e. Sustainability - former version

The FORMER standard Rapfish analysis of Sustainability used five evaluation fields:
Ecological, Technological, Economic, Social and Ethical.

Attributes in these fields are revised from time to time with growing experience of the method.
Current attributes for the standard analysis are given below.

Sustainability Fields and Attributes have been revised 2011 under the Martha Piper Fund project: revised versions are available here.

To the five fields above may be added a sixth field, compliance with the UN Code of Conduct (itself a full, 6 field Rapfish analysis) - see separate page



Standard  Attributes  for  Rapfish  Analyses

  Evaluation Fields for

Ecological, Technological, Economic, Social and Ethical status

Revised  Feb 2002, Jan 2003, Dec 2003, Nov 2005, April 2006, May 2011

by the Rapfish Group, Fisheries Centre, UBC

 NOTE 1: ‘killer’ attribute scores shift all scores in that evaluation field to the ‘bad’ score. 

NOTE: THE KILLER FUNCTION OF ATTRIBUTES HAS BEEN DELETED JUNE 2011

NOTE 2: Scorers are often reluctant to award non-integer scores. Although they are encouraged to do so in order to increase the resolution of the ordination, this version scales all scores from zero to 10.

 

Ecological analysis

Ecological attributes reflect how the fishery impacts sustainability in terms of the ecology of the exploited fish and their ecosystem. Fisheries management practices that increase the risk of overexploitation, quickly change trophic levels etc. are scored towards the ‘bad’ end of the scale while fisheries management practices that protect the species or ecosystem score towards the ‘good’ end of the scale. Change in trophic level of the catch has been dropped from the analysis: change in fish size is a more effective indicator. 

 

#= 9

 

Killers

 

Good

 

Bad

Notes

Exploitation status

 

0

10

FAO-like scale: under- (0-1); fully- (2-4); heavily- (5-6); or over-exploited (7-8); completely collapsed (9-10) [consult FAO website for status, except level 9-10]

Recruitment variability

 

0

10

COV [coefficient of variability]: low <20% (0-1); medium 20-60% (2-5);  high 60-100% (6-8); very high >200% (9-10)

Migratory range

 

0

10

Number of jurisdictions encountered during life history (includes international waters): 1-2 (0-2); 3-4 (3-5); 4-7 (6-8); >7 (9-10)

Range collapse

 

0

10

Is there evidence of geographic range reduction: no or very little (0-2); some, slow (3-5); a lot, fast (6-8); very great, rapid (9-10).

Size of fish

 

0

10

Has average fish size landed reduced in past 5-10 years; no or very little (0-1); yes, a gradual change (2-5); yes, a rapid large change (6-8), major rapid reduction (9-10).

Catch before maturity

 

0

10

Percentage caught before size/age of maturity: none (0-1); some >30% (2-5); lots >60% (6-8); a lot > 80% (9-10)

Discards

 

0

10

Percentage of target catch (target spp juveniles plus other spp): low 0-10% (0-1); medium 10-40% (2-5); high >40% (6-8); very high >100% (9-10)

Species caught

 

0

10

Number species caught (retained and/or discarded): low 1-10 (0-1); medium 10-100 (2-5); high >100 (6-8); very high (9-10)

Bycatch

 

0

10

Percentage of target catch (target spp juveniles plus other spp): low 0-10% (0-1); medium 10-40% (2-5); high >40% (6-8); very high >100% (9-10)


 

 

Technological analysis

Technological attributes capture appropriate technologies that minimize risk to sustainability of the fishery. Therefore when devices are used to improve the catching power these fisheries score towards the ‘bad’ end, while a fishery that uses technology such as ice to prevent waste or reduce by-catch scores towards the ‘good’ end of the scale.

 

 

#= 9

 

Killers

 

Good

 

Bad

Notes

Trip length

 

0

10

Average days at sea per fishing trip: 1 or less (0-1);  2-4 days (2-4); 5-8 days (5-6); 8-10 days (7-8); more than 10 days (9-10).

Landing sites

 

0

10

Are landing sites: dispersed (0-2); somewhat centralised (3-5); heavily centralised (6-8); distant water fleet with  little or no local landings (9-10)

Pre-sale processing

 

10

0

Processing before sale, [e.g., gutting, filleting, salting] none (0-2); some (3-5); a lot (6-8); a great deal (9-10)

Onboard handling

 

10

0

Almost none (0-2); some (e.g. salting, boiling) (3-5); sophisticated (e.g. flash freezing, champagne ice) (6-8); a great amount, such as live tanks (9-10)

Selective gear

 

10

0

Device(s) and/or handling of gear to increase selectivity and reduce bycatch? Very little (0-2); some (3-5);a lot (6-8); a great amount (9-10)

FADS

 

0

10

Fish attraction devices: not used (0-2); some, e.g., bait is used (3-5); some reliance on FADs (6-8); almost completely reliant on FADs (9-10)

Vessel size

 

0

10

Average length of vessels: <5m (0-2); 5-10m (3-4); 10-15m (5-6); 15-20m (7-8); >20m (9-10)

Change in catching power

 

0

10

Have fishers altered gear and vessel to increase catching power over past 5-1- years? not much (0-2); a small amount (3-4); somewhat (5-6); a lot (7-8); a great amount, rapid increase (9-10)

Gear side effects

 

0

10

Does gear have undesirable side effects (e.g. cyanide, dynamite, trawl); very few (0-2); some (3-5); a lot (6-8); fishery dominated by destructive fishing practices (9-10).


 

 

Economic analysis

Economic attributes reflect how fisheries management practices impact the economic sustainability of the fishery and related human communities, as ultimately predicted on ecological sustainability. Therefore in a Rapfish analysis scores at ‘good’ end of the scale of an attribute reflect economic sustainability and are not a risk to the fishery or ecosystem, whereas the ‘bad’ end of the scale may be a risk. A fishery where the average wage of a fisher is above the average national wage scores towards the ‘good’ end because there is an incentive or likelihood that fishers will manage for sustainability to ensure that their wages remain high or improve. (NOTE: Profitability was dropped in 2002.)

 

# = 9

 

Killers

 

Good

 

Bad

Notes

Fisheries in GDP

 

10

0

Importance of fisheries sector in the economy: low (0-3); medium (4-7); high (8-10). In comparison to other industries and economic sectors such as agriculture, tourism etc.

Average wage

 

10

0

Do fishers make more or less than the average person? Much less (0-2); less (3-4); the same (5-6); more (7-8); much more (9-10)

Limited entry

 

10

0

Includes informal limitations: open access (0-2); weak or informal control (3-4); medium control (5-6); strong control (7-8); strictly limited (9-10)

Marketable right

 

10

0

 

Marketable right/quota/share? None or almost none (0-2); some (3-5); mix (6-8); full ITQ, CTQ or other property right (9-10)

Other income

 

0

10

In this fishery, fishing is mainly: casual (0-2), part-time (3-5); seasonal (6-8); full-time (9-10)

Sector employment

 

0

10

Employment in formal sector of this fishery: <10% (0-3); 10-20% (4-7); >20% (8-10); >30% [compared to all the other fisheries at the same scale of analysis]. Note: Employment includes jobs in processing, selling, etc. of the catch from a particular fishery

Ownership/

Transfer

 

0

10

Profit from fishery mainly to: locals (0-2); mixed city/local (3-5); a mainly non-locals (6-8); mainly foreigners (9-10)

Market

 

0

10

Market is principally: local (0-2); regional/local (3-5); national/regional (6-8);  national/international (9-10)

Subsidy

 

0

10

Are subsidies (including hidden subsidies) provided to support the fishery? no (o-2); somewhat (3-4); large subsidies (5-6); heavily reliant (7-8); almost completely reliant on subsidies (9-10).


 Note: results from the economic field seem often to cluster in the centre of the range.


 

Social analysis

Social attributes reflect how fisheries management practices impact the sustainability of the society or community associated with that particular fishery, as ultimately predicated on   ecological sustainability. In a Rapfish analysis the ‘good’ end of the scale of an attribute reflects social sustainability but l0w risk to the fishery or ecosystem, whereas scores at the ‘bad’ end may reflect a risk. Therefore a fishery where fishers can influence fishery regulations scores towards the ‘good’ end of the scale, while a fishery where there is conflict with other fisheries or industries scores towards the ‘bad’ end of the scale.

 

#= 7

 

Killers

 

Good

 

Bad

Notes

Socialization of fishing

 

10

0

Fishers work as: individuals  (0-3); families (4-6); community groups (7-10). Individuals = working for commercial company; families = direct connections to the fishery (e.g., owner/operator); community groups = social connections (e.g., fishing co-operative)

New entrants into the fishery

 

0

10

Growth over past ten years: <10% (0-2); 10-20% (3-5); 20 - 30% (6-8); >30% (9-10). Increasing numbers of fishers and pe0ple involved (e.g., processing)

Fishing sector

 

0

10

Households containing fishers in the community: few, <5% (0-2); some, 5-10% (3-5); many, 10-40% (6-8); a great many, >40% (9-10). Community is defined at the  scale of the fishery defined in the analysis, e.g. landing site, harbour city, state

Environmental knowledge

 

10

0

Level of knowledge about the fishery resource and its ecosystem and environment: none (0-2); some (3-5) ; a lot (6-8); a great deal (9-10)

Conflict status

 

0

10

Level of conflict with other sectors: almost none (0-2); some (3-5); lots (6-8); a great amount (9-10): includes other fisheries or industries (e.g. oil drilling platforms, catchment runoff)

Fisher influence

 

10

0

Strength of direct fisher influence on actual fishery regulations: almost none (0-2); some (3-5); a lot (6-8); a great deal (9-10)

Fishing income

 

10

0

Fishing income as % of total family income: <10% (0-2); 10-50% (3-5); 50-80% (6-8); >80% (9-10)

Kin participation

 

10

0

Do kin sell and/or process fish? Almost none (0-2); very few relatives (1-2 people) (3-4); a few relatives (5-6); some relatives (7-8); fishery is mainly kin (9-10)

 Note: this field has disappointing performance: it needs to be further refined.



Ethical analysis

Ethical analysis within Rapfish is designed to analyse fisheries for five types of justice: creative, productive, ecosystem, restorative, and distributive. Creative justice includes issues such as fair management of the fishery; productive justice and ecosystem justice consider treatment of and behaviour within the fisheries ecosystem; restorative justice covers the repairing of previous damage; distributive justice deals with how the resource is shared. Where questions arise, ethnicity is not the intended basis of equity in the attributes. The package of ethical attributes assesses fisheries based on these various ethical concerns, and integrates sustainability on many levels, including ecological and social.[1] (The ethical evaluation field in RAPFISH was developed by a team of 15 including ethicists, social and natural scientists (Coward et al. 2000). One attribute, ‘social influences on ethics’, was dropped 2-2002 because it was hard to apply outside Canada).

 

# = 8

 

Killers

 

Good

 

Bad

Notes

Adjacency and reliance

 

10

0

Geographical proximity and historical connection with resource: not adjacent/no reliance (0-2); not adjacent/some reliance (3-5); adjacent/some reliance (6-8); adjacent/strong reliance (9-10)

Alternatives

 

10

0

Alternative to the fishery as sources of support within the community: none (0-2); some (3-5); lots (6-8); very many (9-10)

Equity in entry to fishery

 

10

0

Entry based on traditional/historical access/harvests? not considered (0-3); considered (4-7); traditional indigenous fishery (8-10)

Just management

 

10

0

Inclusion of fishers in management: none (0); consultations (0-2); co-management/gov’t leading (3-5); co-management/ community leading (6-8); genuine co-management with all parties equal (9-10)

Mitigation – habitat destruction

 

10

0

Attempts to mitigate damage to fish habitat: much damage (0); some damage (1-3); no ongoing damage or mitigation (4-6); some mitigation (7-8); much mitigation (9-10)

Mitigation – ecosystem depletion

 

10

0

Attempts to mitigate fisheries-induced ecosystem change to predators, prey or competing organisms of fishery target: much damage (0-2); some damage (3-4); no damage or mitigation (5-6); some mitigation (7-8); much mitigation (9-10)

Illegal fishing (IUU)

 

0

10

Illegal and unreported fish catches (poaching, trans-shipments etc.: none (0-2); some (3-5); a lot (6-8) a great deal (8-10)

Discards &  wastes

 

0

10

Discards and waste and/or bycatch of birds, mammals reptiles, structural benthic invertebrates: none (0-2); some (3-5); a lot (6-8) a great deal (8-10)

 

 NOTE: This field has been analyzed in detail by M. Power 2003-4[2].



[1] Coward, H., Ommer, R. and Pitcher, T.J. (Eds). (2000) Just Fish: the Ethics of Canadian Fisheries. Institute of

Social and Economic Research Press, St John's, Newfoundland, Canada, 304pp.

[2] Power, M.D. and Pitcher, T.J. (2005) Reconciling fisheries and allocation using a justice-based approach: troll fishers score best. In Nielson J. (ed.) Reconciling Fisheries with Conservation: Proceedings of the 4th World Fisheries Congress. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, USA. (in press)





Showing 0 items
OwnerDescriptionDue DateComplete
Sort 
 
Sort 
 
Sort 
 
Sort 
 
OwnerDescriptionDue DateComplete
Showing 0 items