Fishing capacity management and IUU fishing in Asia - FAO.org

2. MethodologyUp to date information on fishing capacity and IUU fishing is notoriously difficult to access becausemuch of the information is held within country Ministries and is not often published in media thatis widely available. The approach that has been used for this synthesis has been to developa questionnaire that was sent to each of the APFIC member countries prior to the June 2007workshop requesting current information on issues related to fishing capacity management and IUUfishing, and how the various countries were dealing with these issues. The questionnaire that wasdistributed was designed to build on information that was already available, particularly that fromprevious surveys by FAO in 2003 (De Young, 2006) and information collected from selectedcountries by the University of British Columbia, Canada, in 2006 (Pitcher, Kalikoski andGanapathiraju, 2006). To ensure this connection with previous work, the questionnaires requestedinformation on specific fisheries for each country, which were the three largest, by quantity, industrialscale fisheries and the three largest artisanal fisheries. These fisheries were, in most cases, the samefisheries for which countries reported to FAO in 2003 and therefore updated information wasgathered on what progress had been made in addressing fishing capacity and IUU issues since thattime. While recognizing that initiatives in addressing fishing capacity and IUU fishing had beentaken in a number of countries for a large number of fisheries, the questionnaire’s concentration onthe three largest industrial-scale and artisanal fisheries in each country ensured that the overall scaleand impact of actions that had been taken by countries to address these issues were fully taken intoaccount.The questions within the questionnaire were also specifically designed to gather quantitative dataon the extent of fisheries overcapacity and IUU fishing in each country with a clear separationbetween fisheries in which nationals of the country were the main producers and fisheries that wereprimarily undertaken by foreign vessels. Questionnaires were sent to 15 member countries ofAPFIC (ten countries submitted responses). Data from the ten responses has, therefore, been usedto develop a regional picture of fishing capacity and IUU issues, while recognizing that the pictureis incomplete because of the missing (five countries) responses. As such this review can beconsidered an ongoing review and a contribution to our overall understanding of the IUU andfishing capacity issues in the region.In addition to some countries not being able to provide information, a further note of caution shouldbe added in using the available questionnaire responses for any definitive inter-country comparisonsregarding fishing capacity and IUU fishing issues. Inevitably, questionnaires responses may becompiled by different personnel in different Government agencies, each with their own individual,and sometimes limited, perspective on the issues being addressed. As such the responses mayreflect these individual and/or agency perspectives rather than provide a broader view. This is nota criticism of the diligence with which individuals have provided information for this work butrather an observation that inevitably limits the value of questionnaire responses, no matter where orby whom they are collected.Analysis of the responses to the questionnaire was, however, undertaken so as to address a numberof key questions related to fishing capacity and IUU fishing in the region. These questions were:A. Management fishing capacity●●●Have countries of the region identified fishing capacity issues that require management?To what extent have national plans of action to address fishing capacity issues beendeveloped?For what parts of the national fishery sector (industrial, marine artisanal and inland) hasfishing capacity been assessed?3