Qatar Airways: Book Flights & Travel the World
Book flights & Fly with Qatar Airways. Receive exclusive air fares and travel the world with an award-winning airline.

Healthy fish stocks not always mean benefits for fishermen, communities

Salmon capture in Alaska. (Photo Credit: NOAA)

Click on the flag for more information about United StatesUNITED STATES
Monday, May 11, 2015, 01:10 (GMT + 9)
The Alaska salmon fishery is touted as one of the best in the world, which is true when measured with an ecological yardstick. But it falls short and lags behind some of the world’s fisheries in how it benefits local fishermen, processing workers and nearby rural communities, according to a new assessment that ranks the vitality of a fishery by looking at its economic and community benefits as well as its ecological health.

The Fishery Performance Indicators are the most comprehensive, global tool that considers social factors in addition to the usual biological measures when gauging a fishery’s health, said Chris Anderson, a University of Washington associate professor of aquatic and fishery sciences and a lead author of a paper published in the journal PLOS ONE describing the new technology.

“This tool is designed to help us evaluate a fishery system’s performance toward achieving economic, community and ecological sustainability – the ‘triple bottom line,'” said co-author James Anderson, director of the Institute for Sustainable Food Systems at the University of Florida.

The authors found that globally, less healthy fish stocks usually lead to worse economic and community outcomes. However, they identified several cases where weaker stocks contribute importantly to the livelihoods of harvesters and their communities, and healthy fish stocks generated meager economic or community benefits.

“It is often assumed that economic and social benefits always follow healthy stocks, but this is rarely tested due to the lack of social data,” Anderson said.

“Our strategy was to develop a rapid assessment instrument that would organize the knowledge of local fishery experts to help us understand how harvesters and processors are performing economically and how the fishery is supporting its community," he pointed out.

And he added: "Economically effective management, access to high-value markets and having other income opportunities often play a larger role in human outcomes than stock health, especially in communities where fishing is a large share of the economy."

Anderson and 26 co-authors at the World Bank and other universities and organizations around the world chose 61 fisheries as initial case studies to build the assessment tool.

Since 2010, they have visited and studied fisheries ranging from Alaska halibut and Oregon Dungeness crab to Norway cod, Louisiana shrimp, Nile perch in Uganda and blue swimming crabs in Indonesia to gather information and refine the tool.

The authors created dozens of measurable statements that capture the range of three performance indicators – ecology, economics and community. Example statements relate to the degree of overfishing, price trends, the capacity of processors to export to the US and EU, health care access for processing workers, captains’ earnings relative to other jobs in the region and the social standing of the crew.

To characterize a fishery, the authors drew on the knowledge of local experts who work with fishermen, processors and community leaders, scoring each statement from one to five, with five being the best, based on carefully defined categories of performance. The responses in each category were then averaged.

The results are sometimes surprising: Alaska salmon ranks 4.88 (almost a perfect five) in its ecological performance, but it was a mere 2.86 in economics and 3.40 in community performance. Alternatively, Colombian artisanal shrimp only hit 2.25 for ecological performance but reached 4.20 for its community impact.

In the case of Alaska salmon, nearly all of the money businesses make selling the fish is spent catching it. The fishery operates as a derby, deploying several times the boats needed to catch the fish, and it’s expensive and financially risky to operate seasonal processors in rural Alaska.

Alternatively, in many developing countries a fishery whose stock is at a low level might still provide a key source of income within a community where resources are few.

The co-authors used several international workshops and pilot cases with different users to refine their final set of statements to make the instrument robust across many different fisheries. They plan to add data from more fisheries and associate differences in performance with fishery management and governance factors.

According to the researchers, these indicators could be very useful for institutions like the World Bank, the US Agency for International Development, and nongovernmental organizations that fund projects on fisheries reform in developing countries to monitor and evaluate progress.

Contact Form


Email *

Message *