1. INTRODUCTION
2. STATISTICS VERSUS INFORMATION
3. THE NATURE AND PERCEIVED STATUS OF INLAND CAPTURE FISHERIES
4. REVIEW OF CURRENT INLAND CAPTURE FISHERY STATISTICS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
The inland capture fishery statistics for many countries are commonly regarded as being poorly reported and/or inaccurate. Those who are familiar with officially reported figures, and how they are derived, frequently mock them as meaningless. Whilst some exceptions exist, this perception is probably valid. But such statistics are important as they still tend to form the basis of opinion, policy, planning and management decisions, even amongst those who recognise the weaknesses of the statistics. Unfortunately, those who are unfamiliar with the shortcomings of this information often take it at face value. Therefore, official inland fishery statistics, whether good or bad, do significantly influence perceptions. Not surprisingly, this has tended to promote significant under-valuing of inland capture fisheries. This happens at local, national and international levels, even globally, since ultimately, national statistics are reported to FAO. Published FAO statistics form the basis of major perceptions of the relative value of, and trends in, the fisheries sub-sectors.
Recognising the need for improvement, a mission was initiated by FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, to review the current status of inland capture fisheries in Southeast Asia. Short field missions were made to four countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar and Thailand) and further information was based upon recent professional experience in three other countries (Cambodia, Lao PDR and VietNam). The objectives of this review were to:
1. Assess the quality and relevance of existing statistics on inland capture fisheriesThis review takes a broader perspective of the problem and goes beyond simplistic reviews of shortcomings in statistical approaches. The opportunity has been taken to highlight the flaws in the current information system and point to the significant opportunities that exist to re-evaluate the information requirements and look at novel approaches to how to meet them. Some country-specific observations and recommendations are reported in Part II. Even for these, time has not permitted a thorough analysis of each situation, nor in-depth recommendations. Each country needs to follow-up on this report in much more detail locally. What has been learnt, however, is that the countries do have common problems for which there are common solutions. This is the focus of the first part of this report.
2. Assess the extent that the statistics meet management objectives
3. Suggest cost effective ways in which the existing statistics might be improved
4. Explore the information needs for inland capture fisheries
5. Recommend strategies for obtaining the required information
Throughout this review conclusions have been made based upon two important factors, these are:
A desk-top review of inland fishery statistics was undertaken by FAO (2000b) which included several generic recommendations, most of which are endorsed here. The current report extends that review by exploring the problems and opportunities in more detail based upon the mission to selected countries. It presents a more detailed analysis of the data currently being produced, its actual origins, potential accuracy and relevance. Particular attention has been given to information needs for inland fisheries and the practicalities of addressing those needs in the countries in question.
“Statistics” generally refers to the recurrent (repeated) collection of data for specific information purposes. This is normally done through specialised agencies, e.g. departments of statistics, which may or may not operate through, or delegate collection duties to, sub-divisions of relevant line agencies (e.g. departments of fisheries). These agencies report the summarised information to national authorities and to FAO usually on an annual basis.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary statistics means:
“ 1) the science of collecting and analysing numerical data, especially in or for large quantities, and usually inferring proportions in a whole from proportions in a representative sample; 2) any systematic collection or presentation of such facts”The same dictionary defines data as:
“known facts or things used as a basis for inference or reckoning”FAO (1999a) defines the term data in relation to capture fisheries as:
“facts that result from measurements or observations”The first conclusion of this review is that, in general, the published figures for inland capture fisheries in Southeast Asia do not qualify as “statistics” because most are not based upon data. Even for the exceptions, qualification of the information as “statistics” is debatable as none of the information is based upon measurement or observation. This in itself is not necessarily a problem, but the difficulty lies with the fact that the information is reported as real data, which are subsequently treated as such.
This review considers the subject in question more broadly, preferring the term “information”, which includes but is not limited to “statistics” or “data”. According to the dictionary: information means “knowledge”. This implies that the subject matter has a certain degree of utility. This is not necessarily so for statistics or data, which can take on almost abstract features and their collection become an end in itself; as witnessed admirably by inland capture fishery statistics.
In view of this background, two recent initiatives have significant relevance to the current review:
(i) FAO (1999a) provide guidelines for the routine collection of capture fishery data. At first sight this publication would appear to have significant relevance to the subject of this review. But since few of the statistics for inland capture fisheries reported for Southeast Asia are based upon actual data, the publication is of limited use. It does, however, remain the definitive work for guidance for those who are thinking about obtaining some data in the near future. All of those interested in the specifics of data collection, sampling strategies and protocols, statistical approaches etc. are referred to this work.
(ii) The “STREAM” initiative (STREAM, 2001) provides support to regional aquatic resources management in the Asia-Pacific region. The objective is to promote participation, communication, and policies that support the livelihoods of poor aquatic resource users in the Asia-Pacific. A cornerstone of the initiative is improved information generation, communication and sharing between countries. The subject of this review is, of course, highly relevant to STREAM. Although STREAM focuses on sharing information relevant to improved management, and not directly to that relating to fishery valuation/assessment/monitoring, these two aspects of information are, of course, closely related. For STREAM to function effectively, it is, for example, essential to have knowledge of the realities of the relative importance of various sub-sectors in the aquatic resources arena (e.g. capture versus culture). STREAM, for example, is itself influenced by an over-reliance in its formulation upon existing national statistics for inland capture fisheries, which might potentially lead to a bias towards aquaculture.[1] But more importantly, improved information on the aquatic resources sector is essential if governments and other stake-holders are to support STREAM to the extent warranted by the actual importance of the sector, as opposed to that indicated by the current statistics.
3.1. Reservoirs and lakes
3.2. Rivers
3.3. Floodplains
3.4. Estuaries and deltas
3.5. Rice-fields
3.6. Categories of fishing activities
Inland capture fisheries are characterised by an extremely diverse range of gears, environments in which they are used and socially and culturally complex societies within which they operate. They include all features of marine fisheries and many that the latter sub-sector does not possess which makes them much more complex. Some generalised differences between inland capture fisheries and marine fisheries, in relation to statistics, are summarised below:
|
Inland Fisheries |
Marine Fisheries |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The habitats in which fishing occurs can be numerous and have very different characteristics. In most, if not all, countries in Southeast Asia, almost all areas of inland waters, which are not polluted beyond the ability to sustain fish, have vibrant and active capture fisheries associated with them. They can be very roughly divided into categories, each of which has particular relevance to the subject of statistics:
These can be of significant importance nationally. Fisheries on larger reservoirs and lakes are relatively visible, often with well-organised landing sites. Access is from the shore. The use of boats (motorised or not) is common. Problems facing data collection are similar to smaller-scale marine fisheries. The fish stocks, in terms of natural variations, tend to be more stable both within and between years. Problems with reservoir fisheries management, in general, centre on managing over-exploitation. Management actions tend to generally include stocking. Small reservoirs and water bodies can be a significant resource and cumulatively more important than larger reservoirs. Deeper lakes with higher gradient banks present similar features to reservoirs. Lakes that are part of river floodplains (e.g. the Great Lake in Cambodia) tend to take on features of river floodplains (see below).
Rivers (i.e. flowing freshwaters, including streams) form networks covering nearly all inland areas, except extreme deserts. Traditionally, human settlements are located near rivers. Rivers, consequently, are traditionally heavily fished. Access tends to be from the shore. Use of boats is more limited on smaller tributaries and hill streams. On rivers with extensive floodplains, resource availability in river channels is highly seasonal as fish migrate through channels in response to flood conditions on the plains. There can also be large variations in resources between years due to between year variations in flood extent (rainfall). Rivers are generally suffering from severe environmental degradation arising from other sectors. Riverine fisheries are very diverse, generally informal and dispersed. They have been traditionally extremely difficult to get representative statistics for.
River and lake floodplains are very productive and their fisheries highly seasonal. Peak catches are taken as flood waters recede and migrating fishes are caught in appropriate gears (especially barrage fences with traps). Most people tend to be already living on floodplains themselves and do not “access” the fishery (i.e. travel to it) because it comes to them. The seasonal cycles, and fish migrations they stimulate, can produce significant opportunities for migratory fishers. In Southeast Asia, a mix of farming/fishing lifestyles predominates on river floodplains. Floodplains are very productive for agriculture too and represent the best land. They support some of Southeast Asia’s highest concentrations of human populations. Floodplains and adjacent river fisheries are intimately linked. Key fishing grounds or opportunities tend to be leased, either officially or through community-based management systems. Floodplain fisheries are very diverse covering the full spectrum of gears. They are very resilient to over-exploitation. Main threats are habitat loss and environmental degradation (particularly loss of floodplain area through flood control and water extraction from rivers). Floodplain fisheries are very difficult to get statistics for: the larger gears produce valuable catches, information for which is jealously guarded, corruption over licensing is common; smaller-scale operators, particularly part-time, are difficult to see and monitor. Catches from all gears are highly seasonal. The bulk of catches can often be taken within very limited periods. Such variation is difficult to monitor.
These areas can be extensive and their fisheries often have a mixture of river and floodplain characteristics, depending upon the hydrological conditions. In addition to freshwater riverine species, large migrations of brackishwater/estuarine species can occur, including for marine prawns. Environments vary from freshwater to full seawater according to flood and tidal conditions. Estuaries receive large nutrient inputs from floodwaters. Their fisheries are naturally highly productive. Estuarine fisheries can be hugely important. One problem with statistics is that many coastal/marine fishers are based in estuaries and deltas and land their catch there. Separating coastal/marine production from inland catches can be problematic. Some countries report their catches based upon classifications of salinity (freshwater vs. marine), some based upon geography (inland v. coastal). Much of the catch from inland areas near the coast (estuaries/deltas) is reported as coastal or marine fisheries production. Again, this significantly under-values inland fisheries. Estuaries in Southeast Asia tend to have severe environmental problems due to pollution and water management activities arising both upstream and locally, particularly through deforestation and the conversion of wetlands.
Rice is the main staple crop throughout most of Southeast Asia. Traditionally “wet” rice is grown, particularly in lowlands through paddy farming. The local aquatic fauna naturally tends to treat rice fields as floodplain and colonise fields during the aquatic phase of rice farming. This can result in significant quantities of aquatic animals (not only fish, but also a wide variety of crustaceans, molluscs, reptile, amphibians and insects) being taken regularly from rice-fields throughout the growing season or when they are drained. Most rice farmers have traditional systems for enhancing aquatic animal production mainly centring on enhancing recruitment and controlling predation. Traditionally, external feeds are not used. Intensification of systems has included stocking with fish and supplemental feeding. Separating production between capture and culture can be very problematic. Rice intensification has led to sub-optimal water management regimes and increased pesticide use, which has resulted in significant losses of this secondary crop of aquatic animals. Capture fisheries production from rice fields can be very significant but is rarely accurately reported, if at all.
(1) Commercial/industrial fisheries - where activities produce significant commercial quantities of fish at localised sites, usually involving high capital input gears and often using significant inputs of professional labour. Some impressive commercial/industrial river fisheries occur in Southeast Asia. Examples of gears used include river bagnets and large barrage fences. Such fisheries are usually found where resource availability and access to markets justify significant capital investment (financial, manpower and/or in the construction of gears) and where access can be controlled. Key fishing sites or opportunities are often allocated through well developed licensing and auction systems. Many of these systems were in place in historical times.
(2) Middle-scale fisheries - here catches per operating unit are smaller and gears are normally operated at the individual or family level. Examples are: trawlers, beach seines, long-lines.
(3) Small-scale fisheries - a very diverse and diffuse sub-sector whereby individual catches generally are not high and activities tend to be rather informal. Part-time fishing dominates. Participation in this sector can be very high. Catches per unit can be small but cumulative catches are significant and can surpass those from commercial and middle-scale fisheries combined.
Activities associated with inland capture fisheries such as: processing, marketing and transportation can be significant. In particular, the seasonal nature of floodplain fisheries can result in huge local surpluses, which enter significant processing routes particularly in Southeast Asia for fish paste and fish sauce. This produce helps spread the benefits of the fishery throughout the year and is very important for local and regional food security.
There are three main motivations, or objectives, for fishery-related activities:
(1) Commercial/profit. This is a primary motivation for many fishers, including at the small-scale level. This group is not limited to the commercial/industrial sector since the scale of profits generated is not relevant.Throughout this review, the term “subsistence fisheries” (where the catch supports the family diet directly) will be avoided for several reasons. This is because true subsistence fishers are in fact quite rare, fishers in poorer communities will still tend to sell their catch if they have access to suitable markets. The definition “subsistence fisher” is more often concerned with lack of opportunity to derive income rather than a deliberate livelihood strategy; this term also under-values the importance of fishing activities. Even where fish is not sold but consumed locally, it has an economic/commercial value because it contributes to family, local or regional welfare and food-security, thereby enabling other more obvious financially oriented activities (such as commercial fishing, aquaculture) to take place. “Subsistence” fisheries are included here under small-scale fisheries.(2) Food and subsistence. Where the produce is consumed directly by the fisher or the immediate family or household.
(3) Sport and recreation. Where the fishers do not depend directly on the fishery for employment (although others may be employed servicing sport fishers), and fishing is undertaken for leisure purposes. The fish may be returned to the fishery, used as a trophy or eaten or sold but neither of the latter are the main motivation for capture.
A detailed study of sport/recreational fisheries is beyond the scope of this review. They are, however, important for several reasons. They can have an extremely high economic value, which is not always obviously related to total catches and landings. The requirements for information and statistics are considerably different, not least because total landings are irrelevant, since much of the catch is returned live to the fishery after being caught. Sport/recreational fisheries tend to develop as countries become more affluent, a process which provides both financial resources to invest beyond basic needs and a higher priority on leisure time. Sport/recreational fishers can be extremely influential as they may represent more affluent sections of society who have leisure time and the sector tends to become very well organised and politically and economically powerful. This presents both management opportunities and challenges. Inland sport fisheries are not limited to the rich industrialised countries of the west. Southeast Asia already has well-developed inland sport fisheries and the sub-sector is developing rapidly, particularly in Malaysia and Thailand (amongst the countries covered by this review). The sub-sector is also very relevant because elsewhere, where they have developed further, they present some of the best examples of effective co-management approaches in fisheries. The fishers are usually well organised. They also, in general have little motivation to withhold information about catches (possibly being the only group to tend to actually exaggerate catches!). Sport fishers also can be one of the most active and influential groups promoting improved environmental management, restoration and rehabilitation. In the mission’s experience, several countries in Southeast Asia (see Part II) are under-estimating the value and potential of their inland sport fisheries. This is largely because they have no statistics on them. There is a need for separate and more detailed advice to relevant FAO member countries regarding information and statistics issues relevant to sport/recreational fisheries. For the present purposes it is sufficient to note: (i) that information systems can, and should, be funded through revenue generated from the fisheries themselves (user pays); countries with developing sport fisheries need not re-direct funds away from pro-poor fisheries management and development; and, (ii) co-management approaches to information generation and management are not only logical, as elsewhere, but are likely to be much more easily implemented (sport fishers are better educated, better resourced, and better organised).
4.1. Methods of statistics collection and reporting
4.2. The statistics produced
4.3. Sources of error in the official statistics
4.4. Other constraints with the existing statistics
4.5. Relationships between the methods used and the accuracy of the statistics
4.6. The purpose of inland capture fishery statistics in Southeast Asia
4.7. Historical influences upon the current statistical systems
4.8. Shifts in policy emphasis by countries, donors and international agencies
4.9. Opportunities for shifts in information support at FAO
4.10. “Sustainable Livelihoods” approaches
4.11. Co-management and information generation
4.12. Recommended strategies
The countries for which inland capture fishery statistics are reviewed have a wide range of population characteristics, economies and natural resources (Table 1.1). Not surprisingly, their inland fisheries differ according to level of economic development and freshwater resource availability. They all have significant inland capture fisheries, particularly in areas where poor rural communities live in proximity to significant freshwater resources.
Table 1.1 Some population, land, economic and resource data for the countries reviewed.
|
Country |
Population |
Land area (km2) |
GDP per |
Major freshwater resources* |
|
Cambodia |
10 000 000 |
181 035 |
309 |
Mekong River Floodplains, Tonle Sap and the Great
Lake |
|
Indonesia |
206 338 000 |
1 900 000 |
1 018 |
Reservoirs. Large river systems particularly on the islands of
Kalimantan (Kapuas and Mahakam Rivers), Sumatra, Sulawesi and Irian Jaya.
Widespread estuaries, deltas and mangrove systems. |
|
Lao PDR |
5 032 000 |
236 725 |
362 |
Large rivers. Mekong mainstream and large
tributaries. |
|
Malaysia |
21 830 000 |
329 758 |
4 523 |
More limited on peninsular Malaysia. Substantial rivers in
Sabah and Sarawak provinces (Borneo). Inland fisheries differ significantly
between these two areas. |
|
Myanmar |
50 000 000 |
676 577 |
220 |
Very large river and floodplain systems, particularly the
Ayeyarwaddy (Irrawaddy) River and a number of others. Resource area rivals that
of the entire lower Mekong Basin. |
|
Philippines |
73 130 000 |
304 212 |
890 |
Limited to several lakes, most rivers severely polluted, major
islands Luzon and Mindanao, large number of reservoirs |
|
Thailand |
60 300 000 |
514 000 |
1 906 |
Reservoirs. Large rivers, Mekong River Tributaries, Chao
Phraya River basin. Extensive estuaries and deltas. |
|
VietNam |
75 181 000 |
329 560 |
267 |
Reservoirs, Red River and its Delta in the north, Mekong River
Delta, estuaries/deltas |
*all countries have extensive smaller river networks, rice farming and variable numbers of larger reservoirs and smaller dams
The methods that the reviewed countries use to collect or compile their national statistics for inland capture fisheries are summarised in Table 1.2. A wide variety of methods are used to estimate inland capture fisheries production ranging from estimates made in offices (verging on guesses), through basic or elaborate sampling based surveys to attempts to obtain full cover of the entire fishery based upon (officially) compulsory licensing of all gears. There is also either suspected, officially admitted or known (confirmed) differences between the official systems in place and the actual practices. Of the countries covered in this report, there are only two for which there is a degree of certainty (i.e. recognized by government) regarding the level of accuracy of the system that is actually used in practice: Lao PDR, where there is no sampling system and reports are entirely based upon estimates derived in the office, and Cambodia, where discrepancies between figures generated through the official system, and more accurate figures that have been established through significant independent research spanning the last six years.
None of the countries estimate the statistics based upon direct observations, report verification, catch or landings sampling or any other form of independent monitoring. This includes Cambodia where recently the statistics have been revised (i.e. corrected) based upon new information produced by research, not through an improved statistical system. The degree of estimation inherent in most of these systems ranges from responsible attempts to estimate actual catches through to arbitrary guesses. Most are genuine attempts by over-worked and under-resourced staff to actually reflect the situation with the fisheries. However, it must be said that underlying some of the estimates at field level is a general disinterest in accuracy and, on occasion and as openly reported by the relevant authorities themselves, mis-reporting.
Table 1.2 Summary of inland capture fishery statistics estimation systems in the countries reviewed. See Part II for further details for each country.
|
Country |
Official basis of information collection |
Description according to categories described by FAO
(1999a) |
Likely actual basis |
Comments |
|
Cambodia |
Fishery split into large-scale, medium scale and family fishing. Licenses for large scale and medium scale required. Statistics based upon catch reports from licensed fisheries. Figures produced monthly. Monthly meetings held to “discuss” the statistics. Small-scale family fishery statistics based upon guesses or
not included at all. |
Registration based on gears. Reporting and open-ended
interviews. |
Under-reporting by licence holders and by local government
staff (reported and confirmed by research). Most statistics based also upon
estimates made in field offices and not upon actual collection of
information. |
System based upon licensing regulation and revenue generation as the priority. Statistics were revised in 1999 based upon the results of
research. But the statistical system itself, or the information collected, has
yet to be significantly changed. |
|
Indonesia |
Extensive structured sampling approach applied nationally.
Sampling forms record vessel and gear inventories for each district - revised
annually. Sampling based upon an older frame survey. Households sampled at
random in selected villages. Catch estimates based upon gear records and
reported or estimated catches per unit of effort and reported number of trips.
Catches are reported quarterly (3 months) but the actual survey is done only
once per year. |
Registration based upon vessels and gears (includes households
with no vessel). Sampling based upon reporting. |
Authorities report serious manpower problems and it is believed that many districts estimate catches without doing actual sampling. Sampling frame also likely focuses on commercial/licensed
gears. |
Sampling methodology recently revised based upon experiences from aquaculture surveys. The sampling frame used is based upon an agricultural survey
in 1973. Information collected is complex and time-consuming to
collect. |
|
Lao PDR |
Estimates made in offices. No data or information collection.
Once per annum. Estimates based upon a standard figure for river fisheries,
yields per unit area for reservoirs and rice-fields. |
Not applicable. |
As stated. |
Estimations not based upon survey data or research relevant to
Lao PDR. They are basically guesses. |
|
Malaysia |
District officers estimate production based upon “visual
market surveys, enquiries and observation”. Monthly. No formal reporting or
sampling. Estimates are made by production system: river, ex-mining pools (of
which there are numerous), embankments/reservoirs/dams, and others. |
Not applicable. |
As stated. |
Estimates are not made for the provinces, Sabah and Sarawak,
with by far the biggest inland capture fisheries. Estimates reported to FAO
recently apply only to Peninsular Malaysia. |
|
Myanmar |
Fisheries divided into “lease fisheries” (where rights are auctioned) and “open fisheries” which includes all gears set outside lease areas. All fishing gears officially require a license. Production estimates derived from compulsory reporting from
license holders. Reporting of catches done about every two weeks but monthly
estimates compiled. |
Registration (officially of all gears). Compulsory reporting
of catches. |
Cover for registration purposes for commercial gears probably
quite comprehensive. Licensing authorities concentrate on commercial fishers.
Coverage for small-scale, family/subsistence fishing, likely much less
comprehensive. |
The extent of under reporting and misreporting of catches is not known but the fishery has licensing and management characteristics similar to that in Cambodia where under-reporting is widespread. Reports do not include production from reservoirs. Rice field
fishing does not require a license and therefore production is not reported and
is not included in estimates. |
|
Philippines |
Stratified random sampling of official landings centres. Supplemented by random sampling of households stratified by location by water body types. Non-probability surveys of key informants wherever and
whenever proper sampling cannot be undertaken. |
Sampling reports: of landings and of fishers. |
The surveys of households are likely non-random due to
problems with the underlying frame. In recent years no comprehensive surveys
have been done and estimates are based upon opinions of key
informants. |
Surveys (when conducted) are based upon pre-determined concept
of “fishing households” established in a frame survey undertaken in
1992 and now likely out-of-date. The survey likely targets households recognised
as “fishing households”, the basis of which is unknown. This system
seriously under-reports part-time/informal fishing. Projection-based reporting
by government officials is common, particularly for aquaculture. Under-reporting
by fishers widespread because of taxation fears. |
|
Thailand |
Stratified sampling based upon water body size. Interviews conducted with key informants. Yearly recall. Surveys done annually. Production estimates extrapolated by production area for larger water bodies. For some larger reservoirs landings reports are collected with a standard correction for subsistence/home consumption. Some figures produced for other areas are based upon catch estimates for licensed gears, particularly pond traps. No sampling of catches or landings undertaken. |
A mix of registration (license records), open-ended interviews
and estimates based upon sampling reports. |
As stated, but quality of reports varies between provinces and
districts. Some reports are based upon estimates made without
sampling. |
The Thai figures apply mainly to reservoirs and small water bodies (village ponds). There is no structured sampling or estimation for river and swamp fisheries. Production from estuaries and mangrove areas reported as coastal. “Inland” refers exclusively to freshwater catches. Production from rice fields reported exclusively as
aquaculture irrespective of production system. |
|
VietNam |
Very uncertain and varies between provinces. Where information is known to be collected it is officially
based upon reported landings for the commercial licensed gears and a vague
estimate for the other parts of the fishery. Where sampling occurs it is based
upon reported catches from fishers and occurs once per year. |
Not applicable. Estimates or incomplete reporting. |
Where information is produced it is likely often based upon
estimates by district and/or provincial officials. Such estimates favour the
commercial parts of the fishery and licensed gears. |
Some provinces actually collect information/reports; others likely do not or produce their own estimates without sampling. There is a problem of reporting between provinces and central
government, at least as reflected by the figures provided to FAO. National
statistics appear not to include all official provincial reports, or they are
not received. |
The actual published national figures for the reviewed countries are presented in Fig. 1-01, and the current section will focus on common problems, sources of error and areas requiring improvements. Part II of this report presents and discusses the information produced in much more detail for each country.
In view of the analysis of the methods used by each country to produce these statistics, the information in Fig. 1-01 should in general be regarded very sceptically. The statistics do not necessarily represent reality. Nevertheless, they do show some interesting features. First, there is no apparent trend of declining production for any country (except possibly for the Philippines, less so for VietNam). This is somewhat at odds with the widely held view that inland capture fisheries are declining and illustrates that perceptions of the fisheries are held independently of the statistical information. There are two explanations of this: (i) perceptions are wrong and the fisheries in general are not in decline, or (ii) perceptions are not based upon statistics, which begs an obvious question as to their function. The most relevant point for the present purposes is that for most countries the statistics produced do not enable any confidence in the analysis of trends.
The increase in reported production for Cambodia in 1999 is due to re-estimations based upon scientific surveys. However, two countries report significant increases in actual production. That for Thailand is stated to be due to the impacts of stocking in reservoirs; and the Thai statistics apply mainly to reservoirs. Myanmar reports significant increases in production from river and floodplain fisheries over the past 4-5 years. It was achieved without any significant physical inputs (e.g. fish feed) and is based purely upon improved aquatic resources management (environmental restoration and rehabilitation, restocking floodplains and improved governance). Of all of the countries reviewed, Myanmar has the most extensive and comprehensive inland capture fishery statistical system and there is more confidence than in most countries that the reports may be representative (but likely still underestimates). This is a most interesting case, which demonstrates the great benefits on offer through applying management effort to riverine fisheries. The reported increased catches are 45 percent and 65 percent per annum from leased (large fenced areas of floodplain) and open fisheries respectively; and this is from a fishery of already significant proportions. This example eclipses any known benefits arising from investments in aquaculture (when starting from similar production levels) and emasculates the widely held view that river fisheries cannot be improved and therefore do not warrant investment.
However, the general degree of confidence in these statistics, based upon methodologies applied to generate them, varies considerably. Assessing their accuracy is of course difficult, because better statistics are normally not available for comparison. But a number of approaches can be taken to try to verify the figures. The mission stresses that such verification should be done in more detail, and by the competent authorities in question. Statistics should not be revised externally. The current analysis is used to provide a general overview of the possible extent of mis - and under-reporting.
Riverine fisheries in the tropics, for example, are known to be highly seasonal. Statistics for inland capture fisheries for areas dominated by rivers should, if representative, reflect such seasonality. The mission has been able to obtain catch statistics dis-aggregated by month or by quarter in only a few cases (see Part II). Catches from river/floodplain fisheries are supposed to show within-year variations as illustrated in Fig. 1-02. Unfortunately, monthly (or quarterly) reports for areas dominated by riverine fisheries in Indonesia and Malaysia show no such seasonality and question, if not discount, the validity of the underlying data (see Part II).
It is known that in many countries the statistical methods exclude or seriously under-estimate some parts of the fishery. Estimates for such sub-sectors can be applied based upon experiences from scientifically based surveys from elsewhere (preferably within the same country, or for equivalent types of fishery in broadly equivalent areas). It is also known that statistics based upon reporting can be unreliable and potential corrections can be applied using known variations between actual and reported catches. This applies particularly to the more prominent licensed and leased fisheries where large taxes are levied or revenues extracted. Such approaches have been applied superficially in Part II. A summary of the findings is presented in Table 1.3.
For all of the countries reviewed, the analysis shows that production from inland capture fisheries is clearly seriously under-reported. In many cases, reported production has been checked by making comparisons with independent survey data available for the same countries. For those countries, or areas, where survey data are not available there is no reason to assume that the statistics reported are any more accurate. The discrepancy between officially reported catches (where available) and estimates based upon independent scientifically based surveys (i.e. collecting actual data for the same areas) varies by a factor of between 4.2 and 21.4. Overall, for all the countries combined, total reported catches from inland waters appears to be under-estimated by a factor of at least between 2.5 and 3.6 (Table 1.3). Based upon actual survey data the latter figure could still be an underestimate of the discrepancy. This margin of error agrees with the minimum thought to be applicable to reported catches from inland waters worldwide (FAO, 2000a).
Total reported freshwater aquaculture production in the same Southeast Asian countries for 1999 was 1 268 968 MT. This figure is already surpassed by only the reported freshwater capture fisheries production (1 303 247 MT). Actual production from inland capture fisheries, amongst the countries in question, likely exceeds reported aquaculture production by a factor of between 2.5 and 3.6 (Table 1.3). This is also after the supposed “decline” and “degradation” of inland capture fisheries. If the decline is real, one is left wondering what production was like before. The most interesting question that these figures raise is why most countries (Myanmar and Cambodia to a lesser extent) continue to disinvest in inland capture fisheries, some favouring aquaculture almost exclusively. A common answer, apart from the perceived decline, is that it is assumed that production from inland capture fisheries cannot be increased. This is not the case, as clearly demonstrated by Myanmar in this review. And even if true, is not a fishery of these proportions worth effort in sustaining it?
Naturally, many will find the figures in Table 1.3 difficult to accept. They are, however, based upon available information; amongst which the mission has only been selective by favouring facts over fiction. All the calculations need to be repeated properly and methodically and not be done externally to appropriate government authorities. At the very least, Table 1.3 suggests that this is worth doing.
Table 1.3 Summary of comparisons between official statistics and estimated production for inland capture fisheries for selected countries in Southeast Asia (from Part II).
|
Country |
Officially reported annual catches (MT) |
Estimated indicative figures for actual catches
(MT) |
Factor increase from reported to estimated
production |
Sources of likely error in the official
statistics |
Basis of the indicative figures |
|
Cambodia: |
|||||
|
(a) Average 1990-1998 |
69 537 |
290 000 - 430 000 |
4.2 - 6.2 |
Mis-reporting for commercial catches. Mis-reporting by
government staff. Under-estimates of small-scale family and rice field
fisheries. |
Comprehensive scientifically based research and sampling
spanning more than 6 years. Historical scientifically based records. Indicative
figures based upon internal estimates made by Fisheries Departments
themselves. |
|
(b) 1999 |
230 700 |
290 000 - 430 000 |
1.25 - 1.86 |
Under-estimates of small-scale production and continued
disputes over methodologies for statistics interpretation. |
As above. |
|
Lao PDR |
|||||
|
(a) National figure (1999) |
25 521 |
150 000-200 000 |
5.9 - 7.8 |
Invalid estimates. |
Based upon extrapolations from fisheries survey data from
various sources and upon a thorough national census of fish
consumption. |
|
(b) Luang Prabang province only (1999) |
700 |
10 000-15 000 |
14.3 - 21.4 |
Official figures are for the licensed commercial fishery only.
Excludes extensive small scale and rice field fisheries. |
Sjørslev (2000). |
|
Indonesia |
|||||
|
(a) Total national (1999) |
294 110 |
800 000-900 000 |
2.7 - 3.06 |
Invalid estimates. |
Sarnita and Djajadiredja (1968). Indonesia has a very varied
inland fishery dispersed over many different islands, some very large. Difficult
to estimate production in detail. The indicative figures are based upon resource
areas and modest estimates of yield per unit area. |
|
(b) Irian Jaya only (1999) |
2 582 |
6000 |
2.3 |
|
Comparison with known production from survey data for Papua
New Guinea corrected for population differences. |
|
Malaysia |
|||||
|
(a) Total national (1999) - peninsula Malaysia only |
3 336 |
10 008 |
3.0 |
Based upon DOF’s own estimate of
under-reporting. |
Statistics for Malaysia exclude the main inland fishery
provinces of Sabah and Sarawak. |
|
(b) Sabah and Sarawak |
0 |
50 000 - 100 000 |
*** |
Rough estimate based upon conservative catches per caput
catches from similar areas elsewhere in Southeast Asia. |
|
|
Myanmar |
|||||
|
Total (2000-2001) |
235 376 |
600 000 - 900 000 |
2.5 - 3.8 |
Incomplete coverage of fishery. Underestimates (reports) of
catches No ricefields/reservoirs included. |
Comparisons with known under-reporting for very similar fisheries in Cambodia, estimates based upon resource areas, plus allowances for rice fields and reservoirs. Official figures exclude reservoirs and rice fields. Myanmar
has the population and resources to justify the upper estimate based upon data
for similar areas with comparable fisheries in Southeast Asia. |
|
Philippines |
|||||
|
Total (1999) |
143 857 |
*** |
*** |
Inappropriate or out-dated frame survey upon which sampling is
based. Likely under-estimation of small-scale informal catches. Under-reporting
by licensed fishers. |
Only limited time was available to review the Philippine
statistics and attempts at re-estimating the figures were not made. |
|
Thailand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) National total (1999) - primarily reservoirs |
226 510 |
122 314 to 318 909 (reservoirs only) |
0.54 - 1.4 |
Virapat et al. (2000). |
The Thai figures apply mainly to reservoirs which are
confirmed by reference to estimates made by Virapat et al. (2000).
|
|
(b) National total - all inland areas |
---- |
350 000 - 800 000 |
- |
Inadequate coverage of fisheries beyond reservoirs. Catch estimates only from licensed fishers (the
minority). |
Available but localised survey data for Thailand and comparisons with similar areas. These figures include the full range of estimated production
for reservoirs and between 200 000 - 500 000 MT for fisheries outside reservoirs
including capture production from rice-fields and brackish-water inland
fisheries (currently reported as coastal production). |
|
VietNam |
|||||
|
(a) Total (1999) |
75 000* |
600 000 - 800 000 |
8.0 - 10.6 |
Lack of reporting from Provinces to central register. Inadequate cover of the fishery Invalid estimates based on licensed gears with
under-reporting. |
Rough estimates based upon survey data, resource areas and
populations. *There is likely reporting error in the figure for national
production (as reported to FAO) since the official figure for a single province
is 64 000 MT. |
|
(b) An Giang province only (1999) |
64 000 |
273 118 |
4.2 |
|
Based upon survey data (Sjørslev, 2001). Official figures refer mainly to licensed gears. Using survey
data to calculate production using the official statistical method gave a result
within 4percent of the official figure. The official figure therefore was
concluded to be accurate but did not adequately cover the whole
fishery. |
|
TOTALS |
1 159 390 |
2 850 008 - 4 140 008 |
2.5 - 3.6 |
|
|
|
(using national production figures only; 1990-1998 average for
Cambodia; excluding Philippines) |
|||||
4.3.1. Errors in catch reporting
4.3.2. Under-estimates of the importance of small-scale fishing activities
4.3.3. Mis-reporting by government officials
4.3.4. Estimates made without collecting data
Potential sources of sampling error when routinely collecting data for capture fisheries are covered in detail in FAO (1999a). This includes much more attention to statistical errors and adequate sampling approaches. The following summary refers to general problems with inland capture fishery statistics in the countries in question.
Although problems and their significance vary between countries (see Part II), the following general errors are inherent in the current inland capture fishery statistics.
Obviously, catches reported by fishers depend on two major factors:
(a) The ability to recall what actual catches were. Most methods of collecting statistics require at the best monthly recall of catches, many require yearly recall. Scientific surveys have shown that the ability to accurately recall (remember) what catches were drops off significantly beyond only 48 hours. Most inland fishers do not record their catches, but many do and this group falls generally under the problem area below. Recall is particularly a problem where household heads are asked about total household catches. They tend to report only their own catches and are unaware of catches made by other household members, particularly women and children.These problems can be significant. For example, even with the relatively well monitored commercial, industrial and middle-scale sections of inland capture fisheries in Cambodia, by the Fisheries Department’s own estimates, catches are under-reported by a factor of at least 3.0.(b) The willingness to report. In most countries, fishers are subject to licensing and other regulations enforced by the same personnel that collect catch information. Quite logically, they see links between catch reports and taxation or other costs to them. Not surprisingly this does not encourage accurate reporting. [Although this is a potential problem with marine fisheries also, in that sub-sector reports can be reconciled against landings, processing/marketing, export records and expectations based upon catch/effort, e.g. vessel size].
This is particularly a problem in inland fisheries. The high levels of participation in small-scale activities may produce small catches per caput but cumulative catches can, and usually do, exceed those from the more professional, full-time, fishers. This is a serious problem because most, if not all, countries that produce statistics based upon some consideration of fishing effort and reported catches derive these on the basis of records of professional fishers. The few examples which reportedly include small-scale activities, seriously under-estimate their extent. Table 1.4 provides some examples from amongst the countries in question that illustrate the potential sources of error by under-estimating, or not including, the small-scale sector.
Table 1.4 Some examples of the importance of small-scale fisheries to inland capture fisheries production in Southeast Asia. (Further details are included in Part II)
|
Country/region |
Percentage |
Proportion |
Notes |
References |
|
Cambodia, Tonle Sap |
64% |
62% |
|
Ahmed et al. (1998) Van Zalinge and Tana (1996).
|
|
Lao PDR Luang Prabang province |
83% |
<95% |
|
Sjørslev (2000). |
|
VietNam Floodplains, An Giang province. |
63% |
<85% |
”Part-time” fishers catch more than twice as much as
“professional” fishing category. Fishery cannot be adequately
described or monitored using “professional” fishers as the main
representative group. |
Sjørslev (2001). |
|
N.E. Thailand |
60 - 93% |
<90% |
Only 5.5 percent of fishing households are headed by a
professional fisher but this category is used as the sole basis of sampling for
statistical surveys. |
Suntornratana (2001); Department of Fisheries,
unpublished. |
There are examples of mis-reporting by local government officials for inland capture fisheries in Southeast Asia. Some fisheries produce very lucrative licensing or other forms of revenue; the most valuable ones generally associated with auction or tender systems. Corruption encourages officials to down-grade the catch reports they submit, to be more in-line with reported revenue, which is less than that paid by fishers. This is recorded in the literature for fishing lots in Cambodia and probably occurs elsewhere. This has a knock-on effect on national statistics, because many countries will also estimate small-scale production as a proportion of reported production from licensed gears.
Obviously, estimates made without collecting data or information are subject to significant potential sources of error. Some countries openly report that their estimates are made in this fashion. But for others, at field level, such estimates often substitute for those that are officially supposed to be based upon sampling (Table 1.2, and Part II). Some people are actually quite good at producing reasonable estimates but they require much local knowledge, experience and motivation. Invariably, they favour the more visible and “commercial”/professional parts of the fishery. But more often than not, such estimates are produced in an arbitrary way by people whose main interest lies elsewhere; often with aquaculture. Such methods are also more vulnerable to subjective assessments of trends. Nevertheless, there is considerable scope for improving this method through better quantified approaches, appropriate training and increasing transparency. The method does offer some significant advantages, low-cost being one.
4.4.1. Recording participation in capture fisheries
4.4.2. Species composition of catches
4.4.3. Monitoring fishing effort
4.4.4. Aquarium fish
4.4.5. Uncritical acceptance
Very few of the countries record participation in the capture fisheries sector to any significant degree in their statistics. Most do not record it at all. Some only report licensed fishers. None record participation in fishery-related activities of processing, marketing, transportation and gear construction etc.
In addition to some indicative figures for participation of households in fish capture as noted in Table 1.4 the following information illustrates the extent to which participation is an important element (summarised from Part II):
According to FAO (1999b), globally there are 28.5 million people fishing or involved in aquaculture. Of these 15 million are marine fishers, 9 million are fish farmers (freshwater and marine combined) and only 4.5 million are inland fishers. The latter number, however, is exceeded amongst the countries reviewed in this report. The figures above also suggest that at least for Southeast Asia the numbers of inland fishers may at least equal or exceed the number of marine fishers and certainly surpasses involvement in aquaculture by a significant margin. It is unlikely that the countries reviewed are unique in these respects, although the prominence of rice farming in Asia, which includes rice-field fisheries, significantly increases involvement in fishing. The FAO (1999b) report also suggests that globally 41 percent of fishers are full-time (i.e. those receiving at least 90 percent of their livelihood from fishing), 35 percent are part-time (deriving between 30-89 percent of their income from fishing) and only 6.5 million people (23 percent) are occasional fishers who derive only less than 30 percent of income from fishing. The latter figure is ludicrous in the extreme.
The problem with these FAO figures on fishers, of course, is that they are based upon a survey of reports from countries. The majority of these do not have figures for numbers of fishers, those that do usually cover full-time professional fishers (usually only for marine) and fish farmers. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the reports bias perspectives. This is yet another illustration of the danger of summarising the fisheries sector based upon incomplete, inaccurate and in many cases prejudiced reporting.
There will be controversy over the inclusion of occasional and part-time fishers in such statistics. A common argument is that most inland occasional fishers are not “real” fishers. This is an inappropriate view for two good reasons: First even if “occasional” fishers were a lower status category, the definitions used by the FAO report require that proper numbers should still be included (the figures reported ostensibly include any kind of fishing). Second, and more importantly, the relevance of fishing to a person’s livelihood is not directly or simply related to the total amount caught or whether fishing is the main “occupation”. Does the average catch of 280 MT per person per annum make professional fishers in Iceland a higher status category than the 50 kg per annum caught by a poor rural fisher in Southeast Asia, who may not have an income upon which to calculate the contribution of fish to, but without which the family would literally starve?
The importance of fisheries cannot be determined externally and certainly not by applying western formal economic criteria. The valuation of a fisheries and its importance should be defined by the stakeholders themselves and it is crucial that they be given the opportunity to do so. As a basic indication within the complex livelihoods of rural people, nothing is done without reason and we can assume that the level of participation in fishing is a clear indication of its importance.
FAO reports are influential (FAO, 1999b) and may have significant influence on policies. It is suggested that FAO seriously reconsider the potential impact of the inland fishery statistics it reproduces if the figures are known to be inaccurate. An effective first step in this process would be an explanation as to the possible sources of error in relation to inland capture fisheries, coupled to some indication of likely veracity.
Most countries report only very basic information on the species composition of catches from inland waters (Fig. 1-03); some countries have slightly better information on species composition at field levels. Where species composition is recorded it tends to include only those considered to be economically important, even then, many taxa tend to get grouped into species groups. Even the most comprehensive systems are generating only basic information and the quality of such information is widely regarded as suspect by most agencies. Some countries do not even have catch composition data enabling them to properly evaluate their own stocking programmes.
Without exception, none of the countries are compiling statistics that are in any way useful for obtaining information on trends in biodiversity; although some obtain such information independently of their statistical systems, usually via research. Monitoring vulnerable species for example is almost impossible using the current statistical system because such species are not common enough in catches to warrant inclusion as a distinct category (although in theory such could be done).
The Philippines was visited at the end of this mission and unfortunately could not be reviewed in as much detail as would have been liked. The country, however, reports some curious things. An example is the reported catch from inland waters (about 145 000 MT per annum recently), of which about 65 percent is accounted for by molluscs (which is not from culture). This includes a mix of brackishwater (inland) but also freshwater species. There is no reason to assume the country has the only mollusc fishery in Southeast Asia. What is intriguing is how, or if, this catch is reported elsewhere. It is common for fishery statistics to be biased towards fin-fish and it is possible that in many cases these mollusc fisheries are ignored. This is also a problem with rice-field fisheries where a significant proportion of the catch is non-fish, but often only fish are reported, if at all. The prominence of molluscs in the Philippine catches suggests that this subject deserves closer attention.
Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) data are useful for monitoring trends in the fishery, particularly for monitoring the state of stocks. A number of countries also base their statistical system on the foundation of calculating catches using CPUE. calculations (based on total numbers of gears and total numbers of fishing trips). However, with inland capture fisheries defining and monitoring fishing effort is extremely difficult. Certainly, effort cannot be defined simply in terms of the existence of gears in an area (which is what most countries currently record). The real effort applicable to any particular gear depends largely upon where, when and how it is used, which is not necessarily best enumerated by number of trips. These problems are no different to other fisheries but become more important in inland fisheries because of the predominance of smaller gears, which take the majority of the catch. Also, passive gears are common in inland fisheries and are particularly difficult to assess effort for. Gear use is also influenced largely by social factors external to the fishery. Changes in participation in the fishery can be significant and rapid. For many gears, effort also varies in response to environmental conditions (and the latter are not recorded). For example, effort for some of the larger industrial sized gears such as barrage fences and river bagnets depends on river flow rates (how rapidly floodwaters recede), which can vary significantly within and between years.
These difficulties result in two problems: First, attempts to calculate total catches for the whole fishery based upon CPUE data for gears is very problematic and likely requires a depth of knowledge of effort currently unavailable, and likely unattainable, for most fisheries as a whole. For small-scale activities a better unit of effort is the household (by ignoring for present purposes how fish are actually caught). But most countries do not record catches by household and those that do often fall into the trap of applying CPUE approaches for gears to household activities. Second, without adequate data on CPUE, statistics for total catches, even if accurate, are of limited use for tracking trends in the fishery stocks in any detail. This does not mean that CPUE data for individual gears are not valuable. They are, and should be collected where feasible and cost-effective. But such cannot be obtained for the whole fishery, not even for the bulk of it.
A number of countries have capture fisheries based upon the collection of ornamental species for sale in the aquarium trade. It is important in Indonesia and should not be under-estimated in Thailand (possibly Malaysia and Myanmar also). Few of the countries collect statistics on the activities. It is therefore difficult to establish the relative importance of this fishery, but the ornamental fish industry in Southeast Asia is huge. Capture of ornamental fishes can be locally quite significant and many activities tend to be concentrated in more remote areas where other sources of income are more limited. The fishery is also unusual in that as species become rarer they become much more valuable which can contribute to over-exploitation. This is a specialised area which might perhaps be subject to a regional review, including information and statistics requirements.
A serious underlying constraint with the current statistical systems in Southeast Asia is the uncritical acceptance of the information that is produced. There are numerous reasons why this happens including:
(i) Complacency; some authorities are little motivated to try to improve the interpretations of their statistics(ii) In some cases there are vested interests at stake in keeping the production figures low (especially where large revenues are involved with licensing, but also sometimes to justify investments in alternative sectors)
(iii) Reluctance to admit previous figures are wrong (this is especially a problem for districts and provinces reporting to higher authorities)
(iv) Incompatibility between statistical systems and data or information arising externally to them (government statistics are compiled in certain ways and it is often difficult to incorporate better information into them from other sources)
(v) There is a tendency to treat the information that is collected an actual statistics that are based upon data. When working with data there is less scope for interpretation than when acknowledging that a figure is an estimates or even a guess (‘ballpark figures’). The official statistics that are produced are often regarded rigidly; although for any data, the methods used to obtain them, including sampling aspects, leave more flexibility than is currently used for inland fishery statistics. Most, if not all, statistics on inland capture fisheries in Southeast Asia are not founded upon data, thus presenting them as data limits options for interpretations. Formal acknowledgement of the limitations of information collection would allow greater flexibility and ultimately more meaningful information. Hopefully, this report will be comforting to many countries as they learn that they are not alone in having unreliable statistics or problems with the methods of collecting them. Perhaps the greatest progress can be made by simply admitting this.
A major objective of the current review is to advise countries how they might improve upon their information and statistics for inland capture fisheries. With such a wide range of countries, methods used to compile the statistics and the growing knowledge on the accuracy of the information, it should be possible to draw some conclusions by comparing experiences between them.
The first conclusion is that countries cannot be ranked in order of those having the “best” statistics. The current statistics must be viewed not only in terms of potential accuracy but in terms of effort expended (cost) in obtaining them. For example, Lao PDR has statistics that differ from survey based estimates by a significant margin but spends practically no money generating them. Its system also has the considerable advantage that, in theory, figures can be modified relatively easily in the light of improved information availability from non-statistical sources. But most importantly, its figures are not that much less accurate than some countries that spend significant effort compiling them. Some countries with elaborate, formal and rigid statistical systems are in fact arguably worse off. Costs are high and they tend not to work. But because these systems are in place it can be difficult to produce better information in different ways, and more cheaply.
A graphic representation of conclusions on this subject drawn from the information presented in Part II is illuminating. Fig. 1-04 presents the relationship between the estimated inaccuracy of current statistics (based upon mean indicative figures for likely actual production from Table 1.3; a value of 1.0 being total accuracy) and rough indicator of effort expended on information collection (based on a scale of 1, the least, to 4, the highest; from details on statistical systems provided in Part II). It is of course difficult to draw firm conclusions from such a simplistic analysis but one major one is obvious: One would expect accuracy to increase with increasing effort in data collection, but there appears to be no straightforward relationship between effort (costs) expended on information collected and the relevance of the information. This has very significant implications for those thinking of investing heavily in improved inland fishery statistics based upon current models.
Perhaps the most relevant example is for Cambodia. Two “data” points are provided in Fig.1-04, the first for statistics up to 1999, the second for 1999. The mean factor of uncertainty in the latter estimate is about 1.55 compared to 5.2 prior to 1999 (that is, the 1999 estimate has improved in accuracy by 335 percent). However, both estimates for production are based upon the same statistics collection system. Infrastructures and data collection methods were not significantly changed. The 1999 figures essentially represent earlier figures re-estimated in response to considerable research. Therefore, Cambodia has shown that statistics can be improved without changing statistical effort. The same statistics could indeed quite likely be obtained with significantly less effort; in fact, probably without any statistical data collection effort at all (by estimating from research data). However, what is most informative about the Cambodia experience is that despite a considerable (donor funded) investment in research and survey work spanning six years, and focussing heavily (but not exclusively) on improving fishery statistics, the current estimates of actual production made by the Department of Fisheries itself shows a range of 290 000 to 430 000 MT which is still 1.25 to 1.86 times the official statistics. It would appear, therefore, that there is a limit to narrowing the inaccuracy of such statistics (within reasonable limits of investment and effort). Two further conclusions can therefore be drawn:
(i) There is a level of accuracy with inland fishery statistics beyond which it is unreasonable, if not impossible, to go beyond. In other words, statistics should purposefully provide indicative figures, not necessarily highly accurate ones, and(ii) In addition to this “optimal range of accuracy”, due to statistical methodologies, there are known significant but unpredictable natural variations in the fisheries between years. Therefore, statistics of the nature currently collected will be near useless for tracking all but the most drastic of trends, even if their accuracy is improved. And they certainly will not be able to explain why the trends are occurring. This is the likely explanation as to why most statistics indeed do not currently reveal any trends, not that they are not there. In other words, information on trends must be obtained in other ways.
One of the most interesting and relevant areas investigated by the mission was that of the objectives of compiling inland capture fishery statistics and the use to which the information is put. The following is a general synthesis of opinions of senior managers and a summary of actual practice (these do not all necessarily apply to all countries; specific comments by country are included in Part II):
(i) There is a definite feeling, in many countries, that “statistics” are compiled because central governments request them. But the use to which the statistics are put is often uncertain.The most important conclusions, however, are that without exception, the countries:
- Whilst many specialists appreciate the shortcomings of the information compiled, forwarding incomplete or unrepresentative information to central government agencies is extremely dangerous.
- Those that know the data might moderate policy considerations accordingly, but those that do not, might take the statistics at face value. Hence, there are examples of planners in central governments who are unaware that significant inland capture fisheries exist in their countries. Getting appropriate information to these people is important.
(ii) National fishery statistics are frequently compiled primarily as a perceived obligation to FAO.
(iii) The information requested by FAO has a major influence on that which is collected or compiled.
(iv) Countries are reluctant to admit to FAO (and often to their own agencies) the true nature of the information compiled. Consequently, the “statistics” are often taken as factual.
- For example, of the 8 countries reviewed, only the statistics for VietNam are listed in FAO documentation as estimates. Those for Lao PDR are listed as estimates to 1992 but thereafter presented as actual statistics (which is not the case; the Lao figures have never been based upon data collection). Of the other five countries, in reality most also estimate their catches.
(v) Most countries report that the statistics are used for “fisheries management purposes”
- but few countries are actually managing their inland capture fisheries, at least at the national level (except for reservoirs, usually through stocking)
- even if they were managing the fisheries the information produced through their statistics is not adequate for most management purposes
- in the few cases where fisheries management occurs, the national statistics are of limited use in assessing the impacts of management; or meaningful statistics are only gathered where management is in place (e.g. for reservoirs)
(i) Regard the main value of their inland capture fisheries as relating to sustaining the livelihoods of poor rural communities and associated aspects of food security (not withstanding that many countries still have significant commercial/industrial inland fisheries). By contrast, in general, marine fisheries are regarded as being important for revenue generation, export earnings and formal economic benefits, and in many cases so is aquaculture.During this review, the mission could not avoid the overall impression that the countries in Southeast Asia, in general, struggle with limited resources to compile information that, in many cases, they do not themselves trust, need or use. Meanwhile, most appreciate what information would be more logical to collect but lack the methods and support to obtain it.(ii) Agree that the current information collected (even if it were accurate) does not provide information of the kind necessary for addressing, monitoring or managing rural livelihoods issues
(iii) Have a clear realisation of the need to obtain such information but considerable uncertainty regarding how it can be done and who should do it
(iv) Agree that the main threats to inland fisheries, particularly for rivers and associated wetlands, less so for reservoirs, is habitat loss and environmental degradation, the information currently collected does not assist in monitoring such trends, nor with moderating the degradation itself
(v) Recognise the importance of issues relating to sustaining biodiversity in inland waters, but that the current statistics are widely regarded (correctly) as irrelevant to this subject
(vi) Recognise that improved and effective governance of the fisheries must be founded upon co-management approaches.
The history of fisheries research and management has had a significant impact upon statistical collection. The subject of research was reviewed by SIFR (1992). Development projects in the 1950s and 1960s promoted improved gear and vessel technology, almost to the exclusion of other, non-technical considerations. The quest was for increases in gross production to maximise profit and to feed rapidly growing populations, no matter what the other implications were. This was based originally partly upon the concept of inexhaustible stocks or exploiting new ones as existing ones showed signs of fatigue. In some areas there were deliberate policies of maximising “profit” by using more and more effective gears, which required, often deliberately, the reduction of participation in exploitation, especially marginalisation of the poor.
But in the 1970s it became apparent that the marine fisheries were in trouble and that limits to production were being reached. Some stocks were even collapsing, a trend which escalated thereafter. Fisheries began to run out of stocks. Aquaculture became the argued panacea for the problems and was to save the world from starvation, despite much of the initial effort being devoted to high value luxury species that are net consumers of fish. Aquaculture did indeed progress well and even later included more attention to the production of fish for less affluent consumers. It was particularly successful in Asia, but aquaculture production was frequently promoted solely on the concept of maximising production and profit. Equity, participation, livelihoods, food security were not issues that had been considered until recently. Neither were the environmental impacts of aquaculture or underlying constraints to its development immediately acknowledged. This situation has been slowly changing as we begin to better understand the potential role of aquaculture and also its limitations.
The emphasis of attention through this period was on declining marine catch, and subsequently aquaculture development. Inland fisheries were largely ignored and they were not covered in detail by the SIFR report itself. Research and development in the fisheries sector was dominated by marine scientists, a trend which continues. Additionally, the dispersed nature and relative inaccessibility of many inland fisheries resources made it difficult to maximise profits by placing exploitation in the hands of a few. The fact that the major inland fisheries were not easily (or rather comfortably) accessible to most western scientists contributed to their neglect. Most inland fisheries were also, and still are, so well developed in terms of traditional exploitation that the opportunities for improved gears and technology were limited, leaving technocrats in a quandary about what to do in freshwaters. To this day, the level of participation in inland fisheries, the near impossibility of compartmentalising the resources into the hands of the few and the extent of use of appropriate technologies remain their greatest assets. In the light of recently changing policies towards more livelihoods centred approaches, these attributes may yet be properly acknowledged and some overdue attention paid to the valuable role played by inland fisheries.
This brief history of fisheries was accompanied by three other relevant developments:
(i) Capture fisheries research was driven mainly, if not exclusively, by the presumed need to understand biological and ecological aspects of fish stocks and their responses to increased exploitation. The objective was to establish maximum sustainable yields (which, with hind-sight does not appear to have prevented the decline of many stocks). Technology centred on how to catch the most fish and what to do with it once it was caught. Aquaculture research also focussed on biological and ecological aspects, the objective being to maximise production with minimal inputs of feed. The concept of aquaculture was narrow, focussing only within easily managed boundaries (e.g. ponds, cages, raceways) that could be easily defined. Simplification of production was the goal, to be achieved through complete control the production cycle and, as far as possible, by deliberately minimising participation. More people meant more overheads and less profit. (Extensive aquaculture is a relatively recent area of interest, at least for western scientists). Economics figured largely in both sectors but only in the narrow sense of maximising profits. The more qualitative social, environment, equity and alternative management aspects were largely neglected.One result of this process has been that the research and management needs of inland fisheries have generally been addressed by trying to impose upon them approaches and methods developed for marine fisheries. The most relevant illustration of this is the inland capture fishery statistical systems in place in Southeast Asia. They are all based upon concepts, methodologies and objectives developed for marine fisheries. Some have even recently been modified as a result of experiences from aquaculture. Of course, it is prudent to learn and improve by experience, but are inland fisheries just small, poor relations of marine fisheries and aquaculture? This review has attempted to show that in fact inland capture fisheries are neither small nor “poor” and that the time has arrived to accord them their deserved status. These fisheries are important enough to develop statistics/information systems and also management approaches that are specific to their unique characteristics.(ii) Alongside this, a fisheries training and education infrastructure developed to support these perceived and narrow needs (e.g. large numbers of people were taught how to calculate mortality rates for fish and why it was essential to know this, yet few were taught about practical issues such as what poor people needed in order to survive, and how their options were narrowed by the degradation of their local environment).
(iii) The current statistical systems in place, by-and-large, grew up in parallel with this process. We can only speculate if the statistics reflected the above developments or were responsible for them. The reinforcement of one by the other resulted in serious lack of attention to inland fisheries.
The above description has been included because this history continues to dog attempts to better the situation of inland fisheries. In Southeast Asia, inland capture fisheries at least equal aquaculture in terms of production based only upon official statistics, and actually is likely to be at least double. Participation is probably in the order of at least three times higher than aquaculture and is dominated by the rural poor. Despite this, there is not a single regional institution or agency providing significant long-term support to inland capture fisheries (management, research or training) in Southeast Asia[2]; and probably very few at national level. Projects supporting the sub-sector are also rare. The situation is no better worldwide; institutions covering marine fisheries or aquaculture are almost so numerous as to be vulnerable to claims of duplication of effort. What has been the role of statistics in this historical neglect?
Recently, there have been three significant and inter-related shifts in policy emphasis. Firstly, towards policies in which poverty issues are becoming more prominent, if not central (social exclusion from fisheries, poverty reduction and alleviation, equity, gender, food-security etc.). Secondly, greater emphasis on the environment, the biodiversity it supports and how these are linked to sustainable development. Both of these are part of “livelihoods centred approaches”. Thirdly, the promotion of co-management systems for fisheries, based largely on the concept of participation of stakeholders in the governance process. It has already been noted that the existing statistical systems fall well short of addressing the first two needs, to which now can be added the observation that they are also, being based essentially on extractive methods, not particularly compatible with the third.
FAO has historically been one of the few international agencies with competence and interest in inland fisheries and has had its achievements in this field. Nevertheless, FAO has been an active participant in the aforementioned history of fisheries research and development and its implications for current perceptions of inland fisheries. FAO has had a high profile role in some of the priorities and policies that have been developed over the years, particularly so in developing countries. FAO is also the leading international organisation in terms of statistics for food and agriculture. In this respect it continues to have a pivotal role. Many countries have based their statistics either upon advice from FAO or upon the information that FAO requests. Many will continue to do so.
The Strategic Framework for FAO 2000-2015 prominently includes an institutional strategy focused on poverty eradication and food security. Among its main components that Member Nations decided to indicate as fundamental are:
(i) Improving the opportunities available to the rural poor to strengthen, diversify and sustain their livelihoods by taking advantage of the potential synergies between farming, fishing, forestry and animal husbandry, including through pre- and post-production income-generating enterprises;The framework includes sustainable livelihoods as one of its goals, therefore, it is mandatory. Sustainable livelihoods principles (rather than a particular framework) are to be more widely and systematically incorporated into FAO’s normative and field programme. The strategy includes a number of proposed initiatives to internalise and consolidate sustainable livelihoods approaches. Oddly, this does not appear, based upon a superficial review by the mission, to have explicitly included amending statistics to incorporate more meaningful cover of livelihoods relevant information (although such would be implied from the strategic framework).(ii) Supporting efforts to strengthen local institutions and to enact policies and legislation that will provide for more equitable access by both women and men to natural resources (particularly land, water, fisheries and forests) and related economic and social resources;
(iii) Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public and private sector response to the multiple and differing needs of disadvantaged rural populations, notably of women and youth;
(iv) Promoting gender-sensitive, participatory and sustainable strategies and approaches, based on self-help, capacity-building and empowerment, to improve the skills of the rural poor and local, civil society and rural people’s organizations;
(v) Assisting in the targeting of investment in the agricultural, fisheries and forestry sectors - from public and private, domestic and international sources - that contributes to food security and poverty eradication.
A visit to the FAO website (www.fao.org) reveals that the Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit (FIDI) describes its function as:
“FAO is the only source of comprehensive global fishery statistics and most reviews of the state of world fisheries, past trends and future prospects rely on FAO statistics. FAO analyses these statistics in order to monitor many aspects of world fisheries such as fishery production from capture fisheries and aquaculture, production and trade of fishery commodities, fish consumption, fishery fleets, and employment in fisheries. On the basis of these analyses, FAO prepares advice on fisheries policy to member countries.”FIDI maintains various databases relevant to these fields, based largely upon information inputs from member countries, and they are indeed widely used. The information currently collected is important. However, as already intimated, statistics for “production”, “trade in commodities” (by which is largely meant international trade), “fleets” and “employment”, whilst relevant, are not those areas of most direct relevance to sustainable livelihoods issues (especially for inland fisheries). “Food security” is more directly relevant but the current FAO statistics favour simplistic analysis at the national level based upon information on domestic supply (production, minus exports, plus imports).
The information strategy of FIDI “----- aims to remove constraints relating to effective and efficient utilization of data and information for the sustainable contribution of aquaculture and fisheries to the food security and improved nutrition for all, thus helping the Member countries to address new and emerging challenges in the management and development of aquaculture and fisheries sectors.” Subsequent descriptions of activities, however, are not particularly focussed on sustainable livelihoods. Again from the stated strategy: “The whole purpose of compilation and analysis of data and information is to put usable information in the hands of target users, thus facilitating problem solving and informed decisions and actions.”
It is not obvious that “sustainable livelihoods” related information is a priority requirement currently at FIDI. If it is, none of the fisheries departments in the countries covered in this review appear to be are aware of it.
A significant challenge for FAO and an important step in the new millennium, is whether it is able to respond rapidly to shifts in policy and emphasis by adjusting its information generation and dissemination activities to cater for these new needs. It will be constrained in doing so because many member countries themselves will have difficulties in shifting emphasis to more pro-poor, livelihoods oriented, information generation. But there is the opportunity for FAO to be pro-active and to start to request such information, and to member countries on how it can best be generated. Presently, alerting countries to this need is more important than obtaining the information itself.
All people interviewed in the countries visited are aware of the subject of “sustainable livelihoods” and why it is important in relation to inland capture fisheries. There is however considerable confusion over terminology. There is also widespread uncertainty as to how to incorporate such approaches into information and management systems, but full acknowledgement of the need to do so. Unsurprisingly, local communities, who have the relevant livelihoods most at risk, understand the concepts better than scientists or managers do. Sustainable livelihoods and co-management approaches therefore go well together, if not being the same thing. There are a number of frameworks or descriptions of livelihoods principles one of which is illustrated below (DFID-FAO, 2000).
Sustainable livelihoods framework
For anybody experienced in inland fisheries, such livelihood framework concepts are not new. We have, in fact, been arguing for such approaches, in differing ways, for a long-time. The frameworks do no more than formalise the setting of inland fisheries within rural livelihoods. And inland capture fisheries fit very nicely indeed into such a framework. The “livelihood outcomes”, of management/development actions (see above) are exactly those most relevant to inland fisheries.
The promotion of sustainable livelihoods focused information does, however, present a number of challenges. Livelihood “capital” (human, natural, financial, social and physical; see above) can obviously vary according to circumstances. Some communities might, for example, have substantial financial capital (money), others less so but have more natural capital (natural resource assets, e.g. wetlands). It is obviously the combination of these assets that underpins livelihoods. However, it is quite legitimate to exchange different kinds of capital assets, provided the overall outcome is improved livelihoods.
For example, reduced reliance on natural assets is achievable if compensated by increased sustainable financial assets. This in effect is the argument put forward by many planners for decades regarding river fisheries; that is, that the natural assets of rivers should be stripped or re-allocated for the benefit of macro-economic growth (improved financial capital); degradation of the environment, and the fisheries along with it, was justified; damages were argued to be compensated for through reservoir fisheries and aquaculture. There is a certain simplistic superficial credibility to such a policy, but applying the above sustainable livelihoods framework would force those promoting it to justify their claims and to show that those incurring the impacts of river degradation were net beneficiaries of the developments causing it.This trading of benefits of various forms of assets forces the inland capture fisheries sub-sector to adopt a more holistic position. For example, sometimes it is indeed logical to sacrifice fisheries for other benefits, provided it is planned and the livelihood outcome objectives are reached. But this has significant implications in terms of information requirements. That is, information on livelihoods and fisheries is only relevant in relation to information for other livelihoods assets. Therefore, fisheries information must not be generated independently. This requires all the various sectors to work together much better. Fortunately, the challenge is not as daunting as might be thought: First, most government agencies are, or should be, moving in the same directions regarding information. Second, co-management requires participation of the stakeholders in the processes; and the rural agrarian poor, generally, and particularly on floodplains, tend not to compartmentalise their livelihoods into sectors in the first place.
The biggest challenge, however, is to develop the tools with which to cost-effectively generate information (statistics) relevant to livelihood considerations. Some background to the kinds of information relevant to such policies is provided, for example, by DFID (1999 - and related information). For those without adequate access to such information an overview of information requirements is included in Annex I. Unsurprisingly, the information required to cover the full spectrum of livelihoods relevant considerations is substantial. However, those interested in improving livelihoods and poverty aspects of inland capture fisheries information should note the following:
(i) Nobody expects authorities to make sudden and drastic leaps towards these goals, it is more important in the short-term to recognise the needs than to meet them.But reviewing current literature and information will not help most agencies interested in such approaches to decide what to do in practice nor how to do it. Therefore, this review recommends that a priority is to produce guidelines (or provide direct technical assistance) to assist countries how to move their information generation activities, for inland fisheries or more broadly, towards livelihoods centred approaches.(ii) A gradual shift towards relevant information is logical, by identifying where opportunities exist and, where necessary, within existing information systems.
(iii) Fisheries related agencies would not be expected to produce the full spectrum of information; they would be working alongside others with similar goals, including other agencies, NGO’s and local communities.
(iv) Fisheries related agencies may, in fact, not be required to produce the information at all. Requirements might be met by such agencies promoting others to generate the information. An appropriate role of fisheries agencies, in the long-term, could well be overseeing the information generation and compiling that part of it relevant to government statistics.
(v) It is not necessarily the case that existing information generating activities be abandoned (although priorities, methodologies and approaches should be reviewed - but that is necessary in any case).
The move towards co-management approaches for fisheries offers significant opportunities to improve information generation. Information systems based upon catch reporting by fishers will always be unreliable as long as fishers and government officials are at odds with each other. In fact, it is largely because current information systems are extractive by nature that they are inherently unreliable. Effective co-management should improve confidence between fishers and government staff and along with it the willingness to divulge more accurate information. Not only does this obviously offer potential improvements in accuracy but it could well significantly reduce information generation costs (enabling government staff to focus on other aspects of information generation).
The current inland fishery statistics in Southeast Asia, in general, are notable for the apparent absence of links between the information and management. This does not encourage either government officials or fishers to take their generation seriously. What is required is for stake-holders to be able to recognise that the information that they provide results in benefits accruing to them, or to the broader community in which they live.
Co-management and revenue generation are not incompatible and it is incorrect to assume that stakeholders are always unwilling to pay fees or taxes. They do however, expect to see benefits from it in return and making appropriate, and visible, links between revenue and benefits is not easy. Myanmar (see Part II) has shown that it can be done, even with complex river fisheries, by re-investing a substantial part of its revenue from lucrative lease fisheries back into visible improvements in the fishery. Others in Southeast Asia can learn from that example. But perceived links between revenue and information on catches may continue to be a problem for report-based statistics. Agencies should remove these links wherever possible.
Strategies that might be adopted by particular countries will depend upon the extent of their current inland statistical systems and the degree to which they have specific requirements. Some countries, for example, have extensive licensing systems for their fisheries, which are coupled to information generation. For others, licensing requirements (if any) are separate. Each country will need to establish at what point it enters the level of considerations below and the need for restructuring.
Some of the following recommendations are low-cost activities that can be implemented immediately. Some may even reduce actual costs of information generation. But some will take much longer to implement (although do not necessarily involve significant costs).
(1) All countries should review their existing statistics based upon impartial desk-top appraisals using existing information.
This is the immediate priority and is by far the most important short-term task countries can undertake. This has been partially undertaken in Part II of this report. It should be done more thoroughly and in a more systematic fashion by the appropriate agencies themselves. The re-assessment of information would also serve as a better basis for frame surveys for future data collection, or at least contribute to it. Consideration should be given to coupling this activity with a review and description of their inland capture fisheries sector. This would serve to inform relevant authorities (other agencies, donors etc.) of the features of inland fisheries, their extent and importance.
Very reasonable estimates of the importance of the sub-sector can be obtained using existing local information, comparative data from elsewhere and fishery independent information. In many cases, this can be done without the need for additional surveys. Inland fisheries can be described and estimated by a number of simple variables: the location, nature and area of the resources, population distributions (access to resources) and socio-economic variables.
Resource areas
This information can be obtained from locally available maps. Some countries already have basic information on this, but it tends to be outdated and only general. Much more detailed, and recent information, can be obtained using remote sensing imagery which is already available in most countries (although not necessarily in Departments of Fisheries). Areas of wetlands, including reservoirs, lakes, river/stream systems, floodplains/swamps, rice-fields and coastal marshes and mangroves should be clearly located. It is particularly important to obtain accurate information on the location, extent and duration of flooding in river basins. The information should be kept in digital, geo-referenced format, so that it can be used in a GIS (Geographic Information System).
Population distributions
Population census data should be compared with resource availability. Human populations, located nearby inland aquatic resources, translate into inland fisheries. The nature of the fishery will depend largely upon these two factors. If countries are lucky, their population census data will already be digitised and enable go-referencing. Once it is in that format it can be analysed in a GIS - enabling computer aided analysis of relationships between populations and resources. If the census data is not digitised or geo-referenced, it is a relatively simple task to put into this format. Disaggregated data on populations must be obtained. Summaries by district or province are usually not discrete enough but can be used as a last resort.
Socio-economic considerations
These can usually be quite basic and are very much country specific. Some relevant factors are:
(i) The level of economic development in areas. Areas with better economic development tend to be less dependent upon inland capture fisheries. But care should be taken to use disaggregated data (average income, for example, is not necessarily the best indicator of the absence of poverty, or poorer communities).Pollution and habitat degradation(ii) The level and kind of agricultural development. Rice-farming for example usually has considerable fisheries activities associated with it, oil-palm less so.
(iii) Access to markets. This is important because fishery resources will be exploited only to the level of demand. Demand is not unlimited. Access to markets can usually be evaluated, for example, in relation to closeness and accessibility to urban areas.
(iv) Ethnic, cultural or religious considerations. Some ethnic groups (or religions) may be more or less dependent upon inland capture fisheries than others. In Southeast Asia, this consideration is usually only important in local areas.
Pollution as such is usually less of a problem than thought, except near urban or industrial areas. Heavy use of pesticides in farming should be accounted for (particularly in rice-fields) but it does not normally totally reduce fish production. An idea of the general level of habitat degradation should be obtained (but will usually already be known). The relationship between water quality and fish production can, however, be difficult to assess. It has to be severe to totally halt fish production. Actual habitat loss is often more important and information relating to this should be accounted as described in ‘Resources areas’ above.
Once this information is compiled, it is relatively easy to apply certain relevant and reliable assumptions about the fisheries based upon local information and information from other similar areas. When doing this it is essential to favour information based upon impartial research and survey work where actual data are available. Making comparisons to other areas where information is based upon dubious or uncritical statistics is pointless (because most countries under-estimate or under-report).
Estimates for inland fisheries should not be limited to gross production. Particular attention should be given to obtaining indicative figures for livelihoods aspects of fisheries. It is usually possible, for example, to make rough estimates of the involvement of people in fishing (as well as processing, transportation, trade and gear construction etc.). Indicative figures for household dependencies on fishing are valuable.
This approach is guaranteed to provide a more reliable and representative estimate of inland capture fisheries than most of the statistical systems currently in place in Southeast Asia. The information will not necessary be of any use for monitoring trends, unless of course the approach is repeated at intervals and the information up-dated; but neither are most current statistics. Obtaining a reasonable idea of the base-line situation is the priority. The activity will also clarify, or form, the frame upon which other surveys are, or can be, based.
(2) Countries should incorporate improved and more accurate information into their current national statistics.
Obviously, improved assessments of the inland capture fisheries (as above and elsewhere) should be reflected in national statistics. Although the current statistics are often mistrusted, even sometimes ridiculed, they are important. They have a major impact on government policies and on donor perceptions. National statistics reported to FAO have the same impact on the international/global scale. It is important to correct them.
(3) Where necessary, countries should make significant efforts to explain the inadequacies of their current statistics to relevant parties
It is important that those that use inaccurate, unrepresentative or unsubstantiated statistics are made aware of the pitfalls of the information.
(4) Where appropriate, countries should endeavour to incorporate inland capture fisheries information (questions/surveys) into surveys done by other agencies.
Often fisheries departments have more limited resources for survey work than others (e.g. agriculture departments, statistics agencies). A great deal of very valuable information can be obtained by incorporating information requests into these other surveys. Opportunities for questions can be limited in surveys designed for other purposes and time should be spent considering the most appropriate information. A priority is to get information on dependency upon fisheries. For example:
(i) In Lao PDR, a very reliable estimate of inland capture fisheries production was obtained by asking a very limited number of simple questions in a national income and expenditure survey (see Part II).(5) Countries should promote more research on the production of, participation in and dependency upon inland capture fisheries.(ii) In Myanmar, the mission advised the Department of Fisheries to incorporate some simple questions about rice-field fisheries into a proposed agriculture census (because the department’s statistics did not cover rice-fields).
Much progress can be made by using existing information from within Southeast Asia, but for full accuracy there is usually no substitute for specific data obtained for local situations. Research should be promoted amongst all relevant agencies (line-agencies, universities, aid projects, NGO’s etc.). Researchers, and particularly social scientists, often need to be encouraged to produce quantitative data which enables extrapolations to be made to none surveyed areas. Research should focus upon quantifying dependency of households on inland capture fisheries and on the relationships between such dependency and the environment. Studies can be broadened to include “aquaculture” to investigate dependency on “aquatic resources” more generally. The latter is more appropriate but often better information on aquaculture is already available. Care has to be taken to avoid an aquaculture bias in such research and surveys (history has shown that aquaculture specialists can be remarkably uncritical in such surveys). Countries should focus the research on priority areas, which compliment existing national or regional information (see recommendation # 6).
(6) Countries in Southeast Asia should share their information on inland fisheries and statistical/information systems
In all countries, human and financial resources are limited. Their inland fisheries also do not compete. There is little point in countries trying to re-invent the wheel in terms of research work. And there is much valuable information to share. For example, Lao PDR has some good experience and information now with fisheries in mountainous areas and using national surveys to obtain basic information on fisheries where there is limited information to start with. Cambodia has much experience in assessing the true nature and production of commercial/industrial fisheries on floodplains (and small-scale fisheries), of considerable relevance to Myanmar in particular, but also Indonesia, Malaysia and VietNam. In Myanmar, there is much knowledge to share on enhancing lease fisheries (lots/Inns) relevant in particular to Cambodia but also others. All countries now have considerable cumulative information on rice-field fisheries and reservoirs. Most countries have undertaken extremely valuable local studies of river and swamp/floodplain fisheries. Sharing this information base is a fundamental part of improving overall assessments of inland fisheries (as recommended above). They also all have different systems for collecting the information and can share experiences on what works and what does not.
(7) Those countries with existing extensive inland capture fishery statistical systems should consider how best to improve them, without necessarily incurring significant additional costs.
This should include:
(i) Investigating the reduction of costs where feasible. Some countries arguably try to collect too much information(8) Those countries currently with more limited statistics collection activities should be very careful about investing in improved systems based upon the models currently in place in other countries.(ii) Re-allocation of survey effort. More emphasis should be placed on quality of information, not quantity. The existing human resources, for example, could perhaps be divided, each unit to focus better on smaller sections of the fishery. Some people could concentrate on rice-fields, some on reservoirs, some of floodplains, some on commercial gears etc. Trying to get the same people to collect all information (including in most cases for marine fisheries and aquaculture) will not encourage accuracy of the information.
(iii) A good baseline understanding (frame survey) of the fisheries is required as a starting point (see recommendation # 1). Sampling strategies (where they occur) should be re-assessed in the light of recommendation # 1 above.
(iv) Extensive reporting systems based upon the same individual personnel trying to cover everything will often result in selective reporting. Where too much is expected reports will tend to focus on the more visible activities (reservoirs, aquaculture or only the professional/commercial activities).
(i) There is no evidence that the current systems will necessarily yield accurate information, even if significantly up-graded (within reason)(9) Countries should recognise that as policies and priorities change; that the information requirements also change(ii) Short-term donor funded investments in strengthening domestic capacities (manpower) are unlikely to be sustained (but technical assistance including training and improving communications and co-ordination may be appropriate)
(iii) Countries should be innovative and take the opportunity to adopt new and more appropriate approaches (some of these are outline here, more can be developed)
(i) In particular, recent attention to pro-poor, livelihoods centred, policies and sustainable development and biodiversity issues require different information approaches(10) Countries should focus on livelihoods related information in their statistics and information generation activities(ii) This represents an opportunity for countries to re-vitalise their statistical systems in response to these opportunities
(iii) There is in any case no evidence that, in general, the current type of information collected through statistics actually influences policies. In fact, the opposite appears to be the case. Therefore, the correct information is not being collected.
(i) Information on gross production is still relevant and should be produced, as should ancillary existing information on licensing etc. where necessary and appropriate.(11) Countries should amalgamate co-management approaches and the generation of fisheries information(ii) The true value of inland fisheries lies in their relevance to rural livelihoods. Information generation should reflect that.
(iii) Livelihoods based information is quite likely the only kind of information that will influence policies, particularly those relating to natural resources allocation and use (e.g. water resources management planning). It is certainly well proven that information based upon gross production and participation in licensed fisheries does not generally influence policies for the benefit of fisheries; at worst it may well reinforce inappropriate policies.
(i) The accuracy and relevance of information can only be improved and sustained if stake holders are fully involved in the information process(12) Countries should be more flexible in the way they treat and report their statistics(ii) Generally, and in the longer-term, fishery dependent communities or groups should be the main focus of information generation. They should be motivated and empowered to produce the necessary information. This will also reduce the costs of information generation (to fisheries departments).
(i) Information systems are not currently based upon data. The information should therefore not be treated as data (i.e. taken at face value).(13) Statistical and information systems should be reviewed, revised or developed with the full involvement of appropriate stakeholders at governmental level (i.e. appropriate statistical agencies)(ii) Where known errors or misrepresentations occur, these should be rectified at the reporting stage. This is more important, and much cheaper, than trying to improve the statistical basis of the reports themselves.
(i) This is somewhat obvious. But there are examples where information relevant to statistics has been generated externally. It is subsequently often difficult to incorporate into existing statistical systems, even where motivation to do so exists.(14) Existing statistical systems should be revised to make it easier to incorporate ancillary information into estimations and subsequent reports
(i) Currently, statistics are often produced with rigid methodologies (e.g. regular surveys undertaken by specific agencies). Subsequently it can be difficult to incorporate ancillary information that can improve the accuracy and relevance of the information, even when it is accepted as valid by the appropriate agencies.(15) It should be widely and openly acknowledged that most existing statistics are not useful for monitoring trends in the fisheries
(i) They are currently not accurate enough to pick up anything but drastic changes.(16) Countries need to explore options for obtaining better information enabling trends to be tracked - using low-cost and sustainable methods(ii) Even if significantly improved (within reason) they will still likely not yield information of the quality required for trend analysis.
(iii) In any event, trends in production may not be the primary information required. Trends in livelihoods are more relevant (and current systems do not track this).
(iv) A significant issue related to this recommendation is that countries need to re-assess whether they need to collect the current kind of information every year. Why do it regularly if it is not accurate enough for time-series considerations? This question should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. But it is essential to ask it.
(i) The fisheries should be assessed to see which parts of it can be accurately, cost-effectively and sustainably monitored.(17) Countries should devote more effort to monitoring trends in environment relevant to inland capture fisheries.(ii) Countries should avoid trying to obtain accurate information (enabling trend monitoring on a year-by-year basis) for the entire fishery. It will not work and scarce resources would be better used in ensuring quality rather than quantity of data.
(iii) There is no substitute for long-term catch-effort data for assessing the state of fish stocks. But in multi-species, multi-gear inland fisheries, care must be taken in selecting which gears are monitored. It is important to record effort properly and the effort for many gears inland is influenced by environmental variables. For example, fishing “lots” (“Inns”) and river bagnets offer easily accessible and relatively obvious gears to monitor, but their efficiency is influenced by environmental variables (extent of flooding, river flow rates) which must also be monitored. It is also not necessarily easy to get truthful catch reports. Care must be taken to avoid assuming that trends with any gears represent trends in the overall fishery; and covering all gears is near impossible. An option is to monitor selected gears on an annual (including daily, monthly, as appropriate) basis, together with less frequent, but broader reaching surveys that cover a wider range of fishers and gears.
(iv) Countries should not assume that monitoring fish stocks is the priority. It is important, but so are trends in livelihoods and the environment. Some would argue the latter to be more important. But where livelihoods information is linked to fish species groups and the environment (which it should be) then monitoring livelihoods trends should provide information on trends in stocks.
(i) Most commentators agree that the greatest threat to inland fisheries, especially riverine fisheries, is habitat loss and degradation. Most “trends” in these fisheries, and in biodiversity, are argued to be due to environmental influences. Therefore, it is essential to monitor these trends in the environment if trends in the fisheries are to be understood.(18) Countries need to adopt better strategies for monitoring trends in biodiversity(ii) This is arguably more important than trying to monitor the fisheries themselves. A strong case can be put for river fisheries that as long as the environment stays intact, the fisheries might be sustained. Most river fisheries have been lost not because we did not monitor them properly, but because the environment that supports them was undermined and at least in part because it was not monitored.
(iii) Whilst this may not appear immediately to be the role of fisheries agencies, and in some countries may not be, those agencies must become more pro-active in promoting appropriate environmental monitoring.
(iv) Where necessary, environmental agencies need to be made more aware of which environmental changes are relevant to inland fisheries. In particular, aquatic specialists may tend to focus on water quality issues, whilst the major issues (particularly for larger rivers) can be habitat loss and degradation.
(v) Inland fisheries specialists must adopt the philosophy that environmental management is an important part of fisheries management.
(i) Biodiversity is a fisheries issue (Coates, 2001). Countries need to explore how biodiversity in their inland fisheries can be better monitored. Naturally this should be done in conjunction with other initiatives in this area. Monitoring biodiversity should incorporate the same concepts as for other information (statistics) collection systems. Ecosystem diversity should be monitored as noted under recommendation 17. Cultural and social diversity should be monitored through livelihoods monitoring. The role of fisheries agencies should include advising other agencies on aspects of biodiversity relevant to fisheries. An obvious problem in practice with genetic diversity is that concerns tend to become greater as species (or varieties etc.) become rarer. One option is for countries to short-list their most vulnerable genetic resources and implement monitoring programmes for them - using fisheries based information collection systems where appropriate (e.g. catch-effort data for selected species).(19) The current statistics for inland capture fisheries produced by FAO should include better indications as to their basis and meaning
(i) Inland capture fishery statistics are likely to be more unreliable than any other statistics that FAO reports.(20) The information and statistics activities at FAO should reflect the requirements for improved livelihoods related information more obviously and explicitly(ii) The general tendency is for under-reporting.
(iii) Statistics should not be published in the absence of details as to how they were collected. This should include explanation as to likely sources of error and possible extent of under-reporting. It is not unreasonable, for example, to suggest that FAO include such a by-country explanation in its yearbooks of inland fisheries.
(iv) Statistics that have been based upon estimates should be clearly indicated in both yearbooks and FAO reports. This would also include an indication as to the basis of the estimations. This requires both that countries report such information to FAO and that FAO requests it.
(i) This can be achieved by FAO requesting better livelihoods focussed information on fisheries.(21) FAO should provide improved advice to member nations on what kinds of livelihoods relevant information should be collected and how it can be cost-effectively obtained
(ii) Alerting countries to this need is an urgent priority.
(i) For inland capture fisheries there is a need to back-up the broad recommendations made in this report (with emphasis on the deriving information on the role of fisheries and livelihoods) with specific and practical advice on how to implement.(ii) Logically, this might be better implemented as a compliment to a broader based strategy regarding livelihoods information.
