The attached paper has been prepared for the forthcoming FAO-Australian Meeting on Sustainability Indicators in Marine Capture Fisheries, Australia, 18-22 January 1999. It is not for discussion by the Technical Consultation, however, it contains information which may be useful in the work of the Consultation.

Serge Michel Garcia¹

The paper describes the linkages between the FAO definition of sustainability and the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (which takes into account the requirements of the 1992 Agenda 21 of UNCED and of the 1995 UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks). It identifies the main principles contained in the definition and relates them explicitly to the criteria and indicators referred to, more or less explicitly, in the Code, in relation to ecosystem wellbeing and human wellbeing as well as to the need for institutional and technological change. In so doing, the paper provides the basis for reference criteria and a framework of indicators for sustainable fisheries, based on internationally agreed instruments. It is stressed that the framework requires further streamlining, identifying linkages between indicators and between criteria in order to eliminates possible redundancies.

The design of a sustainability framework for fisheries could start from the broad definition of sustainable development, from which the principles could be extracted. Subsequently, criteria could be identified and used to determine whether and to what extent the principles are being complied with in a particular fishery or fishing area. Finally, qualitative and quantitative indicators and verifiers corresponding to these criteria should be identified and conventionally defined. For example: the definition of sustainability requires, as a general principle, that the resource base be maintained. The requirement is broad and a number of criteria can be envisaged such as the resource biomass, the reproductive potential, the specific structure, or the critical habitat. Indicators could be the ratios of present biomass over virgin biomass, the reproductive potential over maximum reproductive potential, and the proportion of the original habitat still in pristine or good condition. The verifiers could be the catch-per-unit-effort, the relative spawning biomass-per-recruit, and the relative area covered by the critical habitat.

In the following section of this paper we shall follow this approach, starting from the FAO definition of sustainable development, following with the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995) which takes account of the requirements contained in Agenda 21 and in the 1995 UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks. We shall illustrate the relation between the FAO definition and the Code of Conduct identifying the main criteria and indicators implicitly or explicitly called for in both the FAO definition and Code of Conduct.

According to FAO (1988), sustainable development is "The management and conservation of the natural resource base, and the orientation of technological and institutional change in such a manner as to ensure the attainment of continued satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations. Such sustainable development conserves (land,) water, plants and (animal) genetic resources, is environmentally non-degrading, technologically appropriate, economically viable and socially acceptable".

The above definition indicates the three Principles of sustainability related to the need to:

1. Conserve (and sustain) the multiple resource in its environment;
2. Satisfy the social and economic needs of human beings;
3. For management to guide the required changes in institutions and technology.

These three Principles are expressed and analysed below (see section III). In order to improve their operational usefulness, these Principles could, in turn, be subdivided into a number of sub-principles which would more readily allow the subsequent identification of criteria, indicators, and verifiers.

The elements of FAO definition for sustainable development might be recombined in different ways. The above analysis has the advantage to explicitly identify, from the onset, the three main requirements of sustainable development of fisheries: the simultaneous (present and future) wellbeing of the bio-ecological system, the human system and the management process.

The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO, 1995) has developed the FAO definition of sustainable development into a much more detailed and specific set of General Principles (Article 6) and a large number of specific provisions aiming at facilitating the implementation of the FAO definition in the various facets of the fisheries-related activities: Fisheries Management (Article 7), Fishing Operations (Article 8), Aquaculture Development (Article 9), Integration of Fisheries into Coastal Areas Management (Article 10), Post Harvest Practices and Trade (Article 11) and Fisheries Research (Article 12).

This structure is convenient because it is explicitly addressed to the various types of actors respectively required to implement the Code: the policy and decision-makers; managers; fishermen; fish processors and traders; fish farmers; and scientists. In each Article of the Code, the provisions are rather specific to that Article and each provision refers implicitly (or explicitly) and directly (or indirectly) to the Principles (or Principles) implicitly contained in the FAO definition of sustainable development and identified above. In addition, each provision of the Code contains explicit or implicit references to criteria and indicators and verifiers.

As mentioned in Section I, the three principles of sustainability relate to:

1. Conservation (and sustainability) of the multiple resource in its environment;
2. Satisfaction of the social and economic needs of human beings;
3. Management of the required changes in institutions and technology.

In the following section, we shall propose an expression for them and the sub-principles they contain. For each of the principles, we shall identify the relation with specific provisions of the Code of Conduct (and related criteria).

For practical reasons, this can be subdivided into two sub-principles related respectively to the target resource, and to the environment (sensu lato) including the non-target resources.

The related provisions of the Code of Conduct refer to (article number in endnotes):

1.1.1 Maintainance of quality, diversity, and availability of resources ¹

1.1.2 Prevention of overfishing and overcapacity ²

1.1.3 Protection of juveniles and spawners ³

1.1.4 Rehabilitation of (depleted) populations ⁴

The resource criteria for the target resources relate to resource quality, diversity and availability.

Related resource indicators would need to reflect: total biomass, resource size and age structure, spawning biomass, recruitment index, extension of distribution area, species composition, etc., all of which should be within or above conventionally agreed values taking into account the resource history, the uncertainty and related risks.

Related resource management indicators would include the existence of a process to define and assess overfishing, and to formally establish the related limit reference points. That would also include the effective application of measures to: avoid or correct overfishing, protect juveniles and spawners, contain or reduce fishing capacity, and, when appropriate, to rebuild depleted stocks.

The related provisions of the Code of Conduct refer to (article number in endnotes):

1.2.1 Maintenance of biodiversity, population structure and ecosystems ⁵

1.2.2 Protection and rehabilitation of all critical fisheries habitats ⁶

1.2.3 Protection of endangered species⁷

1.2.4 Monitoring of the coastal environment and assessment of environmental impact⁸

1.2.5 Protection of the environment from:

1. dumping, pollution, ozone-depleting gas emission⁹
2. in-use or abandoned artificial structures¹⁰
3. negative trade impacts (incl. in live specimen and endangered species)¹¹
4. negative impacts of post harvest processes¹²

1.2.6 Minimizing catch of non-target, associated and dependent species¹³

1.2.7 Minimizing gear loss or discard (ghost fishing)¹⁴

1.2.8 Studying interaction of fisheries with the ecosystem¹⁵

1.2.9 Reduction of consumption of energy ¹⁶

1.2.10 Development of relevant research¹⁷

The related ecosystem criteria would include: the state of the ecosystem (structure and productivity, environment, biodiversity, and populations structure, food chain integrity, ) as well as the management measures, and the research support.

The related ecosystem indicators would need to reflect: water quality; critical habitat; species composition, diversity, and resilience) including for dependant and associated species; number of endangered species; the integrity of the trophic relationships (food chain, predator-prey relationships).

Ecosystem management indicators would relate to the existence and effective application of impact assessment procedures as well as measures to protect the environment, critical habitats, and endangered species from pollution, ozone depleting gases, gear impact including gear loss and dumping. They would also cover rehabilitation strategies, where appropriate.

Ecosystem research indicators would relate to the existence of environment monitoring systems, impact assessment procedures, research to improve fishing selectivity and promote energy-efficient technology, and to develop environment rehabilitation strategies. They should also indicate whether there is a functional linkage between research and management, e.g. whether: research capacity is sufficient, effectively involved and used in management decision-making, and independent from political and economic pressure and whether its results are published. International scientific cooperation is particularly important for transboundary stocks.

For practical reasons, this can be subdivided into two principles related respectively to the satisfaction of human needs and to the need to put in place economic conditions conducive to sustainability.

The related provisions of the Code of Conduct refer to (article number in footnote):

2.1.1 Protect interests of fishworkers (incl. in subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fisheries)¹⁸

2.1.2 Maintain nutritional value, quality and safety of products¹⁹

2.1.3 Ensure consumers� rights to safe and healthy products²⁰

2.1.4 Ensure safe, healthy, and fair working conditions meeting international standards²¹

2.1.5 Enhance education, skills and professional qualifications of fishers²²

2.1.6 Promote access to insurance coverage²³

2.1.7 Provide assistance for the Implementation of the Code²⁴

2.1.8 Facilitate technology transfer²⁵

2.1.9 Develop research on social impacts²⁶ and traditional knowledge²⁷

2.1.10 Promote use of fish for human food²⁸

2.1.11 Ensure non-discrimination²⁹

2.1.12 Give recognition to traditional practices, indigenous people, local communities³⁰

2.1.13 Facilitate effective participation � in decision-making³¹

The related social criteria would include: protection of small-scale fisheries (coastal communities and disadvantaged fishery groups in general), improvement of their living conditions, access to adequate technology, and food security.

The related social indicators would reflect: the amount of research on social issues; the relative standards of living; revenues (individual and household); educational level; social cohesion; use of technology; consumers� rights; food safety and quality international standards; nutritional status.

The social indicators of management would reflect the use of traditional knowledge and consideration of traditional rights; the degree of community empowerment and participation to decision-making; the rate of compliance with local and national regulations; the existence and effectiveness of programmes of resource allocation, extension services, compliance enhancement measures and programmes, promotion of insurance schemes, measures to enhance food security; and the facilitation of access to adequate technology (including training).

The related provisions of the Code of Conduct refer to (article number in endnotes):

2.2.1 Consider social impact and cost effectiveness of management measures³²

2.2.2 Consider the economic and social role of post harvest³³

2.2.3 Promote economic conditions conducive to responsible fisheries³⁴

2.2.4 Promote value-adding processes and technologies³⁵

2.2.5 Harmonise trade standards to international norms³⁶

2.2.6 Develop research on resource valuation³⁷

The related economic criteria would include: the economic conditions of fisheries; the access to value-adding technologies; and the compliance with international trade standards.

The economic indicators would reflect the real costs of fishing; the revenues; the existence, type and level of subsidies; the degree of cost-recovery (including management costs) and the inclusion of environmental economics (resource valuation) in the economic assessments.

The economic management indicators would include; the existence and effectiveness of fishing capacity control, cost-recovery schemes; compliance with international norms of fair trade and programmes to promote value-adding (to locally capture processing rents), facilitation of control of products origin (for eco-labelling purposes).

For practical reasons, this can be subdivided into three sub-principles related respectively to the objectives for management (which explicit the intentions of the management system); the implementation of management (through its institutions, measures and satisfaction of human needs and to the need to put in place economic conditions conducive to sustainability) and the acquisition and transfer of appropriate technology.

The related provisions of the Code of Conduct refer to (article number in endnotes):

3.1.1 Maintenance and optimum utilization for present and future generations³⁸

3.1.2 Maintaining stocks at level capable of producing MSY^2,39

3.1.3 Elimination of excess capacity⁴⁰

3.1.4 Prohibition of destructive practices⁴¹

The related criteria may depend on local conditions. In general, however, objectives should aim at resource conservation and satisfaction of human needs (as seen in section 1 and 2).

The related indicators would reflect the explicit intention of the formal national policy and management framework to address these two essential criteria. They should therefore specifically aim at: optimum utilization; resource maintenance (with adequate limit reference points); economic rationality (capturing the rent, eliminating subsidies and excess capacity, and promoting value-adding,); use of responsible technology (banning destructive practices and promoting more selective ones). Obviously, the explicit adoption of these objectives is not sufficient to ensure sustainability and an adequate implementation strategy will be needed (see below). Indicators of the effective impact of these objectives have been identified in sections 1 and 2, above as well as in the following sections.

The related provisions of the Code of Conduct refer to (article number in endnotes):

3.2.1 Plans for management, research and ICAM⁴²

3.2.2 Consultation and participation of industry in laws and regulations⁴³

3.2.3 Authorization to fish (formal and conditional) and related records⁴⁴

3.2.4 Marking of vessels and gear in accordance with international standards⁴⁵

3.2.4 Timely and transparent decision-making process⁴⁶

3.2.5 Mechanisms to prevent and resolve dispute (incl. provisional arrangements)⁴⁷

3.2.6 Measures based on the best scientific evidence⁴⁸

3.2.7 Review and simplify legislation and eliminate obsolete and unnecessary ones⁵⁴

3.2.8 Allow time for implementation⁵⁵

3.2.9 Identification and focus on transboundary stocks, ensuring compatible measures throughout the species range⁵⁶

3.2.10 International cooperation within effective, financially supported regional fishery bodies⁵⁷ as well as between fishery and non-fishery bodies⁵⁸ regarding data collection, research, development and management⁵⁹, coastal area management⁶⁰, sanitary regulation and certification procedures⁶¹, protection of endangered species⁶², trade standards⁶³, and research in EEZs and the high seas⁶⁴

3.2.11 Wide application of the precautionary approach⁶⁵

a) Taking account of uncertainties and risk⁶⁶

b) Adopting target and limit reference points⁶⁷

c) Adopting (temporary) emergency measures in case of threat⁶⁸

d) Pre-agreeing on measure to be taken in case of threat

e) Adopting precautionary measures for new or exploratory fisheries⁶⁹

f) Conducting prior impact assessment

g) Informing other stakeholders prior placement or removal of artificial structure⁷⁰

3.2.12 Take fisheries into account in multi-use of the coastal zone⁷¹

3.2.13 Develop and implement effective MCS⁷² and ensure compliance and enforcement⁷³

3.2.14 Exercise Flag State responsibilities (compliance, data submission)⁷⁴

3.2.15 Do not facilitate flags of convenience⁷⁵

3.2.16 Promote awareness about conservation and management among fishers⁷⁶

3.2.17 Minimize waste (discards) improve use of bycatch⁷⁷

3.2.18 Conduct international trade according to WTO principles, rights and obligations, without market distortions and trade barriers⁷⁸

3.2.19 Monitor management performance and review management strategies⁷⁹

3.2.20 Aim at cost recovery (of research, conservation and management )⁸⁰

3.2.21 Develop capacity at national⁸¹ as well as regional level⁸²

3.2.22 Explore possibilities for establishment of control and certification agencies and improve identification of product origin⁸³

The relative management criteria relate to: Planning framework (for research, management, ICAM); Participation; decision-making process; legal framework (including for conflict resolution); information for decision-making; implementation process; precautionary approach; and performance auditing.

The related management indicators would reflect the degree of coverage of national fisheries with management plans, research on sustainability; existence of management, research, and ICAM plans; existence of functioning mechanisms for participation (including in the rural or peri-urban small-scale sector); type of decision-making process; timeliness and transparency of the system; degree to which the public is informed; identification and use of local knowledge.

The legal framework indicators would refer to: ratification of the main conventions of interest to fisheries (UNCLOS, UNIA, CBD); revision and streamlining of legislation in the light of the new requirements, taking account of traditional rights and regulations, establishing deterrent penalties, and prohibiting destructive gear; establishment of an effective prosecution system and dispute resolution mechanism; integration of fisheries management framework into coastal integrated management; an effective implementation of Flag and Port States responsibilities, in EEZs and high seas (including recording of vessels and fishing authorizations, requiring related certificates on board, effective enforcement capacity, compliance with vessel marking standards).

The information aspects of the management indicators should reflect: demonstrated use of the best scientific evidence; appropriate research spectrum including in social sciences (including resource, environment, ecosystem, biodiversity, impact assessment, cost-benefit analysis; systematic impact assessment; analysis of management schemes performance; analysis of EEZ-high seas interactions; environmental economics; uncertainty and risk). It should also reflect the production and sound statistical use of timely, reliable, and widely available statistics on catch, effort, fleets, gears, fishing practices and strategies, covering both target and non-target species; focus on transboundary stocks; with elaboration of compatible measures across the entire distribution range; existence of an effective international scientific cooperation (when appropriate, including financial support, data collection, research, development, ICAM, trade norms, product safety, protection of endangered species); multi-use planning and regulation; enforcement and compliance; efforts against flags of convenience; awareness raising; discard minimization; compliance with ITO regulations; wide application of the precautionary approach; and monitoring of management performance.

The related provisions of the Code of Conduct refer to (article number in endnotes):

3.3.1 Develop and use selective and environmentally safe gear⁸⁴

3.3.2 Phase out non-responsible gear and adopt responsible technology⁸⁵

3.3.3 Promote responsible technology transfer⁸⁶

The related technology criteria would relate to total extraction capacity; selectivity; impacts of gear and processing; post harvest waste (including discards), as well as land-based and at-sea pollution.

The related technology indicators would reflect: efforts to catalogue fishing gear and techniques in responsible and non-responsible ones, in relation to specific biotopes and production systems); development and promotion of appropriate (responsible) technology transfer; and banning (where appropriate) and phasing out of non-responsible gear and techniques. Other relevant (but less specific) technology-related indicators will also be found under sections 1, 2 and 3, above.

The above sections reflect the linkage between the FAO definition of sustainability and the FAO Code of Conduct (which takes into account the requirements contained in the 1992 UNCED Agenda 21 and the 1995 UN Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks). The identification of the related indicators does not pretend to be comprehensive or even definitive. It is given here only to illustrate the link between the fisheries sustainability framework represented by the Code of Conduct and any other sustainability framework, global or specific, which could be developed with such indicators.

While the three principles are fundamental, particularly Principles 1 and 2 related respectively to ecological and human beings, there may be slightly different ways of expressing them and subdividing them into sub-principles for the sake of convenience.

The criteria and indicators identified are standard (classical) in the sense that they are not particularly original and, for most of them, have already been mentioned and used in the context of fisheries or marine resources. The list of indicators is necessarily long to reflect the complexity of the question of sustainability.

In order to facilitate a discussion on fisheries sustainability frameworks, the typology offered in the summary table (Annex 1) provides a first classification of criteria and indicators explicitly related to the fundamental principles of sustainability. A different typology might be elaborated but would probably not affect significantly the list of indicators and reference points. However, the understanding on these indicators varies greatly. Some indicators are well known and an agreed methodology for their calculation or measurement is available (e.g. catch-per-unit-effort, or spawning biomass-per-recruit). Others are less clearly defined, at least to the author (e.g. index of social cohesion) and are reported here to underline the need for their clarification and formal definition.

Many of the indicators mentioned in the list may indeed be inter-related (correlated) through the elementary data or method used for their elaboration. This may lead to an artificially high diversity of indicators. A closer analysis of these relationships (which goes beyond the aim of this paper) may generate a clustering of correlated indicators (in the form of a tree) which would be useful to identify redundancies and duplications and to streamline the list of strictly independent indicators and reference points.

FAO (1995): The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. FAO: 41 p.