Defining scale in fisheries: Small versus large-scale fishing operations in the Azores

Fisheries Research 109 (2011) 360–369

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Fisheries Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres

Defining scale in fisheries: Small versus large-scale fishing operations in the Azores Natacha Carvalho a,∗ , Gareth Edwards-Jones b , Eduardo Isidro a a b

Department of Oceanography and Fisheries, University of Azores, 9900 Horta-Faial, Azores, Portugal School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, Bangor University College Road, Bangor, N. Wales, UK

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 24 August 2010 Received in revised form 10 March 2011 Accepted 16 March 2011 Keywords: Fishing scale Artisanal and industrial fisheries Comparative methodology Socioeconomic and environmental parameters

a b s t r a c t The Azorean fishing fleet, as most fisheries worldwide, is characterised by a dualism in the form of coexistence of small and large-scale operations competing for the same limited resources, fishing grounds and markets. The two sectors are different, not only in the scale of operation but also in the level of technology, employment generation and the degree of capital intensity and investment. For years scholars have been battling over defining scale in fisheries but still no clear or universal definition of small-scale fisheries exists, nor the boundary where the one sector ends and the other begins. In this study, a method that is comparable between and across national/regional fishing fleets was used to define small and largescale fishing operations in the Azores. The two sectors were compared in a number of policy-relevant parameters in order to better understand their socio-economic importance, issues that are fundamental for the development of future policies that are based on a more holistic and ecosystem approach to fisheries management. According to the methodology, the Azorean small-scale fishing sector is comprised all vessels up to 12 m in length, and still dominated by small, old, wooden vessels of low power, similar to other Mediterranean or less developed European fishing fleets, such as in Greece, Estonia and Corsica. Nonetheless, results indicate that the small-scale sector in the Azores has actually increased in importance over the years, both in terms of landed volume and value. Small-scale fisheries employ more people, land slightly more catch and achieve a higher landed value per tonne than their larger counterparts. They are also less fuel intensive and appear to be less harmful to stocks and their habitats. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The popular paradigm during the development decades (1950–1970s) was that the natural progression of the world’s fishing was necessarily towards the industrial mode. Nations worldwide promoted this mode of fisheries development with strategies focusing almost exclusively on large-scale fisheries and the need to increase fishing effort and capacity. The small-scale sector was considered inefficient and largely ignored, and it was assumed that the subsector would either expand its scale of production by adopting large-scale fishing technologies or else provide labour to industrial operations and gradually disappear (Panayotou, 1982; Platteau, 1989; Kurien, 1998). Consequently, overemphasis was given to large-scale offshore operations at the detriment of small-scale fisheries. Nonetheless, small-scale fishing operations survived and even flourished despite the longstanding marginalisation.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 292 200 400; fax: +351 292 200 411. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (N. Carvalho), [email protected] (G. Edwards-Jones), [email protected] (E. Isidro). 0165-7836/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2011.03.006

With the crises in world fisheries, the industrial model of development has increasingly been put under scrutiny. After more than half a century of a strong modernisation imperative that put economic and efficiency high on the policy agenda for fisheries, the policy arena is finally becoming more conducive to sustaining small-scale fisheries. The notion that small-scale fisheries are probably our best option for a sustainable use of fisheries resources, assembling most of the criteria required for an enlightened fisheries policy in terms of employment, income distribution, energy consumption, and product quality, has gained significance (Proude, 1973; Lawson, 1977; Smith, 1979; Thompson, 1980; Thompson and FAO, 1988; Durand et al., 1991; FAO, 1994; Pauly, 1997; Béné, 2003; Mathew, 2003; World Bank, 2004; Jacquet and Pauly, 2008), with many studies emphasising the social significance, cultural diversity and economic importance of sustaining this subsector (Allison and Ellis, 2001; Berkes et al., 2001; Allison, 2004; Béné et al., 2004; Granzotto et al., 2004; Blount, 2005; Zeller et al., 2005; Salmi, 2005; Sadovy, 2005; Pauly, 2006; Chuenpagdee et al., 2006). Small-scale fisheries constitute a way of life for millions of people worldwide and currently account for anything between one-half to three-quarters of the fish production and according to Berkes et al. (2001), employ approximately 50 of the world’s

N. Carvalho et al. / Fisheries Research 109 (2011) 360–369

51 million fishers. Moreover, the sector’s contribution to world fish production has been achieved in spite of receiving very little government subsidies or development assistance (Mathew, 2003). Small-scale fisheries, nevertheless, continue to be poorly documented and information on the structure and functioning of this subsector is limited, even at a national or regional level. Augmenting this lack of information is the fact that no universal definition of small-scale fisheries exists. What may be considered smallscale in one situation may be large-scale in another (Smith, 1979; Panayotou, 1982; Berkes and Kislalioglu, 1989; Kurien, 1996; World Bank, 1991; FAO, 2005). Scholars continue to struggle over defining terms such as subsistence, traditional, artisanal and small-scale fisheries, many of which are used interchangeably and often coupled with other terminologies such as inshore, local or coastal fisheries (Kurien, 1996; Allison and Ellis, 2001; Berkes et al., 2001; Defeo and Castilla, 2005; Johnson, 2006). These terms seemed to have gained popularity in many developing nations during the post-mechanisation phase for describing fisheries that were not mechanised. However, the terms continued to be used even with the widespread adoption of motorisation in small-scale fisheries and today they have distinct connotations in different technological, economic, political, cultural, and social contexts, which may be fishing operation specific, market specific, vessel or gear-specific (Mathew, 2003). A common view is that definitions and comparisons are impossible, claiming that natural and social systems are too complex and that each individual fishery and fishing community is unique and distinctively different from others (FAO, 2003; Johnson, 2006). Since fishing operations and vessels vary in so many different ways there are numerous significant criteria by which to divide a fishing fleet into sectors, contributing to the lack of consensus on how to categories fishing operations. Different countries use different criteria in their national statistics; being one of the reasons that FAO, through the FIDI (Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit), has never attempted to allocate systematically world catches to one or the other of the two categories (Defeo and Castilla, 2005). Nonetheless, the fact remains that most countries have a diverse fishing fleet, the structure of which is largely influenced by a combination of local biological, social, economic, as well as, political factors. What now appears to be a classic way of portraying the value of small-scale fisheries began with a table “the World’s two marine fishing industries” developed by Thompson (1980), which has since been updated by FAO (see Maclean, 1988) and reworked by Berkes et al. (2001) (Fig. 1). Thompson (1980) constructed two classes of vessels for the industrialised and developing countries of the world: small and large-scale fishing operations and compared them using a set of eight criteria. The table shows in global terms the relative social, economic and ecological advantages of small-scale fishing operations in comparison to their larger counterparts. The author, however, defines no clear boundary between the two categories nor refers to data sources. It has also been argued that the point that Thompson was trying to put forward, namely that small-scale fisheries are “preferable” over large-scale fisheries, is greatly reflected in the choice of the criteria used – he undoubtedly decided to emphasise the social dimension of small-scale fisheries and chose his criteria accordingly (Johnson, 2006). Even so, as a heuristic method or a rhetoric device, the table and its values have great impact and have been emulated widely ever since (Johnson, 2006). Ruttan et al. (2000) used Thompson’s definition of small and large-scale to categorise the two sectors on a relative rather than absolute scale. The authors used catch per vessel per year, reasoning that low catches are associated with smaller boats that travel shorter distances and have a small crew, thus capturing the essence of “smallness” with just one figure. They also compared the eco-

361

nomic performance of the two sectors, but did not, however, take into account social and environmental parameters, issues that are also fundamental in fisheries management. Sumaila et al. (2001), addressed this problem by adapting Ruttan et al.’s methodology to include a number of socioeconomic and environmental impact parameters in two case studies, namely the Norwegian and the Atlantic Canadian fisheries. More recently, Therkildsen (2007) also applied the same model to examine how small and large-scale fishing operations compare in a number of policy-relevant parameters in the New England fishing fleet. The aim of this study was to define the commercial fishing fleet in the Azores archipelago as small or large-scale by applying Ruttan et al.’s (2000) methodology and examine whether there are differences in the economic performance and relative social and environmental impacts of small and large-scale fisheries. Hence, this exercise further extends the studies by Sumaila et al. (2001) and Therkildsen (2007) using the same methodology to compile data on another area where the two sectors co-exist, overlapping geographically, and often competing for many of the same fish stocks. Quoting Therkildsen (2007), the use of a common methodology to examine scale-related differences in fishing fleets in different countries or regions may contribute to a better understanding of the significance of scale in fisheries management and disentangle the generalities of small or large-scale fisheries from the effects of local conditions.

2. Methodology 2.1. Study area: the Azores archipelago The Azores archipelago is an isolated group of nine volcanic islands situated in the North Atlantic along the Mid-Atlantic ridge, extending more than 480 km along a northwest–southeast trend (Morton et al., 1998). The Azores, and in general all volcanic insular regions, are characterised by the absence of a continental shelf and adjacent areas of great depths. The Azores’ EEZ of about one million km2 (948,439 km2 ) has an average depth of around 3000 m, but only about 7% of this area is less than 1500 m in depth. The islands and their contiguous shelf (<500 m depth) have an estimated area of 412 km2 , representing only 0.4% of the EEZ, while seamounts (<500 m depth) account for an additional 0.3% (Isidro, 1996). Hence, potential fishing grounds are limited and essentially restricted to the narrow belt of shallow water around the islands and to nearby banks and seamounts (Menezes et al., 2006; Morato et al., 2008). The Azorean fisheries have traditionally been characterised as being artisanal (the use of traditional, passive fishing gears and methods, labour intensive) and small-scale (reduced vessel size with limited area of operation) in nature, and considered as sustainable (ban of destructive gears such as trawls and bottom gillnets). More recently, the situation has changed with artisanal exploitation having been successively replaced with commercial fishing (Santos et al., 1995). Many fishing areas are being intensively fished and several demersal fish stocks, such as the blackspot seabream, appear to be overexploited, in particular at seamounts in the Azores EEZ (Menezes et al., 2006; Pinho, 2003). The region’s fishing fleet is essentially multi-segmented, targeting multiple species with a wide range of fishing gears and methods and currently exploits around 50–60 of the 500 fish species identified in the ecosystem (Morato et al., 2001). In 2005, the registered fishing fleet numbered 1584 vessels with a total capacity of 11,054 GRT and engine power of 48,544 kW. More than 90% of the fleet comprised vessels less than 12 m in length and 25% were non-motorised (they currently represent less than 1% of the total regional fleet).

362

N. Carvalho et al. / Fisheries Research 109 (2011) 360–369

Fig. 1. Adaptation of Thompson’s (1980) table of the world’s two marine fishing industries: small and large-scale fisheries and how they compare at a global scale (original in NAGA, the ICLARM Quarterly).

2.2. Data sources Commercial landings recorded by day, vessel and species from all fishing ports in the archipelago during the period 1995–2005 were obtained from the LOTAC¸OR S.A., commercial landings database. Lotac¸or S.A. is responsible for managing the regional auction houses where the first sale of all commercial marine landings by law must take place. One of their functions is to record all commercial landings in the region by vessel/species/day, and recently, by fishing gear and fishing area. The regional commercial landings database is also housed at the Department of Oceanography and Fisheries, University of the Azores (DOP/UAc¸), and updated regularly. Other databases from which relevant information to this study was extracted included the Fisheries Observation Programme (POPA) for data on the tuna fishery (and live bait) and the regional fisheries data collection programme (EU Data Collection Framework Council Reg. No. 1543/2000) for data on by-catch and discards within the handline and bottom longline fishing fleet. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews constructed based on relevant literature pertaining to survey methods were undertaken on the fishing population in the region to acquire socioeconomic data for the year 2005 (Carvalho, unpublished data). Three sets of questionnaires were developed, each one intended for a particular stakeholder, namely: (1) vessel owners/skippers, (2) crew members and, (3) auction buyers. The questionnaires were tested on selected fishermen before the survey was undertaken on the general fishing population and included both quantitative and open-ended questions, with the latter providing an opportunity for comments on contentious and other issues. The final survey instrument was administered, through simple random sampling using the intercept method (Taylor-Powell, 1998), over the period march 2006 to October 2007, with follow-ups in 2008, on 7 of the 9 islands in the archipelago. A total of 268 vessels were surveyed, representing 41% of the active fishing vessel population in 2005 (n = 654). The data from these questionnaires allowed for the comparison of several policy-relevant socioeconomic and environmental parameters, such as revenue, employment, by-catch and discards, fuel con-

sumption, etc., between sectors for the year 2005. Interview survey data extracted for this analysis, included information on landings, target species, fishing activities (fishing method and gears, fishing grounds), fuel consumption (annual and per fishing trip), average crewmembers (sea and land crew), earnings, expenditures (fixed and variable costs). The lack of documented information on most socioeconomic and environmental parameters for the region made it impossible to validate the estimates obtained through the survey data for the different sectors. 2.3. Defining fishing scale: small and large The methodology developed by Ruttan et al.’s (2000) to divide a region’s fisheries into a small and large-scale sector consists of three main steps and defines the fisheries as gear type/vessel size combinations. First, gear types and vessel sizes are divided into a number of categories appropriate to the local sector and data availability. Second, a list of gear type/vessel size combinations with their corresponding total landed values is created. The gear type/vessel size combinations are ranked in ascending order according to annual catch. Third, a cumulative percentage distribution of landed weight is constructed with these ranked combinations. The fisheries are then divided into ‘small-scale’ and ‘large-scale’ using a cut-off point of 50% cumulative landed value, providing a standard for comparison for other parameters such as employment, fuel consumption, etc. To divide the Azores fisheries into small and large-scale, slight variations to Ruttan et al.’s methodology were applied, namely: (1) vessel classes were defined by length instead of tonnage; (2) gear type/vessel size combinations were ranked according to catch capacity rather than to annual landings and, (3) the cut-off point between small and large-scale was set at 50% cumulative landed weight instead of landed value. For this case study, vessel size was accounted for in terms of length rather than tonnage (GRT), as was the case for the Norwegian fishing fleet (see Sumaila et al., 2001). Length classes were assumed to be more appropriate due to great variability in tonnage values for vessels with very similar character-

N. Carvalho et al. / Fisheries Research 109 (2011) 360–369 Table 1 Gear type and vessel size (in length) categories used to establish gear type/vessel size combinations in the Azores fisheries (N – number of vessels per category). Gear categories Bottom longline Gillnets Handline Pole and line Polyvalent (multigear) Surface longline Surrounding nets Vessel size categories (length m) 1 (≤6) 2 (6–8) 3 (8–12) 4 (12–20) 5 (20.1–30) 6 (>30)

N 76 67 379 29 89 5 23 N 234 191 178 38 21 6

istics, such as maximum crew size, autonomy at sea, and holding capacity. Total annual landed value was replaced by vessel catch capacity to rank gear type/vessel size categories in ascending order and divide the fleet into small and large-scale. Catch capacity, calculated as the total annual landed weight divided by total number of landings, was assumed to be a better indicator of smallness for the Azores commercial fisheries. Gear type/vessel size categories and their corresponding landings were first ranked according to length class and then by vessel catch capacity within each length class. Also, contrary to Ruttan et al. (2000), total landed weight instead of landed value was used in the analysis. Landed value was considered to be less appropriate since many small-scale vessels landing high-value species may attain as much as large-scale vessels landing low-value species (such as certain tuna species for the canning industry) in one landing, whereas their catch capacity is limited due to vessel size, and hence an indication of smallness. The categories used to determine gear type/vessel size combinations are summarised in Table 1. Some difficulties were encountered when assigning gear type to each vessel as many use a combination of fishing gears throughout the year, and often even on the same fishing trip. To overcome this problem, annual landings by species for each vessel were analysed to determine the main fishing gear since most gears are relatively selective and species group-specific. As such, landings by species for each vessel were ranked according to their relative importance in volume. When more than one gear type was used, the prevalent gear (responsible for more than 80% of the landings) was assigned. Since handlines and bottom longline gears target and capture many of the same species, although some species are more characteristic than others, the data was crosschecked with the survey data to distinguish between the two gears. The polyvalent category was assigned whenever two distinct gear types for example, a hook and line gear (for example handline) and a net gear (for example purse seine) were used or when no prevalent gear could be identified. Traps were also assigned to this category. For this analysis, all net gears used for capturing small pelagic species, such as purse seines, lift nets and hand nets were categorised as surrounding nets. 2.4. Comparison between small and large-scale operations: socioeconomic and environmental parameters 2.4.1. Annual landings Total annual landings for all active vessels, i.e. all registered commercial vessels in the region with at least one reported landing in the Azores in 2005, were used in the analysis. Approximately 1500 fishing vessels were registered in the region in 2005, however, less than a half of these were active during that year, giving a total of

363

666 active vessels. Total averaged annual landings over a 10-year period (1995–2005) were also calculated for all active vessels in 2005 to verify whether any temporal trend in aggregate landings by the two sectors existed. 2.4.2. Crewmembers The average and total crewmembers for each gear type/vessel size category were determined using data obtained through socioeconomic survey data for 2005. A total of 2160 fishermen was estimated, which was found to be below the values of 3797 fishers reported by the Azores Fisheries Statistics (SREA) for registered fishermen in 2005, and the 3171 fishers by Megapesca (2001) for the year 2000, but above the 900 reported by Morato et al. (2001). The latter study considered only full-time fishers whereas this study also took into account part-time and land-based crew in order not to underestimate the sector’s social significance. The value appears to be a reasonable approximation taking into account the numerous challenges that exist when estimating the number of fishers, such as: the number of registered fishers is not usually representative of the number of active fishers; many fishers work only part-time and may migrate especially in the context of seasonal fisheries, which can produce different results at different times of the year. Also, estimates do not usually include women, and sometimes children, who work in shore-based related activities (Chuenpagdee et al., 2006). 2.4.3. Fuel consumption Total annual fuel consumption for each gear type/vessel size combination was estimated using survey data on fuel use by vessel. Information on total fuel consumption given by the interviewees was compared with additional survey data, such as the mean distance and duration travelled to fishing grounds for estimating average fuel consumption for each group by year, fishing activity and landings. Fuel consumption survey data was additionally crosschecked with fuel subsidy values by vessel provided by the regional fisheries department. 2.4.4. Human consumption, discards There are no direct reduction fisheries in the Azores, however, most vessels use part of their catch as bait, usually small pelagic species such as sardine (Sardina pilchardus) and mackerel (Trachurus picturatus) and other low value species. In the case of the tuna fishing fleet, which uses the pole and line gear with live bait, the small pelagic species caught by this fleet are almost exclusively used in the fishery as bait to attract and maintain tuna species near the surface. The quantity of these small pelagic species caught by this fleet is considerable and estimated at around 100 tonnes per year. In 2000, live bait captures reached almost 180 tonnes, corresponding to about 2% of the total landings in the region; 15% of the total small pelagic landings and around 17% of the total landings by the tuna fishing fleet (Carvalho and Isidro, unpublished data). These captures are not accounted for in the official landings and hence all landings by the tuna fleet are considered for human consumption. However, for this analysis, captures by the fleet used as live bait in the fishery were considered as bait/discards. The handlines and bottom longline fisheries, which essentially target the blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo), appear to discard a considerable amount of catch. The reasons for discarding catch vary between vessels but fall into the following three main categories: undersized, no commercial value or damaged. This socalled by-catch is usually discarded, consumed or, more recently in greater amounts, used as bait. The main species discarded are: the bluemouth rockfish (Helicolenus dactylopterus), offshore rockfish (Pontinus kuhlii) and conger eel (Conger conger) for being undersized; the silver scabbard fish (Lepidopus caudatus) for having no commercial value and the blue jack mackerel (T. picturatus) and

364

N. Carvalho et al. / Fisheries Research 109 (2011) 360–369

forkbeard (Phycis phycis) for being damaged. The amount of fish discarded or used as bait by the handline/bottom longline fishing fleet was estimated at around 25% of the segment’s total landings (Angela Canha, personal communication). 3. Results 3.1. Defining small and large-scale fisheries in the Azores Table 2 presents data on landings, in volume and value, used to divide the regional fleet into small and large-scale sectors. Other data reported in the table include the number of landings, number of vessels and crewmembers for each group. The cut-off point at 50% cumulative weight fell almost exactly between length classes three and four and only had to be adjusted slightly to include all vessels of the same length class. The final cut-off point was set at 51.6%, corresponding to 63.3% cumulative landed value (Fig. 2). Thus, according to the methodology, the Azorean small-scale fishing sector is comprised all vessels up to length class three, or less than 12 m in length (Table 2 and Fig. 2). This value somewhat corresponds to the classification used by the regional fisheries department (SRPA/DRP) for the local fleet, which includes all vessels (open and closed deck) up to 9 m, and sometimes up to 14 m in length depending on certain technical vessel characteristics. A value of 12 m is also in accordance with other similar studies, and was used as a conventional value in a report by Ifremer (2007) on small-scale fisheries in Europe to set a limit between small and large-scale fleets for comparison. Great variability in power and tonnage was observed for each length class. The technical characteristics of vessels may be influenced, to varying degrees, on the age of vessel, type of fishing activity, construction materials, as well as, management measures. In this case study, the average age of the small-scale fleet was 21 years (ranging between 0 and 85 years), with an average power of 31 kW (ranging from 3 to 107 kW) and tonnage of 3.2 (ranging between 0.3 and 26 GRT). The majority of the vessels (76%) are wooden, with an average age of 33 years; power 17 kW and tonnage 3 GT, while 15% are made of fibreglass, averaging 8 years in age, 57 kW in power and 4.9 GT. Both these components average 7 m in length. Thus, the Azorean small-scale fishing fleet is still dominated by small, old, wooden vessels of low power, similar to other Mediterranean or less developed European fishing fleets, such as in Greece, Estonia and Corsica (Ifremer, 2007). On the other hand, the large-scale fleet is slightly younger with an average age of 11 years. The technical characteristics of the large-scale fleet average 18 m in length, 248 kW in power (ranging from 34 to 634 kW), and 70 GT in tonnage (ranging between 4.5 and 215 GT). When averaged values for the period 1995–2005 were used, a slightly dissimilar cut-off point was obtained, indicating a temporal trend in aggregate landings by the two sectors (Fig. 3). The cutoff point at 50% cumulative weight for the period 1995–2005 fell in the vessels size category 4, i.e. including vessels up to 15 m in length. When the same division obtained for the 2005 data (up to 12 m in length was applied), the cut-off point fell at 47.2% cumulative weight (corresponding to 59.6% cumulative value), indicating that the small-scale sector in the Azores has actually increased in importance over the years, both in terms of landed volume and value.

sector encompasses 90% of the fishing fleet and employs almost three times more fishers than its larger counterpart. Small-scale fisheries land slightly more catch (52%) and achieve a higher landed value per tonne than the large-scale sector. The short trip duration which characterises small-scale fisheries compared to the majority of large-scale fisheries results in the supply of fresher products, which in general obtain higher prices. The relatively low quantities landed by most small-scale operations also allow the crew to devote more time to cleaning and preparing the landings for favourable presentation, fetching higher prices. The majority of the catch not for human consumption is either discarded or used as bait, and was estimated at 25% of the total catch in the large-scale sector whereas almost all of the catch by small-scale vessels goes towards direct human consumption. These values are approximations and further studies are needed to determine more reliable values. The average wage of crew on the island is higher than the minimum wage and roughly equivalent to alternative employment opportunities on the islands, such as construction work. Crewmembers are paid according to the principle of the share system, which is a form of sharing the firm’s margin, and varies from vessel to vessel. Usually in the small-scale sector, crewmembers (including owner) each get an equal share of the total net landings revenue. The share system is calculated in parts with each member receiving its share, including the vessel or “firm”, from which expenses (fixed and variable costs) are paid. In the large-scale sector, this system differs somewhat in the sense that each crewmember receives a share according to their function, for example, the owner, skipper, and mechanic usually get a larger share. In the large-scale tuna fleet, crew are usually paid their share of the captures at the end of the fishing season, which generally lasts from March to October. During the off-season, most of the tuna fleet crew work in the canning factories, earning about the minimum wage. Large-scale fishers appear to earn slightly more than small-scale fishers, earning roughly D 700 per month whereas small-scale crew earn around D 550. Crew earnings in both sectors depend essentially on landings but since small-scale fishing activity is greatly, more so than in the large-scale sector, conditioned by weather conditions, overall this sector generally spends fewer days at sea, giving fishers the opportunity for a more diversified livelihood with additional sources of income. In terms of total fuel consumed, the small-scale sector appears to be less fuel intensive (137 l/tonne), consuming almost half as much fuel per tonne of fish landed, as do the large-scale fisheries (239 l/tonne). When considering the amount of fuel used per landing and per vessel, however, the small-scale sector consumes significantly less fuel: averaging roughly 146 l per landing and 8.4 tonnes of fuel per vessel per year whereas the large-scale sector consumes 4884 l per landing and 65 tonnes of fuel per vessels per year. It is commonly believed that fuel consumption by small-scale fisheries is lower than consumption by the large-scale operations because small-scale fisheries mostly operate with passive gears, spend less time at sea and travel shorter distances. This also appears to be the case in the Azores, even though both the small and the large-sectors employ mainly passive gears (trawling gears are prohibited in the region). However, large-scale vessels spend more days at sea and most of their activity is concentrated around offshore fishing areas (seamounts and banks); travelling to and from these fishing grounds may entail moving extensive distances.

3.2. Comparison of socio-economic parameters between small and large-scale fisheries in the Azores

4. Discussion

Table 3 summarises how the two sectors compare in a number of socioeconomic parameters. Using the methodology developed by Ruttan et al. (2000), the analysis revealed that the small-scale

A method that is comparable between regions and nations was used to define small and large-scale fishing operation in the Azores, providing a basis for which to compare the two subsectors

N. Carvalho et al. / Fisheries Research 109 (2011) 360–369

365

Table 2 Data on landings in volume and value for 2005 used to divide the Azores fisheries into small and large-scale sectors (for size definition of vessel category, please refer to Table 1). Gear/vessel size category

Landings

Crew

Vessels

Value (1000 D )

Volume (t)

Number

Gillnets1 Polivalent1 Handline1 Surrounding nets1 Gillnets2 Surrounding nets2 Polivalent2 Handline2 Bottom longline1 Bottom longline2 Polivalent3 Surrounding nets3 Handline3 Pole and Line3 Bottom longline3

360.43 485.57 973.01 64.06 403.87 213.32 316.73 2434.61 78.83 319.59 1153.62 1157.58 6290.77 226.06 3405.25

129.24 159.53 213.87 36.91 145.63 125.09 79.50 463.62 12.96 60.34 501.63 786.15 1150.23 150.13 593.28

1916 2400 4951 307 1432 581 983 6587 210 677 1644 1436 6923 291 1877

71.7 62.5 206.3 9.2 45.6 19.2 32.0 292.4 13.2 45.9 88.0 133.1 392.2 31.2 140.3

43 44 136 4 24 8 20 121 6 17 22 11 106 6 33

Pole and line4 Polivalent4 Handline4 Bottom longline4 Pole and Line5 Pole and Line6 Surface longline4 Surface longline5 Bottom longline5

96.55 410.18 1780.10 3018.02 1294.97 386.08 588.62 293.11 2517.91

102.69 202.91 341.70 519.31 1900.70 533.80 138.98 44.78 536.75

123 378 1071 785 207 56 111 16 98

19.4 14.4 45.0 109.2 219.0 95.0 26.0 7.8 41.5

2 3 15 14 15 6 4 1 5

28268.85

8929.73

35,060

2160

666

in a number of policy-relevant socioeconomic and environmental parameters. The limitations of attempting to reduce the diversity, complexity, and dynamics of the sector to a summary representation is recognised, but in doing so may help overcome some of the obstacles to categorising fishing operations. In attempting to deal with the complexity of the system, taking into account the scale of fishing operations and the unequal impact of small and large-scale fishing on fish stocks and marine ecosystems (Mathew, 2003), may help fisheries management promote fleet structures that are best adapted to ensure sustainability while generating the greatest net benefit from a limited natural resources (Therkildsen, 2007), under different economic, social and political contexts.

Average annual landings

Cumulative values Volume (kg)

% Volume

Value (D )

%Value (D )

45 55 36 77 60 73 49 54 35 40 75 131 65 49 57

129,237 288,772 502,640 539,553 685,185 810,275 889,774 1,353,399 1,366,357 1,426,694 1,928,320 2,714,465 3,864,697 4,014,831 4,608,113

1.45 3.23 5.63 6.04 7.67 9.07 9.96 15.16 15.30 15.98 21.59 30.40 43.28 44.96 51.60

360,429 845,998 1,819,012 1,883,071 2,286,937 2,500,254 2,816,985 5,251,599 5,330,427 5,650,021 6,803,646 7,961,224 14,251,995 14,478,052 17,883,302

1.28 2.99 6.43 6.66 8.09 8.84 9.96 18.58 18.86 19.99 24.07 28.16 50.42 51.22 63.26

62 126 71 56 14 9 28 16 20

4,710,800 4,913,711 5,255,411 5,774,717 7,675,419 8,209,222 8,348,200 8,392,978 8,929,726

52.75 55.03 58.85 64.67 85.95 91.93 93.49 93.99 100.00

17,979,855 18,390,039 20,170,141 23,188,161 24,483,133 24,869,213 25,457,834 25,750,945 28,268,853

63.60 65.05 71.35 82.03 86.61 87.97 90.06 91.09 100.00

The results revealed that small-scale fishing operations in the Azores have the potential to be an attractive and profitable activity in many coastal communities. The subsector also has the potential to produce high value products for trade using environmentally more friendly methods, preserving both the resource and the way of life of communities depending on them. Furthermore, small-scale fisheries in the Azores appear to be less harmful to stocks and their habitats than large-scale fisheries due to the relatively less productive fishing technologies that they usually employ. When results obtained in the present study were compared with those obtained by Sumaila et al. (2001) and Therkildsen (2007) for

Fig. 2. Gear type/vessel size against cumulative percentage landed weight (solid line) and value (dash-dot line) for 2005 data. The cut-off point between small and large-scale fisheries is shown at 51.6% cumulative landed weight, adjusted slightly to include all vessels of the same size in the small-scale sector (dashed line). The corresponding cumulative percentage in landed value is also shown (dotted line).

366

N. Carvalho et al. / Fisheries Research 109 (2011) 360–369

Table 3 Comparisons between the small and large-scale fishing sectors in the Azores for 2005.

N. Carvalho et al. / Fisheries Research 109 (2011) 360–369

367

Fig. 3. Gear type/vessel size against cumulative percentage landed weight (solid line) and value (dash-dot line) for averaged values 1995–2005. The cut-off point at 50% cumulative landed weight for the years 1995–2005 falls in the middle of length class 4 (dotted line). The cut-off point between small and large-scale fisheries when using the cut-off point obtained for 2005 data is also shown (dashed line).

other country-case studies using the same methodology to define scale, similar trends were observed between small-scale fisheries in relation to their larger counterparts (Table 4). The suggestion put forward by Sumaila et al. (2001), that small-scale fisheries in the North Atlantic as a whole employ on average more people for a given amount of landed value they generate is reinforced in this study. The small-scale sector in the Azores also achieves a higher value per landed tonne and more of the catch goes towards direct human consumption. Thus, as in the case of the Canadian, Norwegian (Sumaila et al., 2001) and New England fisheries (Therkildsen, 2007), the Azorean small-scale fishing sector also appears to be more capable of meeting several of the policy goals formulated by various countries, such as, catching fish for direct human consumption, providing employment and deriving a higher economic value from each tonne of fish landed. The small-scale sector in the Azores, as opposed to the other studies, lands more catch than its larger counterpart, accounting for 52% of the total landings in the region. This may be due to the extensive nature of the small-scale sector, which assembles 90% of the regional fleet and accounts for approximately the same value in the number of landings. A much larger small-scale subsector was also found to be the case in the Norwegian and New England case studies, where the small-scale sectors dominate the fishing fleets, representing 98% and 96% of the fishing fleet yet responsible for only 30% and 36% of the landings, respectively. Thus, the small-scale sector in the Azores appears to

be more efficient than its equivalents in these other two countries, or conversely, the large-scale sector in the Azores may be less efficient. With the exception of the Azores, the small-scale fleet in all the country case studies were more fuel intensive than their larger counterparts, however, when fuel consumed per landed tonne and per vessel was considered, almost all the small-scale fleets consumed less than their larger counterparts. Many, although not all, small-scale fisheries are less capital and fuel intensive, allowing them to remain viable in more marginal circumstances and potentially be more competitive in price terms than large-scale vessels (Johnson, 2006). Thus, small-scale fisheries may point to, or even be, the future of fisheries in a world economy largely dominated by high fuel cost (Chuenpagdee et al., 2006). Given the high dependency of global fisheries on fuel inputs (Tyedmers, 2001; Tyedmers et al., 2005), with fuel costs constituting a significant component of total fishing costs, fuel price increases would be expected to induce lower fishing pressure on fish stocks, since this reduces profitability. However, according to Sumaila et al. (2008), government fuel subsidies to the fishing sector lessen, if not completely negate, this positive aspect of increasing fuel costs. In fact, this was recently demonstrated to be true when rises in fuel price led to increases in fisheries fuel subsidies in several countries, decisions mainly influenced by political and social concerns, rather than on the sustainability of marine resources (Sumaila et al., 2008).

Table 4 Comparison of several socio-economic parameters between small-scale fisheries and their larger counterparts in four different country-case studies. The + (more) and − (less) signs indicate how the small-scale sectors compare to their larger counterparts in each case-study. Percentage values show how the small-scale sectors performed in relation to the country fleets for each parameter analysed. Socio-economic parameters

Canada

Norway

New England

Sumaila et al. (2001) Landings in volume Landed value Number of vessels Number of fishers employed Total Fuel consumed Energy (l/tonne) Discards/reduction Fuel consumed per vessel Profitability a

− + + +

35% 51% 55% 51%

Statistical Yearbook of Norway (Anon, 2000 in Sumaila et al., 2001).

− + + + + + − − −a

30% 51% 98% 85% 54%

Azores

Therkildsen (2007)

Present study

− + + + +? +− −

+ + + + − − − − +

36% 53% 96%

52% 63% 90% 73% 60%

368

N. Carvalho et al. / Fisheries Research 109 (2011) 360–369

The assumption that large-scale fishing operations are more profitable or economically more efficient may not necessarily be true (Pauly and MaClean, 2003). In studies on the economic and financial viability of fisheries in several European countries, smallscale operations were found to be more profitable (Lery et al., 1999; Tietze et al., 2001, 2005; Ifremer, 2007). In most countries, largescale operations receive the bulk of government subsidies and consequently the economic efficiency of these fisheries is questionable (Hassan et al., 2005; Kurien, 2006; Ponte et al., 2007; Sumaila, 2007). If many of the so-called “bad” subsidies (e.g. fuel subsidies) were to be eliminated (Sumaila and Pauly, 2007) for example, without them many large-scale fishing operations would most probably be economically unviable and leave the industry, reducing excess capacity. Small-scale fisheries would have a better chance of surviving in local markets and global fish stocks would have an opportunity to recover. Furthermore, the income generated from this activity is more likely to stay at the local level, contributing to local well-being. This does not, however, suggest that large-scale operations should be abandoned altogether although little doubt remains that fishing effort and capacity must be reduced. Largescale fishing operations employ a significant amount of people and contribute greatly to global food security, providing an important source of protein at cost-effective prices to families that would otherwise not be able to afford it. With declining world catches, fleet over-capacity and overcapitalisation, rising and volatile fuel prices, subsidy-dependency, pollution aggravation and habitat degradation; it has become apparent that new approaches to fisheries management and development are needed. Conventional management policies have not been very successful in addressing the global fisheries crisis and appear to be particularly unsuitable for small-scale fisheries (Mahon, 1997; Pitcher et al., 1998; Berkes et al., 2001; Mahon et al., 2008). Many now view small-scale fisheries as our best option for a sustainable use of fisheries resources, overcoming many of the problems that the global fisheries are facing today (Pauly, 1997, 2006; Béné, 2003; Mathew, 2003; Sadovy, 2005; Jacquet and Pauly, 2008). Yet, the sustainability of small-scale operations is hindered by increasing competition with large-scale fishing operations, often resulting in conflict between the two sectors. Globally, small-scale fishers are having to fish for longer periods of time for less catch than before, compete in markets flooded with heavy imports of cheap subsidised fish, undermining the opportunity for fishers to sell their products at a profit. More recently, small-scale fisheries have begun to face an additional barrier to trade through the wellintentioned sustainable fisheries initiative of ecolabeling (Jacquet and Pauly, 2008), as well as compete with growing industries such as recreational fishing and other marine tourism activities operating in coastal areas. While the key reasons for valuing small-scale fisheries are evident, just being small does not necessarily make fishing activities more sustainable or socially equitable. Careful consideration to the actual practice of small-scale fishing reveals cases that are neither ecologically sustainable nor socially just, even if taken as a whole small-scale fisheries are better in these areas than large-scale fisheries (Johnson, 2006). Small-scale fisheries have great potential to create overcapacity and to overexploit coastal resources: the reduced size of small-scale vessels often confines their activities to limited areas where they are only able to exploit a stock during a brief stage of its life cycle. In some cases, the low investment and low-running costs enhance this capacity to overexploit (Kurien, 2006), particularly when the targeted phase of the life cycle is juvenile or their area of operation (coastal systems) is a spawning ground (Johnson, 2006). However, if developed in the right way, i.e. under effective management strategies, the small-scale sector has a greater capacity for employment, greater capacity to distribute the benefits from fishing more equitably, fewer requirements for fuel

and inputs, and greater capacity to adapt seasonally and annually to changing circumstances, economically, ecologically and socially. There is little doubt that overall fishing effort and capacity, particularly in coastal and other fragile ecosystems, need to be reduced but there is more than one way to achieve this reduction. It is here that informed policy can make choices that are best for coastal systems as a whole. In order to support and sustain the livelihoods of these fishers requires a more thorough understanding of the cultures and social arrangements within the fishing communities and a thorough assessment of the social and economic ramifications of fisheries policies prior to implementing management strategies (Allison, 2003). 5. Final remarks Sustainable, small-scale fishing practices are able to provide food security, employment in the primary sector throughout the year and opportunities for development in other alternative activities such as ecotourism, preserving the social and cultural heritage while maintaining populations in remote areas of the region where few economic alternatives exist. To maintain the fishing industry that has generally been considered as sustainable and promote a profitable and economically independent sector, the well-being of the region’s small-scale fishing communities should become a top priority in its fisheries development policies. The widespread benefits of doing so would be increased food security and employment in the coastal communities; more efficient harvesting of the region’s stocks with a corresponding less deleterious impact on its marine ecosystems than is the case when large-scale fishing is adopted. However, the reduced economic significance of small-scale fisheries has lessen their relevance in the policy arena but to many local communities the reliance on this sector is very high and plays a major role both in the economy and in the social structure of these areas. Evidence on the number of small-scale fishers and their significance to world fish production highlights the social and economic importance of this sub-sector (Béné, 2006). Although the majority of small-scale fisheries are found in developing countries, a considerable number exist in developed nations as well. Small-scale fisheries are strongly represented in all European Union member States, with over 80% of the EU25 fleet composed of vessels less than 12 m long. Yet, small-scale fisheries continue to receive a disproportionally low level of attention by scientists and policy-makers. Fisheries development policies need to take into account the duality of fisheries prevailing in most countries of the world and be directed foremost at social and ecological goals. The fisheries crises should not be treated as one and industrial and small-scale problems need to be addressed separately (Defeo and Castilla, 2005). Development strategies should encourage synergies between the sectors that favour more social equity and ecologically sustainable operations by promoting co-management policies and removing environmentally harmful and trade distorting fisheries subsidies. Acknowledgements Natacha Carvalho gratefully acknowledges the support by the Portuguese Fundac¸ão para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Grant FCT SFRH/BD/16126/2004). The authors also express their gratitude to all the fisherfolk that participated in the survey. References Allison, E.H., Ellis, F., 2001. The livelihoods approach and management of small-scale fisheries. Mar. Pol. 25, 377–388. Allison, E.H., 2003. Potential applications of a ‘sustainable livelihoods approach’ to management and policy development for European inshore fisheries. In: Hart, P.,

N. Carvalho et al. / Fisheries Research 109 (2011) 360–369 Johnson, M. (Eds.), Who Owns the Sea: Workshop Proceedings. Tjärnö, Sweden, 24–27 June 2002, pp. 53–99. Allison, E.H., 2004. Contribution of the fisheries sector to livelihoods and rural development in Eastern and Southern Africa. In: Ellis, F., Freeman, H.A. (Eds.), Rural Livelihoods and Poverty Reduction Policies. Routledge, London. Anon, 2000. Fishing and Fish Farming. Statistical Yearbook of Norway 2000, Statistics Norway, Oslo. Béné, C., Bennett, E., Neiland, A., 2004. The challenge of managing small-scale fisheries with reference to poverty alliviation. In: Neiland, A., Béné, C. (Eds.), Poverty and Small-Scale Fisheries in West Africa. FAO and Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston and London, pp. 83–102. Béné, C., 2003. When fishery rhymes with poverty, a first step beyond the old paradigm on poverty in small-scale fisheries. World Dev 36 (1), 945–975. Béné, C., 2006. Small-scale fisheries: Assessing their contribution to rural livelihoods in developing countries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1008. Rome, FAO, 46pp. Berkes, F., Kislalioglu, M., 1989. A comparative study of yield, investment and energy use in small-scale fisheries: some considerations for resource planning. Fish. Res. 7, 207–224. Berkes, F., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Pollnac, R., Pomeroy, R., 2001. Managing SmallScale Fisheries. Alternative Directions and Methods. International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, ON, 308pp. Blount, B.G., 2005. Small-scale fisheries in the contemporary world: adaptations and management. Rev. Anthropol. 34, 1–19. Chuenpagdee, R., Liguori, L., Palomares, M.L.D., Pauly, D., 2006. Bottom-Up, Global Estimates of Small-Scale Marine Fisheries Catches, vol. 14(8). Fisheries Centre Research Report, 112p. Defeo, O., Castilla, J.C., 2005. More than one bag for the world fishery crisis and keys for co-management successes in selected artisanal Latin American shellfisheries. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisher. 15, 265–283. Durand, J.R., Lemoalle, J., Weber, J., 1991. Research and small-scale fisheries. In: Symposium International ORSTOM-IFREMER , Montpellier, 3–7 July 1989, vol. 2. FAO, 1994. Socio-economic issues in coastal fisheries management. In: Proceedings of the IPFC Symposium , Bangkok, Thailand, 23–26 November 1993. FAO, p. 442. FAO, 2003. Report on the Second Session of the Working Party on Small-Scale Fisheries. Advisory Committee on Fisheries Research (ACFR), FAO Report No. 735. Bangkok, Thailand. FAO, 2005. Increasing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries No. 10. FAO, Rome, 79 p. Granzotto, A., Libralato, S., Pranovi, F., Raicevich, S., Giovanadi, O., 2004. Comparison between artisanal and industrial fisheries using ecosystem indicators. Chem. Ecol. 20 (1), 435–449. Hassan, R.M., Scholes, R., Ash, N., 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends, Volume 1. Findings of the Conditions and Trends Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, DC, 917p. Ifremer, 2007. Small-scale coastal fisheries in Europe. Final Report of the Contract No. FISH/2005/10, 447 pp. Isidro, E.J., 1996. Biology and population dynamics of selected demersal species of the Azores archipelago. PhD Thesis. Universidade dos Ac¸ores, 249 p. Jacquet, J., Pauly, D., 2008. Funding priorities: big barriers to small-scale fisheries. Conserv. Biol. 22 (4), 832–835. Johnson, D.S., 2006. Category, narrative, and value in the governance of small-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy 30, 747–756. Kurien, J., 1996. Towards a New Agenda for Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries Development. South Indian Federation of Fishermen Societies, Kerala, India, 48 pp. Kurien, J., 1998. Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Globalisation. Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum, 44p. Kurien, J., 2006. Overcapacity, overfishing and subsidies: how do they relate to smallscale fisheries? In: Presented at the 8th Pacific Rim Fisheries Conference , Hanoi, 22–24 March. Lawson, R.M., 1977. New directions in developing small-scale fisheries. Mar. Policy 1, 45–51. Lery, J.M., Prado, J., Tietze, U., 1999. Economic viability of marine capture fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 377. FAO, Rome, 130 p. Maclean, J.L., 1988. Thanks for using Naga. Naga, The ICLARM Quart. 11, 16–17. Mahon, R., 1997. Does fisheries science serve the needs of managers of small stocks in developing countries? Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54, 2207–2213. Mahon, R., McConney, P., Rathindra, N.R., 2008. Governing fisheries as complex adaptive systems. Mar. Policy 32, 104–112. Mathew, S., 2003. Small-scale fisheries perspectives on an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. In: Sinclair, M., Valdimarsson, G. (Eds.), Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. FAO and CAB International, Rome, Italy and Wallingford, pp. 47–63. Megapesca, 2001. Estudo Soócio-economico do sector das Pescas dos Ac¸ores. Relatório Final. Região Autonoma dos Ac¸ores, Secretária Regional da Agricultura e Pescas, Direcc¸ão Regional das Pescas, 96 p. Menezes, G.M., Sigler, M.F., Silva, H.M., Pinho, M.R., 2006. Structure and zonation of demersal fish assemblages off theAzores archipelago (mid-Atlantic). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 324, 241–260.

369

Morato, T., Guénette, S., Pitcher, T., 2001. Fisheries of the Azores, 1982–1999. In: Zeller, D., Watson, R., Pauly, D. (Eds.), Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Catch, Effort and National/Regional Data Sets, vol. 9(3). Fisheries Centre Research Report, pp. 214–220. Morato, T., Machete, M., Kitchingman, A., Tempera, F., Lai, S., Menezes, G., et al., 2008. Abundance and distribution of seamounts in the Azores. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 357, 17–21. Morton, B., Britton, J.C., Martins, A.M.F., 1998. Coastal Ecology of the Azores. Sociedade Afonso Chaves, Ponta Delgada, 249 pp. Panayotou, T., 1982. Management concepts in small-scale fisheries: Economic and social aspects. Fisheries Technical Paper No. 228, FAO, Rome, Italy, 53 p. Pauly, D., 1997. Small-scale fisheries in the tropics: marginality, marginalization, and some implications for fisheries management. In: Pikitch, E.K., Huppert, D.D., Sissenwine, M.P. (Eds.), Global Trends: Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society Symposium, vol. 20, Bethesda, MD. Pauly, D., 2006. Towards consilience in small-scale fisheries research. Maritime Stud. (MAST) 4 (2), 7–22. Pauly, D., MaClean, J., 2003. In a Perfect Ocean – The State of Fisheries and Ecosystems in the North Atlantic Ocean. Island Press, Washington/Covelo/London, 175 p. Pinho, M.R., 2003. Abundance estimation and management ofAzorean demersal species. Dissertation, University of Azores, Portugal. Pitcher, T.J., Hart, P.J.B., Pauly, D. (Eds.), 1998. Reinventing Fisheries Management. Kluwer, p. 435. Platteau, J.P., 1989. The dynamics of fisheries development in developing countries: a general overview. Devel. Change 20 (4), 565–597. Ponte, S., Raakjaer, J., Campling, L., 2007. Swimming upstream: market access for African fish exports in the context of WTO and EU negotiations and regulations. Dev. Pol. Rev. 25, 113–138. Proude, P.D., 1973. Objectives and methods of small-scale fisheries development. J. Fish. Res. Board Can. 30 (12), 2190–2195. Ruttan, L.M., Gayanilo Jr., F.C., Sumaila, U.R., Pauly, D., 2000. Small versus largescale fisheries: a multi-species, multi-fleet model for evaluations and potential benefits. In: Pauly, D., Pitcher, T.J. (Eds.), Methods for Evaluating the Impacts of Fisheries on North Atlantic Ecosystems, vol. 82. Fisheries Centre Research Reports, pp. 64–75. Sadovy, Y., 2005. Trouble on the reef: the imperative for managing vulnerable and valuable fisheries. Fish Fish. 6, 167–185. Salmi, P., 2005. Rural pluriactivity as a coping strategy in small-scale fisheries. Sociol. Ruralis 45 (1–2), 22–36. Santos, R.S., Hawkins, S., Monteiro, L.R., Alves, M., Isidro, E.J., 1995. Marine research, resources and conservation in the Azores. Aquat. Conserv.: Mar Freshw. Ecosystems 3 (5), 311–354. Smith, I.R., 1979. A Research Framework for Traditional Fisheries. International Center for Living Aquatic Resource Management, Manila, 45p. Sumaila, U.R., 2007. Running on empty: eliminate fuel subsidies to reduce destructive bottom trawling on the high seas. Conservation 8, 6–7. Sumaila, U.R., Liu, Y., Tyedmers, P., 2001. Small Versus Large-Scale Fishing Operations in the North Atlantic. Fisheries Centre Research Report, pp. 28–35. Sumaila, U.R., Pauly, D., 2007. All nations must unite to cut subsidies. Nature 450, 945. Sumaila, U.R., Teh, L., Watson, R., Tyedmers, P., Pauly, D., 2008. Fuel price, subsidies, overcapacity, and resources sustainability. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 65 (6), 832–840. Taylor-Powell, E., 1998. Questionnaire Design: Asking Questions with a Purpose. University of Wisconsin, Cooperative Extension. Therkildsen, N.O., 2007. Small versus large-scale fishing operations in New England, USA. Fish. Res. 83 (2–3), 285–296. Thompson, D., 1980. Conflict within the fishing industry. ICLARM Newslett. 3 (3), 3–4. Thompson, D., FAO, 1988. The world’s two marine fishing industries – how they compare. Naga, The ICLARM Quart. 11 (3), 17. Tietze, U., Prado, J., Lery, J.M., Lasch, R., 2001. Techno-economic performance of marine capture fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 421, FAO, Rome, 86 pp. Tietze, U., Thiele, W., Lasch, R., 2005. Economic performance and fishing efficiency of marine capture fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 482, FAO, Rome, 86 pp. Tyedmers, P., 2001. Energy consumed by North Atlantic fisheries. In: Zeller, D., Watson, R., Pauly, D. (Eds.), Fisheries Impacts on North Atlantic Ecosystems: Catch, Effort and National/Regional Data Sets, vol. 9(3). Fisheries Centre Research Reports, pp. 12–34. Tyedmers, P., Watson, R., Pauly, D., 2005. Fuelling global fishing fleets. Ambio: J. Human Environ. 34 (8), 619–622. World Bank, 1991. Small-Scale Fisheries: Research Needs. World Bank Technical Paper No. 152, Fisheries Series, World Bank Publications, Washington, DC. World Bank, 2004. Saving Fish and Fishers: Towards Sustainable and Equitable Governance of the Global Fishing Sector. Report No. 29090-GLB. World Bank, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, Washington, DC, 93 p. Zeller, D., Booth, S., Pauly, D., 2005. Fisheries contribution to GDP: underestimating small-scale fisheries in the Pacific. Mar. Res. Econ. 21, 355–374.