic action programme for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Country reports. Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA), February 2001, Washington, D.C.Anon. (2004) Somaliland in figures 2004. Ministry of National Planning and Coordination Republic of Somaliland, Hargesia. 101 p.Anon. (2005) Two killed as Somalia hijackers clash over ransom. Awdal News, December 18, 2005.Anon. (2008a) Kenya loses 10,000 tonnes of fish annually. The Standard, July 14, 2008.Anon. (2008b) The MV Faina Piracy Crisis Chronicle \u00E2\u0080\u0094 IX, News from abducted ships. Ecoterra News International, December 8, 2008.Anon. (2008c) Official pirate-fishing in the Somali Indian Ocean flourishing. Mareeg Online, November 16, 2008.Anon. (2008d) Pirate fishing boats target Africa. BBC News, July 3, 2008.Anon. (2008e) Tanzania to curb illegal fishing. IPP Media, September 25, 2008.Anon. (2009a) 40,000 tons of Yemen fish trafficked annually, Minister reveals. Yemen Post, November 9, 2009.Anon. (2009b) Footprint factbook. Africa 2009. Securing human development in a resource constrained world., Global Footprint Network, October 2009, Oakland, California, United States of America. 123 p.Anon. (2009c) Illegal EU vessels adding to piracy. Intrafish, edition of June 23, 2009.Bakun A, Claude R and Lluch-Cota S (1998) Coastal upwelling and other processes regulating ecosystem productivity and fish production in the western Indian Ocean. Pp. 103\u00E2\u0080\u0093142 In Sherman K, Okemwa, E. N., and M. J. Ntiba (ed.), Large marine ecosystems of the Indian Ocean: assessment, sustainability and management. Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K.Bihi A (1984) L'impact potentiel des activit\u00C3\u00A9s socio-\u00C3\u00A9conomiques sur l'environnement marin et c\u00C3\u00B4tier de la r\u00C3\u00A9gion de l'Afrique de l'Est: rapports nationaux. PNUE : rapports et \u00C3\u00A9tudes des mers r\u00C3\u00A9gionales n0 51.Bultel E, Doherty B, Herman A, Le Manach F and Zeller D (this volume) An update of the reconstructed marine fisheries catches of Tanzania with taxonomic breakdown. Clarke S (2004) Understanding pressures on fishery resources through trade statistics: a pilot study of four products in the Chinese dried seafood market. Fish and Fisheries 5: 53\u00E2\u0080\u009374.Coffen-Smout S (1998) Pirates warlords and rogue fishing vessels in Somalia's unruly seas. Available at: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ar120/somalia.html [Accessed 13th October, 2009].Fisheries catch reconstruction for Somalia \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Persson et al. 123Coll\u00C3\u00A9ter M, Darar Djibril A, Hosch G, Labrosse P, Yvergniaux Y, Le Manach F and Pauly D (this volume) Le d\u00C3\u00A9veloppement soutenu de p\u00C3\u00AAcheries artisanales : reconstruction des captures marines \u00C3\u00A0 Djibouti de 1950 \u00C3\u00A0 2010. Corfitzen W and Kinzy G (1950) Preliminary report on Somalia agricultural projects. Economic Cooperation Administration, September 8, 1950, Rome (Italy). 42 p.Costello C, Kinlan BP, Lester SE and Gaines SD (2012) The economic value of rebuilding fisheries, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Working Papers, No. 55. OECD Publishing, Paris (France). 68 p. Dupont B, Grabosky, P. and Shearing, C. (2003) The governance of security in weak and failing states. Criminal Justice 3(4): 19.Elmer S (1985) Somalia; technical assistance for marketing and cooperatives. A report prepared for the Technical Support to the Ministry of Fisheries Project. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Sweden Funds-In-Trust, Field Document 2, June 1985, Rome (Italy).FAO (1972) Fishery resources survey Somali Democratic Republic. Report prepared for the Fishery Survey Project, based on the work of the research vessel Zheleznyakov. FI:SF/DP SOM 67/513/4. November 6 1972, Rome (Italy). 48 p.FAO (1978) Development of fisheries in the exclusive economic zone of Somalia: report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 1978, Rome (Italy).FAO (2005) The Somali Republic \u00E2\u0080\u0094 General information. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). 10 p.Gulaid A (2004) Feasibility report on the fisheries sector in Somaliland. Current status, opportunities and constraints., United Nations Development Programme (NDP). Discussion Paper Consultant's Findings, April\u00E2\u0080\u0093June 2004. 35 p.Haakonsen J (1984) Scientific socialism and self-reliance. The case of Somalia'a \"instant\" fishermen. Department of Social Anthropology University of Bergen, 1984. 166 p.Haakonsen JH (1983) Somalia's fisheries case study. FAO Fisheries Report No. 295, FIPP/R295, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome (Italy).Hansen SJ (2008) Private security & local politics in Somalia. Review of African Political Economy 118: 585\u00E2\u0080\u0093598.Hansen SJ (2009) Piracy in the greater Gulf of Aden, myths, misconceptions and remedies. NIBR Report 2009, Norwegian Institute for Urban and Regional Research, Oslo (Norway). 72 p.Hariri K (1985) Fisheries development in the North West Indian Ocean. The impact of commercial fishing arrangements. Ithaca Press, 1985, London (UK). 158 p.IOFC (1982) Major fisheries issues in the region; progress and problems (and total landings). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Indian Ocean Fishery Commission (IOFC), Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in the Southwest Indian Ocean, Second Session, 13\u00E2\u0080\u009315 December 1982 Mah\u00C3\u00A9 (Seychelles).IUCN (2003) Information on shark finning: conversion factors for shark fin to body weight., Available at: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/organizations/ssg/finconversion.html [Accessed February 25, 2010].IUCN (2006) Country environmental profile for Somalia. Prepared for the European Commission Somalia Operations Office by The World Conservation Union (IUCN), March\u00E2\u0080\u0093August 2006, Nairobi, Kenya.Jennings T (1998) Marine living resource governance in the absence of a central authority: a study of Somalia. Master of Marine Affairs thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA (USA). 135 p.Jennings T (2001) Controlling access in the absence of a central government: the Somali dilemma. Pp. 403\u00E2\u0080\u0093427 In Mann Borgese E, Chircop A and McConnell M (eds.), Ocean Yearbook 15. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (USA).Johnsen T (1985) Commercial trawling for fish and deep sea lobster (Puerulus spp.) off Somalia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). RAF/79/065/WP/13/84. June 1985.Johnson R (1956) Fisheries reconnaissance Somalia, East Africa. United States of America operations mission to Italy, June 18, 1956, Rome (Italy). 29 p.Kelleher K (1998) Approaches to marine fisheries governance in Somalia. Draft report, the protection and sustainable development of Somalia marine environment, seaports and coastal areas. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Project SOM/97/013A/08/19, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAO/TCP/SOM/6713, Field document. March 1998. 39 p.Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world's marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 470, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome (Italy). 131 p.Kinsey CP, Hansen, SJ and Franklin G (2009) The impact of private security companies on Somalia's governance networks. Cambridge Review of International Affairs 22(1): 15.Kulmiye AJ (2001) Militia versus trawlers: Who is the villain? The East African Magazine, July 9, 2001.Laitin D and Samatar S (1984) Somalia and the world economy. Review of African Political Economy 30: 58\u00E2\u0080\u009372.Lawrence C (1980) Fisheries legislation in Somalia. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Lawson T, Lablache G, Simeos F and Ali AF (1986) The Western Indian Ocean tuna fishery from 1980 to 1985 \u00E2\u0080\u0094 A summary of data collected by coastal states. Technical Report, SFA/R & D/001, Seychelles Fishing Authority, 26 August 1986, Mah\u00C3\u00A9 (Seychelles).Le Manach F, Abunge CA, McClanahan TR and Pauly D (this volume) Tentative reconstruction of Kenya's marine fisheries catch, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. 124Lehr P and Lehmann H (2007) Somalia\u00E2\u0080\u0093Pirates' new paradise. Pp. 1\u00E2\u0080\u009321 In Lehr P (ed.), Violence at sea: piracy in the age of global terrorism. Taylor and Francis Group LLC, New York, NY (USA).Losse G (1970) Fishery survey Somalia: the tuna fishery of the Gulf of Aden. Report prepared for the Government of Somalia by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations acting as executing agency for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Technical Report 1, FI:SF/SOM 13, Rome (Italy).Lovatelli A (1996) Artisanal fisheries final report. European Commission Rehabilitation Programme for Somalia. EC Somalia Unit, Nairobi (Kenya).Marshall N (1997) The Somali shark fishery in the Gulf of Aden and the Western Indian Ocean. Pp. 24\u00E2\u0080\u009330 In Marshall N, and R. Barnett (eds.), Trade in sharks and shark products in the Western Indian and Southeast Atlantic Oceans. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Nairobi (Kenya).Menkhaus K (2009) Dangerous waters. Survival 51: 21\u00E2\u0080\u009325.Mohamed M and Herzi M (2005) Feasibility report on the fisheries sector in Puntland. Current status, opportunities and constraints. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Somalia, Poverty Reduction and Economic Recovery. Ocean Training and Promotion (OTP) Bossaso supported by UNDP Somalia.Mukhtar MH (1996) The plight of the agro-pastoral society of Somalia. Review of African Political Economy 23(70): 543\u00E2\u0080\u0093553. Mwangura A (2006b) IUU fishing and Indian Ocean piracy. Workshop on Fishing Communities and sustainable Developments in Southern and Eastern Africa: A samll-scale fisheries perspective, Dar-es-Salaam (Tanzania).Nincic D (2008) State failure and the re-emergence of maritime piracy. Presented at the 49th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, March 26\u00E2\u0080\u009329, 2008, San Francisco, CA (USA).Ogilvie H, Fraser-Brunner A and Byrd D (1954) Report to the government of Italy as the administering authority for the Trust Territory of Somalia on the exploratory fishery survey in Somalia\u00E2\u0080\u00931952/53. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy). 83 p.\u00C3\u0096sterblom H, Constable A and Fukumi S (2011) Illegal fishing and the organized crime analogy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 26(6): 261\u00E2\u0080\u0093262.Pierconti G and Dunn I (1990) Fishery project formulation mission report. Intergovernmental authority on drought and development. Food and Agriculture Oraganization of the United Nations (FAO), FI:TCP/RAP/8970 (F), May 1990, Rome (Italy).Qayad M (1997) Assessment mission to Somalia in connection with alleged dumping of hazardous substances. Mission report. Joint UNEP/DHA environmental unit and the UN coordination unit (UNCU) for Somalia, 10 May through 8 June, 1997.Rykaczewski R and Checkley JD (2008) Influence of ocean winds on the pelagic ecosystem in upwelling regions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 105: 1965\u00E2\u0080\u00931970.Sabriye A (2005) Feasibility report on the fisheries sector in South and Central Somalia. Current status, opportunities and constraints., United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), poverty reduction and economic recovery. Discussion paper. 36 p.Samatar AI (2007) Somalia's post-conflict economy: a political economy approach. Bildhaan 7(8): 43.Samoilys M, Domingue G, Kariuki J, Payet R, Hersi A and Ali. M (2007) Application of the PROFISH global list of irresponsible fishing vessles as a tool to combat illegal unregulated and unreported fishing in Eastern Africa. The World Conservation Union, Nairobi (Kenya).Sanders M and Morgan G (1989) Review of the fisheries resources of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 304, Rome (Italy).Schofield C (2008) Plundered waters; Somalia's maritime resource insecurity. Pp. 102\u00E2\u0080\u0093115 (332) In Doyle T, and M. Risely (eds.), Crucible for survival; environmental security and justice in the Indian Ocean region. Rutgers, New Jersey (USA).Shaves G (1984) Somalia technical assistance for marketing and cooperatives. Sweden Funds-In-Trust, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Prepared for the Technical Support to the Ministry of Fisheries Project. Field document, FI:UTF/SOM/028/SOM. Rome (Italy). 16 p.Simoons FJ (1974) Rejection of fish as human food in Africa: a problem in history and ecology. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 3(2): 89\u00E2\u0080\u0093105. Stromme T (1987) Annex IV Sectoral report on marine living resources. Pp. 87\u00E2\u0080\u0093110 In Burbridge P (ed.), Coastal and marine environmental problems of Somalia. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 84, UNEP.Sumaila UR, Cheung WWL, Lam V, Pauly D and Herrick S (2011) Climate change impacts on the biophysics and economics of world fisheries. Nature Climate Change 1: 449\u00E2\u0080\u0093456.Thurow F and Kroll D (1962) Report on the fisheries conditions in Somalia. Kiel (Germany). 36 p.Tussing A, Hiebert RA and Sutinen J (1974) Fisheries of the Indian Ocean: issues of international management and law of the sea. Paper no. 5 in a series prepared for The Program of International Studies of Fishery Arrangements, Washington, DC (USA). 55 p.UN (2006) United Nations Security Council, May 4, 2006, Report of the Monitoring Group on Somalia pursuant to Security Council resolution 1630 (2005). United Nations Security Council, United Nations. 69 p.UN (2008) United Nations Security Council, April 24, 2008, Report of the Monitoring Group on Somalia pursuant to Security Council resolution 1766 (2007). United Nations Security Council. 83 p.UNDP and FAO (1992) Development of inshore fisheries North West coast : Somalia: project findings and recommendations. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome (Italy).Fisheries catch reconstruction for Somalia \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Persson et al. 125UNEP (2005) The state of the environment in Somalia. A desk study. United Nations Environment Programme (UNDP), Nairobi (Kenya). 67 p.UNODC (2011) Transnational organized crime in the fishing industry. United Nations Office on Drug and Crime, Vienna (Austria). 140 p.Van Zalinge NP (1988) Summary of fisheries and resources information for Somalia. Pp. 142\u00E2\u0080\u0093154 In Sanders MJ, Sparre P and Venema SC (eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on the assessment of the fishery resources in the Southwest Indian Ocean. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO/UNDP: RAF/79/065/WP/41/88/E, Rome (Italy).von Hoesslin K (2006) Taiwan and piracy along the Horn of Africa. Taiwan Journal XXV, Number 1.Weir G (2009) Fish, family, and profit. Piracy and the Horn of Africa. In Elleman B, Forbes, A., and D. Rosenberg (eds.), Piracy and maritime crime: historical and modern case studies. Newport paper 35. Naval War College Press, New Port, RI (USA).Yassin M (1981) Somali fisheries development and management. Report for the 506A Project Resource Management, Mogadishu (Somalia). 63 p.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. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266\u00E2\u0080\u0093277. 126Appendix Table A1. FAO landings vs. reconstructed total catch (in tonnes), and catch by sector, with discards shown separately, for Somalia, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Year FAO landingsa Reconstructed total catch Industrial Artisanal Subsistence Discards1950 6,000 18,300 1,480 9,900 6,600 2721951 6,000 18,300 1,480 9,960 6,550 2721952 7,000 18,500 1,730 10,010 6,490 3171953 7,400 18,700 1,830 10,070 6,440 3351954 5,300 18,000 1,310 10,120 6,380 2401955 9,500 19,300 2,340 10,170 6,330 4301956 10,000 19,400 2,470 10,230 6,270 4531957 9,000 19,100 2,220 10,280 6,220 4071958 8,000 18,800 1,970 10,340 6,160 3621959 5,000 18,000 1,230 10,390 6,110 2261960 4,500 18,000 1,110 10,600 6,050 1951961 4,500 18,000 1,110 10,660 6,000 2131962 4,500 18,000 1,110 10,710 5,940 2311963 4,500 18,200 1,110 10,930 5,930 2491964 4,500 18,400 1,110 11,080 5,930 2721965 4,600 18,800 1,130 11,450 5,920 2891966 4,600 19,000 1,130 11,600 5,910 3151967 4,700 19,100 1,160 11,670 5,910 3531968 5,000 19,300 1,230 11,820 5,900 3981969 5,000 19,500 1,230 11,970 5,880 4351970 5,600 19,900 1,380 12,200 5,870 4941971 5,700 20,200 1,410 12,350 5,860 5371972 5,800 20,400 1,430 12,500 5,850 5831973 5,900 20,600 1,460 12,660 5,830 6311974 5,980 20,900 1,520 12,870 5,820 6851975 10,350 21,500 1,650 13,320 5,800 7661976 8,268 22,800 2,690 13,330 5,780 9801977 9,830 24,400 3,850 13,530 5,770 1,2251978 8,384 20,100 510 13,090 5,750 7451979 10,984 24,700 4,780 13,010 5,460 1,4951980 14,330 29,900 9,760 12,650 5,180 2,2851981 9,523 24,200 5,040 12,360 5,120 1,6481982 8,730 23,100 4,110 12,420 5,060 1,5421983 11,195 25,000 5,640 12,530 5,000 1,8691984 19,639 32,200 11,690 12,530 4,950 3,0341985 16,467 30,400 10,180 12,540 4,890 2,8281986 18,255 24,800 5,020 13,000 4,830 1,9711987 19,546 31,900 11,150 12,780 4,770 3,1541988 19,827 30,200 9,680 12,790 4,720 2,9991989 21,046 29,600 10,270 11,900 4,300 3,0901990 22,295 28,900 10,880 10,970 3,890 3,1781991 23,500 28,300 11,470 10,040 3,490 3,2951992 24,620 28,100 12,450 9,080 3,100 3,4651993 24,212 27,800 13,420 8,070 2,720 3,6231994 23,904 27,700 14,450 7,110 2,340 3,7551995 23,851 27,800 15,690 6,180 1,980 3,9001996 26,044 30,300 14,620 8,670 2,760 4,2651997 27,750 32,800 13,540 11,180 3,520 4,6061998 25,550 35,400 12,470 13,710 4,250 4,9721999 28,400 40,900 13,860 16,290 4,970 5,7982000 23,950 42,200 11,690 18,800 5,660 6,0092001 31,700 50,600 15,470 21,460 6,330 7,2952002 28,800 52,800 14,060 24,050 6,980 7,6632003 29,800 57,200 14,540 26,700 7,610 8,3692004 29,800 61,100 14,540 29,370 8,210 9,0012005 24,800 61,800 12,100 32,000 8,790 8,9472006 29,800 64,800 14,540 32,190 8,660 9,4152007 29,800 64,800 14,540 32,320 8,520 9,4442008 29,800 64,900 14,540 32,460 8,390 9,4722009 29,800 64,900 14,540 32,590 8,250 9,5012010 29,800 64,900 14,540 32,730 8,120 9,530a These are the adjusted FAO landings.Fisheries catch reconstruction for Somalia \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Persson et al. 127Appendix Table A2. Reconstructed total catch (in tonnes) by major taxonomic group, for Somali, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. 'Others' contain 42 additional taxonomic categories.Year Lethrinus nebulosus Thunnus albacares Batoidea Epinephelus areolatus Diagramma pictum Others1950 1,870 1,290 533 1,005 281 13,3001951 1,860 1,290 536 1,002 281 13,3001952 1,890 1,320 541 1,025 328 13,4001953 1,890 1,330 545 1,032 347 13,5001954 1,830 1,300 543 976 248 13,2001955 1,940 1,390 555 1,081 445 13,9001956 1,950 1,400 559 1,091 469 14,0001957 1,910 1,390 560 1,062 422 13,8001958 1,880 1,380 561 1,034 375 13,6001959 1,790 1,330 557 954 234 13,1001960 1,770 1,320 558 933 202 13,2001961 1,760 1,330 565 931 202 13,2001962 1,760 1,330 573 928 202 13,2001963 1,750 1,340 608 926 197 13,4001964 1,750 1,340 644 927 197 13,5001965 1,750 1,340 681 922 187 13,9001966 1,750 1,340 719 922 187 14,0001967 1,760 1,350 759 927 197 14,1001968 1,760 1,360 801 935 211 14,3001969 1,760 1,360 844 935 211 14,4001970 1,780 1,370 888 947 234 14,7001971 1,780 1,370 933 949 239 14,9001972 1,780 1,380 980 951 244 15,0001973 1,780 1,380 1,027 953 248 15,2001974 1,780 1,390 1,076 956 257 15,4001975 1,800 1,400 1,129 971 285 16,0001976 1,890 1,470 1,189 1,060 451 16,7001977 2,010 1,540 1,251 1,165 646 17,8001978 1,680 1,320 1,279 862 95 14,9001979 2,040 1,560 1,308 1,230 839 17,8001980 2,430 1,820 1,336 1,619 1,621 21,0001981 1,990 1,520 1,348 1,223 910 17,2001982 1,880 1,440 1,384 1,123 742 16,6001983 2,020 1,550 1,443 1,267 1,018 17,7001984 2,690 2,000 1,544 1,884 2,159 21,9001985 2,510 1,870 1,578 1,724 1,881 20,9001986 1,910 1,460 1,600 1,184 912 17,8001987 2,560 1,900 1,724 1,793 2,042 21,8001988 2,360 1,780 1,783 1,629 1,792 20,8001989 2,320 1,720 1,723 1,636 1,901 20,3001990 2,270 1,670 1,654 1,641 2,017 19,7001991 2,220 1,620 1,586 1,642 2,128 19,1001992 2,220 1,610 1,508 1,689 2,318 18,7001993 2,230 1,600 1,419 1,741 2,513 18,3001994 2,240 1,590 1,316 1,795 2,708 18,0001995 2,270 1,600 1,201 1,868 2,938 17,9001996 2,360 1,680 1,694 1,861 2,734 20,0001997 2,450 1,780 2,128 1,857 2,530 22,1001998 2,570 1,900 2,555 1,865 2,326 24,2001999 2,950 2,220 2,994 2,121 2,585 28,0002000 2,950 2,280 3,393 2,019 2,183 29,3002001 3,600 2,810 3,832 2,522 2,890 34,9002002 3,680 2,950 4,215 2,498 2,626 36,8002003 3,980 3,250 4,599 2,668 2,717 40,0002004 4,220 3,520 4,968 2,791 2,717 42,9002005 4,200 3,620 5,239 2,667 2,263 43,9002006 4,450 3,820 5,282 2,906 2,717 45,6002007 4,440 3,830 5,304 2,899 2,717 45,6002008 4,420 3,840 5,326 2,891 2,717 45,7002009 4,410 3,850 5,348 2,883 2,717 45,7002010 4,390 3,860 5,369 2,875 2,717 45,700Fisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 129south aFriCa\u00E2\u0080\u0099s marine Fisheries CatChes (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010)*Sebastian Baust, Lydia Teh, Sarah Harper and Dirk ZellerSea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canadalydia.teh@fisheries.ubc.ca; s.baust@hotmail.com; s.harper@fisheries.ubc.ca; d.zeller@fisheries.ubc.caabstraCtThe official fisheries catch data reported by South Africa to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) is thought to focus on commercial catches, and exclude subsistence (i.e., small-scale non-commercial fishing for self- and family-consumption) and recreational (i.e., small-scale non-commercial fishing for pleasure) catches. The reconstruction of fisheries catches from 1950 to 2010 was undertaken, and combined official data reported to the FAO with estimates of unreported catches for the recreational and subsistence sectors, illegal artisanal catch, and discards from industrial fishing. Total recreational and subsistence catches were estimated to be approximately 3,400 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 and 1,600 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the 1950s, respectively, and increased steadily to almost 6,400 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 and 4,300 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the 2000s (of which about 65% of the respective catches came from the South African Exclusive Economic Zone [EEZ] in the Western Indian Ocean; FAO area 51). In comparison, domestic industrial catches averaged 370,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the early 1950s, peaked at 2.1 million t in 1968, and have been around 720,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the 2000s. Reconstructed artisanal catches increased from about 45,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the early 1950s to 42,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the 2000s. Discards by the industrial sector totalled 3.6 million t from 1950 to 2010, making up about 6% of total reconstructed catch. Almost all industrial catches were from South Africa's EEZ in the Southeast Atlantic Ocean (FAO area 47). South African catches taken in Namibian waters during the South African occupation of Namibia (1915\u00E2\u0080\u00931990) were identified and assigned as South African flagged catches taken in Namibian waters. These catches from Namibian waters totalled 18 million t from 1950 to 1990, and were on average 200,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the 1950s before peaking at 1.6 million t in 1968, then dropping to 162,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the late 1980s. Once reported landings were adjusted for the spatially reassigned catches taken in Namibian waters, reconstructed total catches for South Africa proper were 1.1 times the adjusted landings reported by FAO on behalf of South Africa. Although reconstructed subsistence and recreational catches made up less than 1% of annual domestic commercial catches, these sectors are of considerable socio-economic importance for a large fraction of South Africans. The reconstruction of fisheries catches in these marginalized sectors emphasizes the necessity for political action in support of new management measures, and for ensuring a sustainable and equitable use of ecologically, socially and economically important marine resources in South Africa.introduCtionIn times of dwindling natural marine resources and ever increasing pressure on the marine environment induced by human activities such as overfishing, pollution and global warming, there is the need for more comprehensive and sustainable approaches in fisheries management and a shift in the exploitation of marine resources in general. Global fisheries overall are in a crisis of overexploitation and ongoing stock depletion (Pauly et al. 2002; Myers and Worm 2003). It has been suggested that a combination of traditional management methods (e.g., catch quotas) and closed areas (marine protected areas in which fishing is prohibited), gear and effort restrictions, as well as new management approaches in general hold promise for rebuilding of stocks (Worm et al. 2009).In order to facilitate adequate fisheries management and to account for fisheries in an ecosystem-based setting, comprehensive knowledge on stock status and the amount of withdrawal from these stocks is required. Despite the socioeconomic importance of recreational and subsistence/small-scale fisheries, catch data for these sectors are seldom available and catches are therefore unreported. The marginalization of these sectors and the neglect in quantifying respective catches, systematically tend to underestimate both the actual extent of catches and subsequently the potential adverse effects on marine ecosystems (Pauly and Zeller 2003; Cooke and Cowx 2004; Pauly 2006).In recent years, increased scientific effort has been undertaken in order to quantify and map formerly unreported catches, by reconstructing or reestimating historic catches for various countries and regions, in order to complement existing time series of catches of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and to examine relationships between fishing and ecological changes (Watson et al. 2004; Pauly 2007).This report is the first attempt to reconstruct previously unreported catches in South African fisheries, following the catch reconstruction methodology of Zeller et al. (2007a). Reconstructed catches were taxonomically assigned and spatially split to various Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) within FAO areas.* Cite as: Baust S, Teh L, Harper S and Zeller D (2015) South Africa's marine fisheries catches (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010). Pp. 129\u00E2\u0080\u0093150 In Le Manach F and Pauly D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727]. 130South Africa has a long coastline that spans two oceans, the Atlantic Ocean in the west and the Indian Ocean in the east (Figure 1). The Benguela ecosystem of the west coast is one of the most productive ocean ecosystems in the world in terms of biomass production and fishery resources due to the upwelling of cold, nutrient rich water (Cochrane et al. 2009). South African waters are characterized by high endemism due to the distinct oceanographic conditions and the variety of habitats (Van der Elst et al. 2005). Today, the fishing industry in South Africa provides employment and income for at least 27,000 people, but contributes less than 1% of the country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP; FAO 2010). South Africa is the largest fishing countryn in Africa, and ranked 30th in the world in the 1990s (Hersoug and Holm 2000). The fisheries of South Africa can be separated into three components: the commercial/industrial, recreational, and subsistence/artisanal fisheries, jointly all targeting over 250 marine species (FAO 2010). Here, we distinguished between four fishing sectors: industrial (i.e., large-scale commercial), artisanal (small-scale commercial), subsistence (small-scale non-commercial) and recreational (small-scale non-commercial).Commercial fisheriesThe commercial fishing industry is being separated into large-scale (i.e., industrial) and small-scale (i.e., artisanal) in the present context, and each consists of several fisheries. The most important fishery is the deep-sea trawling subsector and the smaller inshore trawl fishery (both deemed industrial) mainly targeting hake stocks (Merluccius paradoxus and M. capensis; Burgener 2011). There are also small fisheries for hake using demersal longlines and handlines (FAO 2010), which are deemed artisanal.There is also a pelagic purse-seine fishery targeting sardine (Sardinops ocellatus), anchovy (Engraulis capensis) and round herring (Etrumeus whiteheadi) for the production of fishmeal, oil and canned fish (this fishery represents 25% of the value of commercial fisheries in South Africa; Hersoug and Holm 2000; Okes and Burgener 2011a). A midwater trawl fishery is targeting horse mackerel (Trachurus capensis) on the Agulhas Bank. Both these fisheries were treated as industrial.There are two important rock lobster fisheries in South Africa. On the West Coast, an inshore fishery is targeting West Coast rock lobster (Jasus lalandii), and on the South Coast a deep water fishery is targeting Palinurus gilchristi; Okes and Burgener 2011b). Rock lobster contributes less than 1% by mass to the total fishery, but its contribution by value is approximately 9\u00E2\u0080\u009310%. Lobster fisheries were treated as artisanal.There is also a very valuable, but politically highly disputed abalone fishery (Haliotis midae), which has been operating since the late 1940s (DAFF 2012). High levels of poaching and resulting overexploitation led to the temporary closure of the industry in the late 2000s (Hauck and Sweijd 1999; Raemaekers and Britz 2009). This fishery was treated as artisanal.Other smaller fishing sectors include trawl fleets targeting shrimp off the coast of Kwa-Zulu Natal (industrial; Okes and Burgener 2011c), a pelagic longline fishery targeting various tuna species, sharks and billfishes (industrial; Okes and Burgener 2011d,e), a tuna bait and pole fishery (industrial), a small squid jig fishery (artisanal fishery targeting chokka squid [Loligo vulgaris reynaudi] for export; Okes and Burgener 2011f), and a linefish sector (artisanal) that is large in terms of area fished and people employed, targeting a great diversity of fish species including sharks, tunas, and groupers (FAO 2010).In general, catch data for the South African commercial fisheries appeared to be well documented and catch statistics were readily available. South African national statistics made provision for illegal fishing by adding on an illegal catch component to the commercial lshaandings of some fisheries, but the true level of illegal fishing that actually takes place remains unknown (DAFF 2012).Foreign fishing in South AfricaThere appear to be a few South African commercial fisheries that have foreign involvement (David Japp, CapFish, pers. com.), notably:\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 A large pelagic fishery, which at present has about 15 joint venture arrangements between South African fishing rights holders and mainly Japanese and Chinese fishing entities (Okes and Burgener 2011d);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 A deep-water hake trawl fishery, which has catch arrangements with Spanish vessels that are not officially sanctioned, and hence could be deemed illegal; and0 500 km\u00C2\u00B1ShelfEEZ boundaryArea 47 Area 51Figure 1. Map of the South African's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in both Atlantic and Indian Oceans, as well as the extent of the continental shelf (dark blue).Fisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 131\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 A patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides) fishery, which seems to include at least two vessels with foreign beneficial ownership holding South African joint venture fishing rights.Here we did not estimate catches of these foreign operations, as we had to assume that legal joint venture operations engaged in proper reporting procedures, and hence such catches would need to be reported to South African authorities (except possibly the potentially illegal operations of non-sanctioned Spanish hake fishing; see item 2 above).Recreational fisheriesIn recent years, the exploitation of marine resources by various types of recreational fisheries has become a topic of increasing concern for some countries. It is now acknowledged that the recreational fishing sector has the potential to negatively affect fish stocks and may lead to overexploitation of marine resources (Coleman et al. 2004; Cooke and Cowx 2004). In countries such as Australia and the USA, the scientific community acknowledges that public perception and the modus operandi of managing recreational fisheries needs to change, bearing in mind that recreational fisheries have various long-term effects on fish stocks and marine ecosystems (McPhee et al. 2002). Thus, information about total catches, total number of fishers, fishing effort and species composition is crucial. Unfortunately, due to the diversity and spatial and temporal dispersion of the recreational fisheries sector, it is often difficult to obtain such data. As there are no comprehensive estimates for the recreational sector and no official catch statistics for the marginalized subsistence sector in South Africa, this report is the first attempt to reconstruct the total marine recreational catch in South Africa for the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.The South African marine recreational fishing sector is a large and economically important component of South African fisheries. An extensive coastline and a rich and diverse marine fauna offer thousands of recreational fishers the right conditions for their hobby. Major recreational fisheries target abalone, West Coast rock lobster and around 200 pelagic and demersal species targeted using line fishing (of which 31 contribute significantly to the overall total catch; Griffiths and Lamberth 2002). The recreational linefish component can be separated into various sectors: boat- and shore-based estuarine fishers, including recreational fishers using cast nets; marine inshore rock and surf anglers; a boat-based offshore sector; and the spearfishing sector operating both from the shore and from boats. Additionally, there is a charter boat sector offering sport and big game fishing, which has become increasingly popular in recent years, especially in the province of Kwa-Zulu Natal (Pradervand and Van der Elst 2008).Historically, recreational fishing permits for most species were not required in most parts of South Africa until 1999, when new fishing legislation (Marine Living Resource Act of 1998) was put in place. In Kwa-Zulu Natal, a licensing system was implemented in 1971 under a Provincial Ordinance. Nationwide size limits, bag limits, marine protected areas and closed seasons for some species were the only measures implemented in order to manage the recreational fisheries (Cockcroft et al. 1999; Griffiths and Lamberth 2002). In contrast to subsistence fishing, which has existed in South Africa for thousands of years, and commercial fisheries that were initiated by Dutch colonists in the 17th century, recreational shore-based fisheries were introduced by British settlers in the early 19th century (Van der Elst 1989). According to Horne (1974), boat-based recreational angling was only introduced after World War II. Around the same time, various technological developments with respect to gear and fishing methods led to recreational fishing becoming an increasingly popular pastime. Already in the early 1960s, there were an estimated 250,000 recreational fishers in South Africa engaging in shore- and boat-based angling (Schoeman 1962). World record catches of giant bluefin and yellowfin tuna, various types of sharks, marlins, sailfish and giant barracuda were recorded from South African waters before 1950 (Schoeman 1962). Due to its popularity and the economic importance of generating 81% of employment and 82% of revenue of the total South African line fishery sector (Griffiths and Lamberth 2002), the recreational fishing sector can be regarded as an integral part of the South African economy, as well as the fishing industry as a whole.It is accepted that recreational fishing is responsible for the decline of various fish stocks, crustaceans and other marine organisms in South Africa. Both boat- and shore-based anglers have substantially contributed to the collapse of several stocks (Griffiths and Lamberth 2002) and catch declines are reported in various scientific papers (e.g., Brouwer et al. 1997; Sauer et al. 1997). In the early 2000s, the South African Government officially declared the marine linefish fishery as being in a state of emergency due to the collapsed or overexploited state of many linefish stocks (Griffiths and Lamberth 2002).Estimating recreational catches, especially for periods in the past, is a difficult task. The management of the recreational fisheries sector in South Africa appeared complicated due to its numerous species, multi-user nature and temporal and spatial diversity and variability. This report made a first attempt to reconstruct the total recreational catch from 1950 to 2010 as accurately as possible in order to acquire a better understanding of the extent of catches.Subsistence fisheriesSubsistence fisheries provide food (and occasional income from selling surplus catch or high value catch) for millions of people throughout the world. In South Africa, despite its importance in terms of food security and poverty alleviation, this sector has not been sufficiently integrated into management and policy systems (Sowman 2006). The reforms of the post-apartheid transformation process and the implementation of the new Marine Living Resource Act in 1998 have not yet reached its aims of sustainability, equity and stability (Isaacs 2006). Many traditional fishers have been excluded from the new fisheries management framework and consequently were left without fishing rights and adequate support (Sowman and Cardoso 2010). Nevertheless, the Marine Living Resource Act contains the initial 132legal recognition of subsistence fishers in South Africa, and some progress has been made since then. In Kwa-Zulu Natal, a system of co-management has been implemented in some communities and a limited commercial sector for historically disadvantaged individuals (HDI) in South Africa was created in 2001 (Sowman 2006), thus turning some former subsistence fishers into artisanal fishers.Scientific studies have concentrated on political, socio-economic and management-related issues concerning the subsistence sector in South Africa (Hauck and Sowman 2001; Branch et al. 2002a,b; Harris et al. 2002a,b; Hauck et al. 2002; Sowman 2006; van Sittert et al. 2006; Sowman and Cardoso 2010). Some studies identified the present number of subsistence fishers and the type of resources they exploit in South Africa (Clark et al. 2002; Cockcroft et al. 2002; Napier et al. 2009). This report attempted to reconstruct the marine fisheries catches for the subsistence sector in South Africa for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. Several studies have identified the extent and economic importance of underreporting of subsistence fisheries catches in various countries in which official statistics mainly focus on commercial fisheries only (Zeller et al. 2006, 2007a,b; Jaquet and Zeller 2007).There is a general consensus that subsistence fishers are poor fishers who catch marine resources as food source although they may sell or exchange surplus catches to meet basic needs of food security (Branch et al. 2002a; Sowman 2006). Furthermore, they catch resources near or on the shore, as well as in estuaries, apply low-technology gear and mostly live in close proximity to the fishing area (Branch et al. 2002a). Thus, here we defined subsistence fishing as small-scale non-commercial fishing with the primary purpose of feeding one's family, while recognizing that subsistence fishers may sell part of their catch, especially if catches exceed their immediate food security needs or can provide needed cash (e.g., from high-value specimen).Artisanal fishers are also often poor fishers but have a principle commercial involvement with fishing marine resources. Artisanal fishers go fishing to primarily sell their catches rather than using it primarily for their own consumption (Branch et al. 2002a). Thus, here we defined artisanal fishing as small-scale commercial fishing with the primary intent of generating cash income. We recognize the overlap between these two sectors, and hence the potential arbitrariness of differentiation at times.Many fishers in South Africa, defined as subsistence or artisanal fishers, actually intend to gain small-scale commercial rights in order to legally sell high-value resources such as abalone and rock lobsters (Branch et al. 2002a). The idea of creating a small-scale commercial fisheries sector was to enable subsistence/artisanal fishers to generate revenues by allocating specific fishing rights. The potential socioeconomic benefits of the commercialization of some subsistence fisheries in South Africa have been documented (Arnason and Kashorte 2006). The process of implementing a management strategy for the small-scale sector by means of creating sufficient numbers of fishing rights and providing adequate support is continuing. The government's lack of experience with a subsistence sector lead to the appointment of a Subsistence Fisheries Task Group (SFTG) in 1999 to advise the government in various issues regarding the management of the new subsistence sector (Sowman 2006).material and methodsHuman population data1Recreational fisheriesThe various components of recreational fisheries have been subject to numerous individual studies and offer information for estimating the total recreational marine catch if one accepts some assumptions. Available information included data on catches, catch rates and targeted species composition, geographic and socio-economic information, as well as historical and general background information Marine inshore surf and rock recreational fisheriesIn general, shore angling data are sparse for South Africa. An exception to this is the province Kwa-Zulu Natal, where several investigations have been undertaken to estimate catches and effort, species compositions, the economic importance of recreational shore fishing, and anglers' attitudes towards and compliance with fishery regulation (Brouwer et al. 1997). Information obtained from government shore patrols, voluntary catch and effort data, and inspections, are collected in the National Marine Linefish System (NMLS; Brouwer et al. 1997). Due to the fact that almost no recreational data are collected for provinces other than Kwa-Zulu Natal, the flexibility of data sources and the unreliability of voluntary and compulsory catch data from individual fishers; the NMLS is unfortunately perceived as being a poor and unrepresentative data source (Sauer et al. 1997). Therefore, the focus has been on obtaining additional data from individual studies, reports and scientific papers.1 Population data for South Africa were obtained from the United Nations World Population Division (United Nations 2009) and the World Bank (World Bank 2010).Fisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 133Boat-based marine inshore recreational fisheriesGears used are the same as in the shore angling sector, i.e., rod and reel or handlines. Even though there are varying levels of competition between all recreational fishing sectors and the commercial linefishery sector, the commercial and recreational boat sectors compete most directly. Similar vessels and gear are used and the same fish species are targeted in the same geographic regions and marine environments. The resulting user conflicts were reported in the literature, which highlighted the difficulty in distinguishing between recreational and commercial fishers due to the fact that many operate in both sectors, depending on seasonal availability of fish and the availability of supplementary incomes (Sauer et al. 1997). Collection of information about catch rates, effort, total catches and targeted species started in the 1970s, similarly to the shore angling sector. Data on commercial and recreational boat-based fisheries were separate until 1982, when the NMLS database was initiated. As with the other recreational sectors, numerous scientific studies have been done, which reveal important information on the nature of recreational boat-based fisheries in South Africa.SpearfishingSpearfishing is regarded as one of the most dangerous forms of fishing in South Africa, as it often occurs in challenging underwater conditions, requiring excellent mental and physical fitness of its participants. Nevertheless, this form of fishing has enjoyed great popularity since the 1950s along the South African coast, where fishers operate both from shore or from boats (Mann et al. 1997).Estuarine recreational anglingAlong the South African coastline, there are approximately 250 well-defined estuaries and many are used as recreational fishing sites. Due to the lack of inlets and bays in South Africa, estuaries offer popular fishing grounds, as they are sheltered from rough seas and are productive fishing grounds attracting mainly recreational boat-based and shore-based fishers who also use cast nets to catch baitfish such as mullet. Linefishing and netfishing (mostly gillnets and seine netting) for commercial and subsistence purposes also occurs in estuaries (Lamberth and Turpie 2003). The most important ecological role of estuaries is that they provide nursery areas for many fish, contributing to healthy fish stocks and a healthy marine environment (Whitfield 1994). It is estimated that the estuarine catch in the early 2000s totalled 2,480 tonnes per year (including commercial, subsistence and recreational catches), and that recreational fisheries generate by far the biggest share of the GDP value in comparison to the commercial fisheries within estuaries (Lamberth and Turpie 2003).AbaloneRecreational diving for abalone has a long tradition in South Africa and has become a highly sought-after marine resource for illegal poachers in organized crime networks in recent years. The increasing pressure on the abalone stocks both in western and eastern provinces of South Africa led to the closure of recreational fisheries for abalone in 2003 (Raemaekers and Britz 2009). Before the increase of illegal abalone poaching activities in South Africa in the early 1990s, recreational and commercial abalone fisheries in the Western Cape provinces were stable (Raemaekers and Britz 2009). Nevertheless, early concern over declining commercial catch rates resulted in stricter management regulations, introduced in 1970. The regulations included annual catch quotas (total allowable catch), which have been gradually lowered (Cockcroft et al. 1999). Rock lobsterThere are several different species of rock lobster that are targeted by recreational divers or trappers. The main species, however, are the West Coast rock lobster, which inhabit near shore areas from about 23\u00C2\u00B0 S (Walvis Bay, Namibia) to about 28\u00C2\u00B0 S near East London, and the East Coast rock lobster, which inhabit shallow reef habitats from Port Elisabeth to north to Mozambique (Cockcroft and Payne 1999). This report focused on the recreational fisheries for West Coast rock lobster, since it is the largest recreational rock lobster fishery in South Africa, both in terms of catches and number of fishers (Okes and Burgener 2011b)According to Cockcroft (1997), commercial exploitation of West Coast rock lobster began in the late 19th century. By 1933, the same regulations applied to both the recreational and commercial sectors, and it was not until 1961 that the authorities differentiated these sectors by introducing a bag limit for recreational fishers. The selling of recreational catches was prohibited and non-conformity continues to be heavily penalized. Over the years, regulations regarding the recreational fishery were steadily updated as fishing pressure increased, e.g., legal minimum sizes and catch bans for specific times of the day were implemented. Legal obligations for the possession of catch permits was introduced in the 1983\u00E2\u0080\u009384 season (Cockcroft and Mackenzie 1997). In comparison to the recreational abalone fishery, which has been banned since 2003, the recreational rock lobster fishery continues to be a popular pastime for South Africans (Okes and Burgener 2011b). 134Charter boat fishingCharter boat fishing was practiced in South Africa before 1950, and gained popularity during the apartheid period (1948\u00E2\u0080\u00931994). During this time, mainly wealthy white South Africans went fishing for marlin, swordfish and tuna along the South African coast (Schoeman 1962). Today, hundreds of different operators offer fishing trips to customers in South Africa, particularly in the Kwa-Zulu Natal Province.2 According to Pradervand and van der Elst (2008), the introduction of stricter legal obligations and resulting economic disincentives for commercial fishing has led some commercial fishers to switch to operating charter boat trips. In comparison to the commercial linefish industry, income from the charter boat business is not directly linked to total catch but rather to the experience. Since estimates of annual participation in South Africa are sparse, this report quantified total retained catch only, based on the assumption that at least 50% of nationwide total annual catches were made in Kwa-Zulu Natal, the province where charter boat fishing has been the most popular.Number of recreational fishersThe number of fishers was derived from the literature (Mann et al. 1997; Sauer et al. 1997; Griffiths and Lamberth 2002; Lamberth and Turpie 2003). For the years when the number of fishers were missing, linear interpolations were used between time spans of known data, or missing data were derived by applying compound annual growth rates.Information on the number of participants in the charter boat sector was not available. Thus, the focus was on deriving estimates for total annual retained catches. Abalone and rock lobster fisheries participation was derived from the number of licenses sold and directly translated into the number of fishers or divers, thus assuming one license equalled one fisher or diver. Missing data were derived by applying a ratio of total population to number of licenses sold, based on respective years, and linear interpolation between years of known data.The purpose of deriving the number of recreational fishers by sector was to determine an estimate of the total number of recreational fishers, in order to calculate the proportion of recreational fishers in the total population, and to derive total catches for each sector using catch rates per fisher.Recreational catch ratesThe annual average fishing effort per fisher was assumed to have remained stable in the recreational fishing sector over the study period. Catch rates varied significantly over-time for the recreational boat-based, estuarine, shore and rock fisheries. Catch rates for abalone and West Coast rock lobster did not experience significant changes and therefore were kept at a constant rate, based on estimates obtained from the literature. Information and data from scientific papers and grey literature suggested trends of decreasing catch rates over-time (Coetzee et al. 1989; Guastella 1994; Pradervand and Baird 2002) and states that many important linefish stocks have been heavily overfished and in a state of overexploitation (Griffiths 1997a,b, 2000; Griffiths and Lamberth 2002). According to Griffiths (2000) and Griffiths and Lamberth (2002), most of the overexploitation of linefish already occurred in the 1970s. Therefore, a catch trend scenario was developed reflecting these changes.The nationwide catch rates for the shore and rock, boat-based and estuarine recreational fisheries were adjusted conservatively, in relation to documented catch rates for 1995 (Lamberth and Turpie 2003). Catch rates for 1950 were set 25% higher than the 1995 rate, based on the assumption that stocks were much less exploited and not overfished in the 1950s. The technological advances in fishing gear, boats, knowledge and fishing methods, as well as the increasing popularity of fishing as a pastime (Schoeman 1962), was reflected in the assumption that from the 1950s onwards, catch rates increased steadily, peaking in 1970 at a rate 50% higher than in 1995. Catch rates for missing years between 1950 and 1970, as well as for the period 1970\u00E2\u0080\u009395, were derived through linear interpolation. The decreasing trend was carried forward unaltered to 2010.Shore and rock anglersShore and rock angling is considered the most popular form of recreational angling in South Africa and is practiced all along the South African coast and, therefore, is the biggest recreational sector in terms of number of participants. It was estimated that in 1991, there were roughly 365,000 recreational shore fishers (Van der Elst 1993), increasing to 412,000 by 1995 (McGrath et al. 1997). Contrary to the suggested annual compound growth rate of 6% by van der Elst (1993), a slightly smaller rate of 2% annual compound growth was suggested by McGrath et al. (1997). Estimates of shore anglers were based on those data anchor points. Missing numbers of participants were estimated for 1950\u00E2\u0080\u009391 and from 1995\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 by applying an annual compound growth rate of 2%, backward (declining) and forward (increasing), respectively. A linear interpolation between 1991 and 1995 provided estimates for the number of anglers in this time-period. Using the 2% growth rate (McGrath et al. 1997) supported a conservative approach in estimating the number of recreational fishers, especially for the post-1995 period.An annual average catch rate of 7.37 kg\u00C2\u00B7fisher-1\u00C2\u00B7year-1 was calculated for the year 1995 based on the total catch estimates (3,037 tonnes) for the recreational shore angling sector (Brouwer et al. 1997; Lamberth and Turpie 2003). The same logic as mentioned above was applied in order to construct a time-series of catch rates. Catch rates for 1950 and 1970 were set 25% and 50% higher than the 1995 rate, respectively. The trend was carried forward unaltered to estimate likely catch rates for recent times.2 However, these operators do not restrict their activities to South African waters. See, e.g., Le Manach and Pauly (this volume) and their discussion on recreational fishing by South Africans in the EEZ and Bassas da India (France).Fisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 135Boat-based inshore anglersNumbers of recreational boat-based inshore marine fishers for similar periods varied in the literature. Sauer et al. (1997) suggested that there were 13,800 fishers in 1996. For this report, the more conservative estimate of 12,000 participants in 1995 was chosen as an anchor point (Lamberth and Turpie 2003). It was assumed that the development and popularity of boat-based recreational fishing in South Africa followed the same consistent growth trend as the shore and rock sector. Therefore, the same annual compound growth rate of 2% (McGrath et al. 1997) was applied to calculate missing numbers of fishers over the period 1950 to 2010.An annual average catch rate of 106.92 kg\u00E2\u0088\u0099fisher-1\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 for the year 1995 was calculated, based on 12,000 fishers catching 1,283 tonnes (Lamberth and Turpie 2003). The same logic as mentioned above was applied in order to construct a time-series of catch rates. Catch rates for 1950 and 1970 were set 25% and 50% higher than the 1995 rate, respectively. The trend was carried forward unaltered to estimate likely catch rates for recent times.SpearfishersIt was estimated that in 1987, there were 4,000 recreational spearfishers in South Africa (Van der Elst 1989). The number of participants rose to 7,000 in 1995 and an annual growth rate of approximately 6% was suggested (Mann et al. 1997). For the time-period of 1987\u00E2\u0080\u009395, linear interpolation provided the missing data, whereas a growth rate of 6% was applied to calculate the remaining years.Mann et al. (1997) report that there was neither evidence for declining catch rates, nor a change in species composition between 1984 and 1995 for the recreational spearfishing sector in Kwa-Zulu Natal (i.e., where most spearfishing activity is occurring). Thus, it was assumed that no significant changes in catch rates between 1950 and 2010 occurred. The respective annual catch rate per fisher for 1995 was estimated at 30 kg\u00E2\u0088\u0099speafisher-1\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1, based on 7,000 spearfishers catching 210 tonnes in 1995 (Mann et al. 1997; Lamberth and Turpie 2003). Consequently, this constant catch rate was applied to the estimated number of recreational spearfishers in order to derive total annual catches.Estuarine boat-based & shore anglersIt was estimated that there were 72,000 recreational estuarine fishers in 1995 (Griffiths and Lamberth 2002; Lamberth and Turpie 2003). The reconstructed number of fishers for the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 was derived by applying an annual compound growth rate of 2% (McGrath et al. 1997) to the fixed data point of 1995 (Lamberth and Turpie 2003), based on the assumption that the development of recreational estuarine fisheries followed a similar trend as inshore marine shore and rock angling.In 1995 an estimated 72,000 recreational estuarine fishers were catching roughly 1,068 tonnes of fish and other marine organisms from boats or the shore, using handlines, rods and reels, or nets (Griffiths and Lamberth 2002; Lamberth and Turpie 2003). This translated into an average catch rate of 14.83 kg\u00C2\u00B7fisher-1\u00C2\u00B7year-1, which was used here. The 1995 catch rate was adjusted for 1950 (25% higher) and 1970 (50% higher), and the declining trend was carried forward from 1995 to 2010 by linear interpolation.AbaloneParticipation in the abalone fisheries was represented in the literature by the annual number of licenses sold, and for the purpose of this report, was directly translated into actual number of fishers using a ratio of 1 to 1 (one license equalled to one fisher). The period 1989\u00E2\u0080\u00932003 was fairly well documented in scientific reports in regards to annual number of licenses and the associated total catch. From 2003 onwards, recreational permits were no longer sold due to the closure of the fisheries. In order to estimate participation before 1989, a ratio of total population to abalone fishers was derived for the year 1989 (total population of 34,490,549) in which 20,000 recreational licenses were sold (Cockcroft et al. 1999). This ratio of 0.0006 was applied to the total South African population in the years prior to pre-1989, to estimate likely numbers of participants.For abalone, a catch rate of 14.80 kg\u00E2\u0088\u0099fisher-1\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 for the year 1989 was calculated from reports stating that 20,000 individual recreational divers and fishers caught 296 tonnes of abalone in that respective season (Cockcroft et al. 1999). This rate was held constant from 1950 to 1989 and applied to the reconstructed number of participants in order to derive total annual catches for the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931989.West Coast rock lobsterDue to the fact that permit requirements were nonexistent before 1983, it was difficult to estimate the actual amount of fishers before this period. The most reliable data found in the literature involve voluntary cooperation of fishers and indirect estimation methods such as questionnaires (Cockcroft and Mackenzie 1997; Cockcroft et al. 1999).A total population to licenses ratio was established based on the fixed data point of 38,000 sold licenses in 1989 (total population of 34,490,549). This ratio of 0.0011 was applied to population data over the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u009389 in order to reconstruct participation. From 1989 to 1998, the actual number of licenses purchased, and thus the number of fishers/divers, was known (using the same approach as abalone where the ratio of one license equalled to one fisher). From 1999 onwards, the number of permits sold was unknown and thus not represented, but annual catch estimates were available from government reports (Anon. 2010a,b). 136For the rock lobster sector, an annual catch rate of 6.2 kg\u00E2\u0088\u0099fisher-1\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 1995 was derived based on 54,000 participants catching 336 tonnes and applied to the reconstructed number of participants for times, in which data were unavailable (Cockcroft and Mackenzie 1997; Cockcroft et al. 1999; Cockcroft and Payne 1999). For the period 1999\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, government estimates for recreational catches were available (Anon. 2010a).Charter boat fishingEstimates of retained catch for the charter boat sector in Kwa-Zulu Natal in 2003 amounted to approximately 200 t (Pradervand and Van der Elst 2008). Based on the estimated number of operators throughout South Africa, it was assumed that this represented only 50% of the total annual retained charter boat catch (Africa 2010; Directory 2010). Consequently, it was assumed that the nationwide retained catch totalled 400 t in 2003. Assuming that this industry was still underdeveloped in the early 1940s (Schoeman 1962), the total catch for the year 1945 was set at zero and a linear interpolation for the period 1945\u00E2\u0080\u00932003 provided annual, nationwide catch estimates for 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932002. The increasing trend was carried forward to 2010.Targeted speciesThe development of sound fisheries management policies and the process of assessing the fisheries impact on marine ecosystems were not solely based on improvements of spatial and quantitative information. Another vital part was the improvement of taxonomic information about the overall catches. Griffiths and Lamberth (2002) collected catch contribution information from various sources and assigned the most important species by weight, targeted by recreational anglers (grouped into shore angling, boat angling, estuarine angling and spearfishing) to the five main coastal geographical regions, namely Western Cape, Southern Cape, Eastern Cape, Transkei and Kwa-Zulu Natal.Subsistence fisheriesBoth academic and grey literature was reviewed for data and information about subsistence fisheries in South Africa. The findings of the SFTG comprised information about the social and economic background (Branch 2002; Branch et al. 2002a,b) and the number and geographical distribution of subsistence fishers and fishing communities in South Africa (Clark et al. 2002). This information was combined with individual studies about the localized subsistence catch of marine resources in order to derive nationwide estimates of subsistence catches (Lamberth and Turpie 2003; Steyn et al. 2008; Napier et al. 2009).The number of subsistence fishers and their geographical distributionIt was difficult to derive accurate estimates for the number of subsistence fishers in South Africa for several reasons. Due to the interchangeable usage of different definitions for 'subsistence fishers', the numbers varied in the literature. Furthermore, many subsistence fishers operate with recreational permits. Subsistence linefishers are known to be dispersed within the recreational shore and estuary fisheries (Griffiths and Lamberth 2002). No more than 10% of the 27,000 commercial fishers in South Africa could be defined as purely subsistence or artisanal (Elst et al. 2005). They represent the poorer participants of the industrial fisheries sector in South Africa. McGrath et al. (1997) estimated that at least 25,000 households in South Africa (excluding Transkei) depend on shore angling only in order to meet their needs for protein supply. In the early 2000s, 147 fishing communities comprising 28,338 fisher households and 29,233 individual subsistence fishers were identified in South Africa (Clark et al. 2002). Most of these subsistence fishers are found on the East Coast of South Africa and more than 75% (more than 22,500) live in Kwa-Zulu Natal and the Transkei (Clark et al. 2002). It is reported that the lion's share of subsistence linefishers is located in the Transkei and Kwa-Zulu Natal (Griffiths and Lamberth 2002). The breakdown of the number of subsistence fishers into respective geographical areas along the South African coastline demonstrates that most subsistence fishers catch marine resources in the eastern provinces. Approximately 82% of subsistence fishers operate in marine environments and only 18% catch marine resources in estuaries (Table 1). For this report, it was assumed that these distribution patterns were similar throughout the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 and that the number of participants and the catch rates or effort varied over-time.It is believed that subsistence fisheries activities on the East Coast of South Africa have been carried out rather unchanged throughout the years (Siegfried et al. 1994; Griffiths and Branch 1997). Being confined to so-called 'homelands' during apartheid and the lack of alternative ways of generating income, many traditional fishers in the eastern provinces were restricted to a subsistence lifestyle (Clark et al. 2002). On the contrary, subsistence fisheries on the west and south coast disappeared with the arrival of settlers from Europe for various reasons. Many traditional fishers were enslaved, killed or died because of diseases (Siegfried et al. 1994). However, the current perception that subsistence fisheries are exclusively confined to Kwa-Zulu Natal and the Transkei region is erraneous. Clark et al. (2002) suggested that subsistence fishers did not disappear altogether, but rather changed their catch and consumption behaviour and adapted to new social and cultural circumstances. Advances in fishing gear after World War II enabled fishers to target a greater variety of marine resources, requiring less effort (Schoeman 1962). The introduction of a cash economy and the growth of tourism incentivized many subsistence fishers in western and southern coastal regions to catch more and sell the surplus, as well as live closer to urban areas in order to improve access to markets (Clark et al. 2002). These facts have contributed to the public erroneous perception that subsistence fishers solely live in rural areas in eastern South Africa.Fisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 137Population density was highest in the eastern provinces. This trend still remains unchanged and is also reflected in the overall geographical distribution of subsistence fishers, of which approximately 70% live and fish in eastern South Africa (see Table 1).It was assumed that subsistence fishers were and still are mainly non-white South Africans. In order to estimate historic participation in the subsistence sector, a ratio between total non-white population and subsistence fishers was calculated based on the 'anchor' point of 2002, for which 29,233 subsistence fishers were reported in South Africa (Clark et al. 2002). A time-series for the total non-white population was derived by linear interpolation between six data points of known statistical population data. The resulting ratio of 0.000713 subsistence fishers per non-white South African was applied to the estimates for total non-white population over the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Additionally, the estimated total numbers of subsistence fishers were classified into two groups (estuarine and ocean fishers), as well as subdivided in accordance to their geographical distribution (Clark et al. 2002).Taxa targeted by subsistence fishersThere is a great variety of marine resources caught by subsistence fishers in South Africa. In general, there is an increasing trend in diversity of exploited organisms from the west to the east coast. This gradual increase is closely linked to biogeographic conditions and based on the fact that most subsistence fishers live in the eastern coastal regions (Cockcroft et al. 2002). The uneven regional distribution of marine resources is also reflected in the fact that approximately 95% of all commercial fishing activities in South Africa operate from the Western Cape (Hersoug 1998). This is related to the high biomass productivity of the Benguela ecosystem due to upwelling, making it one of the most productive ocean areas in the world (Cochrane et al. 2009). Subsequently, most jobs in the commercial fishing and processing industry are concentrated in the Western Cape. There is also still an extremely uneven distribution of resources between whites and blacks3 in South Africa, especially in regards to the main commercial and industrial fishing resources (Branch et al. 2002b). The legacy of apartheid, the political neglect and the resulting marginalization of subsistence fishers in South Africa, as well as specific socioeconomic and biogeographical factors, affected the state of resource use by subsistence fishers. It was assumed that the subsistence resource use was fairly similar throughout the study period, but that individual catch rates varied over time due to several reasons. Technological advances in fishing gear may have enabled fishers to fish more efficiently, as it has been shown in the case of the recreational fishing sector. Additionally, reported overfishing and collapsed stocks of several linefish species, rock lobsters and abalone would have had adverse effects on the resource availability of subsistence fishers (Cockcroft et al. 1999; Griffiths and Lamberth 2002).Fish and various intertidal rocky-shore invertebrates are the most commonly targeted resources by subsistence fishers in South Africa. Various fish species are targeted both in estuaries and the open ocean (Branch et al. 2002b). The species composition varies along the coastline, but a general trend of increasing diversity of fish species from the west to the east coast is apparent (Branch et al. 2002b; Clark et al. 2002; Cockcroft et al. 2002). Mullets (Mugilidae) were identified as the most commonly caught family along the entire South African coast. Additionally, grunts (Pomadasys spp.), rock cod (Epinephelus spp.), kob (Argyrosomus spp.) and elf (Pomatomus saltatrix) were identified as very important and commonly targeted fish species (Branch et al. 2002b). Table 2 summarizes the most important species and groups caught by subsistence fishers in South Africa in decreasing order of importance.The group of rocky-shore invertebrates comprises mainly the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis on the west coast and Perna perna on the east coast, as well as different species of oysters (Striostrea margaritacea, Saccostrea cuccullata), octopus, winkles and limpets.Other groups of marine organisms caught throughout South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 often used as bait \u00E2\u0080\u0094 are sandy-beach invertebrates (e.g., worms and redbait) and estuarine invertebrates (e.g., sand and mud prawns Callianassa 3 'Black' includes groups and people that were identified as 'African', 'Indian' or 'Coloured' during the apartheid regime in South Africa. Contrary to usage in other parts of the world, in South Africa the term 'Coloured' does not refer to \u00E2\u0080\u0098black\u00E2\u0080\u0099 people only.Table 1. Breakdown of the number of households and subsistence fishers in eight coastal regions in South Africa and the number of ocean fishers vs. estuarine fishers in percentage for the early 2000s. Sourcemodified from Clark et al. 2002.Region Households Subsistence fishers Fishers in ocean Fishers in estuariesNamibia border to Olifants River 411 458 320 (70%) 138 (30%)Olifants River up to and including Hout Bay 675 643 630 (98%) 13 (2%)Hout Bay to the Breede River 1,352 1,272 1,247 (98%) 25 (2%)Breede River to the western boundary of Tsitsikamma National Park 1,269 1,424 712 (50%) 712 (50%)The western boundary of Tsitsikamma National Park to Kei River 1,031 1,452 842 (58%) 610 (42%)Kei River to Mtamvuna River 4,830 4,239 3,391 (80%) 848 (20%)Mtamvuna River to Umvoti River 16,811 18,399 16,191 (88%) 2,208 (12%)Umvoti River to Mocambique border 1,959 1,346 538 (40%) 808 (60%)Total 28,338 29,233 23,871 (81.7%) 5,362 (18.3%)Table 2. Most important fish species targeted by subsistence fishers in South Africa, listed in decreasing order of importance. Sourcemodified from Branch et al. 2002b.Name Taxonomic NameHarders, mullet Liza and Mugil spp.Kob Argyrosomus spp.Elf Pomatomus saltatrixGrunters Pomadasys spp.Rock cod Epinephelus spp.Galjoen Dichistius capensisStumpnose Rhapdosargus spp.Bronze bream Pachymetopon spp.Steenbras Lithognathus lithognathusHottentot Pachymetopon blochiiRiver bream Acanthopagrus berdaRoman Chrysoblephus laticepsYellowtail Seriola lalandiiLeervis Lichia amiaBlacktail Diplodus sargus capensisMusselcracker Sparodon durbanensisSnoek Thyrsites atunGeelbek Atractoscion aequidensStrepies Sarpa salpa138kraussi, Upogebia africana; Branch et al. 2002b; Clark et al. 2002). Furthermore, some high value species are also targeted by subsistence fishers. West and East Coast rock lobsters are caught by subsistence fishers, mainly to generate much needed income, rather than for personal consumption. Abalone is a less frequently caught marine resource (Branch et al. 2002b; Clark et al. 2002). Table 3 summarizes the most important marine resources in decreasing importance, based on interviews and scientific studies (Branch et al. 2002b).Catch rates for the subsistence sectorMost scientific studies about subsistence fisheries in South Africa focused on socioeconomic issues, but neither adequately quantified relevant catches, nor explicitly mentioned individual catch rates for various marine organisms (Branch 2002; Branch et al. 2002a,b; Clark et al. 2002; Cockcroft et al. 2002; Harris et al. 2002a,b; Hauck et al. 2002). Due to the lack of sufficient catch information, it was difficult to derive estimates for catch rates and subsequently for total catches for the purpose of this report. Despite the insufficient data on a nationwide scale, there were some individual studies on local catch rates and annual catch estimates for some regions (Steyn et al. 200; Napier et al. 2009). These studies provided information about catch rates for some main subsistence marine resources, such as fish, sand and mud prawns, and rock lobster. Individual catch rates were applied on a nationwide scale in order to extrapolate total annual catches for the subsistence sector for the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Napier et al. (2009) identified annual subsistence catch rates for mud prawns and fish in the Knysna estuary in South Africa in 2004. Approximately 230 part- and full-time subsistence fishers caught an annual amount of 600,000 mud prawns, 5,000\u00E2\u0080\u00937,500 spotted grunters, 5,000\u00E2\u0080\u00937,500 white steenbras (Lithognathus lithognathus) and approximately 36,000 cape stumpnose (Rhabdosargus holubi), as well as more than 13,000 other bait organisms such as worms, shrimp and sand prawns. An average annual catch rate per fisher was derived by applying specific average weights for fish and mud prawns. Based on an average wet weight for U. africana of 4.83 grams, the total annual catch was estimated at 2.898 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099fisher-1 for fish and 0.0126 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099fisher-1 for mud prawns in 2004 (Richardson et al. 2000). Based on a weight/length regression for cape stumpnose (Van der Elst and Adkin 1991) and an average size of 15\u00E2\u0080\u009320 cm (Napier et al. 2009), an average weight of 0.135 grams per fish resulted in a total annual catch of 4.86 tonnes of cape stumpnose. A total annual catch estimate for white steenbras and spotted grunters was derived by applying an average weight of 2 kg per fish, based on a conservative assumption and taking into account that many undersized and juvenile fish are caught and retained by subsistence fishers in general, especially in estuaries (Griffiths and Lamberth 2002; Whibley 2003). It was assumed that 6,000 individuals of each of these species were removed by subsistence fishers, resulting in a total annual catch of approximately 24 tonnes. In total, approximately 28.86 tonnes of fish were thought to have been caught by 230 subsistence fishers in 2004 in the Knysna estuary. Hence, an annual average catch rate of 0.125 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099fisher-1\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 of fish and 0.0126 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099fisher-1\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 of mud prawns was estimated in 2004.Based on the current overexploited or collapsed state of many fish species in South Africa, historical catch rates for fish were assumed 25% higher for the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931960, reflecting a more pristine stock biomass (Griffiths and Branch 1997; Griffiths 1997a,b, 2000; Griffiths and Lamberth 2002). Technological advances in regards to fishing gear did not have a significant influence on catch rates, as it has been reported for the recreational sector, since subsistence fishers mainly used low technology gear and continue to do so (Schoeman 196; Branch et al. 2002b; Napier et al. 2009). From the 1960s onwards, catch rates were assumed to have been declining to current levels. The assumption of declining catch rates matched reported decreasing internal per capita fish consumption in South Africa, which has been declining since the 1970s (9.7 kg in 1970; 9.4 kg in 1980s; 8.2 kg in the 1990s; 7.6 kg in 2002; and 7.23 kg in 2003; Crosoer et al. 2006). Catch rates for mud prawns have been kept constant over this period. Catch rates for subsistence fishers operating in the ocean were indirectly derived from estuary subsistence catch rates. Based on the assumption that estuaries function as nursery areas and fishers would generally catch bigger fish in the ocean, catch rates were assumed 15% higher than estuarine catch rates in any given year (Whitfield 1994). Individual catch rates for the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 were then applied to the number of subsistence fishers in order to derive total annual catch estimates.Due to insufficient subsistence catch information for rock lobster, abalone and oysters, as well as for other subsistence marine resources, no total catch estimates could be derived at this point. Further research should be undertaken in order to quantify respective catches.South African industrial catch taken from Namibian watersNamibia was occupied by South Africa from 1915\u00E2\u0080\u00931990, and South African fleets, amongst a large number of other distant-water fishing fleets fished in Namibian waters until the Declaration of Independence and subsequently the declaration of the Namibian 200-mile EEZ in 1990 (Lees 1969; van Zyl n.d.). South African flagged vessel catches taken from Namibian waters are therefore represented in FAO catch information for South Africa for the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931990.Table 3. Most commonly caught marine resources by subsistence fishers in South Africa, listed in decreasing order of importance. Sourcemodified from Branch et al. 2002b; Clark et al. 2002; Cockcroft et al. 2002.Resources TaxonFish Different species (see Table 3)Mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis (West Coast)Perna perna (South/East Coast)Octopus Octopus vulgarisRock lobster Jasus lalandii (West Coast)Panulirus homarus (South/East Coast)Redbait Pyura stoloniferaWorms Nereids, eunicids, sabellarids, etc.Abalone Haliotis midaeOysters Striostrea margaritacea (South Coast)Saccostrea cuccullata (East Coast)Squid Loligo vulgaris reynaudiiCrabs Sesarma meinerti, Scylla serrataOcypode spp.Other misc. marine organisms variousFisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 139We identified South African catches taken in what we deemed Namibian waters through a comparison with 'national' data from Namibia for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931990 period (Belhabib et al. 2015), and relabelled these quantities as landings by South African vessels from Namibian waters. We focused on species that contributed most to South African landings \u00E2\u0080\u0094 these were South African anchovy, South African pilchard, Cape Hake, Cape horse mackerel, and Cape rock lobster, which together made up almost 87% of total landings. Quantities of these species were analyzed in two time-periods, from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931990, and 1991\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. We assumed those species that showed a large decline in landed quantity after 1990 were likely those that were being caught in Namibian waters. Of the identified species, South African anchovy, South African pilchard, Cape rock lobster, and Cape horse mackerel declined by 40%, 80%, 83%, and 50%, respectively, between the two periods, while Cape hake catches remained relatively stable. We then cross-referenced these species with Namibian catch statistics that were attributed to South Africa (see Belhabib et al. 2015). Of the foreign fleets that exploited Namibia's fisheries prior to 1990, the former Soviet Union and Spain caught the majority of fish off the Namibian coast, while South Africa's share was 10\u00E2\u0080\u009312% (Belhabib et al. 2015). Of the five identified species, data for Cape rock lobster, South African pilchard, and South African anchovy caught in Namibia by South African vessels were directly available. Catch data for Cape horse mackerel and Cape hake taken by foreign fleets in Namibia were not broken down by country, therefore, we allocated 10% as being from South Africa. To adjust South African landings from South African waters, we subtracted Namibia-sourced catches from South African landings; this yielded the amount of domestically caught fish (i.e., from within South African waters).DiscardsAs for most countries in the world, South African reported data do not account for fish that are caught but discarded at sea (Attwood et al. 2011). Estimated discard rates of South African trawlers range from an overall rate of 4.1% (Kelleher 2005) to 31% for south coast trawlers (Japp 1997), and 19% and 5% for sole and hake trawlers, respectively (Walmsley et al. 2007), while another observer-based study estimated a discard rate of about 16% for the inshore fleet (Attwood et al. 2011). We omitted the high discard rate of 31% and rather used a conservative average discard rate of 7% to estimate the quantity of discarded fish. South Africa's trawl fishery dates back to the 1880s when it was concentrated in inshore areas before substantial offshore expansion beginning in the 1950s (Sink et al. 2012). Thus, we accounted for discards from 1950 to 2010.Illegal fishingIllegal fishing (poaching) has been implicated for declines in some of South Africa's fisheries, most notably the abalone, lobster and linefish fisheries (DAFF 2012). The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) accounts for illegal fishing by adding on an amount to national landing statistics of some fisheries. For example, since 1990, 500 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 has been added to total landed West Coast lobster in South Africa's national fisheries statistics (DAFF 2012). This amount is not reflected in FAO statistics, but is added in this reconstruction. The extensive black market trade in abalone has been well documented, and illegal abalone catch estimates exist starting from 1980 (Raemaekers et al. 2011). We visually approximated the proportion of illegal catch to national legal landings from a bar graph (Raemaekers et al. 2011) for the period 1980 to 2000. From 1980 to 1991 illegal catch was relatively stable at 10% of national legal landings, then increased to an average of 50% until 2000. We applied these percentages to FAO landing statistics to estimate illegal abalone catch from 1980 to 2000. From 2001 to 2008 annual illegal catch of abalone averaged 2000 t (Raemaekers et al. 2011). Illegal activity in the linefish fishery is high but the level is unknown (DAFF 2012). To approximate the level of illegal linefish activity, we considered that: i) illegal abalone catch in the past decade has been up to 10 times the commercial catch in some years; ii) the amount of poached lobster estimated by (DAFF 2012) ranged between 16% and 33% of commercial catch; and iii) the linefish fishery encompasses subsistence, recreational, and small-scale commercial fishers (DAFF 2012), which are difficult to monitor. We remained on the conservative side and took the average lobster illegal catch percentage, i.e. 24%, and applied this to total linefish landings to estimate illegal catch in the linefish fishery starting from 1985, the year that the first management framework for South Africa's linefish fishery was introduced (DAFF 2012).Fishing sector allocationMarine fisheries statistics reported to the FAO were allocated to the industrial sector from 1950 to 2010, with the exception of small-scale commercial species. So-called 'subsistence' catches in South Africa are either consumed, sold, or used as bait (Branch et al. 2002b), thus, these fisheries have an artisanal (i.e., small-scale commercial) component. A comprehensive socioeconomic survey found that 84% of fishing households identified themselves as being 'subsistence', i.e. fishing primarily for household consumption, while the remainder fished to make a profit (Branch et al. 2002b). Thus, we allocated 84% of the reconstructed subsistence catch to the true 'subsistence' sector as defined here, and 16% to the 'artisanal' sector in 2000, and maintained these values to 2010. We assumed that subsistence fishing in 1950 was close to 100% and linearly increased this percentage to the anchor point in 2000.Small-scale commercial species were allocated to the artisanal sector. West Coast/Cape rock lobster was caught primarily with hoop nets prior to the 1960s, before motorized boats and traps came into use (DAFF 2012). Therefore, we allocated lobster catches to the artisanal sector from 1950 to 1960, and thereafter to the industrial sector. The domestic jigging fishery for squid began in 1984 (DAFF 2012). We allocated Cape Hope squid catches from 1984 to 2010 to the artisanal sector and all other squid catches to the industrial (trawl) fishery. A small amount of Cape hakes are taken by the small-scale commercial longline and handline sectors. Based on annual catch statistics of 140Cape hakes kept by the DAFF (2012), we estimated that from 1986 onwards approximately 3\u00E2\u0080\u00935% of total hake catches were taken by handlines and/or longlines, and allocated this portion to the artisanal sector. Abalone catches were also allocated to the artisanal sector, as were fish species identified as belonging to the linefish fishery (Mann 2013; Table 4).Species compositionThe composition of industrial catches was based on that of reported fish landings. Recreational fish catch was broken down according to the percentage contribution of species listed in Appendix Table A1. The composition of discards was based on the top 10 species from observer records from South Africa's trawl fishery (Attwood et al. 2011). Reconstructed total subsistence catch had two components, fish and mud prawn. The subsistence fish component was made up of seven major taxa (Table 5), of which Mugilidae was the most commonly caught fish group, while Sciaenidae, Pomatomidae, Haemulidae, and Epinephelus spp. were also very important and commonly targeted fish species by so-called 'subsistence' fishers (Branch et al. 2002b). Based on this qualitative assessment, we assigned highest weighting to Mugilidae, followed by equal medium weightings for Sciaenidae, Pomatomidae, Haemulidae, and rock cod, and finally equal and lowest weighting to the remaining two taxa, Dichistidae and Sparidae. Besides fish, bivalves, cephalopods, and prawns are also commonly targeted species (Branch et al. 2002b). Eighty-one percent of sampled fishing households from a socio-economic survey reported catching fish, and those catching rocky shore invertebrates ranged from 6% for urchins to 58% for mussels (Branch et al. 2002b). Surveyed households caught fish for commercial intent, whereas invertebrates were used mainly for consumption (Branch et al. 2002b). Given the importance of fish as a source of income and the high proportion of households that caught fish, we assumed that fish comprised the bulk (85%) of the so-called 'subsistence' catches, and the remaining 15% was equally distributed between bivalves and cephalopods.results and disCussionAfter accounting for South African catches taken in Namibian waters, reconstructed total catches taken by South Africa in South African waters increased from 340,000 t in 1950 2.3 million t in 1968, and have been around 770,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the 2000s (Figure 2). Unreported catches made up 77.3% of total reconstructed catches in the Western Indian Ocean (FAO area 51; Figure 2A), but only 6.9% in the Southeast Atlantic (FAO area 47; Figure 2B). Of the 153,000 t of unreported subsistence catch primarily intended for household consumption, almost two thirds were taken from the Western Indian Ocean. The taxonomic composition in the two oceans was also very different, with a high diversity in the Indian Ocean (e.g., Sparidae, Scianidae, Haemulidae, Mugilidae; Figure 3A), and an overwhelming small pelagic component in the Atlantic (Figure 3).Due to lack of data, we only started accounting for illegal catches in 1980, the earliest year for which we could find any hard evidence. Illegal catches estimated in this reconstruction thus likely represent an underestimate of the true level of poaching in South African waters.Discards by the industrial sector totalled 3.6 million t from 1950 to 2010, with only 100 t attributed to the Western Indian Ocean.Industrial catch statistics reported to the FAO included catches taken by South Africa in what we considered Namibian waters, which accounted for around 24% of all reported South African catches in FAO area 47 from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931990, with highest discrepancy occurring between 1968 and 1970, when approximately 41% of South African reported landings were likely sourced from Namibian waters. South African pilchard made up the bulk of catches from Namibian waters (72%), followed by South African anchovy (21%).Small pelagic taxa targeted by industrial fleets in western South Africa's EEZ comprised well over half of the country's marine catches in this area, with South African pilchard and anchovy accounting for 36% and 26% of reconstructed total catches, respectively. The artisanal, subsistence and recreational fisheries were more diverse, with many taxa of small pelagics (e.g., Scomber japonicus; 34%) and demersal species making up the catch.Recreational catchesThe total number of recreational fishers in South Africa increased substantially over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 time-period. In 1950, the total estimated number of recreational fishers was more than 225,000 actively targeting marine organisms on a regular basis in various subsectors. This represented roughly 1.65% of the total population. The biggest sector in terms of participants in the past was shore- and rock-based angling with more than 160,000 participants. This is not Table 4. Species allocated to the linefish fishery.FAO name FAO nameAlbacore Red steenbrasBigeye tuna Sargo breams neiBlack marlin Sea catfishes neiBlue shark Shortfin makoBluefish Skipjack tunaBroadnose sevengill shark Smooth-houndCanary drum (=Baardman) SnoekCape elephantfish Southern meagre (=Mulloway)Chub mackerel SwordfishCommon dolphinfish Tope sharkCopper shark Tuna-like fishes neiDaggerhead breams nei White steenbrasDusky shark White stumpnoseGeelbek croaker Yellowfin tunaHector's lanternfish Yellowtail amberjackPanga seabream -Table 5. Composition of subsistence fish catch.aSpecies Percentage Mugilidae 21.3Sciaenidae 12.8Pomatomidae 12.8Haemulidae 12.8Epinephelus spp. 12.8Dichistidae 6.4Sparidae 6.4a Derived from Branch et al. (2000)Fisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 141surprising, given that this type of fishing would have required less technological expertise and equipment than for the relatively small boat-based sector, with an estimated 4,000 participants in 1950. Spearfishing was only practiced by very few recreational divers at that time, but the number steadily increased at a rate of 6% per year, and in 2010 it was estimated that there were 16,000 recreational spearfishers operating throughout South Africa. The second biggest sector was, and still is, estuarine fisheries with nearly 30,000 fishers in 1950 and almost 100,000 estimated recreational estuary anglers today.Participation in abalone and West Coast rock lobster fisheries was relatively low in 1950 with 9,000 and 19,000 fishers, respectively. Both sectors experienced peak participation in the 1990s. The abalone sector was shut down in 2003 which slowed down the overall rate of increase in total number of fishers.It is estimated that there were approximately 250,000 recreational fishers in South Africa in the early 1960s (Schoeman 1962). This estimate, which is mostly based on fishing club membership data, supports our estimates suggesting a total of 280,000 recreational fishers among all sectors for the same period.We found that in the mid-1990s there were nearly 600,000 recreational fishers, which seems to be an underestimate compared to government appraisals at more than 750,000 marine recreational fishers for the same period (Anon. 1997). Furthermore, government information reported on one million individual participants in 2010 (Anon. 2010b), whereas our estimates suggest a more conservative number of 700,000. Our estimates suggest that approximately 1.5% of the total population of South Africa participate in recreational fishery activities of various kinds. Griffith and Lamberth (2002) suggest that approximately 0.5% of South Africans engage in recreational linefishing only. In other countries, recreational fishing seems to be more popular. The average participation in Europe is estimated at 4.7% of the total population. In Germany, roughly 2.1% of the total population are fishing recreationally in freshwater only, whereas in some northern European countries such as Norway, participation reaches up to 50% (Toivonen 2002). In Australia, estimates vary from 4% to 26% (Kearney 2002; Lyle et al. 2002). Hence, our estimates for South Africa appear to be realistic and may even be an underestimate due to conservative assumptions.The actual number of recreational fishers is difficult to obtain and official government estimations vary greatly and lack comprehensible statements and references. For the purpose of deriving long-term estimates and growth trends for the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, more conservative choices were made. Furthermore, there is a certain degree of overlap between the individual sectors. For instance, it is impossible to distinguish between recreational fishers who fish from the shore on a regular basis, but sometimes also participate in boat-based recreational fishery activity. The exclusive categorization of fishers is impossible to attain and therefore conservative choices are more sensible and consequently more meaningful if it comes to reconstructing catches landed in the past.Estimated recreational catches for the shore- and rock-based sector totalled approximately 157,000 t over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. Estimated at roughly 1,500 t in 1950, the annual total catches increased due to growing participation and catch rates, and peaked in 1995 at 3,040 t. Since 1996, a decreasing trend in annual catches is noticeable, mainly due to diminishing individual catch rates.Estimated recreational catches for the boat-based sector totalled approximately 68,000 t for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. While the catches totalled 658 t in 1950, they peaked in the early 1990s at 1,283 t. It is estimated that even with continuously increasing number of participants over the entire period, landings were relatively stable at approximately 1,200 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1, due to decreasing individual catch rates. As stated earlier, many linefish species targeted by recreational boat fishers are heavily overexploited and some stocks have even collapsed. Many of those species are also targeted by the commercial linefish sector and direct user conflict and competition is reported in the literature - 3 6 9 12 15 Total catch (thousand t) - 1 2 3 4 5 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total atch (million t) YearIndustrial RecreationalArtisanalIndustrialSubsistenceReported to FAOTotal reported toFAO (Area 47)Reported toFAO (EEZ) Artisanal, recreational, and subsistenceABFigure 2. Reconstructed catch by sector in A) the Indian Ocean and B) the Atlantic Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. See Appendix Table A2 for details. 142(Griffiths and Lamberth 2002). This recreational sector has the highest per fisher catch rate, estimated at 75 kg\u00C2\u00B7fisher-1\u00C2\u00B7year-1 in 2010. The precarious stock conditions of some main targeted species raises concerns for the future of this specific sector.The total spearfishing catches for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period was estimated at 8,440 t. In 1950, annual catches were very small due to the fact that spearfishing was not commonly practiced in South Africa. Increasing availability of equipment (e.g., masks and spear guns) resulted in a sharp increase in the number of participants and an estimated 38-fold increase in annual catches between 1950 and 2010, estimated at around 14 t and 503 t, respectively. The time series shows a nearly exponential growth trend of annual spearfishing catches.Estimated recreational catches for the estuary sector totalled approximately 57,000 t over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, making this the third most important recreational sector in terms of landed tonnage. In 1950, an estimated 29,000 fishers landed around 550 t of fish. Total catches peaked in 1995 at 1,070 t and decreased slightly to an estimated 1,000 t in 2010. The total estimated recreational catch for abalone was approximately 12,100 t of whole weight for the period 1950 to 2003. Recreational catches were estimated at around 120 t in 1950. Total annual catches increased steadily with rising rates of participation, peaking in 1994 at 540 t. The sharp decrease of catches in 1997\u00E2\u0080\u00931998 was a result of declining effort because a moratorium was placed on the sale of recreational permits in order to allocate catch quotas to subsistence fishers in line with the implementation of the new Marine Living Resources Act 18 (MLRA) in 1998; the new post-apartheid regulation scheme regarding marine management (Cockcroft et al. 1999). Downward adjustments with respect to permits sold to compensate for over exploitation since 2000, exacerbated by illegal harvesting, ended in the closure of the recreational abalone sector in 2003. Illegal activity continues to thrive and puts additional pressure on the already heavily exploited resource.Estimated recreational catches of lobster totalled approximately 13,300 t over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. Starting off at around 100 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in the 1950s, catches increased steadily until the 1990s. Catches fluctuated in the 1990s, peaking at nearly 600 t in the 2002\u00E2\u0080\u00932003 season. The increase in catches in the mid-1990s is related to the decrease of the legal minimum size for recreationally-caught lobster, as well as an increased season length in that period (Cockcroft et al. 1999).The total retained catch for the charter boat sector was estimated at 14,700 t over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. In 1950, catches were estimated to be very low (35 t), accounting for its recent introduction and assumed slow evolution. Technological advances in tackle and gear and greater availability of boats since the end of World War II are reflected in the expansion of the industry and continuous increase of annual catches. Due to the lack of sufficient data and information, reconstructed catches for this sector may underlie the highest degree of uncertainty. Furthermore, estimating retained catches exclusively may under represent actual mortality in this sector. Post-release mortality and severe impairments of released fish due to barotrauma-induced stress is believed to be very high (Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005; Gravel and Cooke 2008). It is estimated that approximately 37% of the total catch in this sector in Natal is released, with the remaining 63% retained (Pradervand and Van der Elst 2008). The reasons for releasing catch are varied, including unwanted species, undersized or protected fish or the general underlying catch-and-release policy, which is common in this industry with respect to sharks, sailfish and swordfish. Therefore, the reconstructed catch estimates are conservative and if also accounting for mortality of released catch, estimates would likely be much higher.Estimated recreational catches for all sectors totalled approximately 332,000 t over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. In 1950, catches totalled just under 3,000 t, increasing rapidly to 5,400 t in 1970. The overall reduction in catch rates due Figure 3. Reconstructed catch by taxon in A) the Indian Ocean and B) the Atlantic Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. See Appendix Table A3 for details.Others Trachurus capensis Merluccius spp. Engraulis capensis Sardinops sagax Mugilidae Haemulidae Sciaenidae Pomatomus saltatrix Sparidae Others - 3 6 9 12 15 Total catch (thousand t) - 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2. 5 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Total atch (million t) YearABFisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 143to overfishing is reflected in the decreased growth rate of total catches from 1970 onwards. Total catches peaked in 1997 at nearly 7,000 t and decreased to an estimated 6,300 t in 2010. This decrease is mainly due to the closure of the abalone sector in 2003 and the decreased effort for West Coast rock lobster. Based on increasing participation and overall population growth, catches are likely to continue to increase.In comparison to the landings of several hundred thousand tonnes each year by the commercial fishing fleet in South Africa, the reconstructed catch estimates for the recreational sector seem to be negligible in terms of weight. For most years, this amount represented less than 1% of the overall industrial landings. So far, these catches are not reported to the FAO and therefore not represented in official reports. Nevertheless, with regards to the overall sustainability of the marine ecosystems and its productivity, these catches play an important role. Bearing in mind that many endemic fish species are fully or nearly fully exploited, severely overexploited or have even collapsed, the influence and effects of recreational fishing becomes apparent. According to Griffiths and Lamberth (2002), recreational fishers are directly responsible for the depletion of many species. Additionally, for some user groups such as subsistence and artisanal fishers, who rely on fish for monetary income and as their primary source of protein, decreased availability of marine resources threatens their livelihood and food security.The estimated catches in this report may be under reported due to various facts. As a result of the multi-sector nature of this industry, smaller categories such as the east coast rock lobster fisheries were excluded. Additionally, individual effort and catch rates were solely based on diurnal fishing activity in all sectors. Night fishing, which is commonly practiced in South Africa, was excluded in all scientific studies used and therefore not represented in this report. Furthermore, rather conservative choices for catch rate trends and number of recreational fishers were made.Subsistence catchesThe total number of subsistence fishers in South Africa was estimated at around 7,800 in 1950, and increased to about 32,700 by 2010. Based on the information for the early 2000s, it was assumed that approximately 82% of the total number of fishers operated in the open ocean, whereas the remaining 18% fished in estuaries only (Clark et al. 2002). Due to the lack of further information about historic numbers of subsistence fishers, estimates were solely based on data for the year 2002 (Clark et al. 2002). By applying a constant ratio of subsistence fishers per single non-white South African over the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010, the resulting trend corresponds to the increasing population development and may underestimate socioeconomic circumstances in regards to food supply during apartheid. During the 1960s, many black South Africans were restricted to regions in the eastern part of South Africa, such as Transkei, Ciskei and Kwa-Zulu Natal. The subsequent high population density and competition for resources in those areas forced many people to go fishing for their daily protein supply (Clark et al. 2002). It is very likely that the actual number of subsistence fishers was higher during apartheid due to the lack of alternative food and income sources. Therefore, the estimated number of fishers used here is based on conservative assumptions.Reconstructed fish catches for the subsistence fisheries sector in South Africa totalled approximately 153,000 t for the period 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. The majority of the catches were taken in the eastern provinces where most subsistence activity took place. Therefore, approximately 65% of reconstructed subsistence catches were taken in FAO area 51. Total annual catches steadily increased over the period, from approximately 1,400 t in 1950 to an estimated 4,600 t in 2010. Despite assumed declines in individual catch rates and per capita consumption rates for fish, partly linked to overexploitation and unsustainable catches, total annual subsistence fish catches increased over time.Due to the lack of information and catch data on other marine subsistence resources, no estimates could be derived for the respective subsectors. Reconstructed total subsistence catches are likely to be underestimated (likely substantially) due to various reasons. Firstly, not all targeted organisms were included in the reconstruction process. Secondly, individual catch rates were likely underestimates since they were based on conservative assumptions.Despite the rather small amount of total subsistence catches in comparison to commercial catches for South Africa, subsistence fishing plays a crucial role for many households and communities alongside the South African coastline, generating much needed income, as well as providing a daily source of protein for thousands of people. Thus, subsistence fishing (including artisanal) is fundamental for domestic food security purposes. The subsistence fishery is worth many millions of USD per year, with some full-time fishers earning at least USD 1,500 per year from estuarine fishing and bait-collecting activity (Napier et al. 2009). In general, subsistence fisheries play an integral role in the livelihood and socioeconomic stability for subsistence fishers. Poverty levels are high among subsistence fishing households, education levels are low and unemployment is widespread (Branch et al. 2002b). These factors decrease food security and emphasize the importance of subsistence fishing activities and the availability of marine resources in alleviating poverty.Despite the high degree of dependence on marine resources by fishers and their families (Clark et al. 2002), policies and laws were focused primarily on recreational and the export-oriented commercial fisheries sectors, systematically neglecting the needs of subsistence fishers until the promulgation of the MLRA in 1998.Subsistence fishers directly compete with the recreational and artisanal sectors for various marine resources. Many fish species, some targeted by recreational and artisanal as well as subsistence fishers, are severely overexploited in South Africa (Griffiths 2000; Branch et al. 2002a; Griffiths and Lamberth 2002). Subsistence fishers are known to retain undersized fish due to lack of compliance with, and enforcement of existing rules indicating general problems due to unsustainable catch methods (Griffiths and Lamberth 2002). Illegal fishing activity and poaching is common, especially for high value resources (Hauck and Sweijd 1999; Harris et al. 2002b). 144ConClusionsThis reconstruction focused on quantifying catches from the recreational and small-scale (i.e., subsistence and artisanal) sectors that are not included in the officially reported catch data of South Africa (primarily industrial catches only). In comparison to industrial catches reported to the FAO, the reconstructed catches for the recreational and the subsistence fisheries sector in South Africa do not appear to be significant in terms of tonnage, amounting to less than 1% of the annual total commercial landings in most given year. The importance of these two fisheries becomes more apparent when catches of the eastern and western coasts are viewed separately. Then, the recreational and subsistence sectors along the eastern coast (i.e., the Western Indian Ocean; FAO area 51) combine to make up 73% of reconstructed total catches (see Figure 2 and Appendix Table A2).Poor compliance and inadequate management measures for recreational fisheries sectors have led to overfishing of many species. This report shows the actual extent of annual catches and emphasizes the necessity for further research in regards to modeling the ecosystem effects of recreational fishery in South Africa; and the need for a more complex management approach geared towards the sustainable use of marine resources, to meet the requirements of this diverse fishing sector.The legacy of apartheid and the marginalization of the subsistence fishery sector in South Africa, in terms of political neglect, constitute a threat to the livelihood of subsistence fishers and their families. The catch reconstruction for this sector has given an indication of the likely extent of catches. For this report, catches of some subsectors could not be quantified due to the lack of data and information. Therefore, the catch estimates derived are conservative. More scientific research should be undertaken in order to improve and continuously update catch information in order to optimize management approaches that guarantee a sustainable resource use and allow a harvest of marine organisms, so that the livelihood of thousands of people in South Africa can be preserved and can continue to function as a potential safety net that can be relied upon, especially in times of hardship. Of major importance would be the inclusion of annual subsistence, artisanal and recreational catch estimates in the officially reported catch data provided by South Africa to FAO and thus to the international community.Given the overexploited state of many important marine resources in South Africa, it becomes apparent that there is no room for expansion (Griffiths and Branch 1997; Griffiths 1997a,b, 2000; Cockcroft et al. 1999; Hauck and Sweijd 1999; Griffiths and Lamberth 2002; Raemaekers and Britz 2009). Pressure on marine resources is likely to increase with population growth and may lead to further deterioration of stocks.Many challenges remain in finding and applying appropriate management measures given the diverse nature of the fishery sectors in South Africa. This report was the first attempt to quantify formerly unreported subsistence, artisanal and recreational catches in South Africa. Further research and continuous updates should be undertaken in order to improve data, fill the gaps of knowledge, and facilitate appropriate natural resource management aimed at sustainable, efficient and equitable use of marine resources in South Africa.aCknoWledgmentsThis is a contribution of the Sea Around Us, a collaboration between the University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. SB thanks Drs. Dirk Zeller and Daniel Pauly for providing the opportunity to conduct a large part of his graduate thesis work at the Sea Around Us at the Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia and Sarah Harper for her guidance. The authors would also like to thank Markus Burgener from TRAFFIC and David Japp from CapFish for sharing their knowledge.reFerenCesAnon. (2010b) Recreational fishing. Available at: www.nda.agric.za/doaDev/fisheries/09_recreational_fishing/index.html [last accessed: 15/12/2010].Arnason R and Kashorte M (2006) Commercialization of South Africa's subsistence fisheries? Considerations, criteria and approach. International Journal of Oceans and Oceanography 1(1): 45\u00E2\u0080\u009365.Attwood CG, Petersen SL and Kerwath SE (2011) Bycatch in South Africa's inshore trawl fishery as determined from observer records. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68: 2163\u00E2\u0080\u00932174.Bartholomew A and Bohnsack JA (2005) A review of catch-and-release angling mortality with implications for no-take reserves. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 15: 129\u00E2\u0080\u0093154.Beckley L, Fennessy S and Everett B (2008) Few fish but many fishers: a case study of shore-based recreational angling in a major South African estuarine port. African Journal of Marine Science 30(1): 11\u00E2\u0080\u009324.Belhabib D, Willemse NE and Pauly D (2015) A fishery tale: Namibian fisheries between 1950 and 2010. Fisheries Centre Working Paper #2015 -65, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 17 p.Branch GM (2002) Subsistence fisheries in South Africa: a preface. South African Journal of Marine Science 24(1): 403\u00E2\u0080\u0093404.Branch GM, Hauck M, Siqwana-Ndulo N and Dye AH (2002a) Defining fishers in the South African context: subsistence, artisanal and small-scale commercial sectors. South African Journal of Marine Science 24(1): 475\u00E2\u0080\u0093487.Fisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 145Branch GM, May J, Roberts B, Russell E and Clark BM (2002b) Case studies on the socio-economic characteristics and lifestyles of subsistence and informal fishers in South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 24(1): 439\u00E2\u0080\u0093462.Brouwer SL, Mann BQ, Lamberth SJ, Sauer WHH and Erasmus C (1997) A survey of the South African shore-angling fishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 18(1): 165\u00E2\u0080\u0093177.Burgener M (2011) The Namibian and South African hake trade. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Cape Town (South Africa). 59 p.Clark BM, Hauck M, Harris JM, Salo K and Russell E (2002) Identification of subsistence fishers, fishing areas, resource use and activities along the South African coast. South African Journal of Marine Science 24(1): 425\u00E2\u0080\u0093437.Cochrane KL, Augustyn CJ, Fairweather T, Japp D, Kilongo K, Iitembu J, Moroff N, Roux JP, Shannon L, Zyl Bv and Velho Fv (2009) Benguela Current large marine ecosystem \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Governance and management for an ecosystem approach to fisheries in the region. Coastal Management 37: 235\u00E2\u0080\u0093254.Cockcroft AC and Mackenzie AJ (1997) The recreational fishery for West Coast rock lobster Jasus lalandii in South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 18(1): 75\u00E2\u0080\u009384.Cockcroft AC and Payne AIL (1999) A cautious fisheries management policy in South Africa: the fisheries for rock lobster. Marine Policy 23(6): 587\u00E2\u0080\u0093600.Cockcroft AC, Griffiths MH and Tarr RJQ (1999) Marine recreational fisheries in South Africa: status and challenges. Pp. 64\u00E2\u0080\u009370 In Pitcher TJ (ed.) Evaluating the benefits of recreational fisheries. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 7(2). University of British Columbia, Fisheries Centre, Vancouver (Canada).Cockcroft AC, Sauer WHH, Branch GM, Clark BM, Dye AH and Russell E (2002) Assessment of resource availability and suitability for subsistence fishers in South Africa, with a review of resource management procedures. South African Journal of Marine Science 24(1): 489\u00E2\u0080\u0093501.Coetzee PS, Baird D and Tregoning C (1989) Catch statistics and trends in the shore angling fishery of the east coast, South Africa, for the period 1959\u00E2\u0080\u00931982. South African Journal of Marine Science 8(1): 155\u00E2\u0080\u0093171.Coleman FC, Figueira WF, Ueland JS and Crowder LB (2004) The impact of United States recreational fisheries on marine fish populations. Science 305(5692): 1958\u00E2\u0080\u00931960.Cooke SJ and Cowx IG (2004) The role of recreational fishing in global fish crisis. Bioscience 54(9): 857\u00E2\u0080\u0093859.Crosoer D, van Sittert L and Ponte S (2006) The integration of South African fisheries into the global economy: past, present and future. Marine Policy 30(1): 18\u00E2\u0080\u009329.DAFF (2012) Status of the South African marine fishery resources. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, South Africa.Elst Rvd, Everett B, Jiddawi N, Mwatha G, Afonso PS and Boulle D (2005) Fish, fishers and fisheries of the Western Indian Ocean: their diversity and status. A preliminary assessment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 363: 263\u00E2\u0080\u0093284.FAO (2010) National fishery sector overview: South Africa. Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome (Italy).Gravel MA and Cooke SJ (2008) Severity of barotrauma influences the physiological status, post-release behavior, and fate of tournament-caught smallmouth bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28: 607\u00E2\u0080\u0093617.Griffiths CL and Branch GM (1997) The exploitation of coastal invertebrates and seaweeds in South Africa: historical trends, ecological impacts and implications for management. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Africa 1997(52): 121\u00E2\u0080\u0093148.Griffiths MH (1997a) The application of per-recruit models to Argyrosomus imdorus, an important South African sciaenid fish. Fisheries Research 30: 103\u00E2\u0080\u0093115.Griffiths MH (1997b) Management of South African dusky kob Argyrosomus japonicus (Sciaenidae) based on per-recruit models. South African Journal of Marine Science 18(1): 213\u00E2\u0080\u0093228.Griffiths MH (2000) Long-term trends in catch and effort of commercial linefish off South Africa's Cape Province: snapshots of the 20th century. South African Journal of Marine Science 22(1): 81\u00E2\u0080\u0093110.Griffiths MH and Lamberth SJ (2002) Evaluating the marine recreational fishery in South Africa. In Pitcher TJ and Hollingworth CE (eds.), recreational fisheries: Ecological, economic and social evaluation. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford (UK).Guastella LA-M (1994) A quantitative assessment of recreational angling in Durban Harbour, South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 14(1): 187\u00E2\u0080\u0093203.Harris JM, Branch GM, Clark BM, Cockcroft AC, Coetzee C, Dye AH, Hauck M, Johnson A, Kati-Kati L, Maseko Z, Salo K, Sauer WHH, Siqwana-Ndulo N and Sowman M (2002a) Recommendations for the management of subsistence fisheries in South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 24(1): 503\u00E2\u0080\u0093523.Harris JM, Sowman M, Branch GM, Clark BM, Cockcroft AC, Coetzee C, Dye AH, Hauck M, Johnston A, Kati-Kati L, Maseko Z, Salo K, Sauer WHH, Siqwana-Ndulo N and Beaumont J (2002b) The process of developing a management system for subsistence fisheries in South Africa: recognizing and formalizing a marginalized fishing sector in South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 24(1): 405\u00E2\u0080\u0093424.Hauck M and Sowman M (2001) Coastal and fisheries co-management in South Africa: an overview and analysis Marine Policy 25(3): 173\u00E2\u0080\u0093185.Hauck M and Sweijd NA (1999) A case study of abalone poaching in South Africa and its impact on fisheries management. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 1024\u00E2\u0080\u00931032.Hauck M, Sowman M, Russell E, Clark BM, Harris JM, Venter A, Beaumont J and Maseko Z (2002) Perceptions of subsistence and informal fishers in South Africa regarding the management of living marine resources. South African Journal of Marine Science 24(1): 463\u00E2\u0080\u0093474. 146Hersoug B (1998) Fishing in a sea of sharks-reconstruction and development in the South African fishing industry. Transformation 35: 77\u00E2\u0080\u0093102.Hersoug B and Holm P (2000) Change without redistribution: an institutional perspective on South Africa's new fisheries policy. Marine Policy 24(3): 221\u00E2\u0080\u0093231.Horne C (1974) Game fishing transformed. Don Nelson, Cape Town.Isaacs M (2006) Small-scale fisheries reform: Expectations, hopes and dreams of \"a better life for all\". Marine Policy 30(1): 51\u00E2\u0080\u009359.Japp DW (1997) Discarding practices and bycatches for fisheries in the Southeast Atlantic region (Area 47). Papers presented at the Technical Consultation on Reduction of Wastage in Fisheries, Tokyo, Japan, 28 October-1November 1996. FAO Fish. Rep. No.547, Suppl., : 235\u00E2\u0080\u0093256.Jaquet JL and Zeller D (2007) National conflict and fisheries: Reconstructing marine fisheries catches for Mozambique. Pp. 35\u00E2\u0080\u009347 In Zeller D and Pauly D (eds.), reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for key countries and regions (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).Kearney RE (2002) Recreational fishing: value is in the eye of the beholder. In Pitcher TJ and Hollingworth CE (eds.), Recreational fisheries: ecological, economic and social evaluation. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford (UK).Kelleher K (2005) Discards in the world's marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No.470. FAO, Rome (Italy).Lamberth SJ and Turpie JK (2003) The role of estuaries in South African fisheries: economic importance and management implications. African Journal of Marine Science 25(1): 131\u00E2\u0080\u0093157.Le Manach F and Pauly D (this volume) First estimate of unreported catch in the French \u00C3\u008Eles \u00C3\u0089parses, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Lees R (1969) Fishing for fortunes. The story of the fishing industry in Southern Africa and the men who made it. Purnell, Cape Town (South Africa). 283 p.Lyle JM, Coleman APM, West L, Campbell D and Henry GW (2002) New large-scale survey methods for evaluating sport fisheries. In Pitcher TJ and Hollingworth CE (eds.), recreational fisheries: ecological, economic and social evaluation. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford (UK).Mann BQ (2013) Southern African marine linefish species profiles. South African Association for Marine Biological Research, Durban (South Africa).Mann BQ, Scott GM, Mann-Lang JB, Brouwer SL, Lamberth SJ, Sauer WHH and Erasmus C (1997) An evaluation of participation in and management of the South African spearfishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 18(1): 179\u00E2\u0080\u0093193.McGrath MD, Horner CCM, Brouwer SL, Lamberth SJ, Mann BQ, Sauer WHH and Erasmus C (1997) An economic valuation of the South African linefishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 18(1): 203\u00E2\u0080\u0093211.McPhee D, Leadbitter D and Skilleter GA (2002) Swallowing the bait: is recreational fishing in Australia ecologically sustainable? Pacific conservation biology 8(1): 40\u00E2\u0080\u009351.Myers RA and Worm B (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423(6937): 280\u00E2\u0080\u0093283.Napier VR, Turpie JK and Clark BM (2009) Value and management of the subsistence fishery at Knysna Estuary, South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 31(3): 297\u00E2\u0080\u0093310.Okes N and Burgener M (2011) South African small pelagics trade profile. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Cape Town (South Africa). 19 p.Okes N and Burgener M (2011) South African rock lobster trade profile. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Cape Town (South Africa). 23 p.Okes N and Burgener M (2011) South African prawn trade profile. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Cape Town (South Africa). 19 p.Okes N and Burgener M (2011) South African tuna trade profile. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Cape Town (South Africa). 26 p.Okes N and Burgener M (2011) South African shark trade profile. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Cape Town (South Africa). 19 p.Okes N and Burgener M (2011) South African squid trade profile. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Cape Town (South Africa). 23 p.Pauly D (2006) Major trends in small-scale marine fisheries, with emphasis on developing countries, and some implications for the social sciences. Maritime Studies (MAST) 4(2): 7\u00E2\u0080\u009322.Pauly D (2007) The Sea Around Us Project: documenting and communicating global fisheries impact on marine ecosystems. Ambio 36(4).Pauly D and Zeller D (2003) The global fisheries crisis as a rationale for improving the FAO's database of fisheries statistics. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 11(6). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Pauly D, Christensen V, Guenette S, Pitcher TJ, Sumaila UR, Walters CJ, Watson R and Zeller D (2002) Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 418(6898): 689\u00E2\u0080\u0093695.Pradervand P (2004) Long-term trends in the shore fishery of the Transkei coast, South Africa. African Zoology 39(2): 247\u00E2\u0080\u0093261.Pradervand P and Baird D (2002) Assessment of the recreational linefishery in selected Eastern Cape estuaries: trends in catches and effort. South African Journal of Marine Science 24(1): 87\u00E2\u0080\u0093101.Pradervand P and Van der Elst RP (2008) Assessment of the charter-boat fishery in KwaZulu-Nata. South Africa African Journal of Marine Science 30(1): 101\u00E2\u0080\u0093112.Fisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 147Pradervand P, Beckley LE, Mann BQ and Radebe PV (2003) Assessment of the linefishery in two urban estuarine systems in Kwazulu-natal, South Africa. African Journal of Marine Science 25(1): 111\u00E2\u0080\u0093130.Raemaekers SJ-PN and Britz PJ (2009) Profile of the illegal abalone fishery (Haliotis midae) in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa: organised pillage and management failure. Fisheries Research 97: 183\u00E2\u0080\u0093195.Raemaekers SJ-PN, Hauck M, Burgener M, Mackenzie AJ, Maharaj G, Plaganyi EE and Britz PJ (2011) Review of the causes of the rise of the illegal South African abalone fishery and consequent closure of the rights-based fishery. Ocean and Coastal Management 54: 433\u00E2\u0080\u0093445.Richardson AJ, Lamberts C, Isaacs G, Moloney CL and Gibbons MJ (2000) Length-weight relationships of some important forage crustaceans from South Africa. Naga, The ICLARM Quarterly 23(2).Sauer WHH, Penney AJ, Erasmus C, Mann BQ, Brouwer SL, Lamberth SJ and Stewart TJ (1997) An evaluation of attitudes and responses to monitoring and management measures for the South African boat-based linefishery. South African Journal of Marine Science 18(1): 147\u00E2\u0080\u0093163.Schoeman S (1962) Strike!\u00E2\u0080\u0093A handbook of angling in South African coastal waters. A. A. Balkema, Cape Town.Siegfried WR, Hockey PAR and Branch GM (1994) The exploitation of intertidal and subtidal biotic resources of rocky shores in Chile and South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 An overview. Pp. 1\u00E2\u0080\u009315 In Siegfried WR (ed.) Rocky shores: exploitation in Chile and South Africa. Springer Verlag, Berlin (Germany).Sink KJ, Wilkinson S, Atkinson LJ, Sims PF, Leslie RW and Attwood CG (2012) The potential impacts of South Africa's demersal hake trawl fishery on benthic habitats: historical perspectives, spatial analyses, current review and potential management actions Unpublished report, South African National Biodiversity Institute.Smale MJ and Buxton CD (1985) Aspects of the recreational ski-boat fishery off the Eastern Cape, South Africa. South African Journal of Marine Science 3(1): 131\u00E2\u0080\u0093144.Sowman M (2006) Subsistence and small-scale fisheries in South Africa: a ten-year review. Marine Policy 30(1): 60\u00E2\u0080\u009373.Sowman M and Cardoso P (2010) Small-scale fisheries and food security strategies in countries in the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) region: Angola, Namibia and South Africa. Marine Policy 34(6): 1163\u00E2\u0080\u00931170.Steyn E, Fielding P and Schleyer M (2008) The artisanal fishery for East Coast rock lobsters Panulirus homarus along the Wild Coast. South Africa African Journal of Marine Science 30(3): 497\u00E2\u0080\u0093506.Toivonen A-L (2002) A survey of the economic value of nordic recreational fisheries. In Pitcher TJ and Hollingworth CE (eds.), recreational fisheries: ecological, economic and social evaluation. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford (UK).United Nations (2009) World population prospects: the 2008 revision population database. Available at: http://esa.un.org/UNPP/p2k0data.asp [Accessed on: 19/12/2010].Van der Elst RP (1989) Marine recreational angling in South Africa. Pp. 164\u00E2\u0080\u0093176 In Payne AIL and Crawford RJM (eds.), oceans of life off southern Africa. Vlaeberg Publishers, Cape Town (South Africa).Van der Elst RP (1993) Marine recreational angling in South Africa: management strategies and their implementation. Pp. 15\u00E2\u0080\u009323 In Dovers S (ed.) Australian recreational fishing. Policies for Resource Management.Van der Elst RP and Adkin F (1991) Marine linefish: priority species and research objectives in southern Africa. Oceanographic Research Institute, Durban.Van der Elst RP, Everett B, Jiddawi N, Mwatha G, Afonso PS and Boulle D (2005) Fish, fishers and fisheries of the Western Indian Ocean: their diversity and status. A preliminary assessment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 363(1826): 263\u00E2\u0080\u0093284.van Sittert L, Branch G, Hauck M and Sowman M (2006) Benchmarking the first decade of post-apartheid fisheries reform in South Africa. Marine Policy 30(1): 96\u00E2\u0080\u0093110.van Zyl BJ (nd) Managing Namibia's marine fisheries \u00E2\u0080\u0094 A decade of rebuilding. Availabe at: http://www.unep.org/bpsp/Fisheries/Fisheries Case Study Summaries/VanZyl%28Summary%29.pdf [Accessed on: 01/03/2011].Walmsley SA, Leslie RW and Sauer WHH (2007) Bycatch and discarding in the South African demersal trawl fishery. Fisheries Research 86: 15\u00E2\u0080\u009330.Watson R, Kitchingham A, Gelchu A and Pauly D (2004) Mapping global fisheries: sharpening our focus. Fish and Fisheries 5: 168\u00E2\u0080\u0093177.Whibley I (2003) The South African fisherman. Struik Publishers, Cape Town (South Africa).Whitfield AK (1994) An estuary-association classification for the fishes of southern Africa. South African Journal of Science 90(7): 411\u00E2\u0080\u0093417.World Bank (2010) Population South Africa. Available at: http://databank.worldbank.org [Accessed on: 12/12/2010].Worm B, Hilborn R, Baum JK, Branch TA, Collie JS, Costello C, Fogarty MJ, Fulton EA, Hutchings JA, Jennings S, Jensen OP, Lotze HK, Mace PM, McClanahan TR, Minto C, Palumbi SR, Parma AM, Ricard D, Rosenberg AA, Watson R and Zeller D (2009) Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325(5940): 578\u00E2\u0080\u0093585.Zeller D, Booth S, Davis G and Pauly D (2007a) Re-estimation of small-scale fishery catches for U.S. flag-associated island areas in the western Pacific: the last 50 years. Fishery Bulletin 105(2): 266\u00E2\u0080\u0093277. Zeller D, Booth S and Pauly D (2007b) Fisheries contribution to the gross domestic product: underestimating small-scale fisheries in the Pacific. Marine Resource Economics 21: 355\u00E2\u0080\u0093374.Zeller D, Booth S, Craig P and Pauly D (2006) Reconstruction of coral reef fisheries catches in American Samoa, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932002. Coral Reefs 25: 144\u00E2\u0080\u0093152. 148Appendix Table A1. Percentage of catch contribution (by mass) of the most important recreational species according to subsectors. RegionsW = Western Cape, S = Southern Cape, E = Eastern Cape, T =Transkei, K = Kwa-Zulu Natal.Subsector Family Taxon. Name Common name RegionW S E T K S+EShore and rock angling Dichistidae Dichistius capensis Galjoen 29.8 14 1.1 1 Haemulidae Pomadasys commersonni Spotted grunter 0.3 0.7 4.1 1.1P. olivaceum Piggy/Olive grunt 1.7 13 2.5 3.1Mugilidae Liza richardsonii Harder/Mullet 9.5 1.6 5.8Pomatomidae Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish/Elf 0.1 52 22 19 25Sciaenidae Argyrosomus inodorus Mild meager 1.7 4.6A. japonicus Dusky kob 2.9 3.5 1Umbrina spp. Baardman 1.4 0.2Scorpidae Neoscorpis lithophilus Stonebream 1.6 15 4.3Sparidae Diplodus sargus Blacktail/Dassie 1 1.5 7.8 16 8.9Lithognathus lithognathus White steenbras 0.5 4.7 1.4 0.3Pachymetopon blochii Hottentot 12.5 0.6P. grande Bronze bream 4 13 0.1Sarpa salpa Strepie 0.3 3.3 24 11 44Misc. marine fish Other Other <45 <15 <17 15 <13Boat-based angling Carangidae Seriola lalandii Yellowtail amberjack 1.1 20Gempylidae Thyrsites atun Snoek 58.4 21Merluccidae Merluccius capensis Cape hake 0.2 0.3 23Pomatomidae Pomatomus saltatrix Spotted grunter 0.1 1.3 0.4 1.2Sciaenidae Argyrosomus inodorus Piggy/Olive grunt 0.1 7.3 18A. japonicus Harder/Mullet 0.6Atractoscion aequidens Geelbeck croaker 0.1 9.1 13 3.3Scombridae Scomberomorus commerson Spanish mackerel 33S. plurilineatus Queen mackerel 2Thunnus alalunga Albacore tuna 28.4 0.3T. albacares Yellowfin tuna 0.7 0.4 10 19Sparidae Argyrozona argyrozona Carpenter 0.1 14 2.2Cheimerius nufar Santer seabream 0.2 3.2 2.4Chrysoblephus laticeps Roman seabream 0.1 1.7 2.5C. puniceus Slinger seabream 0.1 3.8Pachymetopon blochii Hottentot 3.8 3.5Misc. marine fish Other Other < 7 <22 <27 - <35Estuary angling Carangidae Lichia amia Leervis/Garrick 3.9 1.8 Haemulidae Pomadasys commersonni Spotted grunter 62 33 18Mugilidae Liza richardsonii Harder/Mullet 2 0.1Pomatomidae Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish/Elf 92.1 0.1 0.7 0.6Sciaenidae Argyrosomus japonicus Dusky kob 7.8 51 64Sparidae Diplodus sargus Blacktail/Dassie 0.7 0.1Lithognathus lithognathus White steenbras 0.7 14 2Sarpa salpa Strepie 0.6 0.1Sparodon durbanesis Musselcracker seabream 0.6 0.1Misc. fish Other Other < 6 <11 <12 - <19Spearfishing Carangidae Lichia amia Gerrick 4.7 0.6Seriola lalandii Yellowtail amberjack 4.3 0.3 1.9Dichistiidae Dichistius capensis Galjoen 6.1 0.3 6.7Oplegnathidae Oplegnathus conwayi Cape knifejaw 3 15.4Sciaenidae Argyrosomus inodorus Piggy/Olive grunt 0.1Umbrina spp. Baardman 3.8 4.8Scombridae Scomberomorus commerson Spanish mackerel 17S. plurilineatus Queen mackerel 31Sparidae Chrysoblephus laticeps Roman seabream 0.1 19.3Diplodus sargus Blacktail/Dassie 0.1 1Gymnocrotaphus curvidens Janbruin 11Pachymetopon blochii Hottentot 88.1 6.7P. grande Bronze seabream 9.8 6.7Sparodon durbanensis Musselcracker seabream 2.8 2.9Misc. marine fish Other Other < 2 - <27 < 24Charter boat Coryphaenidae Choryphaena hippurus Dolphinfish 20Scombridae Thunnus albacares Yellowfin tuna 14Sparidae Chrysoblephus puniceus Slinger seabream 11Misc. marine fish Other Other (reef fish, sharks, billfishes, tuna)55Lethrinidae Lethrinus nebulosus Blue emperor 16Charter boat (by number) Sparidae Chrysoblephus puniceus Slinger seabream 34Cheimerius nufar Santer seabream 14Chrysoblephus anglicus Englishman seabream 11 Misc. marine fish Other Other (reef fish, sharks, billfishes, tuna) 25 Fisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 149Appendix Table A2. Total reconstructed catch by sector and Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Year Indian Ocean Atlantic OceanReconstructed catch Reconstructed catchArtisanal Industrial Recreational Subsistence Total Reported to FAOArtisanal Industrial Recreational Subsistence Total Reported to FAO in EEZReported to FAO in Area 471950 1,923 902 2,825 44,200 291,906 1,035 486 337,627 316,600 390,745 1951 3 1,984 922 2,909 46,402 453,869 1,068 497 501,835 470,100 635,536 1952 6 2,047 942 2,995 50,803 638,202 1,102 507 690,615 646,700 930,681 1953 9 2,111 962 3,083 53,605 633,288 1,137 518 688,547 644,500 961,536 1954 13 2,177 981 3,171 52,707 618,240 1,172 528 672,647 629,500 932,728 1955 16 2,244 1,001 3,261 66,609 582,030 1,208 539 650,386 608,700 886,575 1956 20 2,313 1,024 3,358 69,611 499,260 1,246 551 570,668 533,700 805,056 1957 24 2,384 1,048 3,456 45,213 576,990 1,284 564 624,051 583,600 859,702 1958 28 2,458 1,071 3,557 55,915 647,495 1,324 577 705,310 659,601 938,346 1959 32 2,532 1,095 3,659 63,317 724,875 1,363 589 790,145 738,401 1,069,375 1960 37 2,608 1,118 3,764 57,320 859,996 1,405 602 919,322 858,901 1,205,081 1961 42 2,689 1,144 3,875 72,222 1,014,346 1,448 616 1,088,632 1,016,500 1,438,402 1962 47 2,768 1,169 3,984 40,625 1,101,335 1,491 629 1,144,080 1,068,201 1,548,330 1963 52 2,854 1,189 4,094 31,219 1,225,207 1,537 640 1,258,602 1,175,014 1,823,272 1964 57 2,500 2,937 1,209 6,703 2,500 68,461 1,243,461 1,582 651 1,314,154 1,226,607 1,921,861 1965 62 2,500 3,024 1,226 6,812 2,500 59,743 1,356,955 1,629 660 1,418,986 1,324,710 2,047,415 1966 67 2,900 3,111 1,244 7,322 2,900 74,928 1,350,315 1,675 670 1,427,589 1,332,693 2,147,477 1967 73 3,100 3,203 1,263 7,639 3,100 156,740 1,614,486 1,724 680 1,773,631 1,655,702 2,731,690 1968 78 4,000 3,295 1,283 8,656 4,000 106,843 2,145,285 1,774 691 2,254,593 2,104,802 3,835,787 1969 84 3,700 3,390 1,304 8,479 3,700 104,946 1,879,911 1,826 702 1,987,385 1,854,802 3,362,996 1970 91 601 3,493 1,325 5,509 601 105,850 1,195,133 1,881 713 1,303,576 1,217,203 2,042,557 1971 97 1,001 3,524 1,347 5,969 1,001 71,753 1,186,340 1,897 725 1,260,716 1,176,403 1,828,388 1972 104 1,201 3,554 1,370 6,229 1,201 81,311 1,139,034 1,914 738 1,222,997 1,141,657 1,771,351 1973 111 1,608 3,586 1,392 6,697 1,600 112,825 1,341,370 1,931 750 1,456,876 1,362,078 2,264,116 1974 118 3,081 3,614 1,417 8,229 3,073 44,415 1,481,383 1,946 763 1,528,507 1,426,265 2,346,088 1975 125 3,567 3,645 1,439 8,775 3,548 83,348 1,375,489 1,962 775 1,461,574 1,363,620 2,242,844 1976 133 2,690 3,674 1,461 7,957 2,690 16,985 1,227,073 1,978 787 1,246,823 1,163,256 1,829,868 1977 140 2,728 3,702 1,482 8,052 2,728 47,488 979,181 1,994 798 1,029,461 962,172 1,389,817 1978 148 3,149 3,731 1,506 8,534 3,144 24,319 1,054,273 2,009 811 1,081,411 1,009,268 1,524,649 1979 351 1,729 3,759 1,529 7,369 1,913 42,649 1,017,857 2,024 823 1,063,354 993,749 1,405,848 1980 165 2,811 3,787 1,555 8,318 2,778 28,375 880,392 2,039 837 911,643 850,870 1,168,972 1981 563 2,030 3,815 1,583 7,991 2,413 41,907 875,595 2,054 852 920,409 859,936 1,235,974 1982 2,609 4,502 3,843 1,614 12,568 6,927 35,541 835,043 2,070 869 873,522 815,513 1,063,203 1983 2,777 4,363 3,870 1,645 12,655 6,946 31,519 959,926 2,084 886 994,414 928,124 1,250,323 1984 1,256 2,352 3,898 1,677 9,182 3,398 39,992 739,721 2,099 903 782,715 730,946 898,610 1985 1,159 2,028 3,925 1,711 8,823 2,789 77,874 757,714 2,113 921 838,622 772,720 978,597 1986 480 2,680 3,951 1,743 8,853 2,884 42,928 834,578 2,127 939 880,572 816,943 986,203 1987 814 2,006 3,976 1,777 8,573 2,470 47,289 1,479,711 2,141 957 1,530,097 1,423,096 2,006,383 1988 694 1,973 4,004 1,807 8,479 2,331 58,101 1,335,258 2,156 973 1,396,488 1,297,941 1,565,957 1989 759 1,765 4,024 1,835 8,382 2,166 78,613 862,411 2,167 988 944,179 873,385 1,124,854 1990 625 1,569 4,065 1,862 8,121 1,853 65,446 509,490 2,189 1,002 578,127 531,908 601,364 1991 657 1,171 4,112 1,887 7,827 1,471 63,808 469,759 2,214 1,016 536,797 494,001 536,797 1992 745 906 4,091 1,915 7,657 1,267 47,960 694,751 2,203 1,031 745,946 690,241 745,946 1993 404 751 4,393 1,946 7,494 826 50,413 553,839 2,365 1,048 607,665 560,717 607,665 1994 505 371 4,417 1,976 7,269 517 46,308 516,206 2,379 1,064 565,957 522,130 565,957 1995 523 224 4,374 2,009 7,129 373 46,781 571,969 2,355 1,082 622,187 574,966 622,187 1996 525 210 4,397 2,041 7,173 349 44,230 429,395 2,368 1,099 477,091 439,540 477,091 1997 634 722 4,508 2,077 7,941 936 44,630 506,966 2,427 1,118 555,141 511,412 555,141 1998 1,093 666 4,237 2,113 8,110 1,238 56,466 543,702 2,282 1,138 603,587 555,947 603,587 1999 854 635 4,196 2,153 7,838 1,000 38,715 590,646 2,259 1,159 632,780 585,324 632,780 2000 1,100 621 4,250 2,192 8,162 986 34,411 653,513 2,288 1,181 691,393 640,000 691,393 2001 1,430 621 4,263 2,240 8,554 1,175 39,027 766,478 2,296 1,206 809,006 747,719 809,006 2002 2,714 430 4,349 2,276 9,769 2,046 41,460 779,631 2,342 1,226 824,658 763,482 824,658 2003 3,181 211 4,174 2,306 9,871 2,170 37,103 843,359 2,248 1,241 883,951 819,034 883,951 2004 1,486 387 4,124 2,336 8,332 898 47,521 905,059 2,220 1,258 956,058 885,717 956,058 2005 1,704 391 4,124 2,365 8,584 863 47,335 828,954 2,221 1,273 879,783 815,322 879,783 2006 1,643 384 4,111 2,397 8,534 1,073 33,759 629,668 2,213 1,291 666,931 616,174 666,931 2007 1,542 329 4,080 2,426 8,377 986 37,321 690,270 2,197 1,306 731,094 676,396 731,094 2008 1,830 266 4,076 2,456 8,628 1,065 38,879 652,332 2,195 1,322 694,728 642,107 694,728 2009 1,728 262 4,071 2,485 8,545 950 41,257 509,060 2,192 1,338 553,847 510,086 553,847 2010 1,993 282 4,066 2,547 8,888 1,206 41,906 632,256 2,190 1,371 677,723 625,828 677,723 150Appendix Table A3. Total reconstructed catch by taxon and Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Year Atlantic OceanSparidae Pomatomus saltatrixIndian OceanSciaenidae Haemulidae Mugilidae Others Sardinops sagaxEngraulis capensisMerluccius spp.Trachurus capensisEtrumeus whiteheadiMerluccius capensisScomber japonicusOthers1950 421 431 305 263 221 1,183 155,700 - 47,600 36,700 - 8,972 5,700 82,954 1951 435 444 314 271 227 1,219 226,600 - 59,200 101,900 6,000 94,258 1952 450 456 323 279 233 1,255 395,800 - 58,900 103,800 5,900 106,756 1953 464 469 332 286 239 1,293 399,300 - 61,900 85,900 12,200 109,749 1954 479 482 341 294 244 1,330 338,900 - 69,900 120,500 13,100 111,185 1955 494 496 350 302 250 1,369 349,100 - 74,100 80,700 26,500 101,618 1956 509 510 360 311 257 1,410 307,700 - 76,000 47,200 36,900 86,694 1957 525 525 371 319 264 1,452 335,000 - 80,800 85,600 11,400 93,500 1958 542 540 381 328 271 1,495 418,300 - 83,600 65,100 20,100 98,065 1959 559 555 392 337 278 1,538 531,500 - 69,500 22,100 33,100 111,049 1960 576 571 402 347 285 1,583 600,800 - 76,600 67,800 29,100 118,161 1961 594 587 414 356 293 1,631 744,700 - 95,000 46,100 52,300 118,311 1962 612 603 425 366 300 1,677 805,400 0 93,900 72,700 21,200 116,962 1963 630 620 437 376 307 1,725 947,600 23,300 90,700 26,700 - 13,878 - 19,459 - 19,498 - 19,062 - 18,368 - 16,173 - 17,751 - 20,145 - 22,896 - 26,862 - 32,221 - 33,918 - 37,436 13,400 119,466 1964 649 636 448 385 313 4,272 878,400 95,400 102,200 26,900 2,500 39,231 52,000 117,524 1965 668 653 459 395 319 4,319 868,900 178,300 99,600 57,800 2,100 42,299 39,500 130,487 1966 687 670 470 404 325 4,765 882,300 159,900 124,400 29,400 4,500 42,557 54,900 129,632 1967 707 688 483 414 332 5,016 1,005,100 297,500 118,700 12,000 12,700 53,123 138,900 135,607 1968 727 706 495 424 339 5,966 1,481,000 331,000 118,600 4,700 13,500 67,751 90,100 147,942 1969 748 724 508 435 346 5,718 1,159,700 397,400 104,300 31,700 14,300 59,805 92,800 127,380 1970 771 745 520 446 353 2,674 576,200 358,300 94,100 16,000 23,900 38,516 77,900 118,660 1971 780 752 526 451 360 3,101 412,900 367,000 111,400 150,300 23,700 37,554 54,600 103,262 1972 788 759 531 456 366 3,328 477,600 372,200 118,100 28,100 20,600 36,171 56,600 113,626 1973 796 766 537 462 373 3,763 470,300 558,200 133,000 21,200 30,000 42,347 58,800 143,029 1974 804 773 543 467 380 5,263 572,017 595,778 134,870 43,712 1,779 45,756 30,670 103,925 1975 812 780 549 472 386 5,776 659,395 400,949 113,083 29,901 29,628 43,769 69,344 115,505 1976 820 787 555 477 393 4,926 630,043 299,405 118,205 39,926 18,510 37,136 545 103,052 1977 828 793 560 482 399 4,990 173,957 376,913 101,583 97,886 35,979 29,634 21,336 192,173 1978 836 800 566 488 406 5,439 110,973 564,291 143,115 25,136 67,165 31,852 2,443 136,436 1979 844 807 572 493 413 4,242 65,188 587,693 153,294 62,146 14,095 30,670 11,139 139,129 1980 851 813 577 498 420 5,158 57,629 508,750 150,241 57,014 14,132 26,557 4,213 93,106 1981 860 820 584 504 428 4,795 91,254 492,970 143,905 22,284 24,301 26,404 10,943 108,348 1982 868 828 590 510 437 9,335 57,868 389,571 156,858 83,453 31,491 25,253 13,643 115,385 1983 876 835 597 516 446 9,385 79,189 424,011 137,619 126,906 69,662 29,049 13,271 114,707 1984 884 842 604 523 455 5,874 78,205 285,962 152,499 103,998 29,551 22,352 6,962 103,186 1985 893 850 610 529 464 5,477 85,475 323,239 183,228 36,237 42,461 22,860 6,818 138,304 1986 901 857 617 535 474 5,470 86,527 315,110 182,089 99,749 57,521 25,364 5,990 108,222 1987 909 864 624 542 483 5,152 106,841 969,401 168,918 61,042 34,820 44,887 6,990 137,198 1988 918 871 630 548 492 5,020 101,080 682,079 161,023 199,645 62,006 40,510 9,197 140,947 1989 927 877 636 553 500 4,890 101,461 372,916 153,484 83,828 44,363 26,180 22,278 139,669 1990 935 882 641 558 508 4,596 56,871 150,100 135,168 51,074 44,710 15,482 17,759 106,963 1991 944 887 647 563 516 4,270 52,011 150,560 136,484 35,564 33,484 14,266 16,783 97,644 1992 959 898 653 570 525 4,053 53,436 347,312 135,805 33,640 47,341 21,074 5,286 102,051 1993 973 909 660 576 535 3,840 50,702 235,606 108,336 35,429 56,329 16,801 5,854 98,608 1994 987 919 667 588 545 3,564 93,438 155,554 136,917 20,031 54,147 15,649 5,590 84,630 1995 1,005 934 683 594 555 3,358 115,205 170,308 137,742 10,262 76,858 17,334 5,799 88,679 1996 1,013 939 688 597 565 3,371 105,210 40,712 155,155 31,995 47,117 13,043 5,132 78,727 1997 1,021 944 693 609 576 4,098 116,995 60,095 141,076 31,206 92,209 15,417 9,968 88,175 1998 1,029 950 692 620 586 4,231 128,019 107,548 151,317 46,384 52,476 16,546 3,969 97,328 1999 1,038 956 699 621 598 3,926 131,316 180,542 141,165 17,970 58,856 17,936 2,189 82,806 2000 1,046 961 706 623 610 4,216 136,060 267,840 135,000 15,000 37,750 19,868 1,984 77,891 2001 1,054 966 712 631 621 4,569 192,160 287,190 146,393 9,659 55,330 23,260 2,009 93,006 2002 1,062 969 716 635 630 5,756 260,710 213,440 149,548 21,883 54,800 23,647 1,086 99,544 2003 1,069 971 720 637 637 5,838 289,994 258,876 139,160 28,285 42,529 25,580 1,647 97,880 2004 1,075 973 723 641 644 4,276 373,827 190,093 153,252 34,131 47,236 27,447 2,287 127,785 2005 1,082 974 726 644 651 4,507 246,777 282,728 143,987 35,105 28,896 25,142 3,084 114,064 2006 1,089 975 729 646 659 4,436 217,328 134,360 132,943 27,016 42,660 19,101 1,071 92,452 2007 1,096 975 731 647 666 4,262 139,489 252,782 141,357 31,740 48,108 20,939 1,022 95,658 2008 1,102 985 734 655 673 4,479 90,969 265,823 132,426 30,502 64,701 19,788 2,939 87,580 2009 1,109 974 736 652 679 4,395 94,362 174,465 107,489 35,219 40,632 15,439 1,364 84,877 2010 1,119 978 742 658 694 4,696 112,386 217,042 112,870 33,458 88,574 19,172 1,741 92,480 Fisheries catch reconstruction for South Africa \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Baust et al. 151an update oF the reConstruCted marine Fisheries CatChes oF tanzania With taxonomiC breakdoWn*Elise Bultel,1 Beau Doherty,1 Adam Herman,1,2 Fr\u00C3\u00A9d\u00C3\u00A9ric Le Manach1,3\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 and Dirk Zeller11 Sea Around Us, Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z4, Canada2 Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia 317\u00E2\u0080\u00932194 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver V6T 1Z3, Canada3 Institut de Recherche pour le D\u00C3\u00A9veloppement, UMR212 Ecosyst\u00C3\u00A8mes Marins Exploit\u00C3\u00A9s, Avenue Jean Monnet, CS 30171, 34203 S\u00C3\u00A8te cedex, France\u00E2\u0080\u00A0 Current address: BLOOM Association, 77 rue du Faubourg Saint-Denis, 75010 Paris, Franceelise.bultel@gmail.com; b.doherty@fisheries.ubc.ca; adamrmherman@gmail.com; fredericlemanach@bloomassociation.org; d.zeller@fisheriec.ubc.caabstraCtReconstructed catch estimates of the marine fisheries sectors in Tanzania were updated to 2010 from a previous study by Jacquet and Zeller (2007), which covered 1950 to 2005. In addition, a taxonomic breakdown was developed and applied to the annual catches for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 time-period. The reconstructed catch for 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 totalled 4.2 million t, 77% higher than the 2.4 million t reported by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) on behalf of Tanzania. On average, discards represented 2% of the total catch and sectors were represented as follow: artisanal (83%), subsistence (14%), and industrial (3%). Overall, Tanzanian catches were dominated by Clupeidae (14%), Lethrinidae (13%), Scombridae (9%) and Elasmobranchii (7%). Noteworthy is that the unreported portion (i.e., the difference between the reconstructed and FAO totals) has decreased from over 50% in the 1950s to 30% in the 2000s. Also, the number of taxonomic groups included in the catch reported to FAO has increased since 2005, thus decreasing the proportion of undetermined taxa previously reported as 'marine fishes nei'.introduCtionThe United Republic of Tanzania (referred throughout as 'Tanzania') is located along the Mozambique Channel, and its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) covers over 240,000 km2 (Figure 1). The overwhelming bulk of its land area, which corresponds to the former 'Tanganyika', is situated between Mozambique in the South and Kenya in the North (Figure 1). Tanzania also includes three large islands: Mafia, Pemba and Zanzibar, the latter two forming the region of Zanzibar (hence the name 'Tan-Za-nia'). Zanzibar has an autonomous institutional and legal structure for managing fisheries, so both mainland and Zanzibar regions have separate reporting systems (Jacquet and Zeller 2007). Tanzanian fisheries are mainly composed of small-scale fisheries, which represent about 95% of the total marine catch (Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman 2002; Abdallah 2004). Large industrial fishing vessels are few and those that exist are mainly involved in the shrimp fishery (Kimaro 1995). Since 1998, artisanal longliners have also targeted pelagic species such as tuna and billfishes (Kimaro 1995; Shao et al. 2003; Mngulwi 2006). Marine resources are used for subsistence and as a source of income for people living along the coast (Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman 2002), and exported products include holothurians, shells, lobsters, octopuses and shrimps (Marshall et al. 2001; Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman 2002; Abdallah 2004).Accurate historical baselines are useful for fisheries management and monitoring long-term changes in marine ecosystems. Data reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) are the only source of global catch statistics and are often used to evaluate the status of both global and regional fisheries (Garibaldi 2012). These data often underreport small-scale fisheries, though, and do not include other important sectors such as recreational fisheries and industrial discards, nor do they include illegal catches (Garibaldi 2012; World Bank 2012). Furthermore, a large portion of FAO catch statistics are often reported as 'marine fishes, nei' or assigned to high taxonomic levels (i.e., higher than family), and although the number of reported species in the database has PembaZanzibarMafia0 100 km\u00C2\u00B1Figure 1. Map of the Tanzanian Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), showing the extent of the shelf and the islands of Mafia, Pemba, and Zanzibar.* Cite as: Bultel E, Doherty B, Herman A, Le Manach F and Zeller D (2015) An update of the reconstructed marine fisheries catches of Tanzania with taxonomic breakdown.Pp. 151\u00E2\u0080\u0093161 In Le Manach F and Pauly D (eds.) Fisheries catch reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 23(2). Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia [ISSN 1198\u00E2\u0080\u00936727].152increased in recent years (Garibaldi 2012), there is still a need to further disaggregate FAO catch statistics into more specific taxa, particularly for earlier years. The present study aims to improve the initial catch reconstruction published by Jacquet and Zeller (2007) updating it to 2010, refining some of the previous estimates, and providing taxonomic and sectoral breakdowns. methodsSmall-scale boat-based catchesMainlandBaseline reported catch data for marine fisheries from 1950 to 2010 were extracted from FishStatJ (FAO 2012), the fisheries catch database of the FAO. These data reported to FAO were treated as the baseline of reported catches and were considered representative of boat-based catches, assuming that they did not include any catch by shore fishers (Jacquet and Zeller 2007). Changes occurred in the FAO database between this new extraction and the one made by Jacquet and Zeller (2007), as member countries can retroactively modify the data they submitted to FAO, and FAO staffers also modify submitted data if they judge it necessary (Anon. 2013). Indeed, several new taxa were added, but Thunnus maccoyii (southern bluefin tuna; accounting for 3 t in the 2000s) was removed. Total annual tonnages also differed from 2000 to 2008, but there has been little change in quantities reported as 'marine fishes nei', implying that this category has not been further disaggregated.The primary phase of our work was to update to 2010 the reconstructed data of Jacquet and Zeller (2007), using their methodology by applying a 35% unreported catch increase to FAO data from 1970\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 (distributed proportionally to the reported taxa). We then improved the FAO taxa disaggregation for the early years. There were only two taxa reported to FAO for mainland Tanzania in the 1950s, but this figure has since increased to 48 in 2010.First, the poor taxonomic resolution in FAO data from 1950 to 1974 (less than nine taxa before 1969) was improved using the catch composition of the 26 reported taxa from the FAO data for the 1975\u00E2\u0080\u00931979 period. For each year from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931974, the 'marine fishes nei' group was further divided into these 26 taxonomic groups based on the average catch composition from the 1975\u00E2\u0080\u00931979 period, which also contained a 'marine fishes nei' portion. There were two exceptions: the catch of large pelagics and holothurians were assumed to be zero prior to the first year they were reported to FAO (1974 and 1963, respectively), as they were not being targeted then: large pelagic fisheries (tuna and billfishes) started in the late 1970s in the Western Indian Ocean (Majkowski 2007) and the exploitation of holothurians started in the 1960s with the arrival of Chinese settlers (Marshall et al. 2001). The FAO data were therefore consistent with trends observed in the literature and the zero catch of large pelagics and holothurians in earlier years was considered accurate.Once the taxonomic resolution of the early time-period was improved, we addressed the remaining 'marine fishes nei' and the 'percoids' catch (Table 1). 'Percoids' were considered to be mostly comprised of reef species and were disaggregated using the same method. The taxonomic breakdown used for these two categories was developed from i) a study by Jiddawi and Stanley (1999), who sampled landings from two auction sites on Zanzibar Island from 1995 to 1997; and ii) a study by Silva (2006), who surveyed households from Table 1. Taxonomic breakdown (%) used to disaggregate 'marine fishes nei' and 'percoids nei' reported in FAO landings for mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar.Family Original (%) Applied (%)Silva (2006) Jiddawi and Stanley (1999) Mainlanda Zanzibarb9.1 14.5 7.2 14.5- 3.3 3.3- 0.8 0.4 0.8- 7.8 4.1 7.8- 3.9 2 3.9- 0.2 0.1 0.2- 1.3 1.3- 2.1 1.1 2.1- 5.5 2.9 5.5- 1.5 0.8 1.5- 0.1 0.1 0.1- 0.1 0.1 0.1- 1.8 0.9 1.814.4 10.2 11.5 10.23.6 13.5 2.8 13.5- 4.1 4.1- 8.2 8.2- 0.1 0.1 0.122.4 - 17.9 -18.7 - 14.9 -- 11.3 5.9 11.3- 4.9 4.9- 0.3 0.1 0.3- 0.4 0.2 0.4- 0.3 0.1 0.3- 1.5 0.8 1.55.5 1 4.4 126.5 - 21.2 -- 0.2 0.1 0.2- 0.5 0.5- 0.1 <0.1 0.1AcanthuridaeArridaeBalistidaeBelonidaeCaesionidaeChaetodontidaeClupeiformesCoryphaneidaeDiodontidaeDrepaneidaeEcheneidaeEphippidaeFistulariidaeGerreidaeHaemulidaeHemiramphidaeLabridaeLeiognathidaeLutjanidaeMullidaeMuraenidaeNemipteridaeOstraciidaePlatycephalidaePleuronectiformesPomacentridaeRachycentridaeScaridaeSciaenidaeTeraponidaeTetraodontidaeTrichiuridae - 0.5 0.2 0.5a Fish families documented in these two studies and unreported in the FAO landings were similar. Those reported in Silva (2006) made up approximately 80% of those documented by Jiddawi and Stanley (1999). We thus assumed that the remaining families observed should also make up 20% of the 'marine fishes nei' breakdown for mainland Tanzania and we rescaled the taxonomic breakdown to reflect this.b Zanzibar breakdown was calculated based on the frequency of observation of fish families sampled by Jiddawi and Stanley (1999), but not included in the FAO landings.Fisheries catch reconstruction of Tanzania \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Bultel et al. 153six coastal sites on both the mainland and Zanzibar, asking them to rank the top five species in order of their importance in the catch. Table 1 summarizes the taxonomic breakdown derived from these two studies and applied to both the 'marine fishes nei' and 'percoid' pooled categories.Lobster catches were also not reported in FAO landings until 2010 and were not considered to have previously been included in the 'marine fishes, nei' category. It is known that they have been fished in Zanzibar since at least 1958 (Mutagyera 1975), and thus we assumed that the lobster catch was zero prior to 1958. Catch and export statistics for crustaceans were available in Bwathondi and Mwaya (1984) for 1966, 1968\u00E2\u0080\u00931972, 1974\u00E2\u0080\u009375 and 1980. These data were used as anchor points and linear interpolations were used to reconstruct lobster catches for missing years.ZanzibarLanding data for Zanzibar have only been reported to FAO since 2000, but separately from mainland Tanzania. They were also considered to account for boat-based catches only. Landing data for Zanzibar for 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931999 were completely missing from the FAO database and were previously reconstructed by Jacquet and Zeller (2007). However, fisheries catches reconstructed prior to 1982 remained lower than annual catches from 1982\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 and there was no explanation for the increase in catches from 1980 to 1982 (an increase of 64%). Furthermore, catch data from 1980 and 1981 were incomplete and did not include landings from Pemba Island (Jacquet and Zeller 2007). These had been previously adjusted by Jacquet and Zeller (2007), but, based on catches from 1982\u00E2\u0080\u00931999, they still appeared underreported. The first year where accurate catch data were available for both of Zanzibar's islands was 1982, so we used this year as an anchor point to generate estimates for earlier years. Since population data for Zanzibar were sparse, we used the Tanzanian population growth as a proxy. This seemed reasonable, as census data for Zanzibar (www.nbs.go.tz) during the period of interest (1967, 1978, and 1988) showed that Zanzibar's population followed a trend similar to that of the rest of the country and has consistently accounted for 3% of the overall population. We divided the 1982 boat-based catch by Tanzania's population in 1982 to estimate the boat catch per person, and then multiplied this ratio by the Tanzanian population from 1950 to 1981.To disaggregate Zanzibar's catch from 1950 to 1999, we used the taxonomic proportions reported in the 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 FAO data along with additional information from the literature. The FAO taxonomic composition reported from 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 consisted of 19 groups, all of which could be attributed to larger taxonomic groups (demersal species, small and large pelagics, sharks and rays, octopuses and squids, lobsters and other marine species; see Table 2) that were reported by Jiddawi and Shehe (1999) and Mhitu and Jiddawi (1999) for both the 1989\u00E2\u0080\u00931995 and 1996\u00E2\u0080\u00931999 periods. Reconstructed catches for these periods were allocated to these larger groups and then further disaggregated to taxa reported by FAO based on their average proportions from 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Based on the landings reported by Jiddawi and Shehe (1999) and Mhitu and Jiddawi (1999), it seems likely that more specific taxonomic catch data do exist, but they were not available to us.We found no catch composition data prior to 1989 and applied the 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 FAO taxonomic breakdown for 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931988, excluding taxa that were not targeted during this period (similarly to mainland; see above). As previously stated, the fishery for large pelagics (recorded as 'marlins', 'sailfishes' and 'tuna-like' in the FAO data) did not begin in the Western Indian Ocean until the late 1970s (Majkowski 2007), and the lobster fishery did not start until 1958 (Mutagyera 1975). From 1950 to these respective years, these two taxa were therefore not included in the improved taxonomic composition. The 'marine fishes nei' portion of Zanzibar catches was redistributed to the taxa present in Jiddawi and Stanley (1999), but missing from the FAO data (Table 1).Overall, a few taxa were missing from Zanzibar's FAO data (marine shells, shrimps and holothurians), although they were known to be targeted in this area, mainly for export (Bwathondi and Mwaya 1984; Jiddawi and Muhando 1990; Newton et al. 1993; Marshall et al. 2001; Sabel 2005; Hampus Eriksson et al. 2010). Nevertheless, we did not add any 'shell' catches to the boat-based catch data, as it was unknown whether they were already included in the 'marine mollusks' FAO category. It was assumed that shrimp and holothurians catches were not included in the 'marine fishes nei' category and were thus unreported. Due to lack of any additional data, we also assumed a similar proportion of these taxa in the overall boat-based catches in Zanzibar as what was observed on the mainland, and estimated their catch using the annual percentages obtained from the reconstructed mainland catch.Table 2. Taxonomic breakdown (%) of reconstructed catch from 1989\u00E2\u0080\u00931995 and 1996\u00E2\u0080\u00931999, based on relative abundances of major taxonomic groups from Jiddawi and Shehe (1999), Mhitu and Jiddawi (1999) and 19 taxa reported in the FAO landings from 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010Major taxa FAO Taxa in group 1989\u00E2\u0080\u00931995 (%) 1996\u00E2\u0080\u00931999 (%)Demersals Barracudas nei 4 54 58 113 42 21 14 52 3Carangids neiEmperors(=Scavengers) neiGoatfishes, red mullets neiGroupers, seabasses neiMullets neiParrotfishes neiSnappers, jobfishes neiSpinefeet(=Rabbitfishes) nei 4 5Large pelagics Marlins,sailfishes,etc. nei 6 5Seerfishes nei 5 49 73 1Tuna-like fishes neiLobsters Tropical spiny lobsters neiOctopus and squids Marine molluscs nei 6 77 5Sharks and raysSmall pelagicsSharks, rays, skates, etc. neiAnchovies 7 617 165 5OthersClupeoidsSardinellasMarine fishes nei 3 3154Small-scale shore-based catchesShore fishing activities are an important source of subsistence for coastal communities, and are most often performed by women and children (Jiddawi and Muhando 1990; Marshall et al. 2001; Guard and Mgaya 2002; Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman 2002; Silva 2006). As a result, they usually are not included in official catch statistics, and thus, not reported to the FAO. In this study, shore fishing activities refer to all fishing activities that do not use boats. These most commonly involve shore collection on foot, beach seines, fixed fences, cast nets, spears, reef gleaning, and diving. Catches from divers using boats were assumed to be included in the boat-based catches and were not part of the shore-based catch estimate. Shore-based fishers target a variety of taxa such as small pelagics, small and juvenile reef fish, shrimps, crabs, octopuses, rays, holothurians and shells (Table 3).Estimates of shore-based catches for the mainland by Jacquet and Zeller (2007) were based on a census of shore fishers by the National Fisheries Division for 2001 and 2005, with 576 and 796 shore fishers, respectively. Given that the number of shore fishers in Zanzibar for the same period ranged from 4,724 to 5,338 (Jacquet and Zeller 2007), and that Silva (2006) found that 20% of households were involved in shore fishing activities, we believed that earlier estimates by Jacquet and Zeller (2007) underestimated the shore fishing catches in mainland Tanzania. Therefore, we re-estimated shore fishers' numbers and their catches from 1950 to 2010 based on the methods outlined below.Silva (2006) reported that one out of five fishing households fished on foot in 2005. Therefore, we used this ratio to estimate the number of shore fishers based on the number of boat fishers in 2005. In Zanzibar, the number of shore fishers and boat fishers is known for 1980, 1985 and 1989 (Ngoile 1982; Carrara 1987; Mongi 1991). The ratios of shore fishers to boat fishers for these years were 0.35, 0.1 and 0.16, respectively, showing a potential decline in the number of shore fishers from 1980 to 1989. A linear regression fitted to these three points suggested that the ratio was 0.5 in 1970 in Zanzibar. We assumed a similar trend for the mainland, but adopted a slightly more conservative ratio of 0.4 for 1970. We then applied a linear interpolation between the 1970 and 2005 ratios to estimate the number of shore fishers.Before 1970 and after 2005, boat fisher data were not readily available. Thus, for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931969 period, we used the ratio of reconstructed shore fisher catch to boat catch from 1970 (i.e., 0.07) to estimate shore fishing catch. The ratio of shore fishers to the mainland population in 2005 (0.15 x 10\u00E2\u0080\u00933 shore fisher per inhabitant) was used to estimate Table 3. Estimated percentages of shore fishing catch by different activities and taxonomic breakdown for TanzaniaActivity Targeted taxa Source Catch (%)Diving, shore collection (20.0%) Holothuroideaa 0\u00E2\u0080\u009383bPanuliridae 0\u00E2\u0080\u009362bShellsimproved FAO; Silva (2006)improved FAO; Bwathondi and Mwaya (1984); Silva (2006)improved FAO; Silva (2006) 3\u00E2\u0080\u0093100bNets Beach seines (22.2%) 'Marine fishes nei' 5823882323Acetes spp.Atherion africanumCarangidaeClupeidaeGerres oyenaPlotosus lineatusPortunus pelagicusAssumed 5% of beach seinesJiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002)Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002)Hoekstra et al. (1990)Hoekstra et al. (1990)Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002)Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002)Bwathondi and Mwaya (1984) 1Cast nets (7.8%) 519191919'Marine fishes nei'Acetes sppAnguilliformesAriidaeGerres sppMugilidaeAssumed 5% of cast netsJiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002)Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002)Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002), Silva (2006)Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002), Silva (2006)Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002), Silva (2006) 19Fixed fences (3.3%) 'Marine fishes nei' Assumed 5% of fixed fences 5141414LabridaeLethrinidaeMugilidaePenaeidaeJiddawi (ND)Jiddawi (ND), Silva (2006)Jiddawi (ND), Silva (2006)Shunula (2000) 141414Rastrelinger carnaguta Shunula (2000), Silva (2006)Scylla serrata Shunula (2000), Silva (2006)Siganidae Jiddawi (ND), Silva (2006) 14Spears (47.0%) 'Marine fishes nei' Assumed 5% of spear fishing 5Diodon holocanthus Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002) 4Echidna nebulosa Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002) 4Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002) 4Jiddawi and Stanley (1999), Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002), Silva (2006) 15Jiddawi and Stanley (1999), Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002), Silva (2006) 60Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002) 4Lethrinus harakMyliobatiformesOctopus cyaneaSepia latimanusTeuthida Jiddawi and Muhando (1990), Silva (2006) 4a At least 20 species of holothurians are traded in Tanzania (Marshall et al. 2001; Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman 2002). High value species are Holothuria scabra, H. nobilis, H. spinifera, H. lessoni, and Theleonota ananas, but they also exhibit the most marked declines (Marshall et al. 2001; Hampus Eriksson et al. 2010). b Collected taxa percentages varied significantly between years depending on FAO catches. Ranges are shown in the table and their average percentages are 62% (shells), 16% (Panuliridae) and 22% (Holothuroidea).Fisheries catch reconstruction of Tanzania \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Bultel et al. 155the number of shore fishers from 2006 to 2010. From 1970 to 2010, the corresponding shore fishing catch was calculated by multiplying the number of shore fishers with a catch rate of 0.96 t\u00C2\u00B7year-1 (Jacquet and Zeller 2007).1Information on the catch rates and composition of shore fishing activities was limited. To estimate the taxonomic breakdown of shore-based catches, we first estimated the proportion of catch derived from three main fishing activities (see Table 3) using effort data documented in Silva (2006):\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 The use of nets was estimated to account for 33% of shore-based catch. This catch was further subdivided intocatch by beach seine, fixed fence and cast nets (66%, 10% and 24%, respectively), based on effort informationfrom Mgawe (2005);\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Diving and shore collection were estimated to account for 20% of shore-based catch; and\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Spearfishing was estimated to account for 47% of shore\u00E2\u0080\u0093based catch.We then estimated a catch composition for each of these activities based on taxa and proportions reported in the literature (Table 3). Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002) reported that Plotonus lineatus (striped eel catfish), Atherion africanum (pricklenose silverside) and Gerres oyena (common silver-biddy) accounted for approximately 70% of the catches from beach seine activity. Due to a lack of any other information, we divided this percentage equally among these three species (i.e., 23.3% each). Miscellaneous marine fishes (i.e., 'marine fishes nei') were assumed to make up 5% of the beach seine catch, and 1% was allocated to Portunus pelagicus (flower crab), which is occasionally caught (Bwathondi and Mwaya 1984). Acetes spp. (paste shrimp) were also reported to be spatially and temporally very common (Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman 2002), and Clupeidae (sardines) and Carangidae (jacks) were documented as target species in Hoekstra et al. (1990). Therefore, the remaining percentage was allocated to these three groups proportionately (i.e., 8% each).Taxonomic breakdowns for fixed fences and cast nets were based on Jiddawi (ND), Shunula (2000), Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002), and Silva (2006), who reported taxa commonly caught in these fisheries in both Zanzibar and Tanzania. Since there was no information regarding the proportion of these species in the catch, we divided the fixed fence and cast net catches equally among the taxa that were reportedly targeted by these gears (see Table 3). We attributed 5% of the catch to 'marine fishes nei', unaccounted for in the literature that was reviewed.Taxa collected by diving and shore collection were primarily composed of marine shells, holothurians and lobsters (Mutagyera 1975; Jiddawi and Muhando 1990; Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman 2002; Silva 2006). These taxa were also caught by boat fishers to a lesser extent, and were included in the reconstructed boat catches for the mainland and Zanzibar. These fisheries are often highly variable due to changes in market demands and boom and bust characteristics (Anon. 1990; Anderson et al. 2011). Therefore, it was difficult to assume one breakdown to divide diving and shore collection catch among these taxa for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. As there was no information on the relative proportion of these taxa for any given year, we assumed that these taxa were being collected in the same proportions as those occurring by boat for mainland Tanzania.Octopuses dominated spear fishing (Jiddawi and Stanley 1999), but other species are also targeted. For example, Jiddawi and Stanley (1999) reported large volumes of Myliobatidae (rays). Based on this information, we allocated 60% of the spear fishing catch to Octopus cynaea (octopuses; Guard and Mgaya 2002) and 15% to Myliobatidae. Miscellaneous marine fishes ('marine fishes nei') were assumed to make up 5% of the spearfishing catch and the remaining catch was equally divided among the other taxa reported in Jiddawi and Muhando (1990), Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002) and Silva (2006; see Table 3).Sectoral breakdownIndustrial shrimp trawlers accounted for approximately half of the total shrimp catch2 and started in 1966 (Bwathondi and Mwaya 1984). Thus, we assumed 50% of shrimp caught by boats were industrial from 1966 onward. We estimated a discard:shrimp ratio of 2:1 in order to remain consistent with the values documented in Jacquet et al. (2010) for Mozambique (2.8:1; see also Doherty et al. this volume). This was likely conservative, given reported shrimp to bycatch ratios of 1:5 and 1:8 in Tanzania (Silas 2011). However, it is unknown how much of this bycatch may be landed. Bycatch species from shrimp trawling were documented in Silas (2011), but their relative proportions were not available. Thus, we allocated 10% of discards as 'marine fishes nei' and divided the remaining discards equally among the eight species listed (Pellona ditchela, Pomadasys stridens, Pelates quadrilineatus, Leiognathus equulus, Equulites leuciscus, Aurigequula fasciatus, Secutor insidiator and Gazza minuta).Most of the boat-based catch came from the artisanal sector, except for a small portion, which was often retained for home consumption (i.e., subsistence) and reported to be less than 5% by Jiddawi and Stanley (1999). We assumed that the proportion of catch retained by boat fishers for subsistence purposes has likely been in this range since the early 1980s. Thus, we considered that 5% of boat catch was used for subsistence purposes from 1980\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. However, Haji (1999) reported that, due to tourism development, the fishery sector in Zanzibar had been redirected from subsistence to commercial fishing, and it is likely that the proportion of catches used for subsistence was higher in earlier years for all Tanzania. As there was no additional information for the earlier period, we assumed that 15% 1 This catch rate was based on an estimate of shore fisher catch by Jiddawi and Stanley (1999) of 4 kg\u00E2\u0088\u0099day-1\u00E2\u0088\u0099person-1 and an assumed effort of 20 days per month (240 days per year).2 The five main components of artisanal shrimp fishery used to be Penaeus indicus, P. semilsulcatus, P. latisulcatus, P. monodon and Metapenaeus monoceros (Bwathondi and Mwaya 1984). In recent years, P. indicus made up the majority of the catch and P. latisulcatus was replaced by Marsupenaeus japonicus in the five most dominant species (Silas 2011).156of total boat-based catch was being taken home for subsistence in 1950. We used linear interpolations to estimate the proportion of take-home catch from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931980. The annual subsistence catch was allocated proportionally to all taxa except for lobster, shrimp, holothurians, and large pelagics, which were considered to be exclusively artisanal (i.e., commercial).All shore-fishing catches were assumed to be exclusively used for subsistence (except for lobsters, penaeid shrimps and holothurians).resultsThe reconstructed total catch for Tanzania during the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period reached over 4.2 million t, which is 77% higher than the landings of 2.4 million t reported to the FAO by Tanzania (Figure 2). Reconstructed catches for mainland and Zanzibar represented 3.1 and 1.2 million t, respectively, as opposed to 2.1 and 0.25 million t reported to FAO. Total catches gradually increased from 18,100 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 1950 to around 114,600 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 2010, but peaked at 115,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 2005. Tonnages were greater than 100,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 for the 2000\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, averaging over 105,500 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1. There were noticeable declines in the catch in the early 1980s and mid-1990s (Figure 2). Overall, Tanzanian marine fisheries catches for the whole period were dominated by Clupeidae (14%), Lethrinidae (13%), Scombridae (9%) and Elasmobranchii (7%; Figure 3).Small-scale boat- and shore-based catches accounted for 4.1 million t for the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period, 85% of which was artisanal and 15% of which was subsistence. Shore fishing activities were an important part of small-scale catches, accounting for 10% of total small-scale catch and 64% of the total subsistence catch. Artisanal catches ranged from over 13,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 1950 to over 95,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 2010, while subsistence catches ranged from nearly 5,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 1950 to almost 15,500 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 2010. Artisanal catches peaked at around 96,000 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 2005, while subsistence catches peaked at almost 15,500 t\u00E2\u0088\u0099year-1 in 2010 (Figure 4).Industrial shrimp catches ranged from 360 t in 1966 to 1,300 t in 2010, peaking at nearly 2,300 t in 1998 (Figure 4). Total industrial shrimp catches and discards accounted for 2.4% and 4.8% of Tanzania's reconstructed catch at their peak in 1998 and overall accounted for 1% and 2%, respectively over the 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010 period. disCussionThe catch reconstruction completed for Tanzania (for both mainland and the Zanzibar islands) allowed for a more comprehensive baseline of the development of Tanzanian fisheries since 1950. The peak observed in the mid-1970s is synchronous with the increasing number of boat and shore fishers at that time (Jacquet and Zeller 2007). The declines observed in the 1980s and 1990s are interpreted as a sign of overexploitation by Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002), but they reported that there were insufficient data for full resource assessments during these periods, and thus it is also possible that these declines were artifacts of poor catch accounting. The last ten years have produced the highest catches in Tanzania's history, a trend which was observed for both mainland and Zanzibar. It could be due to i) increased fishing effort due to larger coastal populations and improved technologies; ii) improved fisheries management; and/or iii) the fact that the reconstructed catches for the earlier period are still underestimated. - 25 50 75 100Total catch (thousand tonnes) - 5 10 15 20 25 30 351950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010YearABUnreported landingsUnreported landingsReported landingsReportedlandingsDiscardsDiscardsFigure 2. Total reconstructed catches by type ('reported landings' corresponds to the data published by FAO) for A) mainland Tanzania, and B) Zanzibar.Fisheries catch reconstruction of Tanzania \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Bultel et al. 157It is likely that the increase in coastal populations and fishers (Bagachwa et al. 1994), together with the use of motorized and commercial boats (Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman 2002; Muhando and Rumisha 2008), has led to higher catches. Indeed, with modernization of the fishing fleet, fishers could exploit fishing grounds further offshore and target new taxa, as was the case, e.g., in Mayotte and the Seychelles (see Doherty et al. this volume and Le Manach et al. this volume). This is the case for tunas and other large pelagics, which were absent from catch prior to 1970, but make up as much as 7% of the total catch in recent years, and may be a case of spatial expansion driving local fisheries (Swartz et al. 2010).New legislation (e.g. enforcing bans on dynamite fishing in 1995 and beach seines in 1997) and participatory management plans (Verheij et al. 2004) may have also contributed to increased catches since 2000 (similarly to Kenya; see Le Manach et al. this volume). The establishment of marine parks and development of ecotourism in the 1990s (Riedmiller and Carter 2000; Mngulwi 2006) may have also played a role.It is possible that some holothurians included in the boat catches may contain some shore-based catch, resulting in an overestimate. Indeed they are mainly collected while gleaning (Jiddawi and \u00C3\u0096hman 2002; Hampus Eriksson et al. 2010), and since they are mostly exported they may have been included in the FAO database (which was assumed to contain only boat catches). However, catches of holothurians are also often underreported and/or illegally exported, as is the case in Mayotte or Madagascar (Pouget 2004; Le Manach et al. 2011, 2012, this volume; Doherty et al. this volume), in which case they would not appear in the FAO database. Thus, there is some uncertainty in our estimates of holothurians catches; however, it is apparent that they have been overfished in Tanzania, as catches have dramatically declined since the 1990s and there has been a severe decline in observed size and abundance (Marshall et al. 2001; Hampus Eriksson et al. 2010).There is also inherent uncertainty associated with the assumed taxonomic breakdown for the shore-based catch, given that there was essentially no catch reporting for this sector. This study is a first attempt to estimate the contribution and species composition of shore-based catches to Tanzania's national fisheries and we hope our estimates may serve as a starting point, which may be improved through future efforts. Our results do demonstrate that shore-based catches are not negligible, accounting for 10% of Tanzania's total catch and the majority of subsistence catches. This is a sector that warrants further investigation and monitoring, particularly for species heavily exploited by shore fishing activities such as gastropods, lobsters, octopuses, holothurians and other reef fish species outlined in Table 3, which may not be typically targeted by boat-based fisheries.It should be acknowledged that some improvements in the catch data reported to FAO have occurred. The taxonomic resolution of catch reported to FAO has improved since the previous work by Jacquet and Zeller (2007), as several new taxa were included between 2005 and 2010, and a lower proportion of catch was reported as 'marine fishes nei'. Also, perhaps as a result of the contribution by Jacquet and Zeller (2007), Zanzibar's catches are now included in the FAO data for the years 2000 to 2010 (but are still missing from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00931999). This latter improvement was documented in Jacquet et al. (2010), contrary to comments in Garibaldi (2012). - 20 40 60 80 100 120 1401950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Total catch (thousand tonnes)YearOthersLethrinidaeCarangidaeSiganidaeScombridaeScaridaeLabridaeClupeidaeFigure 3. Breakdown of total marine fisheries catches for Tanzania (mainland and Zanzibar combined) by major taxa. 'Others' includes 85 additional taxa. Details are provided in Appendix Table A1.0204060801001201401950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010Total catch (thousand tonnes)YearBoat-based, artisanalShore-basedBoat-basedIndustrialShore-basedSubsistenceFigure 4. Breakdown of total marine fisheries catches for Tanzania (mainland and Zanzibar combined) by fishing sectors, which includes small-scale (artisanal and subsistence) and industrial fisheries. Details are provided in Appendix Table A2.158It is our hope that this study may be used to further improve the historic time-series of catch data that is reported to FAO, and serves as a useful tool for improved catch data monitoring and estimation for all areas and sectors in Tanzania's fisheries.aCknoWledgementsThis report is a contribution of the Sea Around Us, a collaboration between The University of British Columbia and The Pew Charitable Trusts. The authors would also like to acknowledge the support of the Paul G. Allen Foundation.reFerenCesAbdallah AM (2004) Management of the commercial prawn fishery in Tanzania. UNU-Fisheries Training Programme, The United Nations University (UNU). iv + 42 p.Anderson SC, Flemming JM, Watson R and Lotze HK (2011) Serial exploitation of global sea cucumber fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 12(3): 317\u00E2\u0080\u0093339.Anon. (1990) The trade in lobsters from Tanzania. In Proceedings of the Zanzibar Artisanal Fishery Sector Seminar, September 3, 1990, Zanzibar (Tanzania). 76 p.Anon. (2013) Interview de Jos\u00C3\u00A9 Graziano da Silva, directeur g\u00C3\u00A9n\u00C3\u00A9ral de la FAO\u00E2\u0080\u0093\"Produire plus avec moins\". Sciences au Sud 69: 1\u00E2\u0080\u009316.Bagachwa MSD, Hodd MRV and Maliyamkono TL (1994) Fisheries and development in Tanzania. MacMillan, London (UK).Bwathondi POJ and Mwaya G (1984) The fishery of crustacea and molluscs in Tanzania. In Iversen AS and Myklevoll S (eds.), The Proceedings of the Norad-Tanzania Seminar to Review the Marine Fish Stocks and Fisheries in Tanzania, 6\u00E2\u0080\u00938 March, 1984, Mbegani (Tanzania). 19\u00E2\u0080\u009328 p.Carrara G (1987) Artisanal fishery catch assessment survey plan Zanzibar. FAO, Victoria (Seychelles). 8p + appendices.Doherty B, Le Manach F, Herfaut J, Harper S and Zeller D (this volume) Reconstructing domestic marine fisheries in Mayotte from 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010. Garibaldi L (2012) The FAO global capture production database: a six-decade effort to catch the trend. Marine Policy 36(3): 760\u00E2\u0080\u0093768.Guard M and Mgaya YD (2002) The artisanal fishery for Octopus cyanea Gray in Tanzania. Ambio 31: 528\u00E2\u0080\u0093536.Haji MF (1999) The artisanal fishery sector in the Zanzibar economy. In Jiddawi NS and Stanley RD (eds.), Proceedings of the National Workshop on the Artisanal Fisheries Sector, September 22\u00E2\u0080\u009324, 1997, Zanzibar (Tanzania). 20\u00E2\u0080\u009325 p.Hampus Eriksson B, de la Torre-Castro M, Ekl\u00C3\u00B6f J and Jiddawi NS (2010) Resource degradation of the sea cucumber fishery in Zanzibar, Tanzania: a need for management reform. Aquatic Living Resources 23(4): 387\u00E2\u0080\u0093398.Hoekstra TM, Ngoile MAK, Jiddawi NS and Rotteglia C (1990) Census of the marine fishing units of Zanzibar in 1989. FAO, Victoria (Seychelles). 14 p.Jacquet JL and Zeller D (2007) Putting the 'United' in the United Republic of Tanzania: reconstructing marine fisheries catches for Tanzania. Pp. 49\u00E2\u0080\u009360 In Zeller D and Pauly D (eds.), Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches for key countries and regions (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932005). Fisheries Centre Research Reports 15 (2). University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Jacquet JL, Fox H, Motta H, Ngusaru AS and Zeller D (2010) Few data but many fish: marine small-scale fisheries catches for Mozambique and Tanzania. African Journal of Marine Science 32(2): 197\u00E2\u0080\u0093206.Jiddawi NS (ND) Mangrove and associated fishery resources from the fence trap (uzio) in Kisakasaka village, Zanzibar. Institute of Marine Sciences, Zanzibar (Tanzania). Available at: http://fishbase.us/Training/Abstracts/Kenya/Nariman%20Jiddawi.html [Accessed: July 18 2013].Jiddawi NS and Muhando C (1990) Zanzibar environmental study. The Commission for Lands and Environment, Zanzibar. 15 p.Jiddawi NS and \u00C3\u0096hman (2002) Marine fisheries in Tanzania. Ambio 31(7\u00E2\u0080\u00938): 518\u00E2\u0080\u0093527.Jiddawi NS and Shehe MA (1999) The status of the shark fishery in Zanzibar, East Africa: A case study. In Jiddawi NS and Stanley RD (eds.), Proceedings of the National Workshop on the Artisanal Fisheries Sector, September 22\u00E2\u0080\u009324, 1997, Zanzibar (Tanzania). 104\u00E2\u0080\u0093111 p.Jiddawi NS and Stanley RD (1999) A study of the artisanal fishery in the villages of Matemwe and Mkokotoni, Zanzibar, Tanzania. Pp. 48\u00E2\u0080\u009372 In Jiddawi NS and Stanley RD (eds.), Fisheries stock assessment in the traditional fishery sector: The information needs. Proceedings of the National Workshop on the Artisanal Fisheries Sector, September 22\u00E2\u0080\u009324, 1997. Canadian International Development Agency, Zanzibar (Tanzania).Kimaro PN (1995) A Review of the Tuna Fishery in Tanzania (Mainland) from 1989 to 1993. IOTC-1995-EC601\u00E2\u0080\u009314, Indian Ocean Tuna Comission (IOTC), Victoria (Seychelles).Le Manach F, Abunge CA, McClanahan TR and Pauly D (this volume) Tentative reconstruction of Kenya's marine fisheries catch, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010.Le Manach F, Bach P, Boistol L, Robinson J and Pauly D (this volume) Artisanal fisheries in the world's second largest tuna fishing ground \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Reconstruction of the Seychelles' marine fisheries catch, 1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932010Le Manach F, Gough C, Harris A, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2012) Unreported fishing, hungry people and political turmoil: the recipe for a food security crisis in Madagascar? Marine Policy 36: 218\u00E2\u0080\u0093225.Fisheries catch reconstruction of Tanzania \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Bultel et al. 159Le Manach F, Gough C, Humber F, Harper S and Zeller D (2011) Reconstruction of total marine fisheries catches for Madagascar (1950\u00E2\u0080\u00932008). pp. 21\u00E2\u0080\u009337 In Harper S and Zeller D (eds.), Fisheries catch reconstructions: islands, part II. Fisheries Centre Research Reports 19 (4). University of British Columbia, Vancouver (Canada).Majkowski J, ed. (2007) Global fishery resources of tuna and tuna-like species. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 483. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome. 54 p.Marshall N, Milledge SAH and Afonso PS, editors (2001) Stormy seas for marine invertebrates: trade in sea cucumbers, sea shells and lobsters in Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Kenya. 70 p.Mhitu H and Jiddawi NS (1999) The octopus fishery in Matemwe and Mkoktoni, Zanzibar. Pp. 88\u00E2\u0080\u009395 In Jiddawi NS and Stanley RD (eds.), Fisheries stock assessment in the traditional fishery sector: The information needs. Proceedings of the National Workshop on the Artisanal Fisheries Sector, September 22\u00E2\u0080\u009324, 1997. Canadian International Development Agency, Zanzibar (Tanzania).Mngulwi B (2006) Country review: United Republic of Tanzania. Pp. 447\u00E2\u0080\u0093458 In De Young C (ed.), Review of the state of the world marine capture fisheries management: Indian Ocean. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 488, Rome (Italy).Mongi H (1991) Review of the marine fisheries sub-sector for Tanzania mainland. In Ardill JD and Sanders MJ (eds.), Proceedings of the seminar to identify priorities for fishereries management and development in the southwest Indian Ocean, Albion, Maritius, 3\u00E2\u0080\u00935 September, 1991, Rome (Italy). 153\u00E2\u0080\u0093171 p.Muhando CA and Rumisha CK (2008) Distribution and status of coastal habitats and resources in Tanzania\u00E2\u0080\u0093Draft Report. WWF, Dar Es Salaam (Tanzania). 112 p.Mutagyera WB (1975) A preliminary report on the spiny lobster fishery of Zanzibar. The African Journal of tropical hydrobiology and fisheries 4: 51\u00E2\u0080\u009359.Newton LC, Parkes EVH and Thompson RC (1993) The effects of shell collecting on the abundance of gastropods on Tanzanian shores. Biological Conservation 63: 241\u00E2\u0080\u0093245.Ngoile M (1982) A survey of fishing units in Zanzibar and Pemba. Tanzania Notes and Records 88/89: 89\u00E2\u0080\u009395.Pouget A (2004) Sea cucumber fisheries in the Mayotte reef system, Indian Ocean. SPC Beche-de-mer Information Bulletin 19: 35\u00E2\u0080\u009338.Riedmiller S and Carter E (2000) Ecotourism in a private Marine Protected Area: Chumbe Island, Tanzania. In Wittmer H and Hassan Z (eds.), INCO-DEV International Workshop on Policy Options for the Sustainable Use of Coral Reefs and Associated Ecosystems, 19\u00E2\u0080\u009322 June, Mombasa (Kenya). 140\u00E2\u0080\u0093152 p.Sabel E (2005) A temporal study on the ornamental shell trade in Dar Es Salaam & Tanga, Tanzania. SIT Tanzania, Dar Es Salaam.Shao FM, Mlay EE and Mushi VE (2003) Understanding fisheries associated livelihoods and the constraints to their development in Kenya and Tanzania. Food, Agriculture, and Natural Resources Management Research Consultants. 78 p.Shunula JP (2000) Towards sustainable utilization of mangrove resources in Zanzibar: A brief review. In Wittmer H and Hassan Z (eds.), Proceedings of the INCO-DEV International Workshop on Policy Options for the Sustainable Use of Coral Reefs and Associated Ecosystems, 19\u00E2\u0080\u009322 June 2000, Mombasa (Kenya). 136\u00E2\u0080\u0093139 p.Silas MO (2011) Review of the Tanzanian prawn fishery. Master of Science in Fisheries Biology and Management thesis, University of Bergen, Department of Biology, Norway. 59 p. Available at: https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/5584/84856931.pdf?sequence=1 [Accessed: November 6 2013].Silva P (2006) Exploring the linkages between poverty, marine protected area management, and the use of destructive fishing gear in Tanzania. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3831. 43 p.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): 6.The World Bank (2012) The hidden harvests, the global contribution of capture fisheries. Economic and sector work. 69 p.Verheij E, Makoloweka S and Kalombo H (2004) Collaborative coastal management improves coral reefs and fisheries in Tanga, Tanzania. Ocean & Coastal Management 47: 309\u00E2\u0080\u0093320.160Appendix Table A1. Total reconstructed catch by major taxa ('Others' includes 85 additional taxa).Year Lethrinidae Sardinella spp. Elasmobranchii Carangidae Siganidae Scombridae Rastrelligerkanagurta Scaridae Labridae Clupeidae Others1950 2,243 988 1,156 1,111 681 633 219 893 489 1,345 8,310 1951 2,269 1,000 1,170 1,124 694 643 220 906 493 1,383 8,481 1952 2,485 1,093 1,277 1,233 739 691 249 982 549 1,421 9,076 1953 3,436 1,502 1,743 1,721 905 885 388 1,300 811 1,460 11,950 1954 3,443 1,506 1,748 1,724 915 892 386 1,307 810 1,498 12,263 1955 3,564 1,558 1,809 1,785 944 921 401 1,351 840 1,536 12,922 1956 3,616 1,581 1,836 1,810 964 938 405 1,373 850 1,583 12,990 1957 3,667 1,604 1,863 1,835 983 954 408 1,396 859 1,630 13,054 1958 3,687 1,613 1,874 1,845 993 962 409 1,405 862 1,659 13,322 1959 3,737 1,635 1,900 1,869 1,012 979 413 1,427 872 1,705 13,275 1960 3,807 1,666 1,936 1,904 1,035 999 419 1,455 886 1,751 13,742 1961 4,108 1,796 2,085 2,058 1,097 1,066 461 1,560 966 1,803 15,629 1962 6,594 1,678 1,953 1,919 1,067 1,018 418 1,475 886 1,857 15,478 1963 3,328 1,496 1,747 1,694 1,007 942 346 1,341 759 1,913 14,664 1964 4,978 2,451 2,835 2,831 1,385 1,390 672 2,082 1,372 1,971 19,357 1965 4,818 2,430 2,812 2,803 1,390 1,389 659 2,072 1,351 2,031 19,388 1966 6,867 2,947 3,402 3,419 1,603 1,636 833 2,476 1,681 2,093 22,834 1967 7,411 2,967 3,427 3,440 1,625 1,653 835 2,498 1,687 2,157 22,741 1968 8,059 3,177 3,667 3,687 1,720 1,759 901 2,666 1,816 2,223 24,174 1969 7,602 2,751 3,184 3,174 1,573 1,571 747 2,344 1,531 2,292 22,371 1970 8,402 2,504 2,904 2,881 1,498 2,461 658 2,161 1,366 2,365 23,578 1971 8,546 2,164 5,858 2,111 1,370 3,984 2,369 1,948 1,237 2,167 23,490 1972 10,755 4,212 7,235 2,945 1,395 3,721 3,991 1,972 1,245 2,238 24,117 1973 5,674 1,670 5,334 2,021 2,455 2,735 481 3,065 2,270 2,311 29,003 1974 9,746 2,458 4,877 2,095 2,655 3,263 807 2,744 2,187 2,387 26,938 1975 16,680 3,977 5,935 13,059 1,574 3,552 1,398 4,764 3,422 2,465 37,326 1976 11,510 5,484 5,790 3,424 4,151 4,598 1,834 3,735 4,401 2,544 37,305 1977 13,017 5,562 4,852 3,698 3,358 5,554 1,183 5,660 3,492 2,625 42,483 1978 12,355 8,006 7,248 5,121 2,616 4,492 2,905 4,670 2,859 2,708 38,885 1979 8,360 3,830 7,041 5,988 1,461 3,564 712 3,991 1,715 2,794 34,399 1980 10,149 3,990 4,942 3,087 1,598 3,513 1,068 5,129 3,969 2,883 39,197 1981 12,853 4,549 6,284 3,775 2,826 4,090 2,121 4,257 1,055 2,975 38,302 1982 6,267 2,477 3,724 2,349 2,515 5,139 2,247 3,983 802 3,070 34,009 1983 11,598 4,437 5,756 3,280 3,638 4,403 2,140 3,066 1,676 2,560 27,165 1984 13,701 4,571 5,430 3,724 3,037 3,578 2,383 4,505 2,876 3,094 36,478 1985 13,607 4,165 5,611 4,192 2,907 3,745 3,305 3,668 2,874 2,174 33,255 1986 13,491 4,044 5,476 4,093 2,738 3,245 3,411 3,506 2,910 1,444 32,535 1987 10,010 7,268 3,805 3,267 2,727 3,292 2,307 4,083 3,255 2,381 36,112 1988 12,003 14,201 4,491 3,231 3,721 3,231 1,679 3,553 3,962 1,488 34,639 1989 10,993 9,200 5,153 3,411 4,965 3,436 3,590 3,607 4,157 1,626 36,933 1990 11,479 11,584 5,840 3,090 5,478 4,441 3,229 4,557 4,100 1,501 41,096 1991 16,426 3,778 6,474 3,209 6,566 3,225 5,237 3,384 5,519 1,351 37,847 1992 16,599 7,374 6,900 3,270 6,643 3,929 4,131 3,562 5,505 1,990 39,516 1993 6,684 7,886 5,347 2,113 3,595 2,298 3,507 2,524 2,848 1,589 31,731 1994 7,178 12,148 5,992 1,912 3,949 2,586 4,464 2,297 3,589 1,875 31,104 1995 9,657 5,581 6,774 2,342 5,160 2,501 4,783 2,436 3,885 1,653 34,198 1996 11,125 19,880 8,112 5,598 5,809 2,438 6,308 2,509 5,130 1,735 37,802 1997 11,069 7,241 7,248 3,019 5,998 2,320 5,471 3,018 4,415 1,567 38,253 1998 11,058 6,680 6,993 3,515 5,616 2,679 5,569 3,203 4,185 2,145 42,749 1999 11,787 19,612 7,303 3,555 5,593 2,683 6,178 1,329 4,189 2,271 31,902 2000 12,726 20,547 7,371 3,349 5,917 3,814 6,186 1,384 4,450 1,424 35,181 2001 12,888 21,497 7,391 3,393 5,271 3,030 6,862 1,694 5,050 3,202 37,921 2002 12,599 19,799 6,270 3,460 5,617 3,616 7,199 1,427 4,365 3,772 35,808 2003 11,648 19,881 6,713 3,218 5,209 2,297 6,862 1,285 4,119 4,882 37,334 2004 12,616 21,383 7,431 3,877 5,269 3,576 6,868 1,816 4,188 4,055 36,974 2005 11,383 21,881 6,092 3,343 6,039 3,564 7,544 2,692 3,161 5,267 43,950 2006 3,385 5,689 4,979 3,663 3,389 5,182 7,684 4,363 1,256 3,110 56,551 2007 7,928 17,471 5,874 3,695 3,475 4,338 5,382 2,432 2,079 2,374 46,310 2008 7,639 17,139 5,990 3,718 3,698 4,890 5,170 2,582 1,950 2,405 45,700 2009 6,930 20,477 6,064 3,803 3,979 4,668 5,329 2,569 2,166 2,446 45,700 2010 8,703 12,019 7,021 4,248 4,524 5,024 5,987 1,950 2,598 2,473 60,039 Fisheries catch reconstruction of Tanzania \u00E2\u0080\u0094 Bultel et al. 161Appendix Table A2. Total reconstructed catch by sector compared to the total catch reported to FAO.Year Artisanal Industrial Subsistence Total reconstructed Reported to FAO1950 13,079 - 4,988 18,067 7,100 1951 13,332 - 5,053 18,385 7,100 1952 14,444 - 5,351 19,795 8,100 1953 19,509 - 6,590 26,099 13,400 1954 19,874 - 6,617 26,492 13,400 1955 20,834 - 6,799 27,633 14,100 1956 21,090 - 6,855 27,945 14,100 1957 21,345 - 6,907 28,252 14,100 1958 21,703 - 6,927 28,630 14,100 1959 21,880 - 6,945 28,825 14,000 1960 22,579 - 7,022 29,602 14,300 1961 25,110 - 7,518 32,628 16,600 1962 26,558 - 7,786 34,344 17,800 1963 22,573 - 6,665 29,238 12,500 1964 32,541 - 8,783 41,324 23,400 1965 32,474 - 8,668 41,142 22,800 1966 38,788 1,079 9,926 49,793 29,700 1967 39,662 868 9,910 50,440 30,000 1968 42,537 1,069 10,246 53,851 32,500 1969 38,230 1,365 9,545 49,140 27,500 1970 40,159 1,547 9,071 50,777 20,820 1971 43,907 1,210 10,127 55,244 23,701 1972 52,160 844 10,821 63,826 29,826 1973 45,860 918 10,240 57,019 24,392 1974 49,661 296 10,200 60,158 26,616 1975 80,959 549 12,645 94,153 51,210 1976 69,974 2,426 12,377 84,776 41,960 1977 78,601 1,007 11,876 91,484 47,669 1978 79,528 768 11,569 91,865 47,709 1979 63,167 685 10,003 73,855 34,389 1980 68,929 543 10,053 79,526 38,292 1981 70,641 1,047 11,399 83,087 39,137 1982 56,484 466 9,632 66,582 27,132 1983 60,937 576 8,206 69,720 33,559 1984 72,944 833 9,599 83,376 40,091 1985 70,267 1,140 8,096 79,503 42,883 1986 67,141 1,314 8,438 76,893 44,230 1987 66,555 3,362 8,591 78,508 39,065 1988 73,795 3,109 9,296 86,201 49,306 1989 73,523 4,440 9,108 87,072 49,626 1990 81,971 4,413 10,012 96,395 56,762 1991 77,967 5,551 9,500 93,018 54,410 1992 84,128 5,147 10,144 99,420 56,133 1993 57,357 4,403 8,360 70,120 36,868 1994 64,811 3,445 8,837 77,093 40,907 1995 65,356 5,347 8,267 78,970 42,826 1996 90,553 6,106 9,789 106,447 61,740 1997 75,005 5,800 8,815 89,619 50,393 1998 76,443 6,852 11,098 94,392 48,155 1999 79,223 5,152 12,028 96,403 50,250 2000 84,316 5,347 12,686 102,349 69,186 2001 89,646 5,191 13,361 108,198 74,175 2002 85,497 5,245 13,188 103,930 71,042 2003 85,267 4,491 13,688 103,447 71,194 2004 90,520 3,507 14,025 108,052 75,453 2005 95,934 4,747 14,233 114,914 79,645 2006 80,442 5,156 13,653 99,252 67,613 2007 82,959 4,621 13,777 101,356 69,340 2008 83,697 2,942 14,244 100,883 69,966 2009 86,532 2,870 14,728 104,130 72,526 2010 95,225 4,006 15,355 114,586 79,770 "@en . "Report"@en . "Indian Ocean"@en . "10.14288/1.0354315"@en . "eng"@en . "Unreviewed"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "University of British Columbia. Fisheries Centre"@en . "Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International"@* . "http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"@* . "Faculty"@en . "Graduate"@en . "Fisheries Catch Reconstructions in the Western Indian Ocean, 1950-2010"@en . "Text"@en . "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/62634"@en .