DOCSLIB.ORG

Towards a Theory for Discarding Behaviour. ICES CM 2002/V:03

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Towards a Theory for Discarding Behaviour. ICES CM 2002/V:03 ICES CM 2001/V:03 Towards a theory for discarding behaviour Verena M. Trenkel and Marie-Joëlle Rochet Laboratoire Maerha, Ifremer, Rue de l'Ile d'Yeu, BP 20115, 44311 Nantes Cedex 3, France [tel: +33 2 40 37 40 53, fax: +33 2 40 37 40 75, e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]]. Abstract Discards have been recognised as an important source of unaccounted mortality. Most research in this field has focused on estimating discarded quantities for a particular fishery; a necessary first step which requires large sampling efforts due to the inherent variability of catches. Currently no unifying theory exists which would try to explain discarding behaviour but a number of assumptions are implicit in many studies. We propose to explicitly state and test these underlying hypotheses in order to start building a theoretical basis that might help us to understand and predict discarding behaviour. The common implicit assumptions are: H1: Discards are proportional to catches H2: Discards are proportional to fishing effort H3: Discards are determined by year class strength H4: Legal landing size determines discards selection We examine theses hypotheses for the case of the French Celtic sea groundfish trawl fisheries. Keywords: discards, fishermen behaviour, groundfish, trawl fisheries, Celtic Sea. Introduction Discarding is a natural by-product of intentional selective fishing carried out by rather non-selective harvesting methods in a context of economical and technical constraints. From a stock management point of view discarding poses the problem of resource waste, whereas from an ecoystem point of view it enhances the perturbations incurred on the system. Given the importance of discards compared to landed catches in many trawl fisheries, a number of studies have been carried out to estimate discard biomass and numbers. The conclusion of many of these studies is that discard biomass (or numbers) vary tremendously in space and time and between fisheries (Murawski 1996; Rochet et al. 2002). In 1985 already, Hilborn (1985) pointed out that published information about discards was sparse and unstructured, due to the lack of a theory of discarding. Hilborn and Walters (1992) later proposed several explanations for discarding. In particular they postulated that market demand, hold capacity and regulations should influence discarding practices. Since then some attempts have been made to study the factors that explain discards such as landings' size and composition, vessel and fishing characteristics, year class strength, minimal landing size, quotas, etc. (Murawski 1996; Rochet et al. 2002; Stratoudakis et al. 1998). An important motivation for this search for predictors is that discards sampling is expensive. Hence being able to predict discards without having to sample them would be an enormous advantage. Unfortunately, in the various studies no overall determining factors could be identified that seemed important for all species and in different circumstances. 1 A theory for discarding behaviour is still lacking. Instead of trying to correlate discards with any available factor, it is time to look at the underlying processes directly. This means, investigating discards at various levels, but focusing mainly on the trip and haul levels where behavioural patterns are operating, rather than on integrated levels like fleets or total annual discards. As building blocks towards such a theory we propose to look at some of the implicit assumptions concerning discarding behaviour that are commonly made. Our approach is empirical as we hope to accumulate evidence supporting or refuting each assumption. We formulate the assumptions as null hypotheses which can then be tested against competing hypotheses within a statistical framework. The first three hypotheses deal with discarded quantities, whereas the fourth goes more deeply into the process and concerns discards' selection criteria. H1. Discards are proportional to catch, hence to landings H2. Discards are proportional to fishing effort H3. Year class strength determines discarded quantities H4. Legal size determines discarding practices This paper is focused on discarding behaviour for species that are partially discarded, because the reasons for those that are always discarded should be easier to identify. Depending on the species this can either be legislation (protection) or unfitness for human consumption or industrial use. The list of species that is always or, the opposite extreme, never discarded might depend on the particular fisheries. Hence for species that are never discarded in one fishery but sometimes in another, it can be of interest to elucidate the differences. However, in this paper we concentrate on the species that are partially discarded within a given fishery and leave the inter-fisheries comparison aside. We use data from the French fleet operating in the Celtic sea as our case study. Three métiers are practised by this fleet, métiers in the sense of using a given gear to target a set of species in a given area. These métiers target three species groups: demersal fish, gadoids and Nephrops. Discarding behaviour is expected to vary between métiers as they target different species and operate in different areas. A sampling program of this fleet was carried out in 1997 and the main results were reported in Rochet et al. (2002). Hypotheses for discarding behaviour H1 Discards are proportional to catch Total discards are most often estimated using a ratio estimator based on landings or discard rates (discards/landings), the underlying assumption being that discards are proportional to landings. This is equivalent to saying that discards are proportional to catches and that a certain fixed proportion of catch is discarded. As a consequence, the bigger the landings, the higher the expected discards. This assumption is convenient for raising discards to the fleet level provided landing statistics are available. It is also sometimes used to estimate discards from landings in years when discards are not sampled. The assumption can be investigated on various levels, from hauls to fleets. Several authors have investigated the hypothesis, generally in the context of finding the best discards estimator. Some evidence rejecting the hypothesis has been published (Allen et al. 2001; Evans et al. 1994; Stratoudakis et al. 1999). 2 H1a Discards increase non linearly with catch Alternatively, the proportion of animals discarded might increase with trip duration as storage capacity is becoming limiting. Saturation might also arise on the fleet level when the total allowable catch has been almost caught. This hypothesis has been put forward by Hilborn and Walters (1992). To investigate the hypothesis, the ideal sampling scheme includes haul by haul sampling of discards and landings. If landings by haul are not available, some insight can be gained by regressing trip discards against trip catch or haul number. However, inter-haul catch variability might prevent clear conclusions. Looking at total landings as a function of hold capacity can also provide evidence in support of the hypothesis. H2 Discards are proportional to effort Because data on fleet effort are often available, many authors have used discards per unit effort (DPUE) for raising sample discard estimates to fleet estimates (e.g. Dupouy et al. 1998; Trujillo & Pereda 1997). Not all authors checked the underlying hypothesis that discards are proportional to fishing effort. This assumption is based on the idea that catch would be proportional to effort: if discards are proportional to catch they are also proportional to effort. In addition to the latter assumption, already examined above (see H1), catch must also be proportional to effort. This might not always be true, either at the haul level (Gillis 1999; Somerton et al. 2002) or on a larger time or spatial scale due to behavioural reactions of both fish and fishermen (Hilborn & Walters 1992). H2a Discarding behaviour changes with haul duration Instead of being linearly related to effort as measured by haul duration, discarding could increase non-linearly due to fish being damaged by long hauls. The alternative hypothesis is therefore that discarded biomass is a non-linear function of haul duration. It might be expected to be true for fragile species such as whiting which could get squashed by the accumulating biomass in long hauls. Hauls with large biomasses could have the same effect. H2b Discarding behaviour changes with trip length Instead of being determined by the individual haul duration, overall trip length could influence discarding. Under this competing hypothesis, discards would be related to trip duration. Several factors could lead to this scenario: conservation problems on vessels without freezing facilities or fish species with mainly a market for fresh fish. For example hake and rays might be concerned by this problem as they are more perishable than other species. H3 Year class strength determines discards A commonly accepted thesis is that mainly recruits are discarded and hence discarded biomass is determined by year class strength. In order to investigate this hypothesis it is necessary to dispose of time series of both discards by species and estimates of recruits which are either obtained from scientific surveys or from VPA stock assessments. These time series are not available for many fisheries. Rochet et al. (2002) used an alternative method employing standardised estimates per species as replicates instead of solely a time
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recipes for Your Sustainable Seafood
    Recipes for your sustainable seafood Not sure how to cook what’s on offer at your local fish merchant? Here we recommend the fish that are sustainable to buy and suggest some recipes to try with them. Brown crab Cancer pagurus Brown crab, also known as edible crab, is the heaviest British crab. About a third of the weight of the crab is meat, two thirds is white and third is brown. It's used to make 'dressed crab' where the shell is cleaned out and used as the dish. Crab is also used to make fish cakes, crab sticks and paste. Brown crabs mature at about 10 years and averagely lives for 30 years, but some have been known to go on till they're 100! The vast majority of brown crabs in the UK are caught by potting. This is a low impact and relatively selective method of fishing, any bycatch or discards can be returned alive to the sea with high survival rates. Brown crab from the Inshore Potting Agreement Area in Devon, the Western Channel or Cornwall are the best choices for crab in the UK. Avoid eating crabs below the minimum landing size (13-14 cm in most areas of the UK) and crab claws, unless it is certain they have been removed from the animal after landing. Egg-bearing or "berried" females should be avoided at all times to allow them to spawn. (Information source: MSC Good Fish Guide) Brown crab Recipes - These four recipes from The Guardian include jungle curry with crab and a spring salad.
    [Show full text]
  • The Landing Obligation and Its Implications on the Control of Fisheries
    DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES THE LANDING OBLIGATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON THE CONTROL OF FISHERIES STUDY This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries. AUTHORS Ocean Governance Consulting: Christopher Hedley Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science: Tom Catchpole, Ana Ribeiro Santos RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Marcus Breuer Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Adrienn Borka Lyna Pärt LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN ABOUT THE PUBLISHER To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in September 2015. © European Union, 2015. Print ISBN 978-92-823-7938-7 doi:10.2861/694624 QA-02-15-709-EN-C PDF ISBN 978-92-823-7939-4 doi:10.2861/303902 QA-02-15-709-EN-N This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES THE LANDING OBLIGATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON THE CONTROL OF FISHERIES STUDY Abstract This study reviews the impacts of the new Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) rules requiring catches in regulated fisheries to be landed and counted against quotas of each Member State ("the landing obligation and requiring that catch of species subject to the landing obligation below a minimum conservation reference size be restricted to purposes other than direct human consumption.
    [Show full text]
  • Canales Et Al 2015
    Fisheries Research 161 (2015) 261–268 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Fisheries Research j ournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fishres Changes in the size-structure of a multispecies pelagic fishery off Northern Chile a,∗ b c,d e T. Mariella Canales , Richard Law , Rodrigo Wiff , Julia L. Blanchard a Instituto de Fomento Pesquero, Departamento de Evaluación de Recursos, Blanco 839, Valparaíso, Chile b The University of York, York Centre for Complex Systems Analysis, Ron Cooke Hub, York YO10 5EG, UK c Copas Sur-Austral, Universidad de Concepción, Departamento de Oceanografía, Barrio Universitario s/n, Chile d Center of Applied Ecology and Sustainability (CAPES), Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Av. Alameda 340, Santiago, Chile e The University of Sheffield, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: Size-based indicators are important tools for understanding how environmental variability and fishing Received 13 February 2014 impact on marine populations and communities. Ideally, they would standardise fishery-independent Received in revised form 8 August 2014 survey data. However, this is not possible in many of the world’s ecosystems with important commercial Accepted 9 August 2014 fisheries. Using fishery-dependent data we investigated changes in the size–structure of pelagic catches off Northern Chile and whether or not these changes are influenced by the environment. We computed Keywords: single- and multispecies, size-based fishery indicators (SBFIs) from 1990 to 2008 for the main commercial Body size species, anchovy (Engraulis ringens), sardine (Sardinops sagax), jack mackerel (Trachurus murphyi) and Fishery Multispecies mackerel (Scomber japonicus).
    [Show full text]
  • Seafood Watch® Standard for Fisheries
    1 Seafood Watch® Standard for Fisheries Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Seafood Watch Guiding Principles ...................................................................................................... 3 Seafood Watch Criteria and Scoring Methodology for Fisheries ........................................................... 5 Criterion 1 – Impacts on the Species Under Assessment ...................................................................... 8 Factor 1.1 Abundance .................................................................................................................... 9 Factor 1.2 Fishing Mortality ......................................................................................................... 19 Criterion 2 – Impacts on Other Capture Species ................................................................................ 22 Factor 2.1 Abundance .................................................................................................................. 26 Factor 2.2 Fishing Mortality ......................................................................................................... 27 Factor 2.3 Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use .................................................................... 29 Criterion
    [Show full text]
  • 5.2 Barents Sea Ecoregion – Fisheries Overview
    ICES Fisheries Overviews Barents Sea Ecoregion Published 29 November 2019 5.2 Barents Sea Ecoregion – Fisheries overview Table of contents Executive summary ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Who is fishing ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Catches over time ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Description of the fisheries........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Fisheries management ............................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Status of the fishery resources ..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Regulations . (L. 1. 1968) L.I
    REp\' sue OF m lA',A FISHERIES REGULATIONS . (L. 1. 1968) L.I. 1968 FISHERIES REGULATIONS, 2010 ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS Regulation Fishery plans and fishing vessels 1. Fishery plans 2. Application for registration, licensing of local, industrial and semi- industrial fishing vessels 3. Licensing and identification of fishing vessels 4. Unauthorised use of registration number and identity 5. Markings on fishing vessel Fishing nets, fishing devices and fishing 6. Use of seine net in inland waters 7. Obstruction of water ways by use of set fishing gears 8. Use of set nets 9. Beach seine not to be used in marine protected areas 10. Manufacture, importation, sale and use of unauthorised fishing nets or other gears 11. Prohibited fishing methods 12. Minimum mesh sizes of fishing gears 13. Mesh size definition 14. Minimum landing size of commercially important species 15. Obstruction of mesh and use of chafers 16. Use of turtle excluder device i 7. Marine and freshwater mammals Fishing equipment 18. Lights and shapes to be exhibited by fishing vessels 19. Equipment to be carried by motorised and non-motorised fishing vessels 20. Light and equipment to be carried by small vessels 21. Fish aggregating devices 22. Research Fishing licence 23. Application for renewal of fishing Licence 24. Fishing in foreign waters 25. Markers on fishing gears L.I.1968 2 FISHERIES REGULATIONS, 2010 26. English Language as a medium of communication 27. Application for a licence to operate a canoe 28. Transfer of canoe licence 29. Brush-park fishing or "atidza" "(acadja)" 30. Trial fishing 31. Incidental catches 32.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Discards Using Selectivity Data: the Effects of Mesh Size Changes in the Mixed Demersal Fisheries in the Irish Sea
    NOT TO BE CITED WITHOUT PRIOR REFERENCE TO THE AUTHOR(S) Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization Serial No. N2302 NAFO SCR Doc. 93/109 SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL MEETING - SEPTEMBER 1993 'Estimating Discards Using Selectivity Data: the Effects of Mesh Size Changes in the Mixed Demersal Fisheries in the Irish Sea. by J. Casey Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Directorate of Fisheries Research Fisheries Laboratory Pakefield Road, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 OHT, U.K. Abstract A model is described to predict the numbers at age of fish discarded in fisheries for which only landings at age are known. The model assumes a knowledge of the E distributionoflengthwiftneachagegroupindiepoputhfion,andusesmeshselection 0 characteristics, and an inferred discarding practice, to derive the proportions of each 0 age group discarded and landed. Mesh selectivity and discarding practice, in terms of 0 proportions of the catch discarded and landed, are described using a logistic fit to the proportions of the population entering the net that are caught, discarded and landed. The application of the model is illustrated using data from the mixed demersal fisheries 11 .1 in the Irish Sea, and the effects of mesh size and effort changes on catch predictions are examined. 71-5 t9 Introduction Catches of finfish in the Irish Sea are dominated by four main species; the common sole (Solea solea (Linnaeus, 1758)), plaice (Pleuronectesplatessa Linnaeus, 1758), cod (Gadus morhua Linnaeus, 1758) and whiting (Merlangias merlangus (Linnaeus, 1758)). The demersal fishery for these species in the Irish Sea is prosecuted by 3 main fleets, each using a different gear type; beam trawlers, otter trawlers and Nephrops trawlers.
    [Show full text]
  • REPORT of the WORKING GROUP on STOCK ASSESSMENT of DEMERSAL SPECIES Split, Croatia 5-9 November 2012
    GENERAL FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN COMMISSION GÉNÉRALE DES PÊCHES POUR LA MÉDITERRANÉE GENERAL FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SAC) Fifteen Session Cairo, Egypt 20-24 February 2013 REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP ON STOCK ASSESSMENT OF DEMERSAL SPECIES Split, Croatia 5-9 November 2012 OPENING SESSION (joint session for the two Working Groups on Demersal and Small Pelagic Species) 1. The meetings of the SCSA Working Groups on Demersal and Small Pelagic Species (WGs) were held in Split, Croatia from 5 to 9 November 2012. Organized by the Croatian Institute of Oceanography and Fisheries and hosted at the Hotel Best Western Art. The two meetings were held in parallel in two different meeting rooms, except for the opening session that was addressed to the two groups together. 2. Ms Pilar Hernández, from GFCM Secretariat, welcome the participants and thanked them for attending and providing contributions to this meeting, as well as the Croatian authorities and the Institute for their kindness in hosting and arranging the meeting. 3. She informed of several changes in the functioning promoted by the Secretariat according to recommendations of last years by the WGs and the SAC. Those changes are the new format of the Stock assessment forms, the creation of an online platform for the exchange of information based on SharePoint and the nomination of the moderator or chairman within the WGs, elected among their participants. She then underlined that these changes had been promoted for the sake of improving the overall process of stock assessment which is the pillar for the subsequent management actions and that must be based on the best possible science and on the most reliable data.
    [Show full text]
  • REVIEW of the ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION's INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN for WINTER FLOUNDER (Pseudopleuronectes Americanus)
    REVIEW OF THE ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION'S INTERSTATE FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR WINTER FLOUNDER (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) January 2005 – December 2005 FISHING YEAR Board Approved: January 2006 Prepared by the Winter Flounder Plan Review Team: Christopher Vonderweidt, ASMFC, Chair Alice Weber, New York Department of Environmental Conservation Sally Sherman, Maine Department of Marine Resources -1- I. Status of Fishery Management Plan Date of FMP Approval: May 1992 Date of Addendum I Approval: May 1992 Date of Addendum II Approval: February 1998 Date of Amendment I Approval: November 2005 Management Unit: Entire coastwide distribution of the resource from the estuaries eastward to the inshore boundary of the EEZ States With Declared Interest: Maine - Delaware Active Boards/Committees: Winter Flounder Management Board, Advisory Panel, Technical Committee, Habitat Subcommittee, and Plan Review Team The ASMFC authorized development of a Fishery Management Plan for Winter Flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) in October 1988. Member states declaring an interest in this species were the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. During 1989, the purpose of the plan evolved: 1) to address management of inshore stocks of winter flounder; and 2) to prominently consider habitat and environmental quality as factors affecting the condition of the resource. The decision to consider only inshore stocks of winter flounder was deliberate, based upon the principal focus of the ASMFC on fisheries in nearshore waters, and the differences in the biological characteristics of the offshore (Georges Bank) stock. Two inshore management units are identified: Gulf of Maine (GOM) – waters north of Cape Cod, and Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) – waters south of Cape Cod to the Delaware-Maryland Border.
    [Show full text]
  • North Sea Mixed Fisheries Annex
    ICES Stock Annex 1 North Sea Mixed Fisheries Annex Mixed Fisheries Annex Regional specific documentation of standard assessment procedures used by ICES. Eco-Region: North Sea Working Group: Working Group on Mixed Fisheries Advice (WGMIXFISH- ADVICE) Last updated: Last updated November 2020 Last updated by: WGMIXFISH-ADVICE A. General A.1. Area definition This mixed fisheries advice will consider finfish species in the ICES area 4, 3.a, 6.a and 7.d (eastern English Channel) (Figure 1) and Nephrops norvegicus in functional units FU5, FU6, FU7, FU8, FU9, FU10, FU32, FU33, FU34 and ICES’ rectangles outside of these nine functional units – denoted FU_OuTH. The species considered are part of the demersal mixed fisheries of the North Sea and eastern English channel, and are cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice, sole, turbot, witch (Table 1), and Nephrops norvegicus (Table 2). There are nine Nephrops functional units in the North Sea, which are considered as separated stocks. However, only four of these can be assessed through fishery-independent abundance estimates from un- derwater video surveys, and these were kept as distinct stocks. These cover the stocks along the English and Scottish coast; i.e. FU 6 (Farn Deep), FU 7 (Fladen Ground), FU 8 (Firth of Forth) and FU 9 (Moray Firth). The five other functional units (FU 5, FU 10, FU 32, FU 33 and FU 34) have no independent abundance estimates. 2 ICES Stock Annex Figure 1. Area description for finfish advice (top) and Nephrops Functional Units (FU) (bottom) in the North Sea and Skagerrak/Kattegat region. Table 1. Finfish stocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation on Landing Controls for the Scottish Crab and Lobster Fisheries
    Consultation on landing controls for the Scottish crab and lobster fisheries Contents Page Executive Summary 3 Background on Consultation Process 4 Consultation Document 5 Respondent Information Form 17 Annex A: Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment 22 2 Executive Summary Scotland’s fishing industry is an important part of rural life, making a valuable contribution to the economy, and is woven into the country’s culture and heritage. Fisheries are at the heart of the Scottish Government’s aims to create more, better paid jobs in a strong sustainable economy, and to build a fairer Scotland through tackling inequalities and empowering people and communities. Scotland’s brown crab, velvet crab and lobster fisheries are of great importance to many of our coastal communities with landings worth £32 million being recorded in 2014. However, around much of the Scottish coast, these stocks are estimated to be fished at levels close to or above the FMSY proxy (FMSY is the fishing mortality consistent with the largest average yield that can continuously be taken from a stock under existing environmental conditions). The Scottish fishing industry has expressed growing concern at the health of these fisheries and called for their management to be improved. Through their local management bodies, the island communities of Orkney, the Outer Hebrides and Shetland have already brought forward proposals which have resulted in the introduction of individual management arrangements for their crab and lobster fisheries. Marine Scotland is seeking
    [Show full text]
  • (SFMP) a Guide on Illegal Fishing Activities in Ghana April 2018
    SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT PROJECT (SFMP) A Guide on Illegal Fishing Activities in Ghana April 2018 This publication is available electronically in the following locations: The Coastal Resources Center http://www.crc.uri.edu/projects_page/ghanasfmp/ Ghanalinks.org https://ghanalinks.org/elibrary search term: SFMP USAID Development Clearing House https://dec.usaid.gov/dec/content/search.aspx search term: Ghana SFMP For more information on the USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project, contact: USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project Coastal Resources Center Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island 220 South Ferry Rd. Narragansett, RI 02882 USA Tel: 401-874-6224 Fax: 401-874-6920 Email: [email protected] Citation: Afoakwah, Richmond, Osei, Mensah Bonsu Dan and Effah, Elizabeth. (2018). A Guide on Illegal Fishing Activities in Ghana. USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project. Narragansett, RI: Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island. Prepared by the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. GH2014_SCI048_UCC 64 pp. Authority/Disclaimer: Prepared for USAID/Ghana under Cooperative Agreement (AID-641-A-15-00001), awarded on October 22, 2014 to the University of Rhode Island, and entitled the USAID/Ghana Sustainable Fisheries Management Project (SFMP). This document is made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The views expressed and opinions contained in this report are those of the SFMP team and are not intended as statements of policy of either USAID or the cooperating organizations. As such, the contents of this report are the sole responsibility of the SFMP team and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
    [Show full text]