1. Chronicles of catches from marine fisheries in the Eastern Central Atlantic for 1950-2000 Luca Garibaldi and Richard Grainger Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit FAO International Symposium on marine fisheries, ecosystems and societies in West Africa: Half a century of change Dakar, 26-28 June 2002

2. 1. Catch statistics collected by FAO-FIDI in the Eastern Central Atlantic-CECAF area The CECAF area and its divisions CodeName 34.1.1 Morocco coastal 34.1.2Canaries/Madeira insular 34.1.3Sahara coastal 34.1.9Northern coastal, not known 34.2.0Northern oceanic 34.3.1Cape Verde coastal 34.3.2Cape Verde insular 34.3.3Sherbro 34.3.4Western Gulf of Guinea 34.3.5Central Gulf of Guinea 34.3.6Southern Gulf of Guinea 34.4.1Southwest Gulf of Guinea 34.4.2Southwest oceanic 34.9.0Not known (CECAF area) 34.0.0Tunas (CECAF area) http://www.fao.org/fi/statist/fisoft/FISHPLUS.asp

3. The revised ISSCAAP groups   'International Standard Statistical Classification for Aquatic Animals and Plants' (ISSCAAP) defines 50 groups of species.   ISSCAAP groups have been recently revised – –a new useful grouping for coastal fishes – –better identification of demersal and pelagic species   For the first time, aggregations of data by the new ISSCAAP groups are discussed

4.   Total catches for 2000 in Eastern Central Atlantic about 3,500,000 tonnes, a slight reduction from 1999   Among the 10 major fishing countries in the area – –Netherlands and Morocco increased – –Spain and Russian Federation showed significant decreases   Totals by the new ISSCAAP groups reveal: – –increase of small pelagic catches (mainly mackerels) – –decrease of coastal and demersal fish catches – –catches of valuable species such as tunas, crustaceans and cephalopods decreased 2. Overview of the 2000 catches respect to the previous year

5.   Catch statistics for the 1970-2000 period of the seven coastal CECAF divisions have been plotted by the ISSCAAP groups   Average percentage accounted for by "Marine fishes not identified" for each coastal division are as follows: CodeDivision namePercentage 34.1.1Morocco coastal 7.6% 34.1.3Sahara coastal 7.5% 34.3.1Cape Verde coastal 10.1% 34.3.3Sherbro 7.5% 34.3.4Western Gulf of Guinea 10.9% 34.3.5Central Gulf of Guinea 15.2% 34.3.6Southern Gulf of Guinea 15.6% 3. Characterization of the CECAF divisions by ISSCAAP groups' catches

6. Division 1.1 - Morocco coastal Division 1.3 - Sahara coastal Clupeoids and other pelagic fishes dominate catches in the two northern coastal divisions. Significant catches of molluscs, mainly cephalopods.

7. Division 3.1 - Cape verde coastal Division 3.3 - Sherbro Catch trends in three central divisions are still influenced by the fluctuations of clupeoids but coastal and demersal fishes begin to have a greater importance. Division 3.4 - Western Gulf of Guinea

8. Division 3.5 - Central Gulf of Guinea Division 3.6 - Southern Gulf of Guinea In two remaining coastal divisions, all the groups of species are fairly well represented. Maybe this is a sign of more varied and stable marine ecosystems, which have supported a more steady rise of catches throughout the last 30 years, although the distribution and abundance of important fishery resources have varied (Koranteng,1999).

9. 4. Historical trends of Distant Water Fleets catches Total catches by DWFs Share of DWFs catches on total catches

10. Major DWF countries and groups of countries

11. DWFs' catches by ISSCAAP group Share of DWFs catches on total catches by ISSCAAP group

12. Clupeoids + miscellaneous pelagic fishes Tunas

13. DWFs' catches by major CECAF divisions Share of DWFs catches on total catchesof major CECAF divisions

14. 5. Development of fisheries and the state of marine resources  Development of fisheries on the main resources in the Eastern Central Atlantic since 1950 chronicled  Top 38 species items analysed (account for 75% of marine capture production)  Using cluster analysis, time series grouped according to their shapes into five groups

15.  Species of Cluster 1, which dominate the catches, include several pelagic species  Species in Cluster 2, many of them subject of distant water fishing fleets  Cluster 3 includes mostly coastal species with limited catches which showed a rapid decline in the 1970s and have not recovered.  Fisheries for the pelagic species of Cluster 4, which were probably strongly regime- influenced  Species of Cluster 5 dominated by sardinellas and bigeye tuna

16. Percentage of major marine fish resources in various phases of fishery development  Simple fishery development model assumed comprising four phases –Phase 1: Undeveloped –Phase 2: Developing –Phase 3: Mature –Phase 4: Senescent (declining) of the line for 3-year average catches  Time series classified to phase according to slope of the line for 3-year average catches

17. Percentage of major marine fish resources in various phases of fishery development (contd.)  The total number (and percentage) of resources in each phase were calculated each year, across the whole data set.

18. Conclusions   Analysis demonstrates strikingly the development of fisheries – –90% of the resources were classified as “undeveloped” in 1950s – –68% of them were either “mature” or senescent” in 1990s   Very little room for further expansion of harvest from these fish stocks   Increase in resources which are subject to declines in productivity (“senescent” or Phase IV)   Consistent with analysis by Grainger and Garcia (1996) which indicated the Eastern Central Atlantic was fully fished in 1980s and estimated maximum production region can provide is 4.3 million tonnes.

19. Thank you for your kind attention