1. INFORMATION AND THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR RESPONSIBLE FISHERIES

1.1 Introduction to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, formally adopted by the FAO Conference on 31 October 1995, sets forth a voluntary policy framework for sustainable and responsible fisheries and aquaculture worldwide (Doulman, 2004a, 2004b).

Fisheries, including aquaculture, provide a vital source of food, employment, recreation, trade and economic well being for people throughout the world, both for present and future generations and should therefore be conducted in a responsible manner. This Code sets out principles and international standards of behaviour for responsible practices with a view to ensuring the effective conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources, with due respect for the ecosystem and biodiversity. The Code recognises the nutritional, economic, social, environmental and cultural importance of fisheries, and the interests of all those concerned with the fishery sector. The Code takes into account the biological characteristics of the resources and their environment and the interests of consumers and other users. (FAO, 1995 p.1)

Managing the world’s fisheries for sustainability continues to be dynamic, difficult and multi-faceted. The same can be said of tracking implementation of the principles set forth in the Code. Progress on implementation of the Code is carefully monitored by the FAO Fisheries Department (Fisheries Department) which reports to the Committee on Fisheries (COFI). Biennial reports to COFI detail progress, constraints and priorities. COFI uses these reports to plan and direct the Fisheries Department’s efforts towards the implementation of the Code. In the 2003 Progress Report on Code Implementation, FAO Members responding to the biennial questionnaire identified the following constraints when discussing fisheries research and data gathering (FAO, 2003a, Para. 50):

• insufficient human, financial and material resources to ensure basic and on-going research programmes;

• insufficient baseline studies and a general lack of information about species;

• lack of reliable information and data on indicators;

• lack of social and economic studies;

• lack of statistical coverage and difficulties in collecting data;

• inadequate training;

• insufficient information about fishing grounds.

More generally, Members reported the "poor levels of scientific research" and "weak institutional capacity (including poor national interagency coordination)" as two of many recurring constraints (FAO, 2003b, Para. 87). The 2001 Progress Report voiced related concern over the "lack of information and inadequate access to information" (FAO, 2001b, Para. 47).

Information is critical to successful implementation of responsible fisheries management at local, regional and global levels. It is acknowledged as the "key to sound policy-making" (FAO, 2003c). Two of the Code’s 19 General Principles emphasize that decisions should be made based on "the best scientific evidence available" (FAO, 1995 Articles 6.4 and 6.5.) These same principles also mention the important role of various types of information including traditional and scientific.

The role of scientific information is generally recognized and can usually be described. Yet, supporting implementation of the Code requires a broad information base that includes social, economic, geographic and cultural perspectives as well as the purely scientific.

Within this context of the importance of information and the reported concerns from FAO Members about its availability, adequacy and accessibility, the Fisheries Department decided to examine these issues from the perspective of information users, creators and managers. Consequently, this Circular looks at the information needed to support implementation of the Code by:

• reviewing the types of information needed to support responsible fisheries;

• documenting the challenges, opportunities and constraints facing libraries, particularly those in developing countries, in providing that information;

• proposing strategies for improving access to information for those involved in fisheries management.

As a starting point, the requirements for and the role of information as discussed in the text of the Code is examined. Particular attention is paid to Article 12 which specifically addresses research and the need for data and information.

1.1.1 Article 12 of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries

Article 12 of the Code addresses Fisheries Research and sets forth challenges to fisheries researchers, managers and information professionals. In this introductory section, Article 12 offers insight on information collection, management and access. Key information issues emerge that could affect implementation of the Code.

12.1 States should recognize that responsible fisheries require the availability of a sound scientific basis to assist fisheries managers and other interested parties in making decisions. Therefore, States should ensure that appropriate research is conducted into all aspects of fisheries including biology, ecology, technology, environmental science, economics, social science, aquaculture and nutritional science.

Issue: The availability of information

The "sound scientific basis" needs to be available and understandable to non-scientists. This implies synthesis as well as analysis, and communication in appropriate formats and language. Information is not available if it is not comprehensible by the intended audience.

Issue: The breadth of information

The breadth of information and data that is needed is wide, cutting across disciplines, ecosystems and political boundaries. The variety of subjects covered by fisheries poses significant challenges for those synthesizing available information, those reading it and those managing it.

12.3 States should ensure that data generated by research are analyzed, that the results of such analyses are published, respecting confidentiality where appropriate, and distributed in a timely and readily understood fashion, in order that the best scientific evidence is made available as a contribution to fisheries conservation, management and development. In the absence of adequate scientific information, appropriate research should be initiated as soon as possible.

Issue: The relationship between data and information

Throughout Article 12, data collection is emphasized. Data are the raw material of research; information implies analysis and even synthesis. The section above alludes to the continuum between data and information. Fisheries management needs both, and consequently there needs to be awareness of the variety of types, formats and pieces of data and information that can potentially be valuable to management.

Issue: The distribution of information

Section 12.3 mentions appropriate distribution without specifying what this means. The format, content and language, i.e. the packaging of information, is determined by the intended audience and consequently, requires careful planning and implementation (Ikoja-Odongo and Ocholla, 2003).

Issue: The absence and inaccessibility of information

The absence of information can mean that it does not exist or that it is inaccessible. If the information is non-existent, then research is needed to fill the gap. If inaccessible, then necessary steps need to be taken to make it visible rather than recreating it through more research. This concept of absence or inaccessibility reinforces Section 12.1 and the concept of availability. Physical or language inaccessibility, lack of awareness or unanalysed data can all lead fisheries researchers and managers to assume that the information is absent.

12.4 States should collect reliable and accurate data which are required to assess the status of fisheries and ecosystems, including data on bycatch, discards and waste. Where appropriate, this data should be provided, at an appropriate time and level of aggregation, to relevant States and subregional, regional and global fisheries organizations.

Issue: The sharing and exchanging of information

While collecting information is emphasized in the Code, just as important are sharing and exchanging data and information at various levels. Regional collaboration to share information is a strong strategy to fill gaps and enhance multi-level management. The Strategy for improving information on status and trends of capture fisheries seeks to address the issue via a partnership arrangement providing for international cooperation in the development of the Fisheries Resources Monitoring System (FIRMS). Communicating information appropriately is also a strategy often over-looked. For example, this could mean translating scientific language so that non-scientists can understand the information and use it to make informed decisions (Hanna et al., 2000).

12.12 States should investigate and document traditional fisheries knowledge and technologies... in order to assess their application to sustainable fisheries conservation, management and development.

Issue: Scale and source of information

Documenting, using and archiving traditional knowledge enriches the pool of available information (Campbell and Salagrama, 2001). Traditional knowledge is part of the continuum of information required for responsible fisheries management. This continuum can be described as data and information being transformed into knowledge and then knowledge evolving into wisdom (Eliot, 1934; Cleveland, 1982). Consequently, traditional knowledge becomes one source of information, usually of a local scale. The concepts of source and scale are applicable to other types of fisheries information such as grey literature and historic data. Traditional knowledge infers integration of social and cultural information, thus reinforcing the concept of the breadth of information needed for responsible fisheries management (FAO, 2000).

12.16 States should, where appropriate, support the establishment of mechanisms including, inter alia, the adoption of uniform guidelines, to facilitate research at the sub-regional or regional level and should encourage the sharing of the results of such research with other regions.

Issue: The mechanisms to collect and share information

The sharing of information, mentioned earlier, merits reiteration here in terms of establishing ways to collect and manage information so that it can be shared. Uniform guidelines most directly apply to data collection. The concept when applied to information is also relevant (Faye and UNECA, 1995). For example, information collected on a local level may use terminology that prevents it from being readily understood by others. Choice of words and their organization take on more importance when there is a possibility of dissemination beyond a limited audience.

12.18 States and relevant international organizations should promote and enhance the research capacities of developing countries, inter alia, in the areas of data collection and analysis, information, science and technology, human resource development and provision of research facilities, in order for them to participate effectively in the conservation, management and sustainable use of living aquatic resources.

Issue: Integration of information into organizations

Enhancing access to information is critical to improving the research capacity of developing countries (Ballantyne, 1995; Ibeun, 2001). Access to fisheries information involves many elements, including real and virtual access to resources as well as the personal capacity to locate and use appropriate information. Effective participation implies adequate access to information and the ability to contribute to the process by providing information.

1.1.2 Research questions and methodology

The various issues raised in Article 12 relate to the ongoing constraints to Code implementation voiced by COFI. Table 1 compares the Article 12 issues with those constraints and illustrates the commonality among them. Addressing these recurrent issues with information is obviously critical to successful implementation of the Code. The challenge becomes how to do so. While this paper does not "solve" the information issues involved with responsible fisheries management, it attempts to promote a better understanding of those issues. So, rather than report that "there is a lack of information", we investigate what are the data and information needed and used for fisheries management so others can identify what is missing, what is inaccessible and what is simply not well integrated. Articulating the constraints and opportunities for access to information, especially in developing countries, helps give context to COFI’s concern with "inadequate access to information". Libraries and documentation centres are one component of institutional capacity, playing a critical role in information at corporate level. As such, they provide a particular forum for proposing and discussing strategies for strengthening institutional capacity.

The following three questions derived from the above, guide our approach to addressing the issues identified in Article 12 of the Code and the constraints on fisheries research articulated by FAO Members. They provide a means to examine the information needed to support implementation of the Code and the role of libraries in this endeavour. Below is a brief explanation of each question in terms of the Article 12 issues followed by the particular tasks undertaken to answer each. Throughout, the relevant literature was reviewed including the topics of fisheries management, information for development, library science, use of grey literature, interdisciplinary research and fisheries in developing countries. Pertinent FAO documents such as recent COFI reports and several of the FAO Fisheries series were read. The Code and its implementation were discussed with staff in the FAO Fisheries Department and selected case studies and experts elsewhere.

a) What are the data and information needed and used for fisheries science and perhaps more importantly, fisheries management?

The issues of the breadth, the absence of relevant information, the integration of information of varying scales and sources frame this question. Additionally, the relationship and the differences between data and information can be addressed.

The core documents of the Code provide a base of information for this project. They are referred to throughout this report in terms of how they are disseminated and how they are used. The Fisheries Department staff and selected fisheries experts were surveyed on their use of Code-related information. This provided an important perspective on what information fisheries policy-makers need and actually use. Citation studies were done on Code-related information produced by FAO, the academic community and selective governmental, non-governmental and international organizations. While not without their limitations, such studies examine what authors use when writing publications.

b) What data and information are available for decision making?

"What" in this context implies how information is made available, e.g. how it is shared and exchanged. The issues of the availability, accessibility and packaging of information are relevant. The question also touches on what information may be absent.

The Fisheries Department survey also looked at what Code-related information the staff members produce and disseminate as this should be part of the available information. We looked broadly at trends in the publishing of, the access to and the dissemination of fisheries information in some developing countries. Case studies were done to ascertain the availability of fisheries management information in four varied fisheries libraries/documentation centres.

c) What opportunities exist for fisheries libraries in all countries to address the constraints of lack of and inadequate access to information?

The final question focuses on the integration of information into organizations as well as the mechanisms needed to collect and share information. Libraries are focal points for the collection, management and dissemination of timely and relevant information in well-functioning research institutes. Burgess commented that "The library is one of the cheapest places to carry out research" (Burgess, 1974). Realization of the library as a critical part of the institutional structure requires resources. Libraries and their networks provide a cost-effective mechanism to facilitate information sharing (Ngwira, 2003; United Nations, Social and Economic Council, 2003).

The case studies also helped identify constraints and opportunities, as did the report of the November 2003 Regional Workshop on Networking for Improved Access to Fisheries and Aquaculture Information in Africa provided more insight (FAO, 2004f). Trends in information technology were monitored as were the emerging information access strategies of the International Association of Aquatic and Marine Science Libraries and Information Centres (IAMSLIC).

Table 1: Information constraints identified by COFI and information issues from
Article 12 of the Code

1.2 The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries core documents

1.2.1 Description of the Code core documents

The core documents of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries are the Code (1995), four International Plans of Action (1999 and 2001), the Strategy for improving information on status and trends of capture fisheries (Strategy-STF) (2003) and twelve Technical Guidelines (1996-2002) (Annex 1). Throughout this Circular, these documents are referred to as the "Code core documents". This core includes the Voluntary Instruments which have been agreed and adopted by Members (i.e. the Code, the Strategy-STF and the International Plans of Action) and key supporting documents produced by FAO (i.e. the Technical Guidelines.)

Other FAO Code-related publications exist, yet are less widely distributed, non-technical presentations of the Code or more recently published. The COFI meeting reports, project reports, and internal FAO documents pertaining to the creation of the Code and its subsequent implementation and evaluation are less widely distributed and not aimed at the broader fisheries management community. The pamphlet, "What is the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries?" (FAO, 2001b) is an example of the approach the Fisheries Department is taking to reach a broader audience in a non-technical manner. The video, "Connecting the Lines", was produced in 2000 and is available in English, French and Spanish. Newer publications include the FishCode Review series, first published in 2003, that aims to facilitate Code implementation by communicating results of ongoing activities and projects.

1.2.2 Dissemination of Code documents

The Fisheries Department provides open access to the Code core documents. In addition to being available on the Department’s website in full text, print copies are sold through the FAO Sales and Marketing Group, and are widely distributed to individuals and appropriate institutions and organizations by the Fisheries Department upon request and via established distribution lists. At the February 2003 COFI meeting, it was reported that "In the past two years, in excess of 13 000 copies of the Code and guidelines have been printed for distribution. The Code is now available in more than 60 languages. In addition, a CD-ROM containing all the Code of Conduct related documents has been prepared and distributed" (FAO, 2003b).

These production numbers are greater than those for the Department’s flagship publication, the biennial State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (SOFIA), reflecting the Department’s commitment to dissemination of the Code (Table 2). Also, the Code has been translated into more languages than any other FAO document.

Table 2: Size of print runs for the Code of Conduct and SOFIA

It is safe to assume that most copies of the Code and the guidelines are in the hands of individuals. A check of library holdings in the Online Computer Library Centre union catalogue indicates that the Code is held by 114 libraries reporting to this major database of North American institutions.^[6] Further investigation reveals inconsistent holdings among more specialized fisheries libraries or research institutes.^[7] Again, these holdings figures are similar to SOFIA. The liberal individual distribution should enhance the availability of the documents to the target audiences.

1.3 Code related information produced, disseminated and used 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 the next section 1.3.3. A more complete discussion of the survey and its results are provided in Annex 2.

1.3.1 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. a response rate of 57.6 percent. Responses were well distributed throughout the Department’s four divisions, namely Information, Data and Statistics; Policy and Planning; Industries; Resources and Environment, each of which is responsible for one work programme. 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.

1.3.2 Summary of findings on production and dissemination of publications

Volume and subject areas covered by publications

Thirty of the respondents indicated that they produced publications related to the Code. Most produce ten or less publications annually. Print remains the format most used.

Subject areas addressed by the publications produced are varied, yet focus on the broad topics of "fisheries management" and "policy and planning". When compared with the subjects searched by these respondents, their publication subjects are more focused.

Audience and dissemination methods

In general, the audience of FAO Code publications is distributed broadly by sector and geography. Almost all identified developing countries as their primary audience. This breadth and focus could affect the format, dissemination method and content of the publications. While print is still the most used format, digital publication is also seen as important to the respondents reflecting both an awareness of the variability of access of their audience and the reality of the publishing environment within the Fisheries Department. Many of the respondents use multiple methods to disseminate their publications from the use of targeted mailing lists to the FAO web site to responding to requests. Few use the peer-reviewed literature for Code-related publications. As long as the targeted mailing list and the FAO website remain highly functional, the intended audience should be well-served. Respondents indicate that their audiences find out about their publications by searching the FAO web site or through contact at meeting, workshops and conferences. This is potentially problematic for those sectors of the audience without Internet access or funds to attend meetings. Greater use of the Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) may be useful for broader dissemination.

Archiving of 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. There was general recognition of the need for archiving both print and electronic publications. Various methods were described with no strong consensus on the most appropriate or sustainable.

1.3.3 Subject information 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. Detailed discussion of the survey results are covered in Annex 2. 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.

Summary of findings

Time spent and subjects searched

More than half of the respondents regularly search for Code-related information while less than a quarter seldom look for Code-related information. The subject areas are listed by frequency of use in Table 3. "Fisheries Management" along with "Policy and Planning" have the highest ranking. 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. The tasks fall into four categories:

· Searching for specific publications:

Many of the specific publications mentioned are FAO publications, which 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.

The search terms and phrases used cluster under three main subject areas: policy and planning, fisheries management, and economics and marketing. Again, the breadth of terms used is wide. There is a range of specificity as well. 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.

Information retrieval tools used

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. 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. 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. ASFA is the only subject specific bibliographic tool to be used by a core group of respondents (23 percent) on a regular basis. The Aquatic Biology, Aquaculture and Fisheries Resources (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.

Code-related information that is difficult to find

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. While the frustration is moderate, the FAO Fisheries Department may be able to alleviate some of it by addressing specific information needs. Better tracking and compilation of individual country Code activity would be beneficial to the Department as well as outsiders.

1.3.4 Subject information used and produced by selected fisheries experts

A small group of fisheries experts outside of FAO were surveyed to provide validation of results from the FAO Fisheries Department staff survey. They were selected on the basis of their geographic location, their institutional base and their level of involvement with fisheries science and management. All are familiar with the Code. Detailed discussion of the survey results are covered in Annex 3.

Their searching behaviour was similar to that of FAO Fisheries Department staff with the majority searching for information on a weekly basis. The subject areas searched include policy and planning, law and legislation, and economics, marketing and trade. Fisheries science was not a term used in management or policy work by the respondents. The search terms used were also very similar to those of the Fisheries Department as was the usage of retrieval tools. The only real difference is that the experts appear to rely on their institutional libraries slightly more.

Examples of hard to find information 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.

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. The experts also reported using grey literature from a variety of sources regularly or occasionally.

Table 3: Subject areas searched by survey respondents when doing Code-related work

1.4 What information is used to produce publications relevant to the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries?

1.4.1 Background

It is not easy to assess what information is needed to support implementation of the Code and responsible fisheries management in general. Investigating what different audiences use to produce relevant publications is one strategy. Typically, this is done through citation studies that show what is cited within a publication as well as what cites that publication. The Institute of Scientific Information’s Web of Science, the major tool for doing traditional citation analysis, does not work well with fisheries policy and management documents for two primary reasons. First, policy guidelines, management plans and industry sector strategies are often drafted in formats that preclude formal references or citations. For example, both the United States and the Canadian implementation plans of the Code acknowledge the FAO Code, but do not include formal references (United States National Marine Fisheries Service, 1997; Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1998). Second, those publications that might have citations are often not covered by the Web of Science. These include many journals published elsewhere than North America and Europe, more popular fisheries publications and grey literature.^[8] This makes it more challenging to monitor how well the Code core documents are being used. Others have articulated similar frustration with tracking information usage of grey literature and information used to create grey literature (Rama and Takalkar, 2000).

Consequently, several approaches were used to investigate what types of information are used to produce the Code core documents and other responsible fisheries publications. The Web of Science from 1995 to the present was searched both by cited reference and general keyword for mention of the Code core documents. We examined the Code core documents as well as the FishCode Review series to discover what information resources were used in their creation. Selected national documents pertaining to the Code were examined for citations of the Code and the Technical Guidelines as well as to identify general types of information used to produce them. Selected publications of intergovernmental and regional organizations provided insight into the types of information used by those with varying levels of access to information. Finally, the articles or chapters in three recent edited compilations were reviewed for references.

The summary of findings has been organized by the sector producing the publications. Detailed analyses and discussion are provided in Annex 4. These divisions are not precise as there is overlap between audience and producers. However, it helps sort out the information landscape of fisheries policy and management if we keep in mind the perspective of the producers and the readers. It also reinforces the challenge of assessing the types of information needed.

1.4.2 Information produced by the academic and research community

Web of Science citation analysis: Citations to the Code core documents

Various citation searches of the Web of Science from 1995 to spring 2004 revealed 107 documents that cited 11 Code documents with 126 citations to those documents. These numbers indicate good usage of the Code core documents compared to a similar study of GESAMP publications (Cordes, 2002) that found 114 GESAMP publications cited in 1178 papers with 1436 citations. The citation rate also compares well with SOFIA, a publication that perhaps has more visibility in the academic and research community.^[9] The Code itself is the most heavily cited followed by Technical Guideline 2 on the precautionary approach to capture fisheries.

Web of Science citation analysis: Types of journals citing the Code core documents

The journals containing articles that cite the Code core documents were compared to several compiled lists to better understand the subject coverage. More detailed discussion of the list compilation is in Annex 4. The Code core documents have been cited in a range of journals and, as expected, most articles appear in titles with a management focus or element (Table 4). Ten of the management journals have articles citing the Code while only six of the ISI science journals have such articles. If the number of articles citing the Code is considered, far more appear in management journals (51 compared to 33 in science journals). These observations suggest that the Code core documents are being discussed and integrated into the mainstream of fisheries and aquaculture management journals. Their presence among fisheries scientists is perhaps less established. This may be important to implementation of the Code of Conduct; a broad understanding of responsible fisheries is needed by both scientists and managers.

Comparing the lists in Table 4 vividly illustrates the challenges in providing information to support Code implementation. To some, the split between science and management journals may seem arbitrary as many journals espouse to cover both. In reality, a journal’s focus tends towards one with occasional forays into the other. List 2, the top ISI ranked science titles, and List 4, a more eclectic list of management titles, only share five titles. This apparent split between science and management challenges libraries in their collection development. It also challenges scientists and fisheries managers wanting to promote responsible fisheries concepts in the peer-reviewed literature. The lists also illustrate the problem of addressing the increased amount of fisheries-related information. The challenge for libraries is in providing access comprehensively or even effectively given stagnant or in many developing countries non-existent budgets. The challenge for scientists and managers is identifying appropriate outlets for publishing as well as which journals to track for information. As an example of the challenge faced in developing countries, List 3 suggests that African scientists have not had consistent access to the major fisheries-related titles as that list shares only four science title and three management titles. The choice of journals for both publication and consultation is not always clear, and access to them not always easy for the potential reader.

Table 4: Fisheries & aquaculture journals: comparison of journals citing Code documents with journals used in fisheries science

1.4.3 Three recent international compilations on responsible fisheries issues

Methodology

These three publications address responsible fisheries in various contexts and by a variety of contributors. They involve authors and an audience that crosses between the academic and the policy communities. FAO staff contributed to the content and editing of two of the volumes. The three compilations are as follows:

Responsible Marine Aquaculture. 2002. Stickney, R.R. and McVey, J.P. (editors.) CAB International.

Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. 2003. Sinclair, M. and Valdimarsson, G. (editors.) FAO Fishery Industries Division and CABI Publishing

Current Fisheries Issues and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Nordquist, M.H. and Moore, J.N. (editors.) 2000. Kluwer Law International

Use of the Code core documents

Formal citing of the Code core documents is not as extensive as expected in the first two publications and is higher than anticipated in the Current Fishery Issues. In general, the lack of references to the Code provides sparse evidence of active use and promotion of the Code and its supporting documents

Use of other information

The three publications have different patterns of information usage reflecting both their respective subject areas and the intellectual culture of the authors. The differences are in relative usage of different categories of information and in amount of information cited. A quarter of the authors in Current Fishery Issues do not cite information used while the majority of authors in the two responsible publications do. These two also have significantly higher numbers of citations per article than the Current Fishery Issues. The pattern illustrates the culture of citation in the more scientific approach found in Responsible Fisheries and Responsible Aquaculture.

This same culture is reflected in the high use of peer-reviewed articles in both Responsible Fisheries and Responsible Aquaculture. Authors in Current Fishery Issues are more likely to cite grey literature (27 percent), FAO publications (20 percent including the Code core documents), laws (16 percent) and conference proceedings (20 percent) than the peer-reviewed literature (11 percent). This contrast is striking and could be an indicator of the importance of grey literature to these management and policy authors. However, there are differences in the two more scientific publications. The aquaculture authors cite the grey literature including conference proceedings far more than the fisheries authors. On the other hand, fisheries scientists and managers are more likely to find information needed in the peer-reviewed literature.

1.4.4 Information produced by governmental and non-governmental organizations

Methodology

The documents produced by various governmental and non-governmental organizations that address the Code are elusive. Most FAO Members that responded to the Fisheries Department’s 2002 questionnaire on Code implementation favourably indicated that they conform to the Code of Conduct (FAO, 2003b para.21). The Members also reported that 472 marine fishery management plans and 228 inland fishery management plans have been developed though implementation lags significantly behind development (Ibid. para.22). However, few of these plans are readily available electronically or in print. Consequently, the small sample of available documents analysed does not reflect an exhaustive search and is limited to those documents published in English.

Use of the Code core documents

Most of the documents mention the Code whether in formal citations or in the document text. The authors of these pieces are aware of the Code given the subjects of their work and, it is a positive sign that they actively refer to it. This promotes the Code to those who read these documents.

Use of other types of information

As a group, these documents are most likely to cite peer-reviewed literature (31 percent), the grey literature of the publishing body (22 percent) and other grey literature (17 percent). This pattern changes somewhat within each group. There remains a heavy reliance on peer-reviewed literature in addition to a variety of grey literature.

1.4.5 Information produced by selected organizations with a regional or international focus

Methodology

Publications of several international and intergovernmental organizations were reviewed. The organizations reviewed were the WorldFish Center, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Centre (SEAFDEC), Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA) and International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF.) Few are publishing documents specifically addressing the Code, yet all do produce publications on responsible fisheries and aquaculture. It was felt that the use of information by these authors would give additional perspective on the organizations themselves and their constituencies

Use of the Code core documents

In general, the Code core documents are poorly referenced. WorldFish Center documents do not reference the Code itself, but do refer specifically to the aquaculture related Technical Guidelines. SEAFDEC proceedings and reports rarely cite the Code. NACA publications mention the Code documents more than SEAFDEC. ICSF makes the most frequent mention of the Code in its journal, Samudra, and also discusses the IPOAs there. All in all, outside of news articles about the Code, there is little active integration of the Code into the publications of these organizations.

Use of other types of information

Comparing the use of grey literature versus peer-reviewed literature among the four organizations reveals differences in usage. The total for all four organizations shows 44 percent of citations are to grey literature versus 31 percent to peer-reviewed articles. However, WorldFish and NACA have similar ratios to each other and show a higher reliance on the peer-reviewed literature. This reflects the nature of their publications as more scientific than those of ICSF and SEAFDEC. These two organizations rely far more on grey literature. Over half of ICSF’s citations are to grey literature while SEAFDEC’s reliance is even higher. This reiterates the importance of local and regional information. It also suggests that there is great variety in what information is accessible in different parts of the world and in different communities of users.

1.4.6 Information types used in the Code core documents

Methodology

The final community of users is the FAO Fisheries Department and those who produce the Core publications. The publications examined have been described earlier in Part 1.2.1 as the Code core documents. These documents do not consistently or formally cite publications used by their authors and the formats and writing styles clearly show different approaches by the authors. The addition of references as a bibliography, footnotes or endnotes would be helpful to a reader interested in knowing more about the subject and the authority of the document’s content. Those that include citations or references are five of the twelve Technical Guidelines, three of the four FishCode Reviews and the 1999 IPOAs. These publications were examined to see how the Code core documents were referenced, and then to identify the types of other information used

Use of Code core documents

Currently, the Code core documents are not consistently reiterated throughout all Code documents. While most have a background piece or foreword detailing the history of the Code, few make it an active part of the document. This is partly stylistic as the technical guidelines are written by different authors and for various audiences.

Use of other types of information

All the Code core documents with citations use FAO Fisheries publications and 9 of the 11 use grey literature. There are neither obvious patterns of usage nor consistent items cited by all. Information usage is specific to the topic of each guideline. These documents make extensive use of other FAO publications especially those of the Fisheries Department. In fact, over a third of the citations are to FAO publications. This is not unexpected as these are the working documents of the Department, the publications of greatest familiarity and accessibility.

Authors of the Code documents rely heavily on the grey literature, material that is usually less widely distributed, not subject to formal review, and not well preserved. References to conference proceedings and other grey literature account for 32 percent. The peer-reviewed articles account for 21 percent of the citations, and are cited in six of the eleven documents.

1.5 General discussion on the information for responsible fisheries management

The issues identified in Article 12 of the Code and the ongoing constraints to Code implementation voiced by COFI (Table 1) raise the challenges inherent in collecting and managing fisheries information. Without that information, responsible fisheries policy has no foundation. The challenges, constraints or opportunities, depending on your perspective, fall under two primary activities: gathering the complex information itself and then providing access to that information.

To do either of these activities, libraries need to know what could or perhaps should be in their collections or accessible through cooperative agreements. The following summarizes the findings from the surveys and citation studies describing the nature of Code related information. It also provides a framework for bringing in observations from the relevant literature and relating other articles of the Code to the information issue.

Four major features of responsible fisheries information emerged from our studies of users and publications.

• Code information is broad and multidisciplinary.

• it has depth in terms of time and perspective.

• it involves various scales from very local to global.

• it comes from a complex mix of sources.

Each of these features has a significant impact on how libraries collect, manage and disseminate the information.

Breadth

Perhaps the most obvious feature of responsible fisheries information is its breadth, meaning the variety of disciplines involved, the wealth of languages and the range of voices. This is clearly articulated in Article 12 of the Code and repeated in Article 6 on General Principles.

6.4 Conservation and management decisions for fisheries should be based on the best scientific evidence available, also taking into account traditional knowledge of the resources and their habitat, as well as relevant environmental, economic and social factors. (FAO, 1995 p. 5)

12.1 ...States should ensure that appropriate research is conducted into all aspects of fisheries including biology, ecology, technology, environmental science, economics, social science, aquaculture and nutritional science. (FAO, 1995 p. 32)

The variety of disciplines involved also emerges from the survey data of FAO Fisheries Department staff. When asked about subjects searched and information tasks completed, the breadth is demonstrated. The staff members search across policy, ecosystem approach, fisheries management, aquaculture, economics and law for relevant information. They look for information on capacity, food security, trade, artisanal fisheries, fishing gear and legal frameworks.

The information sources used by those actively involved in fisheries management come from a variety of producers. These include, but are not limited to, the traditional commercial publishers, non-governmental organizations and governments at various levels, professional societies, the industry and inter-governmental bodies. This breadth of publishers reinforces the diversity of information used and needed. It also poses a challenge for fisheries libraries that must develop mechanisms to track production of publications and then collect or provide access to the relevant ones. Additionally, the various producers of relevant information are located throughout the world. Some will be local, e.g. within a library’s or institution’s geographic scope, while others with potentially useful publications may be in distant countries with obscure or just different distribution methods.

The Code also reveals the breadth of information needed. Within fisheries per se, there are publications addressing marine fisheries, inland fisheries as well as aquaculture in several environments. Additionally, information produced by economists, demographers, historians is relevant. Monitoring the publications of these sectors as well as others is required to provide the breadth of information. Use of information from other disciplines can lead to both analysis and synthesis resulting in more valuable information (Palmer, 1999; Steele and Stier, 2000).

Depth

Developing and implementing environmental management takes time. The process, at its best, is recursive meaning decisions are made and implemented, results evaluated, and changes made in both policy and its implementation. Information to support this process should reflect it; the pool of available information should be deeper than the most recent or the most accessible. Throughout Article 12, allusions are made to activities that require time-series and historic information. Examples include "an appropriate time and level" (12.4) "ongoing monitoring, analysis and policy formulation" (12.9) and "assess...the impacts of ecosystem changes" (12.5). Other articles of the Code also refer to the ongoing generation, management and use of information:

7.6.8 The efficacy of conservation management measures and their possible interactions should be kept under continuous review. Such measures should, as appropriate, be revised or abolished in light of new information. (FAO, 1995 p. 14)

9.1.3 States should produce and regularly update aquaculture development strategies and plans. (FAO, 1995 p. 23)

Two examples demonstrate the need for depth in collections and information resources. The first is simply the high use of fisheries statistics by the FAO Fisheries Department staff. Statistics typically are valued for their reliability as well as their longevity; people use them to document trends over time and region, hence the need for depth. The citation studies also found that SOFIA is highly cited throughout the literature by all types of users. This reinforces the evidence of heavy use of trend and statistical information.

The second example is localized and shows the use of information by publication date. The 490 citations in 29 papers published in the 2001 Proceedings of the Lake Malawi Fisheries Management Symposium were analysed for various traits, one of which was publication date (Weyl and Weyl, 2001). The results showed that while almost 70 per cent of the citations were to literature published since 1990, over 30 per cent were to older literature (Table 5). This trend was particularly significant in papers addressing species distribution and taxonomy.

Table 5: Publication Dates of Citations in Proceedings of the Lake Malawi
Fisheries Management Symposium

Older information is valuable and in fact, is often essential to effective fisheries management. Too often, historic information is lost due to lack of its management or neglect. Fisheries libraries can play an important role in capturing and archiving the historic record so that future fisheries scientists and managers will have greater context for their work (Smith 1994).

Scale

Fisheries management begins locally as this is where livelihoods are created and sustained. This is the scale where conversations take place, decisions are made, and plans implemented. The information of various scales is needed and used at the local level. The Code also emphasizes the need to create and share information across political boundaries as fisheries resources are usually shared across space and time. This emphasis assumes local information gathering.

6.4 In recognizing the transboundary nature of many aquatic ecosystems, States should encourage bilateral and multilateral cooperation in research, as appropriate.

10.3.1 States with neighbouring coastal areas should cooperate with one another to facilitate the sustainable use of coastal resources and the conservation of the environment.

The citation studies of various communities showed that all use information of various scales, from local to global, and from a variety of producers, from local institutions to international publishers (Tables 4.3, 4.5 and 4.6). Harder to display is the provincialism of fisheries information and its usage. This should not be seen as a criticism, merely a characteristic. People use and cite what is relevant and accessible. Often, this is local information produced by the home institution of the author. Often it is discipline specific and therefore intellectually accessible through the author’s training and professional contacts.

Libraries play a critical role in collecting local information. Often the local library or institution has the best and perhaps only opportunity to identify and obtain copies of locally produced publications. For example, Kadzamira, Ngwira and Salanje observed that over 80 per cent of the publications included in the aquaculture database developed at Bunda College Library in Malawi were not covered in the international database, Aquatic Biology, Aquaculture and Fisheries Resources (Kadzamira, Ngwira and Salanje, 2004). This gap in coverage suggests that the local library also has a role in providing access beyond its physical walls. Recognition of and compatibility with national, regional and even international information systems are essential to successfully share collections and information across boundaries. This is particularly true where human and financial resources are limited. Article 9.2.4 states this using the adjective "appropriate" as it outlines collaborative efforts in aquaculture. Yet, local fisheries information is often not "standard", so the library sometimes must make it more usable (i.e. binding loose material or copying fragile items).

9.2.4 States should establish appropriate mechanisms such as databases and information networks to collect, share and disseminate data related to their aquaculture activities to facilitate cooperation on planning for aquaculture development at the global level.

Even if the management of local fisheries information is problematic, its utility in fisheries management is important. "Local knowledge can be used to corroborate science data and to fill in gaps in the scientifically generated data. While local knowledge typically is not subject to the same peer review as scientific knowledge, triangulation with other data sources and comparative techniques can help validate it" (Scholz et al. 2004). The library is hence charged with facilitating linkages among the local information throughout the region as well as to the scientific and other relevant information. Payne summarizes this well, "The capacity for access to information that is relevant and in the appropriate format needs to be increased at regional, national, and in particular, at community levels" (Payne, 2000). This is no small task.

Source

The variety of sources of fisheries information adds complexity and perhaps volatility to the nature of the information. Fisheries management is an interaction among science, economics, politics, technology, ecosystems, history, the people involved and the fish (Hanna et al., 2000). The information produced and used in fisheries policy work reflects the differences between science and policy. Orbach articulates this well when describing the interaction between science and policy in coastal zone management: "...science is concerned with description and explanation, while policy is concerned with governance of human behaviour....Science and policy-making are different from one another, but complementary" (Orbach, 1996). The Code supports the contribution of science to the management process just as it validates using information on all aspects of fisheries from biology to nutrition.

12.1 States should recognize that responsible fisheries requires the availability of a sound science basis to assist fisheries managers and other interested parties in making decisions. Therefore, State should ensure that appropriate research is conducted into all aspects of fisheries including biology, ecology, technology, environmental science, economics, social science, aquaculture and nutritional science.

12.3 ...the best scientific information is made available as a contribution to fisheries conservation, management and development.

The local population often has a deep knowledge of their physical, cultural and economic community that can help inform the management process (Ulluwishewa, 1993; FAO, 2001a). The fishing industry can contribute information, yet questions about validity, relevance and bias are often raised (Hanna et al., 2000; Harms and Sylvia 2001). Weeks suggests that separating the "purely scientifically based knowledge from a more practically gained local knowledge" is especially difficult in information rich societies (p. 435, 1995). The Code emphasizes the importance of different sources of information including traditional knowledge.

6.4 Conservation and management decisions for fisheries should be based on the best scientific evidence available, also taking into account traditional knowledge of the resources and their habitat, as well as relevant environmental, economic and social factors.

The various stakeholders bring different perspectives to fisheries management, often leading to a highly charged process. Fisheries information reflects the same complexity and propensity for tension; different sources and disciplines produce publications adhering to guidelines and standards that contradict each other at times. For instance, the differences between commercially published journals and those produced locally by an institution in a developing country can be substantial. However, which is the more valid as useful information for local management decisions? Science often relies on the peer-review process to validate the information. Management and policy work draws information from a wider variety of sources, including outside the peer-reviewed sphere.

The value of grey literature, those publications outside of the readily available commercial publishing realm, is heightened in fisheries management as relevant information is not just the peer-reviewed or commercially produced. Much grey information is never published in the commercial realm; and if it does appear, the timeliness is problematic for decision making. Recognizing its value to and using it in fisheries management are critical.

Conclusion

Overall, the essential role of access to information is not apparent in the Code. Rather, data collection and information creation are emphasized. The discussion above suggests that access to and dissemination of information is as important as its creation. If policy-makers need and even expect "objective, reliable, credible and clear" information (O’Boyle, Rice and Sinclair, 1999) and stakeholders want their voices heard, the providers of information that is used in the management process face a massive challenge.

Encouraging people to recognize and use the information from different disciplines and different sources is vital. As Finlayson observes, "...fisheries management is fundamentally a social process" (Finlayson, 1994. p.154). Campbell and Salagrama refer to the different "knowledge systems" and the need for awareness of those by all involved in fisheries (Campbell and Salagrama, 2001). They continue by saying that collaborative fisheries management needs "to adopt more interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches to research, develop interagency linkages and adopt new ways of combining social and natural research systems. It will also require changes in the way policy and research work together" (Ibid, p.viii). This final observation suggests that there are differences in the information used and produced by the different participants in responsible fisheries.

Fisheries libraries must find ways to provide access to the broad, deep and different sources of fisheries information. Libraries have a responsibility at the institutional level to act as focal points for the collection, management and dissemination of timely and relevant information. Institutions have a responsibility to provide the resources and support their libraries in this effort. An initial step is sharing an understanding of what information is needed to support implementation of the Code. Once that step is taken, fisheries libraries can secure the information needed, and assist the fisheries community in using it.