ANNEX 3

CODE-RELATED INFORMATION USED AND PRODUCED BY SELECTED FISHERIES EXPERTS

A3.1 Background

A small group of fisheries experts outside of FAO were surveyed to provide validation of results from the FAO Fisheries Department staff survey. A similar survey instrument was used with the addition of several questions on the use of specific journals and grey literature. Ten experts were selected on the basis of their geographic location, their institutional base and their level of involvement with fisheries science and management. Six responded completely including five from academic institutions and one from an intergovernmental organization. Their geographic locations are North America, Europe and Asia. All are familiar with the Code.

A3.2 Time spent, subjects searched and information retrieval tools used

Their searching behaviour was similar to that of FAO Fisheries Department staff. Four of the six searched for information on a regular basis, that is, at least weekly. The subject areas searched by at least four of the respondents include:

• policy and planning

• law and legislation

• economics, marketing and trade

Three respondents frequently searched on the ecosystem approach to fisheries and social aspects of fisheries. Fisheries science was not a term used in management or policy work by the respondents.

The search terms used were very similar to those of the Fisheries Department as was the usage of retrieval tools (Table 3.1). The only real difference is that the experts appear to rely on their institutional libraries slightly more. The experts also report using websites of specific organizations, academic institutions and government. Use of a personal collection of books was mentioned by one as an important information tool.

Table 3.1: Retrieval tools used by selected experts to find Code-related information

A3.3 Code-related information that is difficult or impossible to find

Several of the experts gave examples of hard to find information and these were similar to those identified by the Fisheries Department. One area of agreement was information on individual country implementation of international agreements as well as infringements on agreements. The other area dealt with statistics. Here the examples are the amount of IUU fishing in the world and accurate aquaculture production statistics from China.

A3.4 Use of information sources

The experts were asked about their reading and information use patterns, questions not asked of the FAO Fisheries Department. Their responses show a reliance on local or subject specific information and regular use of a wide variety of grey literature. These findings are consistent with the later citation studies, the survey and interviews with FAO staff. Two examples of the types of journals or trade magazines read regularly by the experts illustrate the focus on a locale or a sector.

• journals read by expert 1

  • World Aquaculture Society journals

  • North American journal of aquaculture

  • Aquaculture research

  • Journal of applied aquaculture

  • World aquaculture

• journals read by expert 2

• National fisherman

• Pacific fishing

• The economist

• Marine resource economics

The experts also reported using grey literature from a variety of sources regularly or occasionally (Table 3.2). Only one reported non-use of the grey literature produced by the academic community.

Table 3.2: Experts’ use of grey literature from the listed sources

A3.5 Producing and disseminating publications

Five of the experts produce a variety of publications that support implementation of responsible fisheries management and policy.

• five publish institutional reports.

• three publish in peer-review journals.

• two publish books.

• one writes government reports.

• one publishes in trade outlets.

Their audience is very similar to that of the FAO Fisheries Department (Chart 3.1). Both groups target several groups with a focus on policy-makers and resource managers. The experts rank non-governmental organizations as an audience more prominently than does the FAO Fisheries Department.

Chart 3.1: Audience for publications of the selected experts

All the experts rely on presentations and meeting to communicate their work. This is similar to the FAO Fisheries staff and underscores the importance of workshops and conferences. They also see ASFA and the web as means of for their various audiences to find their publications.

Chart 3.2: Finding publications of the selected experts

The experts were asked where they published on responsible fisheries. It is interesting to compare this list to the list of journals they read regularly (Table 3.3). Titles in bold appear on both lists. The lack of significant overlap between the two lists reinforces the premise that the information needed for responsible fisheries is very broad.

Table 3.3: Where experts publish and what they read

The experts were also asked to comment on the utility of various journals as conduits for fisheries policy and management information and discussion (Table 3.4). Marine Policy and Ocean Development and International Law received the most rankings (i.e. 3) as important. Fish and Fisheries, Lake and Reservoirs and Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries were ranked the lowest in importance (i.e. 5).

The rankings must be considered with reserve given the small number of experts queried and their breadth of subjects. For example, an aquaculture specialist will rank his specialized journal higher than a fisheries economist would. Lakes and Reservoirs was ranked low because none of those queried are freshwater fisheries specialists. Even with the small sample size, it is striking that some of the journals do not receive high rankings from the experts given that other sectors consider them important conduits or they contain articles citing the Code. These include Fisheries Research, Fisheries Management and Ecology, ICES Journal of Marine Science and Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries.

Table 3.4: Experts’ ranking of selected fisheries management journals