Fisheries play a key role in global food security and in the local economy of coastal communities in many countries. Sustainably managing fish stocks and supporting fisheries in ways that do not compromise the health of resources is fundamental to the social, economic, and environmental performance of the fisheries sector and its resilience to shocks, including those caused by climate change. This edition of the OECD Review of Fisheries brings together available data on fish stock health, fisheries management, and support to fisheries in OECD countries and the main fishing nations outside the OECD to assess the health of fisheries and investigate how public policies could better support fisheries’ contribution to global food security and the ocean economy. This chapter discusses the main findings.
OECD Review of Fisheries 2022
1. Overview and key results of the OECD Review of Fisheries 2022
Abstract
The sustainability of fisheries is key for global food security and the livelihoods of close to 10% of the world’s population. This edition of the OECD Review of Fisheries brings together and analyses data on fisheries management and support policies to inform decision makers and help foster sustainable and resilient fisheries that can provide jobs, food and livelihoods for future generations. In particular, this edition will allow policy makers to assess whether their support policy mixes carry risks of encouraging unsustainable fishing in the absence of effective fisheries management and consider how to better target and design support policies to avoid such risks.
1.1. Fisheries in the countries and economies of the OECD Review of Fisheries 2022
Globally, fisheries are an important source of nutritious food. Fish (including molluscs and crustaceans) is a central element of traditional diets in many cultures and a major source of animal protein and vital micronutrients.1 In 2020, fish provided 17% of total animal protein and 7% of all protein consumed globally, while it accounted for at least 20% of the average per capita protein intake for 3.3 billion people (FAO, 2022[1]). Fisheries and related industries also play an important role in providing livelihoods to coastal communities. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), about 38 million people worked in fisheries in 2020. In many coastal communities in developing countries, small-scale fisheries can be the source of income and employer of last-resort (HLPE, 2014[2]). The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (2014[2]) also estimates that, globally, between 660 million and 820 million people depend on aquatic food production (from fisheries and aquaculture) and its associated processing industries.
This edition of the OECD Review of Fisheries covers 30 OECD countries and 10 of the main fishing nations outside the OECD (Argentina, Brazil, the People’s Republic of China [hereafter “China”], India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru, the Philippines, Chinese Taipei and Viet Nam).2 In 2020, these 40 countries and economies together captured about 58 million tonnes of fish in marine waters, down from a high of 63 million tonnes in 2018.3 Their landings were worth around USD 83 billion in 2020, almost double their value in the mid-2000s, but down from an all-time high of USD 91 billion in 2018 (Figure 1.1 in Box 1.1). OECD countries accounted for 38% of the catch volume and 41% of the value of landings in 2020; these shares have declined constantly over the last 15 years.
Fish is one of the most traded food commodities. In 2020, exports of fish products from the countries and economies covered in this report were worth about USD 118 billion, down from the peak in 2018 of USD 131 billion, mainly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic (Figure 1.2 in Box 1.1). These trade figures include both captured fish (from fisheries production) and farmed fish (from aquaculture production), as trade data do not distinguish between the two.
Employment in fisheries has been relatively stable in recent years, fluctuating between 25 million and 27 million jobs since the mid-2000s (Figure 1.3 in Box 1.1). In 2020, in OECD countries, the fisheries sector employed about 1 million people, or about 4% of the total number of fisheries jobs in the countries and economies considered. This share has remained relatively stable over the last 15 years. In relative terms, the fisheries sector accounts for a much higher share of total employment in emerging economies than in OECD countries (about 2% of total employment in emerging economies compared to about 0.2% in OECD countries, on average, over the period 2010-20). Fisheries, therefore, play a particularly important role in providing livelihoods in emerging economies.
The combined fleets of all countries and economies considered totalled about 16 million gross tonnes in 2020, down from a peak of 17 million gross tonnes in 2017, which was reached after a decade of slow growth (about +1% yearly, from 15 million in 2005). OECD countries accounted for 28% of the gross tonnage in 2020, returning to the level it was in the mid-2000s (after having declined to a low of 23% in 2012-16). In 2020, 2 million vessels of all sizes were recorded by the countries and economies covered in this report, down from over 2.5 million vessels in 2005 (Figure 1.4 in Box 1.1). OECD countries accounted for 29% of these vessels in 2020, following a steady decline since the mid-2000s, when it was 39%.
1.2. Effective management and smart support can enhance fisheries’ environmental, social and economic performance as well as their resilience to shocks
The health of fish stocks is one of the main determinants of fisheries performance. Ensuring stocks are in good health, that is, they can deliver long-term sustainable yields, is necessary to achieve any socio-economic objectives governments and stakeholders may have for fisheries. Healthy fish stocks are also important for protecting biodiversity and ensuring the provision of ocean ecosystem services such as climate regulation, food provision and nutrient cycling (Barbier, 2017[3]). Further, improving stock health can lead to significant gains in fisheries productivity, with benefits to fishing profitability and the well-being of coastal communities that depend on fisheries (Costello et al., 2016[4]).
The international community recognises the importance of good fisheries management to conserve and sustainably use the ocean, seas and marine resources for sustainable development, as demonstrated through the fisheries-specific targets of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 14 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by members of the United Nations (UN) in 2015. Target 14.4 of SDG 14, in particular, calls for restoring fish stocks at least to levels that can produce the maximum sustainable yield in the shortest time feasible. Aichi Target 6, adopted in 2010 by the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity also called for keeping the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems within safe ecological limits.4
Fisheries management is, however, a difficult task. It requires regularly gathering information on the health of individual fish stocks, designing and effectively implementing stock-specific management regimes, and monitoring and surveillance of fishing at sea. This task is further complicated by the influence of external factors on the health of fish stock, notably climate change and other non-fishing related economic activities. Fisheries management is often publicly funded and requires significant resources.
Governments generally support the fisheries sector to enhance its contribution to global food security and the ocean economy. They also typically support fisheries to achieve other socio-economic goals that fisheries management cannot achieve alone, such as maintaining fishers’ incomes in the face of shocks or increasing their incomes in areas where alternative income sources are scarce.
Government support is beneficial to fisheries when it helps ensure the health of fish stocks and ecosystems, increases fish stock productivity, and builds resilience in the fisheries sector. But government support can also result in undesirable outcomes for fish stocks in the absence of effective fisheries management as it can encourage the build-up of excess fishing capacity; overfishing; and illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing (OECD, 2020[5]; Martini and Innes, 2018[6]). Furthermore, when government support encourages unsustainable fishing, it ultimately compromises the fishers’ livelihoods – harming the productivity, and the very existence of the resource on which they depend, while potentially making them more dependent on government support. In such cases, support is also generally not effective at raising fishers’ incomes and can have unintended negative impacts on the competitiveness of small-scale fishers (Martini and Innes, 2018[6]).
The international community has recognised the need to reform government support to fisheries to eliminate the policies that encourage unsustainable fishing. With Target 14.6 of SDG 14, members of the UN called for prohibiting fisheries subsidies, which contribute to overcapacity, and overfishing, and eliminating subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing by 2020.5 In June 2022, after more than 20 years of negotiations, members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreed to binding disciplines that prohibit subsidies that benefit IUU fishing; subsidies that benefit the fishing of overfished stocks; and subsidies that benefit fishing in the unregulated high seas (WTO, 2022[7]). The WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (WTO, 2022[8]) also calls for “due restraint” in subsidising vessels not flying the subsidising member’s flag; and in subsidising the fishing of stocks where the health is not documented. Further, it contains notification requirements, which cover information on subsidies themselves, how fisheries are managed, the status of subsidised stocks and the provisions countries are taking to avoid subsidising IUU fishing. In addition, members of the WTO committed to continue negotiating to agree on disciplines to eliminate other potentially harmful subsidies, such as those that encourage overcapacity and overfishing.
Sustainably and productively managing fish stocks, while using smart support policies, is thus fundamental to the social, economic and environmental performance of the fisheries sector and its resilience to shocks. Reforming fisheries management and support policies to avoid adverse impacts on stocks is particularly important given the numerous challenges facing global fisheries, from adapting to the impacts of climate change and reducing emissions to building resilience in the face of increasing energy prices and disruptions to global value chains. How best to support the changes required in an environmentally sustainable and equitable way is a critical question for governments, particularly as other sectors face similar challenges, thus adding to budgetary pressures. This report addresses this question holistically by providing a data-driven, in-depth assessment of fisheries management and fisheries support in the countries and economies covered.
1.3. What does this report tell us about the health and productivity of fish stocks and how they are managed?
Chapter 2 of this report analyses a unique data set of information on the status of 1 456 individual fish stocks assessed by 32 OECD countries and emerging economies (which together account for 45% of global catches by volume). It uses these data to produce indicators at a country level, which inform about both fish stock health and productivity. These indicators add further nuance to the trends observed at global and regional levels and help identify priorities for action.
The data show that 64% of the stocks assessed are in good health, 18% fall below sustainability standards and another 18% have an undetermined status as assessments were inconclusive. Further, the data tell us that just under half of the stocks that are in good health also meet higher management standards sometimes set by fisheries managers for optimising productivity (i.e. these stocks are abundant enough to allow the volume or value of catch to be maximised under sustainability constraints).
The data also show significant variation at the country level, both in terms of the number of stocks assessed and their status with regard to sustainability and higher management standards. On average, countries and economies in the data set assessed 57 stocks, with Australia reporting the highest number of assessed stocks (449), followed by the United States (326) and New Zealand (183). In all the countries and economies considered, some fish stocks are not assessed and are thus not included in the analysis. There are many reasons countries and economies assess different numbers of stocks, including the number of stocks exploited and institutional capacity, which depends on the resources devoted to conducting assessments. Also, sometimes it may not be practical or even possible to conduct stock assessments where a large number of species are exploited in the same area, such as tropical reef fisheries.
Several countries – Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland – report all the stocks assessed to be in good health. However, in all these countries except Korea, few stocks were assessed. In other countries, over half of the stocks assessed fall below biological sustainability standards. Generally speaking, stock status numbers must be considered within their country-specific contexts, which will impact the number and type of assessments conducted, as well as the standards considered for biological sustainability. Natural variation in stock health, or the impacts of exogenous factors not linked to fishing, such as climate change, can have significant impacts on the health of stocks and lead to unexpected declines (or increases) irrespective of management regimes. Care must therefore be taken not to draw strong conclusions from the evidence of this single data snapshot. Finally, it should be noted that the data do not provide insight into the efficacy of management in a particular country or across countries.
Chapter 2 of this report also presents data on the management of commercially important fisheries. It shows that fisheries management typically involves a range of measures to control how much fish is caught and how, when and where it is caught. Management also varies considerably across fisheries. In 2021, the most frequently used management tools were gear restrictions, which were used in the management of 87% of stocks in the data set. They were followed by total allowable catch (TAC) limits, or caps on the amount of fish that can be harvested. TACs were used in 76% of stocks. TACs are believed to be one of the most important tools for ensuring the health of fish stocks. In 2020, species covered entirely by TACs accounted for USD 9.2 billion in landings, or 61% of the value of landings for all the species in the data set. This equates to 12.6 million tonnes of fish, or 81% of these landings by volume.
1.4. What can governments do to improve the health and productivity of fish stocks?
Governments should rebuild the 18% of stocks which fall below sustainability standards. This is needed to ensure their long-term health and will improve their productivity and economic returns in the fisheries sector. Where rebuilding plans have not already been adopted, fisheries managers should consider reviewing their current management action to help rebuild stocks. Going further to ensure that the stocks already in good health are also fished optimally (to maximise value or harvest volume) will also lead to economic gains.
In addition, governments should continue to invest in stock assessments to understand the health and productivity of unassessed fish stocks and stocks with undetermined status, notably those of commercial importance. This would likely improve fisheries sustainability and increase economic returns in cases where overfishing is occurring but has not been detected or where stocks are underfished. Developing methods to assess stocks even where data are scarce and capacity limited will become increasingly important to inform adaptive management, notably as climate change continues to impact fish abundance and the location of stocks.
Further, investing in linking information on stock management and stock health would help governments understand better where management is effective, optimise fisheries management plans, and ultimately improve the health and productivity of fish stocks further. To facilitate such analysis, governments should consider adopting an internationally agreed-upon naming convention for reporting information on stocks, which could include using ASFIS (Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Information System) species codes, where possible. Consistent stock naming is especially important for shared stocks, which are likely to increase in numbers due to climate change.
1.5. How has government support to fisheries evolved and how might it impact fisheries’ sustainability?
1.5.1. Levels and trends in support to fisheries
Chapter 3 of this report describes and analyses support to fisheries, its impacts on fish stock health and how it has evolved in recent years. This analysis builds on the OECD Fisheries Support Estimate (FSE), a unique database that measures, describes and classifies fisheries support policies consistently and transparently in 40 countries and economies, which together account for about 90% of world landings. The FSE records two main types of support policies: 1) support to services for the sector; and 2) direct support to individuals and companies. Support to services to the sector is government spending that benefits the sector as a whole, or entire segments, such as: spending on management, monitoring, control and surveillance (MMCS); research and development; or payments to access foreign waters. Direct support to individuals and companies, on the other hand, includes policies like support to fuel, vessel construction or income support.
Between 2018 and 2020, the 40 countries and economies covered by the FSE database provided average annual support of USD 10.4 billion to the fisheries sector. This support equated to about 11% of the average value of landings in these countries and economies over the period, down from about 14% in 2012-14.
Countries providing the greatest levels of support to their fisheries also tend to have some of the largest fisheries sectors. Six economies accounted for 86% of all support reported in the FSE in 2018-20: China – 38% (down from just under half of all reported support in 2012-14), Japan – 13%, the United States – 10%, Canada – 8%, Brazil – 6%, while EU member countries together accounted for just under 9%. These six economies were also in the top seven in terms of global catch volume, fleet capacity or employment. Following them, India, Norway and Poland individually accounted for 2-3% of total reported support, while Denmark, Italy, Korea and Sweden each accounted for 1-2%. The remaining countries and economies in the FSE database each accounted for less than 1%. The overall magnitude of support provided by China means it continues to have an influence on levels and trends in overall support numbers (and on levels and trends at the level of emerging economies), despite having fallen in absolute and relative terms.
The FSE database is, however, made up of many different support policies that vary in nature and potential socio-economic or environmental outcomes. Thus, when comparing levels of support, it is informative to distinguish between the types of policies being considered. It is also important to contextualise the levels of support with appropriate measures of sector size. When considered as a share of the value of landings, per gross tonne of fleet capacity, or on a per fisher basis, support was highest in Poland, Sweden, Slovenia, Denmark and Brazil.
On average, the relative level of support and the policy mix differ significantly between OECD countries and emerging economies. The OECD countries reporting to the FSE delivered support totalling USD 5.11 billion per year, on average, in 2018-20, which equated to USD 5 163 per fisher in that period. Having increased over time, spending on MMCS is now the largest type of support in the OECD support policy mix. It accounted for 42% of the support provided by OECD countries over 2018-20 followed by spending on infrastructure (19%), income support (12%) and support to fuel (8%).
In contrast, on average, emerging economies’ fuel support accounted for 33% of total support, followed by income support (15%), spending on infrastructure (5%) and MMCS (4%). Together, the emerging economies covered in the FSE database provided a combined total of USD 4 billion per year in support on average over 2018-20, which is equivalent to USD 222 per fisher.
1.5.2. The sustainability impact of support
Determining a single support policy’s likely impact on the health of fish stocks requires granular information on all the factors that influence it; that is, information on the recipients of support, how the fisheries in which they operate are managed, the fish stocks they harvest, the health of those fish stocks and the type of support received, including any eligibility conditions. However, linking information on support policies to individual fisheries, recipients and harvested stocks is challenging using information typically available at the country level. Notably, this is because many fish stocks remain unassessed and their status is unknown.
In the absence of such granular information, Chapter 3 of this report discusses the risks of encouraging unsustainable fishing that different support policies can present in the absence of effective management and classifies them into four risk categories: ‘high risk’, where policies could directly lead to increased fishing capacity and overfishing, by directly affecting fishing costs and benefits; ‘moderate risk’, where policies could indirectly lead to increased fishing capacity and overfishing, by indirectly affecting fishing costs and benefits; ‘no risk’ where policies could contribute to ensuring fisheries resources; and ‘uncertain risk’ where policies could result in high, moderate or low risk. Analysing domestic policy mixes through this lens can provide a pragmatic basis for considering whether support policies at the national level can present risks of encouraging unsustainable fishing.
When considering all the countries and economies in the FSE database, 33% (USD 3.4 billion) of the total FSE in 2018-20 went to support policies that present a high risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing in the absence of effective management. This is a notable decline compared to 2012-14 when support in this category represented just over 52% of the total FSE. Encouragingly, this decline has not been accompanied by an equivalent growth in policies that can present a more moderate risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing. These policies accounted for 28% (USD 2.94 billion) in 2018-20, up from 21% in 2012-14.
The proportion of support considered to present no risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing increased, to 23% (USD 2.4 billion) of the total FSE in 2018-20, from 18% in 2012-14. At the same time, however, the share of support disbursed through policies presenting an uncertain level of risk increased to 16% of the total FSE (USD 1.6 billion) in 2018-20, up from 8% in 2012-14. Further work is needed to better understand the nature of the policies in this category.
The average risk profiles of government support mixes, as defined in this report, also differ significantly between OECD countries and emerging economies. In 2018-20, 12% of fisheries support in OECD countries was granted through policies that present a high risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing in the absence of effective fisheries management – mostly as support to fuel and vessels. Another 33% of support was granted through policies that can present a moderate, yet non-negligible, risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing – notably through support to infrastructure and support to income. In the emerging economies, on average, the majority (53%) of support provided in 2018-20 came from policies that present a high risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing in the absence of effective fisheries management – primarily as support to fuel. Importantly, these countries typically have less capacity to ensure effective fisheries management and enforcement.
1.6. How can governments better support fisheries?
Countries should carefully review the support policies that can present risks of encouraging unsustainable fishing and determine if recipients of such support operate in sustainably managed fisheries. Where this is not the case, countries should consider better targeting these policies, for example by attaching conditions, or using alternative forms of support. Countries may also want to move away from policies which can present risks of harming fish stocks more generally, as a precautionary approach, given the difficulty and cost of regularly assessing whether individual recipients of support are operating in sustainably managed fisheries.
Eliminating support that can present a high risk of encouraging unsustainable fishing will also have beneficial impacts on the equity of the fisheries sector and its resilience to shocks, as these types of policies can have inequitable impacts on small-scale fishers and generally are not effective at raising fishers’ incomes. Money can be repurposed for sustainable fisheries management, enforcement and research into the health of fish stocks and the impact of climate change. Where needed, direct income support can help ensure fishers’ livelihoods in particular circumstances.
Governments should also accept the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies so that it can enter into force and continue negotiating at the WTO to agree on disciplines to eliminate other potentially harmful subsidies, such as those that encourage overcapacity and overfishing. To minimise the risk of supporting IUU fishing, governments should make support conditional on being flagged to the supporting country and authorised to fish in its waters. They should also use appropriate processes to exclude from support all potential recipients linked to IUU fishing and fishing-related activities in support of IUU fishing. Finally, they should publish information on all support recipients.
Finally, like many sectors, fisheries typically also benefit from support provided through policies that benefit a range of sectors simultaneously rather than fisheries exclusively, and in particular, energy-related support. Such non-specific support to fisheries is rarely recorded in the FSE and seldom discussed in international fora. Better information is needed about all the policies that benefit the fisheries sector and their impact on its performance and sustainability. This will help understand how to best target public spending to achieve fisheries’ policy objectives.
Box 1.1. Fisheries at a glance
This box provides an overview of fisheries in the countries and economies covered in this report, that is, all OECD countries with the exception of Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic and Switzerland, as well as ten of the main fishing nations outside the OECD – Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Peru, the Philippines, Chinese Taipei and Viet Nam.
Figure 1.1. Fisheries production, 2005-20
Notes: Including finfish, crustaceans, molluscs, aquatic animals, aquatic products, seaweeds and aquatic plants. Excluding mammals. Left panel: Data are expressed in live weight equivalent. Right panel: Missing observations were estimated. Brazil, India, Malaysia, Peru, the Philippines and Viet Nam are included in the right panel but not in the left one as data for landings values are not available.
Sources: Left panel: FAO (2022), Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global capture production 1950-2020 (FishStatJ), https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/statistics/software/fishstatj. Right panel: OECD (2022), Marine landings (OECD.Stat), http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx?datasetcode=FISH_LAND.
Note: Including both fishery and aquaculture products.
Source: OECD (2022), International trade of fisheries commodities, http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx?datasetcode=FISH_TRADE.
Source: OECD (2022), Employment in fisheries, aquaculture and processing, http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx?datasetcode=FISH_EMPL.
Figure 1.4. Fishing fleet, 2005-20
Notes: Missing observations were estimated. India, Malaysia and the Philippines are not included as no data were available. Indonesia, the United States and Viet Nam are included in the right panel but not in the left one, as data for gross tonnage are not available.
Source: OECD (2022), Fishing fleet, http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx?datasetcode=FISH_FLEET
References
[3] Barbier, E. (2017), “Marine ecosystem services”, Current Biology, Vol. 27/11, pp. R507-R510, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.03.020.
[12] Béné, C. et al. (2016), “Contribution of fisheries and aquaculture to food security and poverty reduction: Assessing the current evidence”, World Development, Vol. 79, pp. 177-196, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.11.007.
[15] Béné, C. et al. (2015), “Feeding 9 billion by 2050 – Putting fish back on the menu”, Food Security, Vol. 7, pp. 261-274, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-015-0427-z.
[4] Costello, C. et al. (2016), “Global fishery prospects under contrasting management regimes”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113/18, pp. 5125-5129, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520420113.
[10] FAO (2022), Overview of Recent Trends in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector, COFI:FT/XVIII/2022/8, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/cb9932en/cb9932en.pdf.
[1] FAO (2022), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022: Towards Blue Transformation, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en.
[13] FAO (2020), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020: Sustainability in Action, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9229en.
[11] FAO (2001), International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, https://www.fao.org/3/y1224e/Y1224E.pdf.
[2] HLPE (2014), Sustainable Fisheries and Aquaculture for Food Security and Nutrition, A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3844e.pdf.
[9] Kawarazuka, N. and C. Béné (2010), “Linking small-scale fisheries and aquaculture to householdnutritional security: An overview”, Food Security, Vol. 2, pp. 343-357, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-010-0079-y.
[14] Khalili Tilami, S. and S. Sampels (2017), “Nutritional value of fish: Lipids, proteins, vitamins, and minerals”, Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, Vol. 26/2, pp. 243-253, https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2017.1399104.
[6] Martini, R. and J. Innes (2018), “Relative effects of fisheries support policies”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 115, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bd9b0dc3-en.
[5] OECD (2020), OECD Review of Fisheries 2020, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7946bc8a-en.
[8] WTO (2022), Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, Ministerial Decision of 17 June 2022, World Trade Organization, Geneva, https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/MIN22/33.pdf&Open=True.
[7] WTO (2022), Implementing the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies: Challenges and Opportunities for Developing and Least-Developed Country Members, World Trade Organization, Geneva, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/implementfishagreement22_e.pdf.
Notes
← 1. Fish is an important source of polyunsaturated fatty acids, minerals, vitamins and micronutrients, and, combined with other foods, can improve their absorption, which can have beneficial effects on adult health and child cognitive development. This makes fish a potentially particularly useful food in the fight for food and nutrition security, particularly in developing countries, when small fish are affordable for all (Béné et al., 2016[12]; FAO, 2020[13]; Khalili Tilami and Sampels, 2017[14]; HLPE, 2014[2]; Béné et al., 2015[15]; Kawarazuka and Béné, 2010[9]).
← 2. This report covers all OECD countries, with the exception of Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Israel, Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic and Switzerland.
← 3. According to the FAO (2022[10]), the global decline in marine captures seen in 2019 was primarily caused by fluctuating catches of pelagic species, particularly anchoveta. The further decrease seen in 2020 was mainly due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on fisheries operation.
← 4. SDG 14.4 states: “By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement science-based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce maximum sustainable yield as determined by their biological characteristics.” Aichi Target 6 states: “By 2020, all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided, recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits.”
← 5. The international community has recognised the need to eliminate harmful subsidies, in particular, subsidies to IUU fishing, and has made it a priority for action for over two decades. For example, the 2001 International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA-IUU) (FAO, 2001[11]) already called on countries to avoid subsidising IUU fishing.