National management and development of large pelagic fisheries

Documented policies on development or management of large pelagic fisheries

International organizations and meetings often require reports and statements from governments outlining their policies and programmes on fisheries in order to determine progress in the implementation of global or regional instruments such as the Code of Conduct and the Fish Stocks Agreement. Coupled with this external demand is internal demand from stakeholders and political pressure groups, including the fishing industry, for transparency in decision-making and early warning of future action. It has become almost impossible for governments to remain silent on fisheries issues at the policy level.

Only three countries reported having no policy considered relevant by them on large pelagics (Table 50). Countries with active and well-developed pelagic fisheries had documented policies on fisheries development or management. These policies were often general to the sector and not specifically designed for large pelagic fisheries. In some cases, policies were under review or being prepared as a result of the more demanding nature of fisheries management mentioned above. Fisheries-sector reviews for several OECS countries were general but informative. Trinidad and Tobago generates a wide range of documents directly and indirectly reflecting policy or providing policy advice.

TABLE 50

Documented policies on development or management of large pelagic fisheries

Documented plans for development or management of large pelagics

In the hierarchy of specificity leading to achievement of stated goals, the contents of fisheries plans are usually dictated by the policies dealt with above. Policies without plans are seldom implemented effectively, if acted upon at all.

No country had very active documented plans (Table 51). Several had draft generic fisheries management plans that had been done about five years ago through CFRAMP. Some were being reviewed and revised. A few countries had no plans at all. In cases where planning details were supplied, it appeared that the plans already articulated or being drafted recognized some of the opportunities and constraints reported upon previously. Although none envisaged old-style economic development heavily dependent on government capital investment, there were several cases in which fisheries infrastructure was being provided with no or weak links to management. In most cases, the infrastructure was foreign-funded and was said to be in the context of generally improving the standards of the fishing industry, rather than being geared to a specific fishery.

Legislation governing development or management of large pelagics

Fisheries legislation follows from policy and planning as a necessary complement to ensure that management and development strategies are implemented in a fair and transparent public domain. This is especially the case for specific management measures such as licensing, closed seasons or size limits. Legislation is also used to ratify international fisheries agreements.

All countries had some legislation governing fisheries, but few had provisions specific to large pelagics (Table 52). Those regulations reflecting specific management measures covered areas such as gear restrictions, minimum weights and FADs. Harmonization of legislation throughout the OECS was noted. Apart from the LOSC, there seemed to be no active legislation ratifying or reflecting any of the more recent fisheries instruments.

TABLE 51

Documented plans for development or management of large pelagics

TABLE 52

Legislation governing development or management of large pelagics

Development opportunities and constraints

Given the state of world fisheries, there are few remaining situations anywhere in which fisheries development can be considered truly pioneering, with few constraints and almost unlimited opportunities. Countries appreciate that their pelagic fisheries are subject to both development opportunities and constraints. The most prevalent opportunity reported was the relative lack of development of pelagic fisheries, especially those offshore, compared to the generally overfished inshore fisheries. In several countries only a small proportion of the pelagics that pass through unfished or lightly fished areas of the EEZ are harvested. Other perceived opportunities concerned the use of FADs to increase catches and the availability of local (often tourism-related) and overseas markets for most species.

Constraints included the significant initial investments and operating capital required for export-oriented fisheries, the need to train fishers and postharvest workers, inadequacies of supporting facilities and restrictions imposed by international management (Table 53). The capacity of the resource to sustain yield was not cited as a constraint. For species managed by ICCAT, CARICOM countries are more likely to be constrained by the allocation of yield among countries than by the sustainable yield levels of resources. For regional species, there is virtually no information on sustainable yields and little apparent concern that these may be exceeded.

Planned or anticipated developments in fisheries for large pelagics

Exploitation of large pelagic stocks in a country’s EEZ can be pursued in several ways that have different strengths and weaknesses:

• directly through development of domestic fleets;

• directly through joint ventures with fishing enterprises from other countries;

• indirectly through licensing foreign vessels to fish in the EEZ.

Intentions of CARICOM countries to pursue these approaches separately or in combination are explored below.

TABLE 53

Development opportunities and constraints

Plans to add new vessels to the large pelagics fleet

Development of domestic fleets is likely to provide the greatest return from the resource, but involves the greatest risk. It may also involve determining the relative importance of small-scale to large-scale fishing for planning purposes.

Most countries perceive large pelagic fishing as a potential growth area for domestic fleets (Table 54). However, the extent to which this growth is being actively pursued varies among countries. In general there is greatest interest among the islands of the Lesser Antilles, where the resource is known to be available. The extent of government involvement also varies among countries. In some cases, lack of interest in facilitating growth may be due to a recent period of fleet expansion (e.g. Saint Lucia or Grenada) or to past experience that private entrepreneurs are proactive in acquiring vessels and thus government involvement is not needed.

Plans to pursue joint ventures

Joint ventures provide the opportunity to develop fishing capacity in partnership with foreign investors, often using vessels that are already operational and with an experienced crew. The view of joint ventures as an appropriate approach to expanding large pelagic fisheries varied widely among countries. In general, countries with little history of large pelagic fishing (Belize, Guyana, Suriname) perceived them as a means to study the feasibility of developing a domestic longline fleet (Table 55). Countries with established longline fleets, even small ones, did not perceive this as an appropriate approach to development.

TABLE 54

Plans to add new vessels to the large pelagics fleet

^a Mahon (1996b).

TABLE 55

Plans to pursue joint ventures

Plans to issue foreign licences

Licensing foreign fishing vessels to fish in the EEZ can be a means of obtaining revenue from the resource when there is neither the investment capital nor expertise to develop a domestic fleet. In countries with large EEZs and small-scale fleets, it can be a means of obtaining benefits from those areas of the EEZ that the domestic fleet does not access. However, there are issues concerning the capacity to monitor the terms of the agreement and potential interception of fish that the domestic fleet could otherwise harvest.

Few countries indicated an interest in licensing foreign vessels to fish in their waters (Table 56). This was often seen as being in conflict with the development of a domestic fleet. Reasons given included lack of capacity to monitor activities of the vessels in offshore areas of EEZs. Belize, however, saw short-term licensing of foreign vessels as a means of learning about the resource potential in its waters.

Plans to pursue fishing agreements for the fleet

Development of economically viable domestic fisheries may require that vessels have access to resources throughout the year. Multipurpose vessels that switch fisheries when target species are not available provide one approach to keeping vessels active year-round. Another is to seek access to resources in the EEZs of other countries. In the case of large pelagic fish, which are seasonal and migratory, management plans may cover several adjacent EEZs within the migratory ambit of the species. Thus it may not matter, from a resource-conservation point of view, where the sustainable yield is caught. Reciprocal fishing-access agreements among countries within a management area may allow fleets to fish continuously where catch rates are high. Fishing-access agreements that favour the fleets of one country over another may be linked to other aspects of trade or foreign affairs.

Only Barbados indicated an active interest in pursuing a fishing agreement with its neighbour Trinidad and Tobago (Table 57). Most OECS countries mentioned the idea of a common OECS fishing zone, which had been the subject of negotiation among OECS member states, but which appears to have been put on hold. At this point, it appears that, with few exceptions, neither fleets nor management plans are sufficiently developed for any urgency in seeking fishing agreements.

TABLE 56

Plans to issue foreign licences

TABLE 57

Plans to pursue fishing agreements for the fleet

Plans to build or expand fishing ports and/or shore facilities

Expansion of large pelagic fisheries generally demands that shore facilities be improved to: handle larger vessels (safe harbours, jetties for landing fish and dockside maintenance); facilitate more efficient operation through supplies of inputs; and accommodate handling, storage and processing of increased fish supply. If there is an intention to export some of the catch to US, EU or Japanese markets, new and improved facilities are often needed to meet the quality requirements, even when development is expected to focus primarily on small-scale fishing.

Several countries have plans to improve their shore facilities (Table 58), primarily to accommodate anticipated increased large pelagic fishing activity. However, most facilities are general purpose and will accommodate other types of fisheries as well. In upgrading facilities, several countries are seeking to meet the quality requirements for exporting seafood products.

Existence of conflicts on land or at sea involving large pelagic fisheries

Compared with other fishing areas worldwide, the Caribbean does not have a reputation as a region characterized by serious fishing conflicts. Yet conflict, or at least severe competition, does exist (Table 59). Conflicts generally fell into three categories. Land-based conflicts centred around access to shore facilities as a result of crowding and competition for services. Coastal conflicts mainly concerned the use of FADs by small-scale fishers. Further offshore, conflicts were over illegal foreign fishing. Only in a few cases, such as Barbadian boats fishing in the waters of Trinidad and Tobago, was it reported that conflicts regularly reached the stage of legal proceedings. Legal action was not reported to be part of the resolution of purely domestic conflicts. Trinidad had the only reported conflict between local and foreign vessels in port. Locally owned longline vessels currently use a docking area adjacent to the National Fisheries

TABLE 58

Plans to build or expand fishing ports

TABLE 59

Existence of conflicts on land or at sea involving large pelagic fisheries

Company compound that is leased to the Taiwanese fleet. This space is shared with industrial trawlers and is inadequate in terms of both space and facilities.

Human resource capacity

Training of fishery officers in matters relating to large pelagic fisheries

The development of appropriate human resource capacity, and its effective deployment, is one of the major challenges facing small-island developing states. With the exceptions of the Bahamas, Belize, Guyana and Suriname, where major fisheries for large pelagics have not yet developed, all the countries have staff trained in some area specific to large pelagic fisheries (Table 60). Even in these four exceptions, the training of their fisheries officers is not entirely irrelevant. In several places there has been more emphasis on fishing-gear technology and quality-assurance training than on fisheries management. Only in Trinidad, due to its membership in ICCAT, was there clear evidence of trained staff being devoted largely to the management of pelagics through participation in technical assistance and in meeting the obligations of a contracting party. Barbados is also beginning to pay more attention to ICCAT species for the same reason, but officers were not specifically trained in preparation for the additional burden of active ICCAT membership.

Existence of stakeholder organizations

Institutional arrangements for the governance of fisheries are increasingly important facets of fisheries management. Regardless of the nature of the management regime, from command and control to co-management, the existence of fishing industry organizations and other formal groups with a stake in the fishery usually demonstrates real interest in its governance. All countries except Suriname reported the existence of stakeholder organizations with some relevance to pelagic fishery (Table 61). Most were fishery cooperatives or associations and none were concerned only with pelagic fish. The strengths of the organizations varied markedly, and some countries warned that few were actually operational. In some countries, stakeholder organizations are represented on fisheries advisory boards or committees of various types and levels of power.

TABLE 60

Training of fishery officers in matters relating to large pelagic fisheries

Data-collection and management systems

The capacity to estimate landings by species and vessel type is a critical component of management. This information is also fundamental in determining the value of the fishery and for planning fleet and infrastructure development. Estimation of the fishing effort associated with landings is another essential piece of management information. It allows tracking of the performance of the fleet and provides an indicator of the abundance or availability of the resource. Together, catch and effort data are the input to the surplus production models commonly used by ICCAT in assessing stocks of large pelagics.The establishment and enhancement of data-collection and management systems with a primary focus on catch and effort has been the objective of several initiatives in CARICOM and the wider Caribbean.^[22]

Most countries have made progress in fishery data collection in the past ten years (Table 62). They are presently using a system developed for them by CFRAMP. This includes a data-collection programme, usually based on a combination of sampling and census, and custom data-management software known as the Trip Interview Program (TIP). However, despite considerable effort in establishing data-collection systems during CFRAMP, they were discontinued or downsized when programme resources ceased to be available. The fact remains that few CARICOM countries are in a position to provide regular comprehensive reports of fishery landings by species group and fleet component. Established time series of catch and effort are extremely few. Countries seem unwilling or unable to commit the resources required for ongoing catch and effort data-collection systems. This is likely to severely constrain their capacity to participate in the management of shared stocks and may undermine the strength of claims to “real interest”in these resources.

TABLE 61

Existence of stakeholder organizations

The CFRAMP systems appear to be designed to cover primarily landings by small-scale fisheries at landing sites and complexes. Landings of large pelagics, particularly from larger vessels (longliners), may often be made directly to exporters or processors and thus not be captured by these data-collection systems. When this is the case, additional subsystems are required. Vessel logbooks are one approach that has been used in other countries. These have been considered in several CARICOM countries, but are not yet implemented in any. Adaptation of the US longline logbook format would provide compatibility with other ICCAT input data.^[23]

TABLE 62

Data-recording practices for large pelagic catches and effort

^a Mahon (1998).
^b CFRAMP (2001b).
^c Grant et al. (2001).

TABLE 63

Biological data collection for large pelagic species

There is a need to integrate catch and effort data from recreational and charter fisheries into the overall data-collection schemes. Many countries do have some time series of catch and effort data from tournaments. However, owing to the seasonality of the targeted species, their usefulness as indicators of abundance is constrained by lack of supporting data on the timing of the season in order to adjust the tournament data to the peak or some other season common point. In some cases these data are available from commercial fisheries.

Biological data (lengths, weights, ages, maturity, etc.) are required for most assessment approaches other than surplus production modelling. Until CFRAMP, biological data collection for large pelagics in CARICOM countries had been intermittent and primarily associated with special research projects rather than ongoing assessment. CFRAMP attempted to establish ongoing data collection for biological parameters for a few key large pelagic species thought to be regional in distribution. The data collected are summarized in two inventories covering 1995-1997 (CFRAMP, 1996, 1997). Lengths were collected for albacore (NE, TRI, n = 156), blackfin tuna (BAR, DMI, GRN, STK, STL, STV, n = 8 167), yellowfin tuna (BAR, DMI, GRN, STK, STL, STV, n = 4 605), skipjack tuna (BAR, DMI, GRN, STV, n = 2 927), Spanish mackerel (GRN, GUY, STL, TRI, n = 12 704), king mackerel (GRN, GUY, STK, STL, STV, TRI, n = 5 475), wahoo (BAR, DMI, GRN, STK, STL, TRI, n = 10 557), dolphinfish (BAR, DMI, GRN, JAM, STK, STL, TO, n =18 410) and sailfish (GRN, TRI, n =111). Hard parts for ageing were also collected.

The above data were reviewed and used in various assessments of pelagics, notably wahoo and dolphinfish, at the 2000 Caribbean Pelagic and Reef Fisheries Assessment and Management Workshop (CFRAMP, 2001b).

Research related to large pelagic species

In most fishery management situations, ongoing research in a wide range of disciplines is desirable in support of management decision-making. This research is best driven by a management plan that specifies the information needs, but may in many cases be determined by the special interests of, or needs as perceived by, individuals. The implementation of the precautionary approach can be expected to increase research demands for management further (FAO, 2001b).

In CARICOM countries, the extent of research on pelagic fisheries or fisheries in general varies widely. This is primarily due to differences in size of country and the Fishery Division itself (Table 64).

In some countries additional research capacity resides in other institutions, primarily the University of the West Indies (UWI). In Barbados and Jamaica, the two UWI campuses with a marine focus have carried out interest-based research that has in some cases been used for management. The Smithsonian’s Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA) in Trinidad and Tobago is the only national-level research institute that has contributed to studies of pelagic fisheries.

Research related to large pelagic species may also be carried out by visiting scientists and agencies, e.g. in the Bahamas and Trinidad and Tobago (Table 66).

Fishing capacity management

Vessel licensing and registration systems

Licensing vessels and/or fishers is one way of communicating that marine resources are public property and that harvesting them is a privilege rather than an inherent right. This applies to most economic pursuits dependent on wild natural resources. Licensing can also be used as a powerful tool for supplementing management measures ranging from limited access to gear restrictions.

Most countries have a fishing vessel licensing system in their laws, even if not currently in effect. Most of the licensing systems were put into place, updated or computerized through CFRAMP. These countries use the Licensing and Registration System software as their database. In most cases, the LRS was perceived foremost as an administrative arrangement rather than a management tool, although the latter had also been given some thought. In several countries the licences are general, allowing access to all fisheries, and expire annually (Table 67).

TABLE 64

Research capability in the Fisheries Department

TABLE 65

Research related to large pelagic species

^a For example, Henry and Martin (1992).

TABLE 66

Research capability in other institutions

Registration is often distinguished from licensing as being an administrative and legal system for officially documenting vessel ownership and entitlements, without reference to management issues. It may precede licensing and can be a one-time event unless there are changes in the particulars of the registration. Apart from fisheries authorities, registration records are now demanded by shipping and marine enforcement agencies for these smaller, and previously ignored, vessels in order to comply with regional and international initiatives to manage and control marine traffic and activities in general.

All countries had vessel registration systems that were largely for record-keeping and administrative purposes, rather than management of fishing effort. In some cases the Port Authority maintained the registry directly as a ships’ register, while in others the fisheries authority did this on their behalf under the provisions of shipping legislation. In some countries, such as Barbados, vessel registration had been a long-standing practice for decades, while it had been more recently introduced in others such as the OECS countries.

Active management of fishing capacity

The Code of Conduct provides that states should take measures to prevent or eliminate excess fishing capacity and should ensure that levels of fishing effort are commensurate with sustainable use of fishery resources. The International Plan of Action for the management of fishing capacity, endorsed by the FAO Committee on Fisheries in 1999, is voluntary. However, it is useful for countries to consider fishing-capacity management, as the issue will continue to arise in international meetings. Since capacity management does not necessarily mean capacity reduction in all situations, it should be of special interest to countries seeking to expand their fisheries without adding to global excess capacity.

Only Suriname indicated that it actively and comprehensively managed fishing capacity. Guyana and Jamaica specifically manage the capacity of their industrial fleets, but not of the artisanal fleets. In no case was active capacity management in effect for large pelagic fisheries. Indirect management of capacity was also recognized, such as in the case of Nevis, where there has been little diffusion of pelagic fishing skills; fishers wanting to harvest large pelagics require government training in order to enter the fishery effectively. The absence of vessel licensing, in law or practice, was another constraint cited as a reason for the absence of active capacity management in some countries. In no case was it evident that the plan of action had received specific attention or was going to be considered by authorities (Table 68).

TABLE 67

Vessel licensing and registration systems

Foreign-flagged vessels

In Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, the Fisheries Division has no control over vessel registry or the vessels. The law now provides only for fish transport, but this is construed by the registry to include fishing. A high-seas fishing bill passed in Parliament has not yet been proclaimed. It is only partly based on the Compliance Agreement and an FAO draft bill.^[24] The Fisheries Division recommendation is that no new foreign vessels be registered. There is an ICCAT sanction on bigeye tuna. Vessels report catches to ICCAT, but not to the country, which cannot monitor or take action at present. A bill should be developed soon to improve legal and operational capability for monitoring.

Monitoring, control and surveillance capacity and practices

Existence of coastguard or other patrols in areas of pelagic fisheries

Monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) are three separate, but closely related aspects of fisheries-management enforcement operations. In many cases, jurisdiction for fisheries MCS is shared between the fisheries authority and marine enforcement agencies that may have priorities other than fisheries. Often the capability to take action and pursue to prosecution lies mainly with other agencies such as coastguard, defence force or marine police.

In all countries except Suriname, patrolling by the coastguard or other marine enforcement units was said to be limited in areas of pelagic fishing. This included the larger countries in which the fisheries authority itself had an enforcement unit. The marine enforcement agencies were either constrained in their capacity to undertake fisheries patrols, had priorities other than fisheries, or both. Fishers everywhere could apparently provide information on foreign fishing activity that was not officially known or recorded, but nowhere was it reported that there were formalized processes for involving them in surveillance and provision of real-time information on illegal activities. Generally, foreign rather than domestic fishing was the focus of MCS concerns in the fisheries for large pelagics.

Observer programmes for pelagic fisheries

Observer programmes are generally associated with coastal state surveillance and control of foreign fishing permitted under access agreements, although they may also apply to domestic fleets. Only in the cases of Guyana, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago were observer programmes reported to be actively under development. In Suriname, the candidate observers needed to be trained (Table 70).

Conclusions

Within the countries surveyed, there is readiness to address the fisheries management aspects of participating in a competent regional or subregional organization for shared resources, as outlined in the Fish Stocks Agreement. However, countries still require considerable guidance and capacity-building in order to be both ready and able. Much more development is needed of policies, plans and management practices that are internally consistent, based on international instruments (but taking into account the special provisions for small-island developing states) and feasible on a sustained basis. A related observation is that improved legislation seems required everywhere to keep up-to-date with international agreements. Fisheries legislation typically seems to be not proactive or kept current, but rather driven by crisis when outdated legislation becomes a serious liability.

TABLE 68

Active management of fishing capacity

TABLE 69

Existence of coastguard or other patrols in areas of pelagic fisheries

Optimism about opportunities for expanding large pelagic fisheries remains high, but perhaps the trends and difficulties of fishery expansion are not as fully appreciated at the highest levels as at technical levels. More specifically, the understanding of investment constraints is good, but perhaps there is not enough attention to the constraints brought on by the absence of a subregional or regional fisheries management arrangement or organization in which the majority of member states are active. The stated willingness to rely on the CRFM (to address regional matters concerning large pelagics) and ICCAT, perhaps without much national input, could be a warning sign of low priority in this arena. Every attempt should be made to engage national fisheries authorities in the work of the CRFM, and indeed this will be essential if the regional picture is to be complete from data collection to policy and legislation. The Fish Stocks and Compliance Agreements were examined in detail in a subregional workshop arranged by the OECS and FAO, but there has been little follow-up to widely disseminate perspectives on how the articles may be operationalized within or outside of the CRFM.

Regarding opportunities, most countries have a realistic perspective on expansion of pelagic fishing through their domestic fleet rather than through arrangements for foreign fishing or joint ventures. However, the importance of establishing intraregional fisheries access schemes for the expansion of domestic fleets is apparently underestimated. Little attention is being paid to achieving economies of scale in harvest and trade through regional harmonization. Although the emphasis on upgrading fishing facilities in each country to meet international standards is desirable, there are only weak links between the status of the resource and decisions to construct more shore facilities. More attention has to be paid to managing capacity in the very near future.

Given the small range of operations at sea and the finite availability of shore space, escalation of conflicts at sea and ashore seems inevitable. Schemes for conflict management should be devised early, but this is not within the typical repertoire of fisheries authorities. There is always a need for training to build capacity, but training the same person in several skills has limited utility where specialization is required. At the very least, the need for both harvest and post-harvest specialists seems to be recognized. Additional skills, such as in vessel construction and/or inspection, need to be introduced as vessel sizes increase.

Newer skills in conflict management and strategic planning must be included. Where these skills should reside is another difficult question, given that fisheries authorities are unlikely to suddenly acquire elevated status and resources within the context of the public sector and relative to other agencies managing powerful sectors of the economy. Models of regionwide networking among fisheries authorities and with entities such as universities and NGOs must be examined and tested in order to create critical masses and pockets of expertise, without seeking unaffordable duplication throughout the region (Chakalall, Mahon and McConney, 1998).

Progress has been made with national-level data collection and management, but this is still probably insufficient to meet all the obligations under Annex 1 of the Fish Stocks Agreement. National systems for catch and effort monitoring may be present, but are typically not actively managed and do not produce information for management in a way that allows verification and modification of the systems. It is usual to find data being collected according to a routine, with little analysis beyond the simple statistical output of reporting annual production figures for national and international organizations (e.g. the statistical bureau and FAO respectively). The deficiencies caused by the missing regional level have become obvious at various assessment meetings in which data have been pooled only with difficulty. The provisions of Annex 1 of the agreement anticipate regular sharing of data and information, but countries are unaccustomed to this.

Implementation of the precautionary approach will place even further demands on data-collection systems if CARICOM countries are to be full participants in developing the technical basis for management (FAO, 2001b). CFRAMP has demonstrated that such sharing and collective analysis is possible, but that national and regional modifications to information generation and use will be necessary for greater accuracy and efficiency. Even if it is not possible to set numerical targets and limits, it must be feasible to determine directions or trends and to assess the magnitude of changes (Berkes et al., 2001).

Regarding the fishing industry, there is some participation in data collection and analysis and in advice generation, but national research capacity in most countries is low. There is minimal industry participation in decision-making, national legislation/regulation changes, and evaluating compliance with agreed regulations. The strengthening of national decision-making must start with more effective information exchange among stakeholders. The emerging trend to establish multistakeholder fisheries advisory bodies of various types is encouraging. However, in very few countries are these bodies really integrated into the policy domain. In most cases, they appear to be functioning at a technical level that provides no real power to industry participants. Within this scenario, the question of organization within the industry also arises, because, if there is no representation of interests in large pelagics, there is no guarantee that matters concerning these fisheries will be promoted by fishing industry participants.

Few institutions besides the national fisheries authorities are carrying out related biological, social or economic research on large pelagic fisheries, and work that would contribute directly to fishery assessment is especially scarce. In the Caribbean, nearshore research such as that on coral-reef fisheries is more popular, and also often more affordable and manageable. Consequently, special attention will have to be paid to the promotion of research on large pelagic fisheries if the interest of external researchers is desired. Given the more sensitive nature of these international fisheries, clear policies and guidelines on permissible investigations and intellectual property must be set.

Concerning locally manageable initiatives, regionally standardized logbooks for longliners could be implemented using the US NMFS logbook format (Cramer and Adams, 2001). In the US Virgin Islands system, annual fisheries licensing is conditional on the quality of data submitted and on active participation in a brief, evaluated training session in fisheries management. That system might provide a model for incentives for data accuracy and some control over ensuring that fishers have adequate knowledge of international treaties.