The objectives of this review are to: assess the quality and relevance of existing statistics on inland capture fisheries; assess the extent to which the statistics meet management objectives; suggest ways in which the existing statistics might be improved through cost-effective means; explore the information needs for inland capture fisheries; and, recommend strategies for obtaining the required information.
Five countries were visited during the review mission: Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines and Thailand. Three other countries are included based upon prior experiences: Cambodia, Lao PDR and VietNam.
Inland capture fisheries are characterised by great diversity in the range of gears used, types of environments in which they are used and the socially and culturally complex societies within which they operate. Inland fisheries have many of the features of marine fisheries and many others that the latter does not possess. The greater complexity of inland fisheries has a major influence upon the type and quality of statistics it is possible to collect and the problems with obtaining them. Collection of fishery statistics generally favours the marine sector, both in ease of collecting information and motivations for doing so (taxation, export revenue generation etc.). Aquaculture information is generally easier to collect than inland capture fishery information due to better defined areas and ownership. Although statistical information for marine fisheries and aquaculture are not perfect, it is certainly more representative than that available for inland capture fisheries.
According to recognised definitions, it can be generalized that most published figures for inland capture fisheries in Southeast Asia do not actually qualify as “statistics” because they are not based upon data. Even for the exceptions, qualification as true “statistics” is debatable, since none of the information is based upon measurement or observation. This is not necessarily a problem, however there is the serious issue that this information is reported as real data and subsequently accorded an importance and veracity that is undeserved.
A wide variety of methods are used by the countries covered in this review, to estimate inland capture fisheries production. These range from estimates made in offices without any information collection (verging on guesses), through basic or elaborate sampling based surveys, to attempts to obtain full cover of the entire fishery based upon the compulsory licensing of all gears. There are also widespread suspected, unofficially recognized or officially confirmed, differences between the official systems in place and actual practice. In only two countries, out of the eight covered in the review, is there any degree of confidence in the level of knowledge of the system that is actually used in practice. In one case, the official system is that no information is actually collected; and the other where it has been subject to extensive independent research over the past six years.
None of the countries reviewed derive their statistics based upon direct observations, report verification, sampling of catch or landings, or any other form of independent monitoring. This includes Cambodia, where the statistics have recently been substantially revised (i.e. corrected). This revision was made based upon new information produced by research, not through the introduction of an improved statistics collection system. Estimations are inherent in all of these country’s systems and range from responsible attempts to estimate actual catches through to arbitrary supposition. Many are genuine attempts by over-worked and under-resourced staff. But underlying some of the field level estimates is a general disinterest in accuracy and occasionally mis-reporting.
Based upon the statistics currently available, there is no apparent trend of declining production for any country (except possibly for the Philippines, less so for VietNam). This is somewhat at odds with the frequently expressed view that inland capture fisheries are in terminal decline, and illustrates that the perceptions of these fisheries are not influenced by the available statistical information. This seriously questions the purpose and value of inland fishery statistics.
Two countries have reported significant increases in actual production in recent years. Thailand’s increase is attributed to the impacts of stocking in reservoirs. Myanmar, however, reports a 65 percent increase in production from already substantial river and floodplain fisheries over the past 4 to 5 years, achieved through improved aquatic resources management (environmental restoration and rehabilitation, restocking floodplains and improved governance); which has not required any substantial physical resource inputs. This example eclipses any known production increase that has been achieved through aquaculture development that started from a similar point, and strongly challenges the widely held view that river fisheries cannot be improved.
Inland capture fisheries are clearly seriously under-reported in all of the countries reviewed. The discrepancy between officially reported catches (where available) and estimates based upon independent scientifically based surveys (i.e. collection of actual data), varies by a factor of between 4.2 and 21.4. Overall, for all the countries combined, the total reported production from inland waters appears to be under-estimated by a factor of between at least 2.5 and 3.6
Participation in inland capture fisheries is very high, but adequate information on this is rarely collected. Most fishers are not licensed and operate on a part-time or seasonal basis. Large numbers of people are also involved in processing, marketing, transportation and other service sectors. Where information exists, it suggests that participation in inland fisheries might equal that in marine fisheries and possibly exceeds that in aquaculture by a factor of at least three times. The figure published by FAO for the number of inland capture fishers worldwide (4.5 million, including all levels of fishing) is easily exceeded by those fishing in inland waters in the eight countries covered by this review alone! The role and importance of inland capture fisheries to the livelihoods of participating fishers should be defined by the stakeholders themselves, not externally. This importance is not necessarily related to the gross production figures. Equally, the significance of inland fisheries to a national economy should also not be assessed using narrow or inappropriate economic criteria.
The total reported freshwater aquaculture production for 1999 in the eight countries covered in this study was 1 268 968 MT. This figure is slightly exceeded by the reported freshwater capture fisheries production (1 303 247 MT). Reported figures for inland capture fisheries are almost certainly under-estimated and in this report, it is argued that the actual production from inland capture fisheries is likely to be at least three times that reported for freshwater aquaculture. This raises questions as to the relative attention and investment made in the two sub-sectors.
Major sources of error in officially reported statistics include: errors in catch reporting; under-estimates of the importance of small-scale fishing activities (a serious problem in inland fisheries because most of the catch arises from this sub-sector); mis-reporting by government officials; and estimates made without data collection. Other constraints include inadequacies in recording the level of participation in capture fisheries, lack of description of the species composition of catches, inability to monitor fishing effort, lack of attention to bio-diversity considerations, ornamental fish and recreational fisheries, and livelihoods aspects. Compounded to this is the considerable problem of the almost universal uncritical acceptance of the information being produced.
Countries cannot be ranked in order of those having the “best” statistics. The current statistics must be considered not only in terms of potential accuracy, but also in terms of the effort expended (cost) in obtaining them. Interestingly, there does not appear to be a direct relationship between effort (costs) expended on information collection and the accuracy or relevance of the information produced. This has very significant implications for those thinking of investing heavily in improved inland fishery statistics based upon existing models.
One of the most interesting and relevant areas investigated by this review, was that of the objectives of compiling inland capture fishery statistics and the use to which the information is put. In many countries, “statistics” are compiled because they are requested or demanded by central government, however the actual use to which these statistics are put is often uncertain. National fishery statistics are sometimes compiled primarily, as a perceived obligation to FAO, therefore the information that FAO requests has a major influence on what is collected or compiled. Countries are reluctant to admit to FAO, and even within or between their own agencies, the true nature of the information reported. Consequently, the “statistics” reported are often taken as factual. Most countries report that the statistics are used for “fisheries management purposes” but few countries are actually managing their inland capture fisheries. Even if they were, the information produced through their statistics is not adequate for most management purposes. In the few cases where fisheries management occurs, the national statistics are of limited use in assessing the impacts of management, or meaningful statistics are only gathered in controllable situations (e.g. for reservoirs).
All countries regard the main value of their inland capture fisheries as sustaining the livelihoods of poor rural communities and contributing to food security (not withstanding that many countries still have significant commercial/industrial inland fisheries). By contrast, in general, marine fisheries are regarded as being important for revenue generation, export earnings and formal economic benefits. In most cases so is aquaculture. All countries agree that the current information collected, even if it were accurate, does not provide adequate information for addressing, monitoring or managing issues that relate to rural livelihoods. There is a clear realisation of the need to obtain such information but considerable uncertainty regarding how it can be done and who should do it. All countries reviewed also agree that the main threats to inland fisheries, particularly for rivers and associated wetlands (less so for reservoirs), is habitat loss and environmental degradation. The information currently collected does not assist in monitoring such trends, nor does it contribute to moderating the degradation itself. All countries recognise the importance of issues relating to sustaining bio-diversity in inland waters, but the current statistics are widely regarded (correctly) as irrelevant to this subject also.
The history of fishery research and management has had a significant impact upon statistics collection systems and levels of attention to the various sub-sectors. The complex multi-gear, multi-species, inland capture fisheries have been a casualty of this process. The research and management needs for inland capture fisheries have generally been addressed by trying to translate approaches and methods originally developed for marine fisheries. These have not generally worked and tend to ignore the differing characteristics of this sub-sector.
More recently there have been significant shifts in policy emphasis towards: (i) poverty issues and “livelihoods centred approaches”, (ii) the environment (and bio-diversity), and (iii) the promotion of co-management systems for fisheries. All three of these are beginning to emphasize the importance of inland fisheries. However existing statistical systems are incapable of addressing information needs for the first two policy areas and are not particularly compatible with the third, being primarily based on extractive assessment methods.
A significant challenge for FAO is to respond rapidly to these shifts in policy and emphasis by adjusting its information generation and dissemination activities to cater to these new needs. It will be constrained in doing so, because many member countries themselves will have difficulties in shifting emphasis towards more pro-poor, livelihoods oriented forms of information generation. There is an excellent opportunity for FAO to be pro-active and to start to request such information, and to assist members in deciding how best it can be generated. The initial step in this process is to raise the awareness of member countries to this need and is probably more important than obtaining the information itself.
The move towards co-management approaches for fisheries offers significant opportunities to improve information generation. Effective co-management should improve confidence and trust between fishers and government staff together with the willingness to divulge more accurate information, and more cheaply. It is largely because most of the current information systems are extractive by nature that they are inherently unreliable.
This review mission has been given the overall impression that the countries in Southeast Asia, in general, struggle with limited resources to compile information that, in many cases, they do not themselves trust, need or use. At the same time, most of these countries are aware of what information it would be more logical to collect, but lack the methods and support to obtain it.
Strategies that might be adopted by individual countries to improve their information on inland capture fisheries will largely depend upon the extent of their current inland fishery statistical systems and the degree to which they have specific requirements. The general recommendations made by the mission are that:
1. Countries should review their existing statistics based upon impartial desk-top appraisals using existing information. (Some methods for doing this are described)2. Countries should incorporate improved and more accurate information into their current national statistics.
3. Where appropriate, countries should make significant efforts to explain the inadequacies of their current statistics to relevant parties.
4. Where possible, countries should endeavour to incorporate inland capture fishery information requirements into surveys done by other agencies.
5. Countries should promote more research on the production of, participation in and dependency upon inland capture fisheries.
6. Countries in Southeast Asia should share their information on inland capture fisheries and statistical/information systems. They have much to learn from each other.
7. Those countries with existing extensive inland capture fishery statistical systems should consider how best to improve them, without necessarily incurring significant additional costs. (Some ways on how this can be done are described)
8. Those countries that currently have more limited statistics collection activities should be careful about investing in improved systems, if they are based upon the models currently in place in other countries.
9. Countries should recognise that as policies and priorities change, information requirements change along with them. This represents an opportunity for countries to re-vitalise their statistical systems in response to these emerging opportunities.
10. Countries should focus on livelihoods related information in their statistics and information generation activities.
11. Countries should integrate co-management approaches and the generation of fishery information.
12. Countries should be more flexible/adaptive in the way they generate and report their statistics.
13. Statistics and information systems should be reviewed, revised or developed with the full involvement of appropriate stakeholders at governmental level (i.e. appropriate statistical agencies, collection agencies).
14. Existing statistical systems should be revised to make it easier to incorporate ancillary information (i.e. that generated outside of fishery statistics collection systems) into estimations and subsequent reports.
15. It should be widely and openly acknowledged that most existing statistics are not useful for monitoring trends in inland fisheries because of their poor quality.
16. Countries need to explore options for obtaining better information enabling trends to be tracked, using low-cost and sustainable methods. They should not assume that tracking trends in fish stocks is the priority.
17. Countries should devote more effort to monitoring trends in the environment relevant to inland capture fisheries.
18. Countries need to adopt better strategies for monitoring trends in biodiversity.
19. The current statistics for inland capture fisheries produced by FAO should include better indications as to their basis and meaning. FAO should consider inclusion of qualifying notes, indicating the reliability of the information in its yearbooks of inland capture fishery statistics.
20. The information and statistics activities at FAO should reflect the requirements for improved livelihoods related information more obviously and explicitly.
21. FAO should provide improved advice to member nations on what kinds of livelihoods relevant information should be collected and how it can be obtained cost-effectively.
