Skip to content

PDB Perikanan Hingga Juli Tumbuh 6,75%

03/09/2012

31 Aug 2012 | Fisheries & Farming

PDB Perikanan Hingga Juli Tumbuh 6,75%

BY Dyah Yossie Wiranti

JAKARTA (IFT) – Sumbangan produk domestik bruto (PDB) dari Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan (KKP) selama Januari hingga Juli tahun ini tumbuh sebesar 6,75% dari periode yang sama tahun sebelumnya. Sharif Cicip Sutardjo, Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan, mengatakan pertumbuhan PDB KKP lebih tinggi dari pertumbuhan PDB Kementerian Pertanian di periode yang sama yang sebesar 3,42%.

Sharif menjelaskan selain pertumbuhan PDB yang relatif tinggi, ekspor sektor kelautan dan perikanan nasional pada periode Januari-April 2012 juga meningkat sebesar 25% dari periode yang sama tahun sebelumnya. Dia menargetkan PDB kementerian hingga 2014 dapat mencapai Rp 65,84 triliun melalui strategi industrialisasi perikanan. PDB ini mengalami peningkatan sekitar 6,75% dari PDB perikanan pada 2010 yang sebesar Rp 50,7 triliun.

Untuk itu, Sharif menjelaskan kementerian akan berkonsentrasi mendorong produksi dan pendapatan nelayan termasuk mengembangkan wirausaha mandiri lewat strategi industrialisasi kelautan dan perikanan. Menurut dia, melalui strategi industrialisasi kelautan dan perikanan maka nelayan, pembudi daya ikan, serta pengolah dan pemasar hasil perikanan dapat meningkatkan produktivitas, nilai tambah, sekaligus meningkatkan daya saing yang berbasiskan pada ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi.

Suhana, Kepala Riset dan Kebijakan Ekonomi Kelautan pada Pusat Kajian Pembangunan Kelautan dan Peradaban Maritim, mengatakan peningkatan PDB KKP tahun ini didorong meningkatnya nilai ekspor produk perikanan terutama dari produk tuna dan udang. Ekspor produk perikanan nasional tahun ini ditargetkan US$ 4,2 miliar, naik 20% dari realisasi ekspor tahun lalu yang sebesar US$ 3,5 miliar.

Dia menambahkan sumbangan PDB dari sektor kelautan dan perikanan juga berasal dari kenaikan nilai investasi terutama dari investasi asing di sektor ini pada kuartal II. Namun, dia pesimistis PDB sektor kelautan dan perikanan Indonesia bakal mencapai target pada 2014.

Menurut dia, target itu selalu diusung kementerian sejak 1999 dan sudah melewati beberapa kali pergantian menteri. “Namun tidak pernah tercapai karena antara kebijakan dan praktik di lapangan tidak pernah sinkron,” ujarnya.

Menurut Suhana, target PDB bisa tercapai jika ada penguatan nilai rupiah terhadap dolar Amerika Serikat. Tapi saat ini masih ada beberapa hambatan, seperti ekspor ilegal yang menghilangkan devisa negara. Dia memberi contoh, pada 2010-2011 ditemukan data ekspor ilegal tuna ke Thailand yang kemudian diolah menjadi bahan baku industri mereka.

“Alhasil Thailand berada di urutan ketiga terbesar dunia untuk produksi tuna, sementara Indonesia hanya berada di posisi sebelas,” ujar dia.

Selain itu, dia juga mengkritisi kebijakan KKP yang mengekspor semua produk perikanan berkualitas, tanpa memperhatikan kebutuhan gizi dan kesehatan masyarakat Indonesia ke depan. Pemerintah menggenjot ekspor untuk produk perikanan berkualitas dan bernilai tinggi seperti tuna, kakap merah, kerapu. Sementara masyarakat Indonesia hanya diberikan ikan asin dengan kadar garam yang tinggi. (*)

Sumber : http://www.indonesiafinancetoday.com/read/32503/PDB-Perikanan-Hingga-Juli-Tumbuh-675
Iklan

Ribuan Pulau Indonesia Belum Terdaftar di PBB

13/08/2012

Ribuan Pulau Indonesia Belum Terdaftar di PBB

Jurnas.com | NASIB pulau-pulau terluar di Indonesia masih banyak yang belum diperhatikan. Bahkan masih banyak ribuan pulau yang belum diberi nama, serta belum terdaftar resmi di Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa. Data terakhir dari Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan (KKP) baru sekitar 13.466 pulau yang bernama dan terdaftar di PBB pada 2010.

Dari pendataan terakhir pada 2011, jumlah pulau berkurang sebanyak 24 pulau, sehingga sekarang total jumlahnya 17.480 pulau. “Itu karena ada perubahan iklim, sehingga ada yang ada beberapa pulau kecil yang tidak terlihat (tenggelam) ,” ujar Staf Humas Pusat Data, Statistik dan Informasi KKP Kusdiantoro kepada Jurnal Nasional saat dihubungi, Jumat (10/9).

Jumlah pulau tersebut berbeda dengan pedataan Badan Informasi Geospasial-dulu Bakorsurtanal, yang menyebutkan kini jumlah pulau berkurang menjadi 13.466 pulau. Kusdiantoro mengatakan, perbedaan tersebut hanya pada masalah metodologi yang dipakai. Pihaknya melakukan pendataan saat kondisi air laut surut, sehingga beberapa titik pulau-pulau kecil terlihat.

Wakil Ketua Komisi IV Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Herman Khaeron mengatakan bahwa pemberian nama itu penting. Sementara untuk pendaftaran ke PBB itu juga kewajiban konvensi internasional, untuk menghindari adanya sengketa kepemilikan antarnegara.

Herman mengatakan untuk proses penamaan pemrintah dinilai lamban karena sudah diprogramkan sejak setahun 2005. Ia memahami adanya kesulitan akses untuk menjangkau pulau-pulau yang ada.

Namun begitu, katanya, untuk pendaftaran ke PBB lebih diprioritaskan sebab jika titik-titik koordinat pulau yang ada sudah terdaftar berarti aman dari gugatan. “Karena itu sudah terintegrasi dengan wilayah Indonesia, itu yang terpenting,” ujar politisi Partai Demokrat tersebut saat dihubungi.

Dikatakan Herman, sebetulnya secara tradisi setempat, pulau-pulau yang ada sudah memiliki nama lokal, hanya itu belum dikenal secara nasional dan internasional.

Sementara itu Kepala Riset LSM Pusat Kajian Pembangunan Kelautan dan Peradaban Maritim Suhana mengatakan saat ini sudah ada 92 pulau terluar Indonesia yang diakui internasional dan hingga kini tidak ada yang bermasalah.

Persoalan yang dihadapi pulau-pulau kecil dan terluar adalah masalah alam dan rawan konflik. Namun, Ia mengatakan yang terpenting dari identitas sebuah pulau adalah titik koordinat. Meskipun nantinya pulau tersebut saat pasang tenggelam, tidak menjadi masalah karena sudah teridentifikasi.

Saat ini, katanya, salah satu contoh pulau yang rawan hilang karena alam adalah Pulau Fani, Kabupaten Raja Ampat, Papua yang berbatasan dengan negara Palau. Berada di Samudera Pasifik, pulau tersebut setiap tahun terkena abrasi sampai 1-2 meter. Sebetulnya, katanya, sudah banyak sebetulnya secara alami pulau-pulau kecil hilang, tapi juga ada karena faktor penambangan pasir seperti kejadian di Kepulauan Riau.
Sumber : http://www.jurnas.com/news/68618/Ribuan_Pulau_Indonesia_Belum_Terdaftar_di_PBB/1/Nasional/Politik

Rekonstruksi Kebijakan Ekonomi Kelautan dan Perikanan Perikanan Nasional

09/08/2012

Rekonstruksi Kebijakan Ekonomi Kelautan dan Perikanan Perikanan Nasional

Oleh : Suhana

Kepala Riset Pusat Kajian Pembangunan Kelautan dan Peradaban Maritim

 

Kebijakan pembangunan kelautan dan perikanan sejak awal reformasi sampai saat ini terlihat belum memberikan hasil yang signifikan terhadap perbaikan ekonomi perikanan dan kesejahteraan masyarakat, khususnya nelayan dan pembudidaya ikan. Hal ini disebabkan kebijakan pembangunan kelautan dan perikanan yang berkembangan sejak awal reformasi sampai saat ini hanyalah kebijakan-kebijakan yang terus berulang, padahal sudah terbukti kebijakan tersebut telah mengalami kegagalan.

Kebijakan-kebijakan tersebut hanya berganti nama saja setiap periode pemerintahan. Pada periode pemerintahan Gus Dur, Departemen Eksplorasi Laut dan Perikanan mencanangkan program peningkatan produksi ikan atau yang dikenal dengan istilah Protekan 2003. Target dari Protekan 2003 tersebut adalah meningkatkan produksi ikan pada tahun 2003 menjadi 9 juta ton dengan nilai ekspor yang diharapkan mencapai 10 milyar $ US. Namun demikian, sampai akhir tahun 2003 target tersebut tidak dapat tercapai. Data FAO (2009) menunjukan bahwa produksi ikan nasional pada tahun 2003 hanya mencapai sekitar 5,8 juta ton dengan nilai ekspor dibawah 1,7 milyar $ US.

Memasuki periode pemerintahan Megawati, pada tanggal 11 Oktober 2003 kembali dicanangkan Program Gerbang Mina Bahari di Teluk Tomini Provinsi Gorontalo. Target dari program tersebut adalah peningkatan produksi ikan nasional sebesar 9,5 juta ton pada tahun 2006 dengan target nilai devisa ekspor sebesar 10 milyar $ US. Target program Gerbang Mina Bahari tersebut sama dengan target Program Protekan 2003, namun berbeda nama program saja. Kegagalan yang sama terjadi juga pada program Gerbang Mina Bahari. Data FAO (2009) menunjukan bahwa produksi ikan nasional pada tahun 2006 hanya mencapai sekitar 6,2 juta ton. Sementara itu nilai ekspor produk perikanan hanya mampu mencapai 2 miliar $ US.

Periode pemerintahan Kabinet Indonesia Bersatu (KIB) jilid I, pemerintah kembali mencanangkan program serupa dengan nama Revitalisasi Kelautan dan Perikanan. Target dari program Revitalisasi Kelautan dan Perikanan tersebut adalah peningkatan produksi ikan pada tahun 2009 sebesar 9,7 juta ton dengan nilai ekspor sebesar 5 milyar $ US. Namun demikian, sampai akhir periode KIB jilid I target revitalisasi kelautan dan perikanan tersebut kembali tidak tercapai. Data FAO (2009) memprediksi produksi perikanan nasional tidak akan melebihi 7 juta ton dan nilai ekspor diperkirakan hanya mencapai 2,1 milyar $ US.

Kegagalan demi kegagaan program peningkatan produksi perikanan pada tiga periode pemerintahan sebelumnya ternyata tidak membuat Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan (KKP) untuk berfikir ekstra guna menyusun terobosan baru. Hal ini dapat dilihat dari kebijakan pembangunan kelautan dan perikanan 2009-2014 yang kembali mereinkarnasi kebijakan peningkatan produksi perikanan dengan berganti nama menjadi kebijakan Minapolitan. Target program Minapolitan tersebut adalah peningkatan produksi ikan sebesar 50 Juta Ton dan nilai ekspor sebesar 11 milyar $ US. Namun demikian, program minapolitan tersebut saat ini sudah berhenti ditengah jalan, seiring dengan beralihnya Menteri Kelautan dari Fadel Muhamad ke Sharif Cicip Sutardjo.

Memasuki periode Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Sharif Cicip Sutardjo, arah kebijakan kelautan dan perikanan berubah dari pendekatan produksi ikan menjadi Industrialisasi Perikanan berbasiskan Unit Pengolahan Ikan (UPI). Namun demikian, perubahan kebijakan tersebut terlihat tidak didukung perencanaan yang matang. Hal ini terlihat dari industrialisasi perikanan yang dikembangkan ternyata basisnya di Pulau Jawa yang sudah tidak memiliki dukungan bahan baku ikan. Akibatnya KKP kembali dengan gegap gempita menyakinkan publik dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat akan pentingnya ikan impor untuk memasok kebutuhan bahan baku UPI nasional, dan akhirnya impor ikan  kembali dilegalkan.

Namun demikian publik, termasuk penulis tidak yakin ikan yang diimpor tersebut hanya untuk kebutuhan bahan baku UPI nasional, akan tetapi banyak yang langsung masuk ke pasar-pasar tradisional. Ketidakyakinan penulis tersebut didasarkan pada hasil analisis terhadap dugaan maraknya impor ikan illegal yang masuk ke Indonesia tahun 2010. Hasil analisis tersebut menunjukan bahwa dugaan impor ikan illegal Indonesia dari China pada Tahun 2010 mencapai 51,28 persen dari total nilai impor ikan Indonesia dari China. Namun demikian walaupun terjadi peningkatan impor ikan nasional, ternyata tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap jumlah kapasitas terpakai pada Industri pengolahan ikan nasional. Hasil survey Bank Indonesia menunjukan bahwa pada periode 2010 kapasitas industri perikanan yang terpakai hanya mencapai dibawah 70 persen, tidak jauh berbeda dengan tahun-tahun sebelumnya. Artinya bahwa impor ikan tersebut tidak sepenuhnya diperuntukan bagi pasokan kebutuhan bahan baku UPI, akan tetapi langsung dipasarkan ke pasar-pasar dalam negeri.

 

Asing Kuasai Sektor Perikanan

Ketidak jelasan dan ketidak konsistenannya kebijakan kelautan dan perikanan tersebut telah berdampak pada investasi sektor perikanan yang semakin dikuasai oleh asing. Kalau kita kembali melihat dorongan pemangku kepentingan sektor perikanan tahun sejak tahun 2007 untuk membatasi kepentingan asing di sektor perikanan sangat tinggi, puncaknya ketika Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Freddy Numberi mengesahkan Peraturan Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan (Permen-KP) No 5 Tahun 2008 tentang izin usaha perikanan tangkap. Dan dipertegas kembali dengan disahkannya revisi UU No 31 Tahun 2004 tentang Perikanan menjadi UU No 45 Tahun 2009 tentang Perikanan pada masa akhir periode Pemerintahan Kabinet Indonesia Bersatu jilid I dan DPR-RI periode 2004-2009. Dimana pada kedua peraturan perundang-undangan tersebut kepentingan asing di sektor perikanan sangat diperketat dan lebih mendorong keterlibatan nelayan, pembudidaya ikan, investor dalam negeri dan pengusaha ikan nasional.

Akibatnya, investasi asing pada sector perikanan tahun 2008 dan 2009 menurun drastis, dan minat investasi dalam negeri cenderung meningkat. Data Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal (BKPM 2011) menunjukan bahwa investasi asing (PMA) tahun 2007 mencapai 24,7 juta US $ dan menurun drastic pada tahun 2008 hanya mencapai 2,4 juta US $ dan akhir tahun 2009 kembali meningkat menjadi 5,1 juta US $. Sementara itu pasca keluarnya Permen KP No 5 Tahun 2008 minat investasi dalam negeri mulai tumbuh. Data Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal (BKPM 2011) menunjukan bahwa investasi dalam negeri (PMDN) tahun 2007 hanya sebesar 3,1 milyar rupiah menjadi 24,7 milyar rupiah pada tahun 2009.

Namun demikian, memasuki periode Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan Fadel Muhamad, (Permen-KP) No 5 Tahun 2008 tentang izin usaha perikanan tangkap diupayakan untuk direvisi kembali dengan memasukan kembali kepentingan asing. Akibatnya investasi asing kembali menguasai sektor perikanan. Data BKPM (2012) menunjukan bahwa 99,89 persen investasi perikanan tahun 2011 bersumber dari asing (PMA) dan pada triwulan 1 2012 investasi sektor perikanan 100 persen dari asing. Secara lengkap perkembangan investasi sektor perikanan dapat dilihat pada Gambar 1.

Gambar 1. Perkembangan Persentase Investasi Asing (PMA) di Sektor Perikanan

Tahun 2006-2012

 

Ekspor Ikan Illegal

Selain itu juga, ketidakjelasan arah kebijakan sektor perikanan tersebut telah berdampak pada tingginya aktivitas kejahatan perikanan, terutama aktivitas perikanan yang tidak dilaporkan (unreforted fishing). Misalnya perdagangan ikan tuna antara Indonesia dengan Thailan. Data UN-Comtrade (2011) mengindikasikan semakin maraknya ekspor ikan Tuna  illegal dari Indonesia ke Thailand. Pada Tahun 2000 tercatat dugaan ekspor ikan tuna Albacore secara illegal mencapai 52 persen dari total volume ekspor ikan tuna Albacore Indonesia ke Thailand, yaitu mencapai 271.419 Kg dengan nilai mencapai 1.070.630 US $. Sementara itu pada Tahun 2010, dugaan ekspor ikan tuna Albacore illegal ke Thailand semakin meningkat sampai 69,20 persen dari total volume ekspor ikan tuna Albacore Indonesia ke Thailand. Volume ekspor ikan tuna Albacore illegal dari Indonesia ke Thailand tahun 2010 diperkirakan mencapai 2.352.724 Kg dengan nilai mencapai 8.326.839 US $.

Pasokan bahan baku illegal tersebut rupanya dimanfaatkan oleh Thailand untuk memasok kebutuhan bahan baku Industri Pengolahan Ikan yang ada di negara tersebut. Thailand selama ini terkenal didunia sebagai pemasok utama produk ikan olahan, padahal sekitar 90 persen pasokan bahan bakunya berasal dari Indonesia dan Philipina. Hal ini terbukti pada Tahun 2010 UN-Comtrade memposisikan Thailand sebagai negara kedua terbesar dunia sebagai pemasok produk ikan olahan setelah China, sementara Indonesia hanya  puas di posisi ke 10 terbesar dunia. Total kontribusi Thailand terhadap total ekspor produk ikan olahan mencapai 20,2 persen, sementara Indonesia hanya berkontribusi sebesar 2,7 persen dari total ekspor produk ikan olahan dunia.

Berdasarkan hal tersebut sungguh sangat ironis, sumberdaya ikan Indonesia yang memiliki nilai ekonomis tinggi seperti tuna ternyata tidak dinikmati oleh para nelayan dan Industri Pengolahan Ikan dalam negeri. Di sisi lain, Unit Pengolahan Ikan Nasional setiap tahunnya berlomba-lomba terus meningkatkan impor bahan baku ikan pindang dan ikan asin. Kebijakan pengembangan industri pengolahan ikan pindang dan asin secara besar-besaran oleh KKP menunjukkan bahwa secara sistematis masyarakat Indonesia akan disuguhi oleh konsumsi ikan pindang dan ikan asin, dimana nilai kandungan gizi nya sangat rendah bahkan cenderung tidak ada. Sementara itu ikan segar yang memiliki kandungan gizi baik, lebih banyak di ekspor baik legal maupun illegal ke pasar internasional. Sehingga sangat wajar apabila kwalitas sumberdaya manusia Indonesia sulit untuk dapat berkembangan secara baik karena hanya disediakan konsumsi ikan pindang dan ikan asin.

Rekonstruksi Kebijakan Kelautan dan Perikanan

Berdasarkan kondisi tersebut, pemerintah dan para pemangku kebijakan kelautan dan perikanan hendaknya dapat duduk bersama dalam merekonstruksi kebijakan kelautan dan perikanan di masa yang akan datang. Keberpihakan kepada kelestarian sumberdaya ikan dan kepentingan nasional harus menjadi komitmen bersama. Oleh sebab itu ada beberapa hal yang perlu diperhatikan dalam merekonstruksi kebijakan kelautan dan perikanan nasional, yaitu pertama, perlu ada grand design industrialisasi perikanan yang berpihak pada pengembangan sumberdaya manusia Indonesia di masa yang akan datang. Indonesia akan lebih maju kalau didukung oleh sumberdaya manusia yang baik dan SDM yang baik bisa dibentuk dengan adanya asupan gizi yang lebih baik. Oleh sebab itu industrialisasi perikanan nasional harus dapat mendukung pengembangan SDM nasional yang lebih baik. Namun demikian, kalau industrialisasi perikanan yang digalakan pemerintah saat ini penulis khawatir SDM nasional kedepan akan semakin terpuruk. Industrialisasi perikanan yang ada saat ini lebih mementingkan pemgembangan SDM negara lain, dibandingkan SDM negaranya sendiri. Hal ini terbukti dengan target industrialisasi perikanan untuk mengekspor ikan-ikan kwalitas baik dari Indonesia, seperti tuna, cakang, udang, ikan-ikan karang dan ikan-ikan kwalitas baik lainnya. Sementara itu kebutuhan konsumsi ikan dalam negeri cukup disediakan ikan asin dengan bahan baku impor dari negara lain. Pertanyaannya sekarang, ahli gizi mana yang dapat menjelaskan  bahwa ikan asin dapat meningkatkan kwalitas SDM nasional.

Pemerintah harusnya tetap konsisten dalam menjalankan undang-undang perikanan nasional. Dalam Pasal 25B Ayat (2) UU No 45 Tahun 2009 tentang Perubahan UU No 31 Tahun 2004 Tentang Perikanan ditegaskan bahwa pengeluaran hasil produksi usaha perikanan ke luar negeri (ekspor) dilakukan apabila produksi dan pasokan di dalam negeri telah mencukupi kebutuhan konsumsi nasional. Pasal 25B ini jelas sangat berpihak pada kepentingan nasional, namun demikian dalam implementasi dilapangan belum diikuti dengan kebijakan yang nyata. Hal ini terbukti dengan kebijakan Industrialisasi perikanan yang lebih mementingkan kebutuhan ikan negara lain. Industrialisasi perikanan jangan hanya dipandang bagaimana meningkatkan nilai ekspor produk perikanan saja, akan tetapi perlu memiliki agenda pembangunan SDM nasional yang lebih baik. Oleh sebab itu implementasi Pasal 25B Ayat (2) tersebut saat ini diperlukan guna meningkatkan kualitas SDM Nasional.

Kedua, industrialisasi perikanan yang dikembangkan harus berbasiskan bahan baku dalam negeri, jangan impor, sehingga pengembangan Industri pengolahan ikan jangan dipusatkan di pulau Jawa, akan tetapi harus dikembangkan di pusat-pusat bahan baku seperti di kawasan Indonesia Bagian Timur. Oleh sebab itu dukungan infrastruktur seperti listrik, bahan bakar minyak, air bersih dan transportasi antar pulau di kawasan Indonesia Bagian Timur perlu segera dibenahi. Sementara itu, untuk menjaga ketersediaan bahan baku sepanjang tahun, pemerintah perlu secepatnya membentuk Bulog Perikanan. Hal ini diperlukan mengingat produksi ikan para nelayan sangat tergantung kondisi cuaca, sehingga keberadaan Bulog Perikanan diperlukan guna mengatur manajemen ketersediaan bahan baku ikan untuk UPI dan kebutuhan konsumsi langsung masyarakat.

Ketiga, pengembangan industrialisasi perikanan hendaknya tidak hanya difokuskan untuk komoditas ikan, akan tetapi perlu dikembangkan untuk industri pengolahan rumput laut. Hal ini disebabkan dalam sepuluh tahun terakhir produksi rumput laut terus menunjukkan peningkatan yang sangat signifikan, bahkan saat ini kontribusinya sudah diatas 60 persen dari total produksi perikanan budidaya.

Keempat, untuk mencegah semakin tingginya kasus ekspor ikan illegal dari Indonesia ke negara lain, Kementerian Kelautan dan Perikanan perlu meningkatkan pengawasan di perairan Indonesia. Karena dugaan kuat ekspor ikan illegal tersebut dilakukan di tengah laut oleh para oknum nelayan dan pengusaha perikanan nasional. Alhasil tanpa adanya perubahan perencanaan pembangunan perikanan yang baik, manajemen perikanan nasional akan semakin amburadul. Oleh sebab itu KKP perlu segera mereformulasi kebijakan perikanan nasional.

Sumber : Tabloid Inspirasi, Agustus 2012

Info Buku : The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012

14/07/2012

The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture

2012

 

FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Rome, 2012

Download ZIP– 3.8 Mb
Download Full Report– 6.1 Mb

 

Contents

Foreword (Download pdf  697 Kb)
Acknowledgements
Abbreviations and acronyms

Part 1
WORLD REVIEW OF FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE (Download pdf 1.8 Mb)


Status and trends

Overview

Capture fisheries production

Aquaculture

Fishers and fish farmers

The status of the fishing fleet

The status of fishery resources

Fish utilization and processing

Fish trade and commodities

Fish consumption

Governance and policy

Notes

 

Part 2
SELECTED ISSUES IN FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE (Downloadpdf 1.40 Mb)


Mainstreaming gender in fisheries and aquaculture: from recognition to reality

The issue

Possible solutions

Recent actions

Outlook

Improved preparedness for and effective response to disasters in fisheries and aquaculture

The issue

Possible solutions

Recent actions

Outlook

Barriers to achieving low-impact fuel-efficient fishing

The issue

Possible solutions

Recent actions

Outlook

Putting into practice the ecosystem approach to fisheries and aquaculture

The issue

Possible solutions

Recent actions

Outlook

Notes

Part 3
HIGHLIGHTS OF SPECIAL STUDIES (Download pdf 3 Mb)


Effects of fisheries management policies on fishing safety

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions and follow-up

Demand and supply of aquafeed and feed ingredients for farmed fish and crustaceans: trends and future prospects

Introduction

Acquaculture growth and aquafeed

Aquafeed production and use

Feed ingredient production and availability

Current feed ingredient usage and constraints

Conclusion

Issues to be addressed

Global guidelines on ecolabelling and certification in capture fisheries and aquaculture

Introduction

The Marine Guidelines

The Inland Guidelines

The Acquaculture Guidelines

Evaluation framework

Remaining issues

The OECD–FAO Agricultural outlook: chapter on fish

The model

Projections 2012-2021

Notes

Part 4
OUTLOOK (Download pdf 1.24 Mb)


The role of capture fisheries in a global sustainable food production system: opportunities and challenges

Context

Capture fisheries as targets of efforts to reduce resource use and greenhouse gas emissions

Minimizing waste

Improving governance

Notes

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of FAO. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

ISBN 978-92-5-107225-7

All rights reserved. FAO encourages reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Non-commercial uses will be authorized free of charge, upon request. Reproduction for resale or other commercial purposes, including educational purposes, may incur fees. Applications for permission to reproduce or disseminate FAO copyright materials, and all other queries concerning rights and licences, should be addressed by e-mail to copyright@fao.org or to the:

Chief
Publishing Policy and Support Branch
Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome, Italy

© FAO 2012

Cover photos: All cover photos are from FAO MediaBase and the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department Photo Library, except image of entangled gear, courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), United States of America, and image of salmon cages, courtesy of the Norwegian Seafood Export Council.

Copies of FAO publications can be requested from:

SALES AND MARKETING GROUP
Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome, Italy

E-mail: publications-sales@fao.org
Fax: (+39) 06 57053360
Web site: http://www.fao.org

 

Info lengkap dapat di akses di : http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e00.htm

Membangun dan Menjaga Pulau Kecil Perbatasan

02/07/2012
Membangun dan Menjaga Pulau Kecil Perbatasan
Suhana* | Jumat, 29 Juni 2012 – 14:37:22 WIB
Dibaca : 70
(dok/antara)Penanganan pulau kecil perlu memperhatikan karakteristik pulau.

 

Perhatian pemerintah dan masyarakat kepada pulau kecil perbatasan terus meningkat pascakalahnya Indonesia dalam perebutan Pulau Sipadan dan Ligitan pada 2002.

Bahkan, dalam 10 tahun terakhir perhatian publik terhadap wilayah perbatasan terus meningkat, terutama pada perbatasan Indonesia dan Malaysia. Bentuk keseriusan pemerintah dalam menangani wilayah perbatasan salah satunya dibentuk badan khusus yang menangani wilayah perbatasan, yaitu Badan Nasional Pengelola Perbatasan.

Namun, tingginya perhatian pemerintah dan publik terhadap masalah perbatasan ternyata belum diikuti dengan kemampuan pengelolaan sumber daya wilayah perbatasan, khususnya pulau kecil perbatasan.

Selain itu, pengelolaan pulau kecil perbatasan terlihat belum optimal, bahkan beberapa program pembangunan di wilayah tersebut terlihat belum mempertimbangkan karakteristik pulau tersebut. Akibatnya, pembangunan pulau kecil perbatasan cenderung akan merusak keberadaan pulau dibandingkan dengan menjaga keutuhan pulau tersebut.

Berdasarkan pengamatan di lapangan (2012), khususnya di Pulau Fani, Kabupaten Raja Ampat (Titik Dasar Kepulauan Nomor 066A), terlihat pembangunan yang dilakukan pemerintah daerah belum sepenuhnya sesuai dengan karakteristik pulau itu.

Misalnya pertama, pembangunan rumah untuk penduduk. Pemerintah daerah sejak 2009 telah melakukan pembangunan sekitar 42 rumah panggung yang diperuntukkan penghuni pulau tersebut.

Penduduk yang ada di Pulau Fani merupakan penduduk dari Desa Reni, yang letaknya sekitar empat jam perjalanan dari pulau tersebut.

Penduduk tersebut datang ke Pulau Fani hanya untuk berkebun kelapa dan mengolah kelapa menjadi kopra. Umumnya para penduduk tersebut berada di Pulau Fani hanya dalam waktu empat bulan, setelah itu mereka kembali ke Desa Reni.

Kedua, pembangunan tanggul pantai yang dilakukan pemerintah daerah belum sesuai dengan karakteristik pulau tersebut.

Tanggul pantai tersebut sudah rusak sebelum dilakukan peresmian. Bangunan tanggul yang dibentuk seperti dinding yang memanjang sepanjang garis pantai tersebut ternyata tidak sesuai dengan kondisi pulau yang terbentuk dari pasir putih, sehingga tanggul sangat rapuh ketika diterjang ombak Samudra Pasifik yang sangat besar.

Ketiga, pembangunan jalan lingkar pulau. Pemerintah daerah terus berupaya melengkapi fasilitas Pulau Fani dengan membangun jalan tembok selebar 2 meter yang rencananya akan mengelilingi seluruh pulau tersebut.

Hal ini dimaksudkan agar masyarakat dan para wisatawan yang berkunjung ke Pulau Fani dapat dengan mudah berkeliling dan menikmati suasana pulau.

Namun, keberadaan jalan lingkar pulau tersebut justru cenderung akan merusak keberadaan hutan pantai yang ada di Pulau Fani, padahal hutan pantai tersebut merupakan satu-satunya kekuatan yang dibutuhkan dalam menjaga keutuhan pulau tersebut.

Kelestarian

Berdasarkan ketiga hal itu, pemerintah belum mempertimbangkan karakteristik pulau kecil perbatasan dalam melakukan pembangunan di pulau tersebut.

Padahal, pertimbangan karakteristik sebuah pulau sangat diperlukan guna menjaga kelestarian dan keberadaan pulau tersebut di masa yang akan datang, terlebih saat ini pengaruh pemanasan global sangat terasa dampaknya pada peningkatan muka air laut.

Apabila hal ini tidak diantisipasi, pembangunan pulau kecil perbatasan yang tidak memperhatikan karakteristik pulau tersebut akan semakin mempercepat proses tergenangnya pulau kecil oleh air laut atau dengan kata lain mempercepat proses tenggelamnya pulau kecil.

Beberapa hal yang perlu mendapatkan perhatian seluruh pemangku kepentingan, terutama pemerintah dan pemerintah daerah dalam melakukan pembangunan di pulau kecil perbatasan, yaitu pertama, memetakan secara detail karakteristik setiap pulau kecil perbatasan. Karakteristik pulau kecil hendaknya dijadikan pertimbangan utama dalam melakukan pembangunan di pulau kecil perbatasan.

 

Kedua, meningkatkan pengawasan terhadap pulau-pulau kecil perbatasan, terutama di wilayah pulau kecil yang tidak berpenghuni. Berdasarkan catatan para nelayan yang melakukan aktivitas penangkapan ikan di sekitar Pulau Fani, sebelum pulau tersebut dijadikan pos oleh TNI, Pulau Fani dijadikan markas oleh para nelayan Filipina yang melakukan aktivitas pencurian ikan.

Bahkan, jejak aktivitas penangkapan ikan ilegal tersebut saat ini masih terekam dari banyaknya terumbu karang di sekitar Pulau Fani yang hancur akibat bom ikan. Saat ini kondisi terumbu karang tersebut terlihat sudah mulai kembali pulih.

Namun, bongkahan-bongkahan karang yang rusak akibat bom ikan masih terlihat berserakan di dasar perairan. Oleh sebab itu, pengawasan terhadap pulau-pulau kecil perbatasan sangat diperlukan guna mencegah praktik-praktik ilegal yang dapat mengancam keberadaan sumber daya dan kerugian negara.

Ketiga, dukungan politik anggaran untuk pengawasan sumber daya yang ada di sekitar pulau kecil perbatasan. Aktivitas ilegal, seperti pencurian ikan di sekitar pulau kecil perbatasan sampai saat ini masih kerap terjadi, misalnya di sekitar Pulau Fani.

Namun, aparat Marinir yang menjaga pulau tersebut tidak bisa berbuat banyak, karena sampai saat ini mereka tidak dibekali dengan kapal patroli yang dapat dengan cepat mengejar para pelaku pencurian ikan tersebut.

Para Marinir saat ini hanya dapat memandangi aktivitas pencurian ikan dari Pulau Fani tersebut, tanpa ada kemampuan untuk mengejar para pencuri ikan.

Berdasarkan hal tersebut, pengawasan pulau kecil perbatasan memerlukan dukungan anggaran yang sangat besar, terutama dalam pengadaan kapal patroli, biaya operasional kapal, dan kesejahteraan para aparat di lapangan.

Dengan melihat pentingnya sebuah pulau kecil perbatasan bagi geopolitik dan geostrategis bangsa Indonesia, maka dukungan politik anggaran dari pemerintah dan DPR sangat diperlukan.

*Penulis adalah Kepala Riset Pusat Kajian Pembangunan Kelautan dan Peradaban Maritim.

(Sinar Harapan)

 

Sumber : http://www.shnews.co/detile-3996-membangun-dan-menjaga-pulau-kecil-perbatasan.html 

Di Laut Kita Tak Berdaya

07/06/2012

 

Di Laut Kita Tak Berdaya

Tumpang tindih aturan dan banyaknya instansi yang terlibat dalam pengamanan laut justru menyebabkan tidak efektifnya pengamanan wilayah perairan Indonesia. Kerugian akibat berbagai bentuk pencurian di laut diperkirakan mencapai Rp 200 triliun pertahun.

Komando Pasukan Katak (Kopaska) TNI AL Armada Kawasan Timur (Armatim) saat melakukan patroli laut dengan menggunakan combat boat untuk pengamanan laut di wilayah timur Indonesia dan antisipasi kejahatan jalur laut serta menjaga keutuhan NKRI di perairan Surabaya, Jatim, Selasa (6/9).

Laksamana Madya Didik Heru Purnomo mengaku harus terus memutar otak agar bisa mengkoordinasikan 12 instansi yang terlibat dalam pengamanan laut. Kepala Pelaksana Harian Badan Koordinasi Keamanan Laut tersebut mengaku masih kesulitan mengkoordinasikan belasan pemangku kepentingan yang tergabung di dalam Badan Koordinasi Keamanan Laut (Bakorkamla) itu.

Menurut jenderal bintang tiga TNI Angkatan Laut itu perlu strategi khusus untuk mengkoordinasikan mereka. “Sebab tidak semua aparat menyadari pentingnya koordinasi dan menghilangkan ego sektoral,” katanya, Kamis pekan lalu. Selain ego sektoral, menurut dia, peraturan tentang keamanan di laut jumlahnya terlalu banyak, ada 33 peraturan sehingga tumpang tindih.

Sependapat dengan Didik, Penasehat Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan, Rokhmin Dahuri menyebut akibat ego sektoral dan tumpang tindihnya peraturan pengamanan dan penegakan hukum di perairan Indonesia menjadi lemah sehingga pencurian ikan merajarela.

Menurut Rokhmin pencurian ikan justru dilakukan oleh kapal-kapal berbendera Indonesia. Pengusaha Indonesia yang menjadi pemilik kapal tersebut memperjualbelikan ijin penangkapan ke pengusaha asing. “Total kerugian yang kita derita stabil, berkisar di angka Rp 200 triliun per tahun akibat illegal fishing, illegal mining dan illegal trading di laut,” katanya.

Kepala Riset Pusat Kajian Pembangunan Kelautan dan Peradaban Maritim, Suhana juga mengungkapkan selain ikan, kekayaan laut yang banyak di curi adalah pasir laut, peninggalan benda berharga di bawah laut dan terumbu karang. Dalam perkara pencurian ikan, permasalahan yang terjadi di perairan Indonesia tidak hanya mencakup problem klasik pencurian ikan (illegal fishing), tetapi juga masalah perikanan yang tidak dilaporkan (unreported fishing) dan perikanan yang tidak diatur (unregulated fishing). ”Kapal ikan asing yang melakukan pencurian ikan di perairan Indonesia didominasi oleh negara Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, RRC, dan Philipina,” kata Suhana.

Salah satu contoh, Suhana menyebutkan, di provinsi Kalimantan Barat, umumnya kapalkapal milik nelayan Malaysia menangkap ikan di perairan kabupaten Sambas, yang menjadi perbatasan Indonesia dan Malaysia pada malam hari. Menjelang pagi hari kapal-kapal tersebut kembali masuk ke perairan Malaysia dan mendaratkan ikannya di pelabuhan perikanan yang ada di sekitar wilayah Kuching Malaysia. “Dari Kuching, ikan-ikan hasil tangkapan nelayan Malaysia tersebut di ekspor ke Indonesia melalui jalur darat,” papar Suhana.

Wakil Ketua Komisi IV DPRRI yang membidangi Kelautan dan Perikanan, Ibnu Multazam mengatakan pencurian terbesar yang terjadi di perairan Indonesia adalah pencurian ikan. Ibnu mengatakan untuk mengantisipasi dan meminimalisir pencurian tersebut, nelayan-nelayan tradisional seharusnya dibekali kapal yang berukuran lebih besar ketika melaut sehingga dapat berlayar lebih jauh dari garis pantai. “Nelayan tradisional harus dilibatkan dalam pengamanan laut kita,” kata politisi Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa ini.

Selain keterlibatan nelayan, Ibnu menyarankan pemerintah segera membentuk coast guard untuk pengamanan laut Indonesia sehingga ada satu komando yang tegas. Pencurian besar-besaran di perairan Indonesia menurut Ibnu terjadi karena terlalu banyak instansi yang menangani dan tumpang- tindihnya peraturan. “Karena terlalu banyak yang turun tangan justru menjadi tidak aman,” ujar Ibnu.

Menteri Kelautan dan Perikanan pertama, Sarwono Kusumaatmadja mengatakan untuk pengamanan laut saat ini diserahkan ke Bakorkamla. Namun menurut Sarwono, Bakorkamla hanyalah lembaga koordinasi yang tidak bisa melakukan eksekusi. Akibatnya jika ada suatu insiden atau ada pelanggaran di wilayah perairan nusantara, Bakorkamla harus berkoordinasi terlebih dahulu dan tidak bisa segera mengambil tindakan. “Jadi selalu kalah cepat,” ujar Sarwono.

Yudho Raharjo | Praminto Moehayat | Rizkita Sari | Fadilla Fikri Armadhita | Bushtari Ariyanti

Sumber : http://www.prioritasnews.com/2012/06/05/di-laut-kita-tak-berdaya/

Global Overview of Marine Fishery Resources

09/05/2012
The world’s fisheries and aquaculture sectors have gone through a dramatic development in the last 60 years, and there have been large increases in their production, according to the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN.

PROFILE OF CATCHES

World Production from Different Sectors of Fisheries and Aquaculture

Total world fish production was only 19.3 million tonnes in 1950, but it increased dramatically to 163 million tonnes in 2009 (Figure A2). Marine capture fisheries have always been the largest contributor to world fish production. In 1950, marine captures were 16.7 million tonnes and accounted for 86 percent of total world fish production. In the last two decades, marine and inland aquaculture has expanded rapidly, and the relative contribution of marine capture fisheries to the growing total world fish production has shrunk. Nevertheless, marine capture fisheries still contributed 49 percent of the world’s fish production in 2009, the largest sector in comparison with mariculture (21 percent), freshwater aquaculture (23 percent) and inland capture fishery (6 percent) (Figure A2).

Marine fisheries have experienced different development stages, increasing from 16.7 million tonnes in 1950 to a peak of 87.7 million tonnes in 1996, and then declining to stabilize at about 80 million tonnes, with interannual fluctuations. Global recorded production was 79.5 million tonnes in 2009 (Figure A2). Rapid development was seen in the late 1950s and 1960s and between 1983 and 1989. The first boom was believed to be caused mainly by the post-war shipbuilding expansion in the 1950s, the new technologies such as steam and motor trawlers in the 1960s, and the extension of jurisdiction to 12 nautical miles by most costal States – this is the region that encompassed the ocean’s most productive upwelling and continental shelves (Sanchirico and Willen, 2007; Engelhard, 2008). The second rapid expansion was associated with the extension of jurisdictions from 12 to 200 nautical miles with the establishment of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) under the legal foundation of the UNCLOS (Sanchirico and Willen, 2007).

After reaching a peak in 1996, global landings decreased gradually, dropping by about 10 percent by 2009. Subsequent fluctuations mainly reflect the variation in catches from a few highly productive areas, particularly in the Northwest Pacific (Area 61) and the Southeast Pacific (Area 87). These areas account for a large portion of landings from pelagic species.

Regional patterns in landings

Based on the average catches in 2005–09, the Northwest Pacific is the largest contributor (25 percent) to the global catch, followed by the Southeast Pacific (16 percent), Western Central Pacific (14 percent), Northeast Atlantic (11 percent) and Eastern Indian Ocean (7 percent). All other FAO areas contribute less than 5 percent of the global total catch.

World marine fisheries have gone through significant development and changes since 1950 when FAO started collecting fisheries statistics data. Accordingly, the levels of exploitation of fish resources and their landings have also varied over time. The temporal pattern of landings differs from area to area, depending on the level of urban development and changes that countries surrounding that area have experienced. In general, they can be grouped into three types. The first group are those FAO areas that have demonstrated oscillations in total catch (Figure A3). They are the Eastern Central Atlantic (Area 34), Northeast Pacific (Area 67), Eastern Central Pacific (Area 77), Southwest Atlantic (Area 41), Southeast Pacific (Area 87), and Northwest Pacific (Area 61). These areas provide about 53.5 percent of the world’s total catch. Some areas in this group may have shown a clear drop in total catch in the last few years, e.g. Northeast Pacific, but, over the longer period, a declining trend is not evident.

FAO Statistical Areas Showing Fluctuations in Fish Landings

The second group consists of areas that have demonstrated a decreasing trend in catch since reaching a peak at some time in the past. This group contributes 19.9 percent of global catch on average in the last five years, and includes the Northeast Atlantic (Area 27), Northwest Atlantic (Area 21), Western Central Atlantic (Area 31), Mediterranean and Black Sea (Area 37), Southwest Pacific (Area 81), and Southeast Atlantic (Area 47). It is interesting and noteworthy that such declines occurred at different times: in the Northwest Atlantic in the late 1960s; in the Northeast and Southeast Atlantic in the mid-1970s; in the Western Central Atlantic and Mediterranean and Black Sea in the mid-1980s; and in the Southwest Pacific in the early 1990s (Figure A4). This sequence largely reflects the fact that areas surrounded by the most-developed countries experienced the earliest decline in catches.

The largest decline was seen in the Northwest Atlantic, where landings dropped by 55 percent from their peak to 2009. The second-largest drop was in the Western Central Atlantic with 46 percent, followed by the Southwest Pacific with 37 percent and the Northeast Atlantic with 35 percent. The total catches in the Mediterranean and Black Sea dropped by 28 percent.

FAO Statistical Areas Showing a Decreasing Trend in Fish Landings

 

FAO Statistical Areas Showing an Increasing Trend in Fish Landings

The third group comprises the FAO areas that have shown a continual increase in catch since 1950 (Figure A5). There are only three areas in this group: Western Central Pacific (Area 71), Eastern (Area 57) and Western Indian Ocean (Area 51). They have contributed 26.4 percent of the total catch on average in the last five years. Minor drops in catch have also been seen in Western Central Pacific and Western Indian Ocean in the last two years. However, considering the uncertainty involved in catch reporting and natural fluctuation in fish stock abundance, such declines might have been caused by environmental “white noise” and need to be monitored over the next few years.

Major characteristics and significant changes

Fluctuations in the abundance of a fish stock are a common phenomenon, particularly for low-trophic-level species. As a result, the catch of this stock also usually oscillates in a similar manner. However, at a regional level, fluctuations in catch often appear to be less marked. This is because: (i) fish stocks within an ecosystem often compensate for one another as they increase and decrease in abundance; and (ii) aggregation over catches of all species usually smoothes out the variations of low-trophic-level and short-lived species. This is because the abundance and catch of high-trophic-level and long-lived species often vary less.

In the three groups defined above for analysing overall catch trends, the first group – Eastern Central and Southwest Atlantic, and Southeast, Northeast and Eastern Central Pacific, and Northwest Pacific – had large fluctuations in landings (Figure A3). The largest fluctuation is seen in the Southeast Pacific (Area 87; Figure A3). A drop of about 10 million tonnes occurred between 1970 and 1973. The fish stocks then recovered and produced an all-time high catch of more than 20 million tonnes in 1994. The catch from this area dropped by 12 million tonnes again in the subsequent five years (between 1994 and 1998) and was at about 12 million tonnes in 2009, almost as high as its first peak in 1970. The large interannual variation in catch from the Southeast Pacific is caused by the large proportion of pelagic species in catches from the area. The top three species were anchoveta (Engraulis ringens), Chilean jack mackerel (Trachurus murphyi) and South American pilchard or sardine (Sardinops sagax); together, they account for more than 80 percent of the current and historical catches. They have had alternating periods of high and low abundance in recent decades. Large catch fluctuations are common in this region and are mostly a consequence of the periodic climatic events known as El Niño. El Niño events affect fishing success as well as longer-term stock abundance and productivity. These and other changes in fisheries production from Area 87 are described in further detail in Chapter B15 of this volume.

Significant fluctuations were also reported for other regions, although their combined effect on global catches was less noticeable. For example, in the Northeast Pacific (Area 67, Chapter B11), fish production reached a peak of 3.6 million tonnes in 1987 and declined to 2.2 million tonnes in 2009, following a slight recovery to 3.2 million tonnes in 2005 (Figure A3). The Northwest Pacific has shown an oscillation between 20 and 24 million tonnes since the late 1980s (Figure A3). The fluctuations were caused by catch and, presumably, abundance changes of Japanese pilchard or sardine (Sardinops melanostictus) and Alaska pollock (Theragra chalcogramma). These and other changes in total catch and state of resources are further described in Chapter B10.

In the Eastern Central Pacific (Area 77), described in Chapter B13, catches have fluctuated between 1.2 and 1.8 million tonnes since 1981 (Figure A3).The 2009 catch was at a peak of about 2 million tonnes, probably because of the recovery of California pilchard or sardine (Sardinops caeruleus). They yielded 0.8 million tonnes in 2009, an all-time record high and slightly higher than the high catch of 720 000 tonnes in 1936, which occurred during the previous high “regime” of this species. This previous peak period lasted from the late-1920s throughout the early-1940s. The total landings of the Southwest Atlantic (Chapter B6) have also fluctuated around 2 million tonnes since the late 1980s (Figure A3). Argentine hake, Argentine anchovy, Argentine short-fin squid and Argentine red shrimp are the species that show strong fluctuations in this area.

Temporal fluctuations in the landings of the second group (declining landings) are weaker (Figure A4). The landings from the Northeast Atlantic (Chapter B2) have continued the declining trend seen since the mid-1970s. This has mainly been caused by the decline in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) since the late 1960s, with a bounce back in the 1990s. It is noteworthy that landings of blue whiting (Micromesistius poutassou), which increased gradually since the 1970s and reached a peak of about 2 million tonnes in 2003, dropped back to below 1 million tonnes in 2009. Sandeels (Ammodytes spp.) also experienced a striking and marked drop to below 0.4 million tonnes in 2009 after peaking at more than 1.2 million tonnes in the mid-1990s.

In the Northwest Atlantic (Area 21), fish production declined to a low of 2 million tonnes in 1994 (Figure A4), following the collapse of groundfish stocks off eastern Canada. However, the catch has since stabilized at about 2 million tonnes. The collapse in Atlantic cod in the 1970s and of American plaice in the early 1990s has been balanced out by the increase in catches of low-trophic- level species such as American sea scallop and American lobster.

The Western Central Atlantic (Area 31), Mediterranean and Black Sea (Area 37) and Southwest Pacific (Area 81) have also experienced a period of declining catches, but to a lesser extent (Figure A4). Large reductions in catches have been seen in the last decade for round sardinella, ocean catfish NEI (not elsewhere included) and requiem sharks NEI in the Western Central Atlantic, and for mullets, blue whiting and common octopus in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, and for blue grenadier and oreo dories NEI in the Southwest Pacific.

Of the three areas showing a continuously increasing trend in catch, the West Indian Ocean (Area 51) and Western Central Pacific (Area 71) have shown some signs of decline in the last few years (Figure A5), though these may be natural fluctuations. When examining this trend at the species level, large declines are clear for skipjack and yellowfin tuna, and for natantian decapods NEI in the West Indian Ocean. However, decreases in those species were balanced out by increases in the catches of other redfishes, Indian oil sardine, and giant tiger prawn. Similarly, reductions in sharks, rays, skates etc NEI and in penaeid shrimps NEI, from these areas was compensated by an increase in skipjack tuna, threadfin breams NEI and natantian decapods NEI in the Western Central Pacific. Standing out from all other areas, the East Indian Ocean is the only FAO area that has not shown any sign of decline in total catch, and no clear decline in catch has been seen in major fish species (Chapter B9).

Tunas and tuna-like species are collectively the most valuable fishery resources exploited in the high seas. Their total production is highest in the Pacific Ocean followed by the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. As discussed in Chapter C1, catches of tuna and tuna-like species increased from less than 0.5 million tonnes in the early 1950s to an all-time high of 5.5 million tonnes in 2006. The catch has stabilized at about 5.4 million tonnes since 2003. Among the species, skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) accounts for about 47 percent, at 2.6 million tonnes in 2009. Yellowfin tuna contributed 20 percent of the catch (1.1 million tonnes) followed by bigeye tuna at 7 percent (0.4 million tonnes) and kawakawa at 6 percent (0.3 million tonnes) in 2009.

Total recorded catches from deep-sea fisheries reached a peak of about 3.6 million tonnes in 2004 and then dropped back to 1.9 million tonnes in 2009 (Chapter C4). The Atlantic Ocean supports the largest deep-sea fishery, contributing about 80 percent of the total deep-sea catch between 2000 and 2005, followed by the Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean. The dramatic decline can largely be attributed to the decrease in reported catches of blue whiting in the Atlantic Ocean. The catch of blue whiting decreased from 2.4 million tonnes in 2004 to about 65 000 tonnes in 2009, owing to a decline in recruitment, spawning stock biomass and a reduction of quotas (ICES, 2011). The species that have yielded a high average catch in the last five years (2005–09) in the Atlantic Ocean include Patagonian grenadier (Macruronus magellanicus), Greenland halibut (Reinhardtius hippoglossoides), southern blue whiting (Micromesistius australis) and ling (Molva molva).

The top five species are blue whiting (= poutassou), contributing 1.5 million tonnes in 2009 and accounting for 35 percent of the total catch of deep-sea fisheries, followed by hairtails and scabbardfishes NEI (135 000 tonnes, 7 percent), Patagonian grenadier (132 000 tonnes, 7 percent), blue grenadier (112 000 tonnes, 5 percent) and Greenland halibut (97 000 tonnes, 5 percent). Patagonian grenadier, Greenland halibut, blue grenadier, southern blue whiting, orange roughy, and oreo dories NEI have all experienced clear declines in catch.

A recurring pattern in some areas is the medium- to long-term change in catch composition following the decline of some fish stocks that had traditionally been dominant. For example, in the Northwest Atlantic (Chapter B1), catches of molluscs and crustaceans have increased noticeably following the declines of demersal fishes. In the Northeast Atlantic (Chapter B2) the reduction in catches from the continuous decline in Atlantic cod since the late 1960s has been balanced out by the increase in catches of formerly low-value species, such as blue whiting and sandeels. In the Northwest Pacific (Chapter B10), the decline in catches of Japanese pilchard or sardine and Alaska pollock has been somewhat offset by the increasing catches of Japanese anchovy (Engraulis japonicus), largehead hairtail (Trichiurus lepturus) and squids (mostly Todarodes pacificus). The causes for these medium- to long-term changes in the species composition of marine commercial catches can be multifold. These causes include adaptation of industry and markets to previously unattractive low-valued species, and the effect of fishing on the abundance of target species and on the structure of other marine communities. At the same time, environmental changes or regime shifts affecting the long-term abundance of the various wild fish stocks have occurred. Often, these effects are confounding and in many cases they are difficult to discern. This is particularly the case in areas where research and monitoring of fishery resources and environmental processes are not well developed.

Catch composition

Pelagic species comprise the largest proportion of the global marine catches. Small pelagics (ISSCAAP Group 35: herrings, sardines, anchovies, etc.) contributed about 22 percent (19.9 million tonnes) of the total catch in 2009 (Figure A6). This share is down from 29 percent in the 1950s and 27 percent in 1970s. The large pelagics (ISSCAAP Groups 36 and 37: tunas, bonitos, billfishes and miscellaneous pelagics) accounted for 19 percent (16.6 million tonnes) of the total catches in 2009. This is an increase in their share from 13 percent in the 1950s. Demersal fishes (ISSCAAP Groups 31, 32 and 34: flounders, halibuts, soles, cods, hakes, haddocks and miscellaneous demersals) contributed 12 percent of the total catches in 2009 (10.9 million tonnes), compared with almost 26 percent in the 1950s and 1970s. Miscellaneous coastal fishes (ISSCAAP Group 33) increased slightly to 8 percent (7.2 million tonnes) from 7 percent in 2009. Catches of crustaceans (ISSCAAP Groups 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 and 47: crabs, lobsters, shrimps, prawns, krill, etc.) contributed 6 percent (5.4 million tonnes) in 2009, slightly lower than 7 percent in 2002. Molluscs (ISSCAAP Groups 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58: abalones, conchs, oysters, mussels, scallops, clams, squids, octopus, etc.) increased slightly from 6 percent in the 1950s and 1970s to 7 percent (6.2 million tonnes) in 2009. The proportion of unspecified fish (ISSCAAP Group 39) decreased slightly with 11 percent of the total catches (9.9 million tonnes) in 2009.

In world fish production, pelagic – defined here as those belonging to ISSCAAP Groups 34– 37 (following Grainger and Garcia [1996]) is defined to include jacks, mullets, sauries, herrings, sardines, anchovies, tunas, bonitos, billfishes, mackerels, snooks and cutlassfishes. Demersal species (ISSCAAP Groups 31–33 and 38) include flounders, halibuts, soles, cods, hakes, haddocks, redfishes, basses, congers, sharks, rays and chimaeras. These groups contributed similar proportions of total marine fisheries production in 1950, 41 percent and 35 percent, respectively. The remaining 24 percent of the total catch came from other species, including shrimps, prawns, crabs, clams, mussels, and marine fishes not identified. While the total marine fish landings increased with the development of the fishing industry, landings from demersal species reached, and in some cases exceeded, the limit of their potential production in the early 1970s. Subsequently, catches of demersal species levelled off below 20 million tonnes (Figure A7). Production from pelagic species increased over time, with large fluctuations reflecting both natural variations in species productivity as well as boom and bust harvesting strategies. Production of pelagic species peaked at 40 million tonnes in the early 1990s that has been followed by a decreasing trend. The production of other species continued to increase until 2000 and has since stabilized at about 22 million tonnes. In 2009, pelagic, demersal and other species represented 46 percent, 24 percent, and 30 percent, respectively (Figure A7).

World Marine Catch by Main Species Groups in 2009 (Million Tonnes and Percentages)

 

Catches Over Time by Three Groups – Pelagic, Demersal and Others

The distribution of landings among species is highly skewed. Among the 221 pelagic species recorded, the top ten were anchoveta, Atlantic herring, chub mackerel, Chilean jack mackerel, Japanese pilchard, South American pilchard, capelin, skipjack tuna, European pilchard (= sardine), and Japanese anchovy, in sequence of the average catch from 1950 to 2009. Together, they contributed about 50 percent of the total pelagic landings in 2009 and about 22.5 percent of total global landings.

All the top ten pelagic species have experienced substantial declines in catch, except skipjack tuna (Figure A8). The most dramatic boom–bust catch patterns have been seen in Japanese pilchard, South American pilchard, and capelin. Their historical peak catches were 4–6 million tonnes, but were negligible in 2009. Peruvian anchovy has recorded the largest catches of pelagic species and demonstrated the most dramatic variations. It had a peak catch of 12 million tonnes in 1969, very low catches between 1970 and 1990, and resurging back to about 12 million tonnes in 1994, and was still 7 million tonnes in 2009. Skipjack tuna has been the only species that has shown a continuous growth in total catch, from 0.16 million tonnes in 1950 to 2.6 million tonnes in 2009. This is a 16-fold expansion in catch over this 59-year period.

Temporal Catch Patterns of the Top Ten Pelagic Species

 

Temporal Catch Patterns of the Top Ten Demersal Species

For demersal species, the top ten species were Alaska pollock (= walleye pollock), Atlantic cod, largehead hairtail, blue whiting (= poutassou), sandeels (= sandlances) NEI, haddock, saithe (= pollock), Cape hakes, Atlantic redfishes NEI, and flatfishes NEI, ordered in terms of average annual landings from 1950 to 2009. In general, production of the top ten demersal species is not as high as that of pelagic species, nor do they exhibit variations in catch of the same extent. These ten species produced 37 percent of the total demersal landings in 2009 (Figure A9). The most common pattern across these ten species has been a decreasing trend in catch. Nine of the ten species produced a much lower catch in 2009 than their historical highs. Most of them had a peak catch in the 1960s or 1970s. Largehead hairtail is the only species that has not experienced a decline, but a levelling off in catch since the mid-1990s.

Species composition varies from area to area around the world. All the major species groups were represented more or less equally in the Northwest Pacific (Area 61) (Figure A10). Small pelagics (mostly anchoveta) dominate catches in the Southeast Pacific (Area 87). In the Northeast Atlantic (Area 27), demersal fishes were the most abundant, followed by larger pelagics and small pelagics. In the Western Central Pacific, catches were dominated by larger pelagics, which were also the most abundant group in the Western Indian Ocean (Area 51). Small pelagics were also dominant in the Eastern Central Atlantic (Area 34), Mediterranean and Black Sea (Area 37), Western Central Atlantic (Area 31) and Eastern Central Pacific (Area 77). In contrast, demersal fishes were the dominant species group in the Northeast Pacific (Area 67) and Southwest Pacific (Area 81).

Cath Species Composition by Main Species Groups in Major Fishing Areas in 2009

STATE OF EXPLOITATION

Since its first publication of the global review of marine fish stocks in 1971 (Gulland, 1971), the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department has been regularly assessing and monitoring the state of world marine fish resources. Assessment methodologies used in its reviews are described in Appendix. As explained there and in the last paragraph of this section, a modified approach has been adopted for this review. This includes the reduction of the number of categories of state of exploitation from five to three. A primary goal of this change has been an attempt to ensure greater standardization in the assessment methods between regions. At the same time, it also recognizes the large differences in the amount and quality of data and information available in different regions. This new method will probably have led to slight differences in the regional assessments of state of exploitation compared with the result that would have been obtained with the previously used approach. This could mean that the two approaches may not be directly comparable. However, this issue should not affect the aggregated global estimates. These should be comparable, taking into account the large uncertainties that are an unavoidable feature of any global assessment of the state of stocks.

The assessment data available to FAO in 2009 from the 17 FAO Statistical Areas plus the “Tuna” category has been summarized in Tables D1–D19. These tables address 584 “stock” items, of which 395 stocks were assessed in 2009, representing 70 percent of global catch. The remaining 189 stocks had either insufficient information for status assessment or catches with no proper identification, even at the family level, that was provided in official national statistics. Some species, even where properly identified in the official statistics, were not monitored or investigated because of the inadequacy of other data requirements. Species in this group usually correspond to less-abundant and lower-value species on which research effort tends to be limited. However, there are also some major stocks and fisheries with limited data, including stocks of mullets, mussels, shrimps and prawns in several areas, bonga shad (Ethmalosa fimbriata) and European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus) in the Eastern Central Atlantic, Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus) in the Northeast Pacific, and various newly exploited deep-sea resources.

FAO has always made efforts to standardize the number of marine stocks or species groups monitored and described for each major fishing area. However, the uneven availability of information and distribution of catch volumes have limited the number of stock groups able to be considered per area. In addition, in some parts of the world, there are relatively large numbers of stocks or species groups whose state of exploitation is undetermined or not known. The Western Indian Ocean (Area 51) and Western Central Atlantic (Area 31) are fishing areas with the highest incidence of stocks or species groups for which the state of exploitation is reported as not known or uncertain in the regional reviews presented in Part B of this paper.

With the development of world fisheries, both the assessment methods and the data available for such assessment have changed significantly. It is noteworthy that this review uses three categories: non-fully exploited, fully exploited and overexploited (Figure A11). This decision was made following recommendations from an external review panel on the FAO method and FAO’s internal review. It reflects the fact that the data currently available to FAO for most stocks do not provide sufficient information for the differentiation between recovery and depleted and between underfished and moderately exploited. The category of “fully exploited” represents stocks with an abundance that falls within a band around the level that can produce MSY. Provided these stocks are being carefully monitored and managed in a precautionary manner, this is a desirable status. In comparison with the five categories used in the previous assessments, the underfished and majority of the “moderately exploited” stocks have been merged and now roughly correspond to the new “non-fully exploited” category. Parts of the “moderately exploited” and “overexploited” stocks under the earlier approach may have been classified as “fully exploited” in this new approach and merged with those classified as “fully exploited” by both the old and new methods. Finally, both “depleted” and “recovering” stocks are merged into “overexploited” (for details, see Appendix 1).

Global Trends in Marine Fish Stock Status from 1974 to 2009

Global stock status

Of the fish stocks assessed, 57.4 percent were estimated to be fully exploited in 2009. These stocks produced catches that were already at or very close to their maximum sustainable production. They have no room for further expansion in catch, and even some risk of decline if not properly managed. Among the remaining stocks, 29.9 percent were overexploited, and 12.7 percent non-fully exploited in 2009. The overexploited stocks produced lower yields than their biological and ecological potential. They require strict management plans to rebuild their stock abundance to restore full sustainable productivity. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) goal demands that all these overfished stocks be restored to the level that can produce MSY by 2015. This review suggests that this goal is very unlikely to be achieved, notwithstanding the good progress made in some countries and regions (Worm et al., 2009). The nonfully exploited stocks were under relatively low fishing pressure and have a potential to increase their production. However, these stocks often do not have high production potential. The potential for increase in catch may be generally limited. Nevertheless, proper management plans should be established before increasing the exploitation rate of these non-fully exploited stocks in order to avoid following the same track of overfishing.

The proportion of non-fully exploited stocks has decreased gradually since 1974, when the first FAO assessment was accomplished (Figure A11). In contrast, the percentage of overfished stocks has since increased, especially in the late 1970s and 1980s from 10 percent in 1974 to 26 percent in 1989. After 1990, the number of overfished stocks continued to increase, but the rate of increase slowed, until the last two assessments, reaching about 30 percent in 2009. The fraction of fully exploited stocks demonstrated the smallest change over time. The percentage dropped from about 50 percent at the start of the series to 43 percent in 1987 and has increased to 57.4 percent in 2009 (Figure A11).

A primary fishery management goal is to control fishing at a level that allows the fishery to produce sustained annual yields. This yield should be as close to MSY as allowed by responsible management within the context of an ecosystem approach. This goal should lead to keeping the proportion of overexploited stocks at zero, as required by the WSSD goal set in 2002. At the same time, it allows for increasing exploitation rates on non-fully exploited stocks. This would maximize the sustained contribution of fisheries to global food security and human well-being. The increasing trend in fully exploited stocks after 1990 indicates the positive impact of fishery management towards maximizing production. However, close attention is required to all fully exploited stocks to ensure that they are not overexploited in the future. Moreover, the increase in overfished stocks is a cause for concern. It indicates that, at the global level, the WSSD targets for rebuilding the overfished stocks and implementing an ecosystem approach are not being met. Nevertheless, the deceleration in the rate of increase of overfished stocks after 1990 in comparison with the 1980s may indicate some progress in improved management. It suggests that some fish resources have benefited from the management efforts of coastal States and the international community.

Percentages of Fish Stocks in Different Status by Major Fishing Areas in 2009

Regional stock status

Development of the fishing industry and management of fishery resources vary with country and region. The Western and Eastern Central Atlantic (Areas 31 and 34) had the highest proportion of overfished stocks, about 54 percent in 2009 (Figure A12). The Southeast (Area 47), Southwest Atlantic (Area 41), and Mediterranean and Black Sea (Area 37) had 50 percent of fish stock overfished. The lowest proportion of overfished stocks was about 10 percent, seen in the Eastern Central Pacific (Area 77), Northeast Pacific (Area 67) and Southwest Pacific (Area 81). Other Areas had 15–30 percent of fish stocks overexploited (Figure A12).

In terms of potential for further expansion, the Eastern Central Pacific (Area 77) and Southern Oceans (Areas 48, 58 and 88) had the highest proportion of non-fully exploited stocks, about 38 percent in 2009 (Figure A12). However, these areas are not major fishery production areas and contributed only 2.3 percent and 0.2 percent of global catch, respectively, in 2009. The Southwest Pacific (Area 81) and Eastern Indian Ocean (Area 57) and Mediterranean and Black Sea had about 20 percent of stocks underexploited and may provide opportunities for further fishery expansion. All the remaining areas had a very low percentage of fish stocks that have room for expansion in catch.

Differences can also be found in stock status between pelagic and demersal fish stocks. Demersal stocks had the highest percentage of overfished stocks and the lowest proportion of non-fully exploited stocks, at 38 percent and 7 percent, respectively, in 2009 (Figure A13). In contrast, pelagic species had only 22 percent of stocks overfished, but 16 percent non-fully fished in 2009. The percentage of fully exploited species was 54 percent for demersal and 62 percent for pelagic. Overall, these percentages indicate that pelagic stocks are in better shape than demersal species, with more stocks being sustainably fished and fewer stocks overfished. The results seem associated with the biological and ecological characteristics of pelagic and demersal species and with the history of fishery development. The “Others” group had percentages for both overfished and non-fully fished stocks in between those for demersal and pelagic (Figure A13).

For the top ten pelagic species, 30 percent of stocks were estimated to be overfished in 2009, which is higher than the 20 percent for all pelagics (Figure A13). In contrast, the top ten demersal species had 43 percent of their stocks overfished, similar to the average for all demersal species. However, both pelagic and demersal top-ten groups had no underexploited stocks, which is not surprising as large stocks are more likely to become the target of fishing. They also attract more effort for management so that they have a greater percentage of stocks fully exploited. The above-average percentage of overfished stocks for the top ten pelagic species probably reflects the widespread risk of overfishing taking place even when there are good management systems in place. This is because of social and economic pressures to maintain catches even when they may exceed sustainable levels.

Percentages of Fish Stocks in Different Status by Three Groups in 2009

Tuna stock status

Tuna and tuna-like species have high commercial values and support fisheries of a global, multigear and multispecies nature. All the world’s tuna and tuna-like species are the subject of research and management by regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs). There are five main tuna fishery management bodies: the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. Tuna RFMOs cover a large part of the world’s oceans, and they involve many countries. Tuna fisheries are characterized by high commercial value, global nature, and complex management. They involve many different types of stakeholders, and this frequently makes management scientifically and politically complex. International management of tuna and tuna-like species is governed by several legal instruments such as the binding UNCLOS, the UNFSA (UN, 1995) and the voluntary FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (the Code) (FAO, 1995a).

FAO has been monitoring the state of principal market tuna stocks as part of its initiative to assess the stock status of the world’s marine fishery resources. Principal market tunas include: albacore (Thunnus alalunga), Atlantic bluefin tuna (T. thynnus), bigeye tuna (T. obesus), Pacific bluefin tuna (T. orientalis), southern bluefin tuna (T. maccoyii), yellowfin tuna (T. albacares), and skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). They represented about 80 percent of the total catch of tuna and tuna-like species in 2009. Because of their wide distributions, the state of each of these seven tuna species was assessed at the stock level, rather than by FAO Statistic Area as is done for other species. FAO’s classification is based on a variety of data and information including those from tuna RFMOs and may not necessarily be the same as those of the RFMOs.

The global annual catch of tuna and tuna-like species has shown an increasing trend from less than 1 million tonnes in 1950 to about 6.5 million tonnes in 2009. The global production of the principal market tunas increased relatively steadily from less than 0.5 million tonnes in the early 1950s to a maximum of about 4.4 million tonnes in 2005 and has since stabilized at this level (Chapter C1). In particular, catches of skipjack have continued to increase up to 2009. Albacore has shown a much weaker increasing trend since the 1970s, with greater interannual variations. In contrast, yellowfin, bigeye, Atlantic bluefin, Pacific bluefin and southern bluefin tunas have all shown a gradual decline in catch after reaching their historical peaks.

Among the seven major tuna species, one-third were estimated to be overfished in 2009, close to the 30 percent for all monitored stocks. Of the remainder, 37.5 percent were fully exploited and 29 percent non-fully exploited in 2009. This compares favourably with 57.5 percent and 12.7 percent of the global average.

Uncertainty

All stock assessments involve uncertainty, and uncertainty arises from three different sources: data, methods and the process of applying the methods to the data. Awareness of the degree of such uncertainty helps to understand the reliability of the results and their interpretation. In the 2009 assessment, the uncertainty of each assessment was scored according to one of three categories: “high”, “medium” and “low” (for more information, see Appendix 1). In general, the Northwest Atlantic (Area 21), tunas, Northeast Atlantic (Area 27), and Northeast Pacific (67) had the lowest uncertainty, with 80–96 percent of assessed stocks having low uncertainty. These were followed by the Eastern Central (34) and Southwest Atlantic (Area 41) and Mediterranean and Black Sea (Area 37) with about 63 percent of stocks having low uncertainty (Figure A14). In contrast, the Eastern Indian Ocean (Area 57) and Western Central Pacific (Area 71) have the highest uncertainty (84– 88 percent), with no stocks assessed as having low uncertainty about their status. This high uncertainty results from a combination of limited data available, the existence of many small stocks for many species and other complexities of assessment in tropical waters. The Southwest (Area 81), Southeast (Area 67) and Northwest Pacific (Area 61) also have a relatively high percentage of stocks for which the assessment was highly uncertain.

Percentages of Assessed Stocks Involving Different Uncertainty Levels by Major Fishing Areas in 2009

DISCUSSION

The total production of marine fishery resources has declined gradually after reaching a peak in landings in 1996. Is it possible to increase global fishery production any further? One way in which yields could be increased is to rebuild the 30 percent overfished stocks so that they can produce close to their MSY. This should lead to a net increase in landings. However, it is difficult to estimate the extent of this increase because it is not only related to the current abundance of overfished stocks but also depends on the biological and technical interactions between species. Nevertheless, the top ten demersal species have 43 percent of stocks overfished. As a result, their 2009 production was only 51 percent of their peak level. This may give some indication of the scale of catch loss caused by overfishing. However, better estimates of the lost production will require a combination of stock assessments and ecosystem modelling. A second approach for increasing global production would be to intensify exploitation of the non-fully exploited stocks (13 percent of the monitored stocks). To avoid the same pattern of overfishing that has been experienced with other species in the past, any attempt to intensify exploitation on non-fully exploited stocks should be accompanied by precautionary management plans.

This updated assessment suggests that the state of global marine fish stocks is continuing along its historical trend. There has been a slow but apparently ongoing increase in the proportion of overexploited stocks and a decreasing percentage of nonfully exploited stocks, while the number of fully exploited stocks has increased slightly. However, it must also be noted that progress is being made in some regions, which should serve both as encouragement and as examples of successful management. For example, the number of stocks classified as overfished and/or subject to overfishing showed a fall in Australia from 24 in 2005 to 18 in 2008 (Wilson et al., 2009). Fisheries in large marine ecosystems such as the California Current and the Eastern Bering Sea have reduced exploitation rates and rebuilt biomass to or above the level that produces multispecies MSY (Worm et al., 2009).

Of the three categories describing stock status, the percentage of overfished stocks is the one of greatest concern. Not only can overexploitation cause negative ecological consequences, it can also reduce fish production with resulting negative social and economic consequences (World Bank and FAO, 2009). The need to improve management of stocks is widely recognized. The WSSD set a target to restore all overfished stocks to the level that can produce maximum sustainable yield by 2015. The strategic goal of the 2010 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity is: “by 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem approaches” (UNEP, 2010). The UN Millennium Development Goals (UN, 2010) is also monitoring the proportion of fish stocks within “safe” biological limits as an indicator of environmental sustainability. The successful cases highlighted above demonstrate that effective management is possible. Member States, the general international community and all relevant stakeholders need to work together to achieve the agreed goals.

Assessing stock status usually requires quantitative analysis either through modelling or monitoring key indicators. Catch data alone are often insufficient, although they may allow the use of catch-only methods. It is a common practice in fisheries that stock assessment is undertaken to provide the information necessary for designing management regulations. This is still true, even when they may range from qualitative to quantitative assessments. However, assessment results are not always available to the public. The RAM Legacy Database compiled the results of classic assessments on 234 stocks of 124 species that accounted for about 20 percent of global catch (Branch et al., 2011). FAO has adopted a spectrum of methods and extended the coverage to 70 percent of the global catch. There is still 30 percent of the global catch without any formal assessment. This is mainly because these catches are taken from stocks or species groups with insufficient information to assess their state of exploitation. Moreover, within the above, there is a high proportion of the total marine catch without reliable information on what species are being caught. This catch was recorded in the FAO database as “miscellaneous fishes” or “marine fish NEI”. These landings are termed here as the “NEI” group, and the share of global catch statistics attributed to this group increased to 33 percent in 2009 (Figure A15). Assessing stock status for the “NEI” group is often difficult, although not completely impossible. Therefore, greater effort needs to be made at all levels and stages of fisheries research and management. These actions should range from improving the identification of species being caught and landed to improving the information base for the proper assessment of fish stocks as required by the Code. This code requires that “States should ensure that timely, complete and reliable statistics on catch and fishing effort are collected and maintained in accordance with applicable international standards and practices and in sufficient detail to allow sound statistical analysis” (Article 7.4).

Temporal Variation in the Percentage of Catches Reported as “NEI” in the FAO Statistical Database

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank all the authors in Section B – the regional reviews of marine fisheries resources in FAO statistical areas for their contribution to the data and information presented in this chapter. We are also grateful to Luca Garibaldi and Fabio Carocci for their input in the preparation of data and graphs. Finally, David Milton and Jacek Majkowski are thanked for their valuable comments and suggestions to an earlier version of this manuscript.

REFERENCES

Branch, T.A., Jensen, O., Ricard, E., Ye, Y. and Hilborn, R. 2011. Contrasting global trends in marine fishery status obtained from catches and from stock assessments. Conservation Biology 25: 777–786.

Engelhard, G.H. 2008. One hundred and twenty years of change in fishing power of English North Sea trawlers. In Payne, A., Cotter, J., Potter, T. eds. Advances in fisheries science: 50 years on from Beverton and Holt, pp.1-25. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK.

Grainger, R.J.R. & Garcia, S.M. 1996. Chronicles of marine fishery landings (1950–1994): trend analysis and fisheries potential. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 359. Rome, FAO. 51 pp.

Gulland, J.A. 1971. The fish resources of the ocean. West Byfleet, UK, Fishing News Books. 255 pp.

FAO. 1974. Review of the status of exploitation of the world fish resources. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 328. Rome. 30 pp.

FAO. 1978. Review of the state of world fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 710. Rome. 47 pp.

FAO. 1979. Review of the state of world fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 710 (Rev. 1). Rome. 46 pp.

FAO. 1981. Review of the state of world fishery resources (marine areas and inland waters). FAO Fisheries Circular No. 710 (Rev. 2). Rome. 60 pp.

FAO. 1983. Review of the state of world fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 710 (Rev. 3). Rome. 47 pp.

FAO. 1985. Review of the state of world fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 710 (Rev. 4). Rome. 64 pp.

FAO. 1987. Review of the state of world fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 710 (Rev. 5). Rome. 64 pp.

FAO. 1989. Review of the state of world fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 710 (Rev. 6). Rome. 58 pp.

FAO. 1990. Review of the state of world fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 710 (Rev. 7). Rome. 89 pp.

FAO. 1992. Review of the state of world fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 710 (Rev. 8). Rome. Part 1: 114 pp; Part 2: 28 pp.

FAO. 1994. Review of the state of world marine fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 335. Rome. 136 pp.

FAO. 1995a. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Rome. 41 pp.

FAO. 1995b. Review of the state of world marine fishery resources: marine fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 884. Rome. 105 pp.

FAO. 1997a. Review of the state of world marine fishery resources: marine fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 920: 173 pp.

FAO. 1997b. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 1996. Rome. 125 pp.
FAO. 1999. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 1998. Rome. 112 pp.
FAO. 2000. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2000. Rome. 142 pp.
FAO. 2002. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2002. Rome. 150 pp.
FAO. 2004. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2004. Rome. 153 pp.

FAO. 2005. Review of the state of world marine fishery resources. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 457. Rome. 235 pp.

FAO. 2010. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. Rome. 197 pp.

ICES. 2011. Advice September 2010. Blue whiting in subareas 1-IX, XII and XIV (combined stock)

Sanchirico, J.N. & Wilen, J.E. 2007. Global Marine fishery resources: status and prospectus. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 7: 106–118.

The World Bank & FAO. 2009. The sunken billions. Washington, DC, World Bank. 100 pp.

United Nations (UN). 1995. The Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. New York, USA. 40 pp.

United Nations (UN). 2010. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2010. 21 pp.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 2010. Report of the 10th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention of Biological Diversity. 339 pp.

Wilson, D., Curtotti, R., Begg, G. & Phillips, K. 2009. Fishery status report 2008. Canberra. 395 pp.

Worm, B., Hilborn, R., Baum, J.K., Branch, T.A., Collie, J.S., Costello, C., Fogarty, M.J., Fulton, E.A., Hutchings, J.A., Jennings, S., Jensen, O.P., Lotze, H.K., Mace, P.M., McClanahan, T.R., Minto, C., Palumbi, S.R., Parma, A.M., Ricard, D., Rosenberg, A.A., Watson, R. & Zeller, D. 2009. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science, 325: 578–585.

April 2012