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)
|