Pauly&Zeller-data-F3-Nov-04-2015

Data used for and presented in Figure 3 of the associated pape

Mercury, Food Webs, and Marine Mammals: Implications of Diet and Climate Change for Human Health-0

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Mercury, Food Webs, and Marine Mammals: Implications of Diet and Climate Change for Human Health"</p><p>Environmental Health Perspectives 2005;113(5):521-526.</p><p>Published online 2 Feb 2005</p><p>PMCID:PMC1257541.</p><p>This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original DOI.</p

Table_1_Reconstructed Russian Fisheries Catches in the Barents Sea: 1950-2014.xlsx

<p>The management of marine living resources that straddle country borders has historically been a challenge, particularly in cases where political tensions are high. The jointly managed fisheries resources in the Barents Sea are a notable exception, wherein the Russian Federation (formerly Soviet Union) and Norway have relatively successfully managed fish stocks together since the 1950s, including during the high tensions of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Using ICES statistics as reported baseline landings, the total catch of the region by the Russian fisheries was reconstructed for the period 1950-2014. Total catch was divided into reported landings, unreported landings, and discards, and assigned to four sectors: industrial, artisanal, recreational, and subsistence. Unreported landings and discards between 1950 and 2014 accounted for ~12 and 55% of the total catch, respectively, with discards being substantial in the early decades. A majority of the catch was caught using pelagic and bottom trawls, contributing to the high rate of discards. Both discards and landings reached their peak in the 1970s, after which overexploitation contributed to numerous stock declines. Stocks recovered in the 1990s following adoption of legislation and gear regulations limiting discards as part of a joint effort by Norway and Russia to more sustainably manage stocks. The trend of declining Russian Barents Sea catches after the 1980s matches global trends of declining catch, although the present case appears to be mainly due to more successful management interventions. It is assumed that small-scale fisheries removals are minor in the region, but further research to refine estimates of small-scale fishing can improve upon the present study. While this study highlights historical declines in catch due to overexploitation, it does not explore fluctuations in catch caused by environmental variation. In the rapidly warming Arctic region it is of vital importance to understand how stocks may be further affected by climate change in addition to fishing pressure.</p

Mercury, Food Webs, and Marine Mammals: Implications of Diet and Climate Change for Human Health-2

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Mercury, Food Webs, and Marine Mammals: Implications of Diet and Climate Change for Human Health"</p><p>Environmental Health Perspectives 2005;113(5):521-526.</p><p>Published online 2 Feb 2005</p><p>PMCID:PMC1257541.</p><p>This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original DOI.</p

Mercury, Food Webs, and Marine Mammals: Implications of Diet and Climate Change for Human Health-1

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Mercury, Food Webs, and Marine Mammals: Implications of Diet and Climate Change for Human Health"</p><p>Environmental Health Perspectives 2005;113(5):521-526.</p><p>Published online 2 Feb 2005</p><p>PMCID:PMC1257541.</p><p>This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original DOI.</p

Pauly&Zeller-data-F1-F2-F4-Nov-04-2015

Data as used for and presented in Figures 1, 2 and 4 of the associated pape

Data_Sheet_1_Reconstructed Russian Fisheries Catches in the Barents Sea: 1950-2014.DOCX

<p>The management of marine living resources that straddle country borders has historically been a challenge, particularly in cases where political tensions are high. The jointly managed fisheries resources in the Barents Sea are a notable exception, wherein the Russian Federation (formerly Soviet Union) and Norway have relatively successfully managed fish stocks together since the 1950s, including during the high tensions of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Using ICES statistics as reported baseline landings, the total catch of the region by the Russian fisheries was reconstructed for the period 1950-2014. Total catch was divided into reported landings, unreported landings, and discards, and assigned to four sectors: industrial, artisanal, recreational, and subsistence. Unreported landings and discards between 1950 and 2014 accounted for ~12 and 55% of the total catch, respectively, with discards being substantial in the early decades. A majority of the catch was caught using pelagic and bottom trawls, contributing to the high rate of discards. Both discards and landings reached their peak in the 1970s, after which overexploitation contributed to numerous stock declines. Stocks recovered in the 1990s following adoption of legislation and gear regulations limiting discards as part of a joint effort by Norway and Russia to more sustainably manage stocks. The trend of declining Russian Barents Sea catches after the 1980s matches global trends of declining catch, although the present case appears to be mainly due to more successful management interventions. It is assumed that small-scale fisheries removals are minor in the region, but further research to refine estimates of small-scale fishing can improve upon the present study. While this study highlights historical declines in catch due to overexploitation, it does not explore fluctuations in catch caused by environmental variation. In the rapidly warming Arctic region it is of vital importance to understand how stocks may be further affected by climate change in addition to fishing pressure.</p

Euros vs. Yuan: Comparing European and Chinese Fishing Access in West Africa

<div><p>We compare the performance of European Union (EU) and Chinese fisheries access agreements with West African countries in terms of illegal and unreported fishing, economic equity, and patterns of exploitation. Bottom-up re-estimations of catch reveal that the EU (1.6 million t•year^-1) and China (2.3 million t•year^-1) report only 29% and 8%, respectively, of their estimated total catches (including estimated discards whenever possible) from West African countries between 2000 and 2010. EU catches are declining, while Chinese catches are increasing and are yet to reach the historic maximum level of EU catches (3 million t•year^-1 on average in the 1970s-1980s). The monetary value of EU fishing agreements, correlated in theory with reported catches, is straightforward to access, in contrast to Chinese agreements. However, once quantified, the value of Chinese agreements is readily traceable within the African economy through the different projects they directly cover, in contrast to the funds disbursed [to host governments] by the EU. Overall, China provides resources equivalent to about 4% of the ex-vessel value [value at landing] of the catch taken by Chinese distant-water fleets from West African waters, while the EU pays 8%. We address the difficulties of separating fees directly related to fishing from other economic or political motivations for Chinese fees, which could introduce a bias to the present findings as this operation is not performed for EU access fees officially related to fishing. Our study reveals that the EU and China perform similarly in terms of illegal fishing, patterns of exploitation and sustainability of resource use, while under-reporting by the EU increases and that by China decreases. The EU agreements provide, in theory, room for improving scientific research, monitoring and surveillance, suggesting a better performance than for Chinese agreements, but the end-use of the EU funds are more difficult, and sometime impossible to ascertain.</p></div

Total catches by Chinese and EU fleets from the waters of West Africa, 1950–2010.

<p>Sierra Lone claimed its EEZ in 1971, Morocco in 1981, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon in 1984, Congo (ex-Zaire) in 1992 and Cameroon in 2000. The 16 other West African countries claimed their EEZ between 1976 and 1980, and hence the location of the transition zone (shaded) from ‘unregulated; to ‘illegal’ catches in the lower panel.</p

Average annual reconstructed and reported catches (2000–2010) by the EU and China from West African waters (t·10³).

<p>*No documented fishing operations by the EU;</p><p>** We could not retrace Chinese legal catches from Namibia since all foreign vessels operating in Namibia have to be flagged to Namibia. Having vessel information would have allowed however the identification of the beneficial ownership of vessels; evidence of reflagging to China between 2000 and 2010 was scarce and was not sufficient to estimates the legal catches of Chinese vessels reflagged to Namibia.</p><p>Average annual reconstructed and reported catches (2000–2010) by the EU and China from West African waters (t·10³).</p