ANNEX 2

SURVEY ON THE INFORMATION USED AND PRODUCED BY THE FAO FISHERIES DEPARTMENT STAFF

A2.1 Production and dissemination of Code-related publications by Fisheries Department Staff

In April 2004, the staff of the Fisheries Department was surveyed on their use and creation of information supporting implementation of the Code. In this section, the responses concerning the number of, the audience and the dissemination methods for publications produced by the Department are summarized. Responses on the searching for and the use of information are summarized in section A2.2.

Methodology

Seventy FAO staff members were sent a web-based survey containing 21 questions. Given those on duty travel and otherwise unavailable to participate, the survey sample was reduced to 59. A prompt was sent 10 days after the initial contact. Thirty-four of the adjusted sample responded fully, i.e. response rate of 57.6 percent (Table 2.1). Responses were well distributed throughout the Department’s four divisions (i.e. Information, Data and Statistics; Policy and Planning; Industries; Resources and Environment). Of those 34 responding, two indicated they did not work with the Code at all. Three only used Code information while two only produced it. Consequently, for most questions, the useful responses were 31 for the questions on using Code information and 30 for those on creating Code-related publications.

Table 2.1: Response rate to Fisheries Department survey

Involvement with producing publications

Of the 34 staff members responding, 30 indicated that they produced publications related to the Code. Respondents interpreted this broadly as illustrated by this remark: "...I work with basic fisheries management". Others mentioned specific publications and a strong sense of their division’s production being Code-related: "Most of [Fisheries Industries’] publications have a bearing on the Code, including contributions to SOFIA on fleets, fleet economics, trade, fish processing and small scale fisheries". Twenty-six of the thirty indicated how many publications they have produced over the period of their involvement with the Code. Ten or less was the most common response (Table 2.1).

There continues to be a strong commitment in the Fisheries Department to publishing in print (Table 2.2). All who publish in print also request PDF output suggesting the use of electronic delivery of their print publications. One person requests output in all the listed formats while six limit themselves to print only. Fifty four per cent publish in three or more formats. Nobody reported publishing on video or DVD.

Table 2.2: Production of Code-related publications as reported by survey respondents

Subject areas addressed by publications of survey respondents:

Table 2.3 lists the subject areas that staff members consider that their publications address in descending order of importance. Fisheries management and policy and planning are the top publication subjects by far. The additional key subject areas of the Code are represented, including the ecosystem approach, integrated coastal management and the sociological aspects of fisheries.

An additional column compares the publications’ subject areas to the subject areas staff members search for information. A more complete discussion of the searching patterns is given in Section 1.3. Of note here are two things. First, staff members search more broadly than they publish given the differences in response rates. Second, some subject areas appear important as sources of information, but not as publication topics.

Table 2.3: Subject areas of Code-related publications produced by FAO Fisheries Department

Target audiences

The two questions addressed who the Fisheries Department staff perceives as the audience for their publications. Intended audience could affect format, dissemination method as well as content. All respondents but one identified developing countries as one of their primary audiences (Table 2.4). Only 19 percent thought that their audience was only located in developing countries. One third specified a broad audience in both developed and developing countries while another third added FAO to the mix. In general, the audience for FAO Code publications is distributed broadly throughout the world.

Table 2.4: Geographic location of primary audience

This same trend towards a broad-based audience is reflected in the responses to the second question - who is your audience by type (Chart 2.1). Given the survey structure, it was not possible to do a correlation between geographic location and audience type.

• The largest audience are those involved in decision making at varying levels (89 percent for highest level or policy work and 85 percent for decisions at other levels).

• Resource managers are the second largest audience (81 percent).

• FAO staff and consultants along with non-governmental organizations are another significant audience (70 percent and 67 percent respectively).

• Sixty-three percent of the respondents identified resource users including the fishing industry and fishers as an audience.

• Donors and civil society are lesser audiences on the whole, but still a target of one third of the respondents.

• Librarians and information managers are a factor for another third.

• Only one respondent specified scientists as a target audience.

Chart 2.1: Audience for publications by percentage of respondents

Distribution of publications by survey respondents

The FAO Fisheries Department has a policy of providing its publications upon request as well as to established distribution lists. This policy has worked well for dissemination of the Code core documents as described in Part 1.2.2. Survey participants were asked what mechanisms they used for dissemination of their publications and they could check multiple methods (Chart 2.2). Multiple methods are used with targeted distribution lists being the most prevalent (83 percent). The FAO web site including the Fisheries Department home page is a critical dissemination mechanism (77 percent). The peer-reviewed literature features less prominently (30 percent). Six of the nine who publish in the peer-reviewed literature also use the other four dissemination mechanisms.

Chart 2.2: Distribution of publications by percentage of respondents

Over a third of the respondents use all or four of the five mechanisms (Table 2.5). Half use two or three. Those using two delivery mechanisms tend to respond to requests more often than other mechanisms. Three of the four respondents who only use one dissemination mechanism use a targeted list. The other concentrates on peer-reviewed literature.

Table 2.5: Respondents use of multiple methods of dissemination

How do the targeted audiences find publications produced by survey respondents?

Respondents consider face to face meetings, consultations and conference presentations the most common means for their audiences to find out about their Code-related publications. Again, the FAO web site is a discovery mechanism. One respondent specifically mentioned Google while another considers searches on the Fisheries Global Information System (FIGIS) and the UN Atlas of the Oceans as tools for finding publications. Forty-four percent consider ASFA as a finding tool. Postings to email discussion lists are also thought to be useful. Information in newsletters and press releases are less frequently cited.

Chart 2.3: Finding publications produced by respondents

Fifty-nine percent of the respondents checked two or three ways by which audiences find publications. Twenty-two percent checked more than three and nineteen percent mentioned only one. Those identifying ASFA tended to mention three or more ways to find publications. Otherwise, there was no apparent pattern of overlapping discovery methods.

Archiving FAO Code-related publications

The Fisheries Department is "mandated to compile, analyse and disseminate fishery data and information" (FAO, 2004a). While not explicitly mentioned in the Department’s mandate, FAO does have a policy and a process for archiving FAO publications, and the institutional memory of FAO is the responsibility of the General Affairs and Information Department. Consequently, survey participants were asked how the publications they produced were archived. There was general recognition of the need for archiving both print and electronic publications. The twenty one responses indicate a variety of awareness of the procedures.

• the FAO Library

• the FAO Corporate Document Repository.

• the FAO Fisheries Department PDF document repository

• publishers

• CDs

• personal computer

• personal print collection

A2.2 What subject information is used by FAO Fisheries Department staff?

Identifying the material that Fisheries Department staff members use to produce Code publications helps to understand the information potentially needed by others. This part summarizes the section of the Fisheries Department survey which addresses how the staff members search for information. Participants were asked about patterns of usage, tools and resources used as well as specific tasks done. Respondents also identified subject areas of primary interest.

Time spent and subjects searched

More than half of the respondents search for Code-related information on a regular basis, that is, at least weekly. Less than a quarter seldom look for Code-related information. The subject areas are listed by frequency of use in Table 2.6. The highest ranking subject areas searched are "Fisheries Management" along with "Policy and Planning". The number of divisions within the Fisheries Department which search the subject area is also listed as this gives an indication of the complexity and breadth of Code-related work. For example, someone whose primary focus is on aquaculture finds themselves searching for policy, management and ecosystem information in addition to aquaculture material. An economist looks for fisheries management and policy information as well as commodity and trade statistics. In general, those at FAO actively involved with the implementation of the Code look for various types of information across a broad range of subject areas.

The staff members were asked to give examples of search terms they use for Code-related information as well as specific tasks they had recently executed. The responses give insight into the subject areas people are working on and how they go about doing the information gathering component of their work. Identifying and addressing the tasks can help shape how information systems or portals to resources are designed (Lewis and Rieman, 1994). Table 2.7 gives examples of some of these tasks along with the terms used. The tasks fall into four categories:

· Searching for specific publications:

Many of the specific publications mentioned are FAO publications that are electronically available through the Fisheries Department web page or another FAO source.

· Searching for statistics:

Many respondents look for statistics, and most of those use the FAO Fisheries FISHSTAT resource.

· Searching for information on specific subjects or concepts:

The variety of subjects and concepts illustrates the breadth of information needed to effectively work with the Code and implementation of responsible fisheries and aquaculture management. Many of the concepts need a complex search strategy over multiple resources to be successful.

· Reviewing, discussing and working with information:

Reading, reviewing and discussing are important steps in synthesizing information into publications.

Table 2.6: Subject areas searched by survey respondents when doing Code-related work

Table 2.7: Selected Code-related information tasks done by survey respondents

The search terms and phrases used appear to cluster under three main subject areas: policy and planning, fisheries management, and economics and marketing (Table 2.8). Again, the breadth of terms used is wide. There is a range of specificity as well. For instance, a staff member looking for fisheries management information may need something as specific as a diagram of a particular gear type in a certain fishery, or as general as "management objectives" if beginning a project on Code implementation. Aquaculture is mentioned as a search term several times, but more specific terms were not listed by respondents.

Missing from both the task list and the search terms are scientific items. Some general terms such as ecosystem and genetics appear. However, given the context of the survey, these appear to be used in conjunction with management concepts such as mixed-stocks or introduced species. This observation reinforces the point that when looking for Code-related information, respondents focus on management and policy concepts with some overlap into pure science.

Table 2.8: Examples of search terms and phrases used by survey respondents

Information retrieval tools used

Thirty-one respondents answered the question on usage of specific tools, yet all did not answer for each option. A missing response was considered a non-use of the tool. The tools selected for the question represent a range from the general (e.g. searching the Internet with Google or another search engine) to subject specific (e.g. FishBase) to full-text databases (e.g. FIGIS.) Some of the tools are produced within the Fisheries Department. Others are only available within the FAO Headquarters due to licensing agreements.

The results (Table 2.9) show that relatively few tools appear to be widely and regularly used. The Internet with a search engine has the widest regular use with almost 61 percent of respondents using it at least weekly to locate Code-related information. The high use is not surprising given the ubiquity of the Internet and the breadth of resources accessed through it. This pattern of use is reinforced by the 46 percent who indicate using the FAO Web site regularly. More surprising is the 39 percent of respondents who never or seldom use the Internet for Code-related information. A higher percentage does not use the FAO Web site. Listing both as tools was an attempt to see if there was a pattern of using the Internet with a search engine rather than the more specific and limited FAO Web site. The response may reflect confusion over the difference between the Internet and the FAO Web site rather than a preference. The non-use of either suggests that some respondents do not use the Internet regularly, or do not use it for Code-related information.

Thirty-nine per cent of respondents use the FAO Fisheries Library on a weekly basis. None indicate daily usage, but the periodic use by many indicates the value of the physical resource within the Department. One respondent particularly mentions the electronic tables of contents circulated from the Library as a regularly used resource. Several also mentioned the importance of print copies of documents, including the Code, as important for their daily work.

ASFA is the only subject specific bibliographic tool to be used by a core group of respondents (23 percent) on a regular basis. The ABAFR database is also available, but staff is less familiar with it. ASFA is a familiar tool to many and the ASFA Secretariat is housed in the Fisheries Department. The majority of users, 78 percent, never or seldom use ASFA for Code-related work. Explanations for the non-use of ASFA may include lack of familiarity by some individuals, perception that it is science or academically oriented, inconsistent linkages to full-text, uneven coverage of policy and socio-economic topics, and timeliness.

Table 2.9: Retrieval tools used by survey respondents to find Code-related information

The relative lack of usage of specialized indices, databases and portals merits some attention given the time, effort and funds expended to create some of them. Internal users (e.g. the Fisheries Department) may perceive these resources differently than those outside of FAO. Being familiar with the information landscape in their niche of Code-related work, many appear to have developed personal methods of finding the information needed for Code-related work as well as preferences for particular tools. Many indicate talking to a colleague regularly, for instance. Others listed a variety of websites and resources they access regularly. These include specific reference materials such as the Codex Alimentarius, the websites and resources of other U.N. agencies such as the U.N. Department of the Law of the Sea, and the websites of other national, international and non-governmental organizations.

The patterns of usage of the information retrieval tools suggest that people use what is familiar and what works for them. No single tool completely satisfies the needs of those searching for Code-related information. People need to use multiple tools and resources, and do not rely on one source, hence, the high use of the Internet and Google (or its equivalent). Respondents may not use a tool because it is not easy (e.g. user-friendly interface) or convenient to use (e.g. connection speed). To validate this, users would need to be interviewed about their reactions to interfaces and content or observed while searching. Finally, as alluded to above, internal users may use tools differently than those outside of FAO Headquarters. External audiences may use these tools differently.

Code-related information that is difficult to find

A final question on finding Code-related information asked participants about information that was difficult or impossible to find. The purpose was twofold:

• gauge if users were frustrated locating Code-related information,

• identify any information gaps that may be appropriate for the Fisheries Department to address.

There is some frustration and eleven respondents specified difficult or impossible to find information. There was a range of frustration level with some saying "no problems" while others thought that "much" was hard to find. Looking at specific problems, the information needed is difficult to locate usually because it is scattered, supplied by agencies or institutions unfamiliar to the user, not well-synthesized or not adequately compiled. The following are typical examples given by participants.

• individual country efforts including compliance documents and current legislation:
  This tends to be scattered, unavailable electronically, and if available, not readily available within governmental websites.

• cost-benefit analysis of Code implementation:
  This represents the need to synthesize information that is difficult to find (e.g. comparing targeted aquaculture production to Code compliance.)

• foreign investment data:
  Economic information is often proprietary so difficult to access freely.

• statistics on the fishers including numbers, gender and fatalities:
  This is in part a compilation problem, but is also data that is not consistently collected.

• training initiatives and related material:
  This may be hard to find as there is little available electronically and no central collection point.