ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 10 May 2016
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00071

Conched Out: Total Reconstructed
Fisheries Catches for the Turks andCaicos Islands Uncover
Unsustainable Resource Usage
Aylin Ulman 1, 2*, Lily Burke 3 , Edward Hind 4 , Robin Ramdeen 5 and Dirk Zeller 1
1
Sea Around Us, Global Fisheries Cluster, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2 Department of Earth andEnvironmental Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy, 3 Faculty of Social Sciences, School of Environmental Studies,
University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada, 4 Center for Marine Resource Studies, School for Field Studies, South Caicos,
Turks and Caicos Islands, 5 Waitt Institute, Blue Halo Initiative, Brades, Montserrat

Edited by:
Maria Lourdes D. Palomares,
FishBase Information and ResearchGroup, Inc., Philippines
Reviewed by:
Athanassios C. Tsikliras,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
GreeceJonathan A. Anticamara,
University of the Philippines-Diliman,
Philippines*Correspondence:
Aylin Ulman
aylinh.ulman@unipv.it
Specialty section:
This article was submitted toMarine Fisheries, Aquaculture andLiving Resources,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Marine Science
Received: 06 January 2016
Accepted: 25 April 2016
Published: 10 May 2016
Citation:
Ulman A, Burke L, Hind E, Ramdeen R
and Zeller D (2016) Conched Out:
Total Reconstructed Fisheries Catches
for the Turks and Caicos Islands
Uncover Unsustainable Resource
Usage. Front. Mar. Sci. 3:71.
doi: 10.3389/fmars.2016.00071

The Turks and Caicos Islands’ total marine fisheries catches were estimated for
1950–2012 using a catch reconstruction approach, estimating all removals, including
reported catch destined for export, and unreported domestic artisanal and subsistence
catches. Total reconstructed catch for the period is approximately 2.8 times that reportedby the Turks and Caicos to the FAO, and 86% higher than the export-adjusted national
reported baseline. The pattern of total catches (strong decline to 1970, followed by
gradual increase) differs distinctly from that shown by data reported to FAO. Reported
landings show a steady increase from less than 1000 t·year−1 in the 1950s to around6000 t·year−1 in the 2000s. In contrast, the total reconstructed catches suggest declines
in total catches from around 20,000 t in 1950 to a low of about 5000 t in 1970, before
gradual increases to about 12,500 t·year−1 in the late 2000s. Major discrepancies
between reported and reconstructed data are under-reported artisanal catches in theearly decades (accounting for 86% of total catches), and the absence of subsistence
catches (14% of total catches) in reported data. Queen conch (Strombus gigas) and
Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus) dominate reconstructed catches. No discards
were estimated as fishing has been highly selective, carried out by hand collection(conch), trap or hook (lobster), or hook and line (finfish). New data published here fromlocal seafood consumption surveys demonstrates that the total local consumption ofconch equates to almost the entire total allowable catch, before exported amounts areeven factored. Policy-makers in the Turks and Caicos need to act if the sustainability of
the fisheries stock and fishing industry is to be ensured.
Keywords: artisanal fishery, catch reconstruction, Caribbean fisheries, gastropod fisheries, queen conch,subsistence fishery, sustainable consumption, unreported catch

Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org

1

May 2016 | Volume 3 | Article 71

Ulman et al.

Turks and Caicos Catch Reconstruction

Lobster

INTRODUCTION

The lobster fishery is the most economically important fishery,
becoming profitable in the late 1950s when snorkeling gear was
introduced and the first processing plant was established (CRFM,
2011). Further value was added with the advent of freezing
technology in 1966 (Halls et al., 1999). Profitability brought steep
catch increases with the fishery growing until 1979, after which
declines began due to overfishing. The average lobster taken by
early trap fisheries was around 3 kg in weight, but this decreased
to only 0.7 kg by the 1970s (Rudd, 2003). Lobsters are landed
whole, and weighed as such, although only tails are exported.
Catch per unit effort (CPUE) reportedly declined, fromapproximately 65 kg·boat−1 ·day−1 in the early 1990s to around
20 kg·boat−1 ·day−1 by 2000 (Tewfik and Béné, 2004). Somesuggest that the CPUE has actually remained stable at around 58
kg·boat−1 ·day−1 (Clerveaux et al., 2003), however this likely does
not account for increases in engine power and depth fished; thus
masking a decline by not accounting for technological creep.
There is no quota on the amount of lobster caught, but aseasonal closure does exist. The majority of lobster is landed
when the fishery opens from August 15-March 31, with over 1/3
landed immediately following the fishery opening during the “BigGrab” (Halls et al., 1999; Tewfik and Béné, 2004). The reported
DEMA data only include lobster sent for processing, destined forexport. Thus, reported data lack information on domestic andtourist consumption.

Fisheries catch under-reporting is evident in multiple regions
and nations (e.g., Pauly et al., 2014; Ulman et al., 2015; Zeller
et al., 2015; Pauly and Zeller, 2016). It can often be attributed
to the acceptance and use of zeros where data are missing,even when there is documented evidence a fishery exists.
When this occurs, it can lead to erroneous expectations about
present and future resource levels and therefore may lead topoor management and policy decisions. Without comprehensive
accounting of total catches from all sectors, it is difficult tomeasure the formal and informal economic values of resources,
and to identify the risks that the under-reported catch may
represent.
Catch reconstructions previously conducted in several small
island states have shown under-reporting of fishery landings,
particularly in small-scale fisheries (Ramdeen et al., 2012;
Van der Meer et al., 2014). The Turks and Caicos Islands(TCI), an archipelago nation (Figure 1) where fishing has
historically been the main industry, shares the profile of thesenations and its catches may be similarly under-reported. Its
fisheries are already identified as being fished at potentiallyunsustainable levels (Lockhart et al., 2007), so any such finding
would have profound implications for fisheries management
within the country. Here, the aim is to reconstruct the
total marine fisheries catches for the TCI from 1950 to2012 by supplementing existing fisheries data with new data
sources. A reliable baseline of commercial fish catches would
be a welcome aid to local marine resource managers if
it allowed them to ensure that those resources were truly
sustainable.
The TCI fisheries are defined here as having a small-scalecommercial (i.e., artisanal) sector, a subsistence sector (i.e., forthe primary purpose to feed one’s self or one’s family), and asmall recreational sector (i.e., fishing primarily for enjoyment
and pleasure). The three main commercial fishery target specieson the islands are queen conch (Strombus gigas), Caribbean
spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), and finfish (Taylor and Medley,
2003; Lockhart et al., 2007). All three groups are also caught
for subsistence consumption and local commercial sale. Lobsteris the preferred catch, since their value exceeds the value ofconch fourfold, but most fishers switch to conch when the lobster
fishery is closed or when conch catches are high. Finfish areopportunistically speared by lobster fishers (Medley and Ninnes,
1999). In recent decades, tourism has surpassed fishing as theleading industry, and visitors demanding locally caught seafood
have put additional pressure on the TCI’s marine resources(Klaus, 2001).
The Department of Environment and Marine Affairs (DEMA)
is the TCI institution responsible for coastal zone management
and it has taken the lead role in enforcing legislation pertaining
to the marine environment. It collects daily conch (since1887) and lobster (since 1947) landings data at each of theislands’ processing plants, and estimates consumption for all
species using national seafood surveys. Their data is crucial in
conducting this reconstruction, and will be supplemented withnew data where necessary.

Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org

Conch
In the late 1800s, the TCI’s largest conch export markets were
Haiti and the Dominican Republic (Doran, 1958). Catches
increased substantially from 1937–1945 as local labor switchedfrom salt production to fishing (Béné and Tewfik, 2000). The
export industry rapidly developed again in the mid-1970s,
when the USA began importing frozen conch to supply newly
settled Caribbean immigrants accustomed to this traditional
food (Brownwell and Stevely, 1981). Processing peaked in thelate 1970s as processors reached capacity at 20,000 conch·day−1(Brownwell and Stevely, 1981).
Conch meat is removed from the shells at sea and then frozen
for export. Processing or “cleaning” involves trimming the head,foot and digestive system. There is currently a catch quota of 700–
750 t of unprocessed meat of wild origin (not farmed), or between
270 and 290 t of “cleaned” processed meat, which equates to about
1900 t of live (wet) animal weight (Thiele, 2001; Lockhart et al.,2007; TCI Government, 2013).
The fishery is managed by a quota system intended to keep
the stock at sustainable levels, with the quota divided in two;
one portion set aside for exports and the other for domestic
consumption. Catch quotas are calculated by a derivative of theprevious year’s exports and estimated domestic consumption(Clerveaux and Lockhart, 2008), and are occasionally adjusted
based on the results of underwater visual surveys. Thus, quotas
are not based on fully informed scientific stock assessments.
The export quota for the 2010-2011 season was 4125 t·year−1of wild unprocessed meat but the catch was <2800 t. The quota
was lowered for the 2012–2013 season to 2540 t, 62.5% of which
was reserved for export and the remainder for local consumption.

2

May 2016 | Volume 3 | Article 71

Ulman et al.

Turks and Caicos Catch Reconstruction

FIGURE 1 | The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and continental shelf (to 200 m depth) of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

atlanticus), barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda) and other inshore
pelagics (Halls et al., 1999).
The only finfish ever reported by DEMA are blue marlin(Makaira nigricans) (2 t in 2006), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus
albacares) (1 t in 2007), “miscellaneous marlins and sailfishes”(Istiophoridae, 1 t in 2007), and “miscellaneous marine fish,”which were reported until the late 1990s, after which they
disappeared from the reported data. As DEMA does not record
most finfish landings, local and tourist seafood consumption
surveys have recently been used to gather data on their
exploitation. All sales for domestic consumption are missing
from reported catch data.
Here, total marine fisheries extractions from the TCI Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) were reconstructed to species level, byyear, and for each sector. Attempts are made to account for
all fishery removals by incorporating catches from previously
unreported fishery sectors. Landings of turtles, sponges, andcetaceans were not considered.

Landings contributions to the export quota only include themeat landed and weighed at the five processing plants. Whilethese data are accurately recorded by DEMA, contributions
to domestic quota are not as precisely recorded. Conch eaten
domestically is landed at public docks or informal sites where
no official recording takes place. The filling of this quota isestimated using a decadal household and tourist consumption
survey (Clerveaux and Lockhart, 2008). The TCI Government is
obligated to report their conch catches if they wish to continue totrade with signatory nations to the Convention of International
Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES).

FinfishThe majority of finfish are caught for domestic consumption(subsistence purposes and local commercial sales), and few areexported. It appears that bonefish (Albula vulpe) and Nassau
grouper (Epinephelus striatus) were the preferred local species
in the early period (circa 1950). Maitland (2006) calculated
that at least once per week, over 97% of households in the
TCI ate fish, 79% ate conch, and 46% consumed lobster. Fishpopulations appear to be in relatively good shape compared toneighboring islands as traditionally preferred species are stillavailable. Species traditionally preferred are bonefish and Nassau
grouper, but snapper (Lutjanidae), grunts (Haemulidae), hogfish(Lachnolaimus maximus), parrotfish (Scaridae), and triggerfish(Balistidae) are also landed (Klaus, 2001). A handline fisheryexists for bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), blackfin tuna (Thunnus

Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org

METHODS
A catch “reconstruction” approach (Pauly, 1998; Zeller et al.,2007, 2015) was used to estimate total fisheries catches from1950 to 2012. The first step was to understand the data reportedby the TCI to the FAO. That data, reported in the institution’sFishstat database (Garibaldi, 2012), were used as the reported
landings baseline in this study. The second step was to compare3

May 2016 | Volume 3 | Article 71

Ulman et al.

Turks and Caicos Catch Reconstruction(www.populstat.info/) and for 1959–2012 from the World Bank
(Figure 2). Data on the number of stop-over tourists (travelers
who stay for more than a day) were available for 1962, 1967, and1968 in Bryden (1973), for 1995–2005 from the TCI Department
of Planning and Statistics, and for 2006–2012 from the TCI
Tourist Board (Figure 2). A linear interpolation was used toestimate tourist arrivals in years with missing data.

the reported data to other data sources for inconsistencies, and to
make corrections to the baseline data where these sources weremore trusted. Thirdly, missing fishery sectors were identified andadded to the baseline. The best available data was then sought
out and used to estimate the missing catches for the missing
fishery sectors. These estimates were carried out using a seriesof established anchor points, with catches linearly interpolated
between anchor points to reflect national trends as per Pauly andZeller (2016). The principle behind this approach is that when nodata are formally recorded, but the fishery is known to exist, it isimperative to use best available estimates rather than inserting a“Not Applicable, or NA” which later is turned into a zero in the
database.

Domestic Consumption
Since only exports for the TCI were reported during the 1950–
2012 time-series, domestic and tourist seafood consumption
were estimated using estimates from past seafood consumption
surveys as anchor points. The per capita seafood consumption
amounts were then multiplied by conversion factors to derive
live fish weight, which were then multiplied by annual humanpopulation records to determine annual domestic consumption
catches. These catches were then categorized to species level.
Seafood consumption anchor points were derived from
Olsen (1985), Rudd (2003), Lockhart et al. (2006) and Hind
(unpublished data, 2013); The most recent national seafood
consumption survey interviewed over 580 residents and wasundertaken in late 2013 (Edward Hind, unpublished data). It
was the most extensive and representative survey completed todate because it included representation across all ages (18+),
ethnic groups, genders, and islands. The portion sizes used forall domestic consumption are taken from Lockhart et al. (2006).
The survey results presenting per capita consumption from thisstudy are presented in Table 1.

Reported Data Baseline
Based on the catch-reporting infrastructure of the TCI, thereported data only include commercial catches destined forexport and a very small volume of historically farmed conch(Rudd, 2003; Tewfik and Béné, 2004; Lockhart et al., 2007).
Farmed conch previously accounted for circa 1% of exports, butcommercial conch farming has now ceased. Even though conch
and lobster landings data for the TCI span a long time-series,
it has been suggested that most reporting has been inaccurate(Lockhart et al., 2007). Any catches not sent to one of thefive export-oriented processing plants are deemed missing fromthe national catch statistics reported to FAO. Imports are notaccounted for as they generally address tourist demand and arethought to not affect local consumption patterns in a substantial
manner.
Working closely with local experts, accurate landings data forboth conch and lobster (after accounting for the shell conversion
factor for conch) were found in a TCI Government report (TCI
Government, 2004) and in Clerveaux and Lockhart (2008). At
the time the latter was published, W. Clerveaux was head of the
TCI Department of the Environment and K. Lockhart was a TCI
fisheries scientist. These national conch data were higher thanthe data reported by FAO from 1950–1968 on behalf of the TCI,
and they were used here to correct the reported baseline dataas presented by FAO on behalf of the TCI, as the sources weredeemed reliable. From 1969–1974, data reported by FAO appear
to over-report conch catches, which were adjusted downwards
based on data in a TCI Government (2004) plan and Clerveauxand Lockhart (2008). From 1975 onwards, the data reported to
FAO were considered to be accurate and were accepted.
The reported lobster data from 1950–1971 were adjusted toaccount for minor over- and under-reporting discrepancies so as
to match the trusted national data from the TCI Government(2004) plan and Clerveaux and Lockhart (2008), while datareported by FAO were accepted for 1972–2012. All of thereported catches were considered to have been caught by
the artisanal sector (small-scale commercial sector) for export,leaving artisanal catches for local sale, and subsistence andrecreational sectors to be estimated separately.

Conch Conversion and Allocation
Conch data from the TCI is converted to live weight by the FAO
using a 7.5 conversion factor (FAO, 2012). To convert serving
sizes to live animal weight to estimate local consumption fromthe seafood consumption surveys, an initial conversion factor of
2 was applied to account for trimmed and unused meat (Thiele,
2001), which was multiplied by the FAO factor of 7.5 to accountfor the shell, equating to a total conversion factor of 15.

FIGURE 2 | Local and stop-over tourist population of the TCI,
1950–2012. Sources: (Bryden, 1973), 1962 anchor point; Caribbean Tourism
Organization, 1980–2006 data; Turks and Caicos Islands Tour Board
Statistics, 2007–2012 data. Note: stopover tourists average between 6 and 7
days each, and tourist-days were used to calculate consumption.

Local Population and Tourist Numbers
TCI human population data were available for 1950–1958
from the Population Statistics Historical Demography web site

Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org

4

May 2016 | Volume 3 | Article 71

Ulman et al.

Turks and Caicos Catch Reconstruction

TABLE 1 | Per capita national seafood consumption rate in the Turks andCaicos Islands, 2013 (kg·year−1 ).

TABLE 2 | Taxonomic allocation used for reef-fish and gamefish for both
domestic and tourist consumption in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

Food item

Child

Reef fish

Proportion

Adult

Gamefish

Proportion

Conch

7.5

5.0

Lutjanidae

0.35

Scombridae

0.45

Lobster

6.7

4.4

Haemulon spp.

0.30

Coryphaena hippurus

0.40

Reef fish

12.6

8.4

Epinephelinae

0.10

Xiphiidae

0.10

Gamefish

1.6

1.1

Labridae

0.10

Acanthocybium solandri

0.05

Shark/ray

0.5

0.3

Misc. fish

0.08

Bonefish

1.8

1.1

Haemulidae

0.05

Total

33.4

22.3

Ostraciidae

0.02

Source: Edward Hind (unpublished data).

TABLE 3 | Per capita seafood consumption used for domestic
consumption, years applied and sources used.

In 1950, conch catches were assumed to have been taken
75% for subsistence purposes and 25% for artisanal (i.e.,commercial) purposes. These rates were linearly interpolated to
50% subsistence and 50% artisanal by 2013, as a 2004 survey
indicated that 36% of locals receive conch as gifts from fishers,
and 15% personally capture conch [c. 50% subsistence] (Lockhart
et al., 2006). Thus, it was assumed the remainder of conch meatis bought commercially.

Type of seafood

Lobster Conversion and Allocation
Lobsters are weighed whole before the tails are removed forexport, and thus no conversion factor was required, unless justthe tail was reported for export, in which case a factor of 2.6
was used (Halls et al., 1999). To convert the meal sizes from theseafood consumption survey to live fish weight for lobster, theFAO conversion factor of 2.6 was applied.
In 1950, lobster catches were assumed to have been 75%
subsistence and 25% artisanal, which was linearly interpolated to
10% subsistence and 90% artisanal by 2012. This was based on
rising lobster prices that encouraged most fishers to profit fromtheir catches instead of keeping them for personal consumption.

Kg·person−1· year−1

Years applied

SourceLobster

25.0

1950–1980

Lobster

10.0

1985–1990

Lobster

6.7

1995–2012

Hind, 2013*

Conch

35.4

1950–1985

Olsen, 1985

Conch

10.0

1990–1999

Rudd, 2003

Conch

7.5

2012

Hind, 2013*

Finfish35.0

1950–1985

Olsen, 1985

Finfish16.5

2005–2012

Hind, 2013*

Rudd, 2003

Linear interpolations used to estimate missing years.
*Hind (unpublished data).

TABLE 4 | Fish allocation (fractions) for 1950 and 2012 for bothsubsistence and artisanal catches, interpolated for years between.
Year

Reef-fish

BonefishSharksGamefish

1950

0.60

0.350

0.050

0.0

2012

0.77

0.105

0.025

0.1

Finfish Allocation
There are four types of fish consumed in the TCI: reef fish,
gamefish, sharks and bonefish (Edward Hind, unpublished data).
The allocations used for reef fish and gamefish are presented
in Table 2. Sharks were categorized as Subclass Elasmobranchii
since no local studies detailing shark taxa have been done. To
convert individual portion weights to live fish weight, for game
fish, tuna, and sharks, a conversion factor of 1.92 was applied toaccount for the filet of meat and likely higher uneaten portions,but a lower conversion factor of 1.35 was used for reef fish
and bonefish. Table 3 shows per capita domestic consumption
amounts for conch, lobster and finfish.
The taxonomic breakdown applied to both 1950 and 2012
are displayed in Table 4. This table excludes gamefish in 1950,
which we assumed began as a very small target fishery (at 1%of total finfish catch) after engines were first introduced in
1965. The gamefish contribution was linearly increased to the2012 levels of 10% of the finfish catch, and all estimates werelinearly interpolated for the intervening years. Nassau grouper
has been the preferred target species for many decades due totheir substantial size and ease of catching (Rudd 2003). Bonefish

Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org

were once the preferred local fish species (Olsen, 1985), but
consumption rates have decreased in recent decades with older
fishers retiring and younger generations regarding it as “poorman’s” food. For domestic finfish consumption in 1965, 50%
was assumed to have been caught as subsistence and 50% as
artisanal, which was linearly interpolated to 20% subsistence and
80% artisanal by 2012.

Tourist Consumption
To calculate stopover tourist consumption, the following steps
were taken:
1) The annual number of tourists from 1967–2012 wasestablished (Figure 2; Bryden, 1973);
2) This was multiplied by the average number of meals (15.2)
consumed on the island for an average 6–7 day stay (Lockhart
et al., 2006);
3) This was multiplied by tourist seafood consumption
rates from the 2013 consumption survey for conch(0.0071 kg·meal−1 ),lobster(0.0102 kg·meal−1 ),reef

5May 2016 | Volume 3 | Article 71

Ulman et al.

Turks and Caicos Catch Reconstruction(0.0163 kg·meal−1 ) and game fish (0.0026 kg·meal−1 ,0.0006 kg·breakfast−1 ), and then adjusted to mean live
weight;4) This was applied to individual taxonomic groups as was done
for domestic consumption (Table 2);5) Available information on imported fish was subtracted.
Excluding conch and lobster (because conch are not imported
and lobster imports are negligible), we assumed that 50%
of tourist finfish consumption is domestically sourced, theremainder being imported;
6) The remainder was taken as the unreported tourist demand
fulfilled by domestic artisanal fisheries.

reconstructed conch and 0.3% of total reconstructed lobster andfinish (requiring more skill) catches were estimated to accountfor foreign poaching. The Dominican Republic was assumed
responsible for 85% of these foreign catches and Haiti 15%, since
Dominicans have a higher usage of motorized vessels.

RESULTS
Adjusted Reported Data Baseline
The FAO landings data, which were used as our time-series
of officially reported catches, amounted to 219,173 t for the
1950–2012 period. Our reconstruction improved on the reported
data using more trusted national data. From 1950–1964, theseexported catch amounts were raised, and from 1965–1973 they
were lowered which resulted in an adjusted reported baseline of
360,000 t for the 1950–1975 period (Figure 3A).

A similar calculation was completed to account for cruise ship
tourists who began arriving in the TCI in 2006. To estimate
the percentage of cruise ship tourists consuming a local meal
while on an onshore daytrip, a customer service representative
estimated that approximately 30% of the guests consume one
meal while ashore for the day (Nikki Beare, Princess Cruises,
pers. comm.). Thus, it was assumed 30% of cruise ship passengers
consumed one meal while ashore.
New data from the most recent 2013 survey suggested a tourist
seafood consumption rate of 0.56 kg·person−1 ·day−1 which wasused as an anchor point to calculate recent tourist seafood
consumption.

Reconstructed Total CatchThe reconstructed total catch resulting from the combination ofexported fish and lobster with the newly estimated domestic andtourist consumption amounted to approximately 668,000 t forthe 1950–2012 period (Figure 3A). The reconstructed total catch
peaked in the early 1950s at around 20,000 t·year−1 , after which
it declined to a low of around 5300 t in 1970, gradually increasing
thereafter to average about 11,500 t·year−1 in the 2000s(Figure 3A). Please see Appendix Table 1 in Supplementary
Material for a detailed comparison of the reported data and theadjusted reported data, as well as each sector’s catches for theduration of the time-series. The reconstructed total catch was
86% higher than the adjusted reported national baseline catch for
1950–2012, and 2.8 times higher than the data reported to the
FAO for the TCI (Figure 3A).
The main fisheries catch in the TCI was from the artisanal
sector, which contributed around 85% to the reconstructed total
catch (Figure 3A). The artisanal catch consisted mainly of conch(89%) and lobster (6%), while various fish taxa (over 20 taxa) eachmade minor contributions. The subsistence sector contributed
15% to the reconstructed total catch (Figure 3A), and consistedof conch (85%) and lobster (11%), with various fish taxa making
minor contributions. The recreational catches contributed onlyaround 0.1%, or about 1,000 t in total, to the reconstructed catch.
Overall, the major taxonomic contributors to the total
catch were conch (by weight, 87%) and lobster (7%), whilebonefish, snapper, grunts, grouper, wrasses, sharks, and 18
other taxa contributed considerably smaller amounts to thetotal reconstructed catch (Figure 3B, Appendix Table 2 in
Supplementary Material).

Recreational Catches
Recreational catches are defined here as catches taken forthe primary purpose of sport or pleasure. A sport fishery
was assumed to have begun with the onset of tourism in
1965. Surveys suggested that 0.02% of all tourists in 2002,
and 0.04% in 2004, came to the TCI primarily to fish (TCI
Tourist Board, 2003, 2005). From 1965–1980, 0.01% of tourists
were assumed to come primarily to fish, from 1990–2002,
0.02%, and from 2004–2013, 0.04%. The percentage of tourists
assumed to be recreational fishers was linearly interpolated
between the three time-series anchor points. All tourists witha focus on fishing were assumed to catch 10 kg·visit−1 (visits
average 6 days). The following species were allocated at 10% ofcatches each: bonefish, blue marlin, sailfish (Istiophorus albicans),
wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri), bigeye tuna, blackfin tuna,swordfish (Xiphias gladius), shark (Elasmobranchii), barracuda(Sphyraenidae), and dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus).

Foreign (Illegal) Fishing
There have been reports of illegal fishing (i.e., poaching) fromneighboring Haiti and the Dominican Republic for conch, lobsterand finfish (MacAlister Eliot Partners Ltd, 2003; Rudd, 2003).
This is viewed as a significant issue, since poaching vessels “cancarry several tons of seafood to their homeland per trip” (TCI
Government, 2013). Estimates of these foreign catches, using a
flowchart of catch origins provided by Halls et al. (1999) suggest
the equivalent of less than 1% of total conch catches is caught
by foreign fishers. Since no specific information could be foundregarding other foreign catches, this figure of “less than 1%of total conch” was used to create a proxy for foreign (illegal)
conch, lobster and finfish catches. The equivalent of 0.5% of total

Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org

Domestic Consumption
Local subsistence consumption for conch averaged 200 t·year−1
in the early 1950’s which gradually increased to about 350
t·year−1 from 2011 to 2012. For lobster, it averaged 143 t·year−1
in the early 1950s, which gradually increased until 1980 at 188
t. It then decreased to 95 t in 1984, before then gradually
increasing again to average 305 t·year−1 from 2011–2012. Finfish
consumption was at 124 t in 1965, but soon decreased to 89 t by
1971. It then gradually increased to average 167 t·year−1 for 20116

May 2016 | Volume 3 | Article 71

Ulman et al.

Turks and Caicos Catch Reconstruction

Lobster
Total lobster catches from the TCI, including both exports anddomestic consumption, amounted to nearly 46,000 t from 1950–
2012, or 7% of the islands’ total catches by weight.

FinfishTotal finish catches from the TCI amounted to just over 39,000 t
from 1950–2012, which consisted mainly of bonefish, and then toa much lesser extent, snappers, grunts and sharks (See Appendix
Table 2 in Supplementary Material for annual details).

Recreational Catches
Recreational catches from sports fishing commenced in 1965
with 0.025 t of fish caught, which gradually increased to average
130 t·year−1 from 2011–2012.

Foreign (Illegal) Catches
The Dominican Republic was estimated to catch a total of
approximately 2600 t, averaging about 44 t·year−1 , and Haiti justover 500 t in total at 9 t·year−1 . The catch composition for bothcountries was assumed to have consisted of conch (88%), finfish(7%), and lobster (4%).

DISCUSSION
The reconstructed baseline of the TCI fisheries is almost twice
the pre-existing one, which has troubling implications. The
incomplete totals have been used for decades to calculate
supposedly sustainable catch limits for the islands’ marine
resources. We can now see that these limits have been far fromsustainable and have facilitated overexploitation of national fishstocks. Considering marine resources contribute over 10% of
the GDP as of 2015 (IndexMundi.com), and benefit residents
by providing readily available and potentially long-term sourcesof local protein and employment, there is an urgent need toact on the results of this study. Policy-driven, future increases
in the TCI’s national population and its tourist numbers(TCI Government, 2012), with the increase in local seafood
consumption that will result, will be devastating to the healthof TCI fisheries without legislation to curb catches and/or
consumption.
Queen conch were found to contribute 87% to the total
reconstructed catches for the TCI, emphasizing that this isan extremely important species, however, their future looks
bleak. The TCI’s queen conch population is seen as one of themore abundant and thus, healthier populations in the greater
Caribbean, and their continued “health” is important to thesustainability of the species as a whole. Although the TCI marine
resource managers have tried to limit conch catch, the resultsof this study show that the unaccounted for local and tourist
consumption essentially accounts for what managers see as asustainable catch (the maximum sustainable catch calculated forthe 2013–2014 season was assumed to be 372 t processed catch,with 145 t reserved as domestic quota, which nearly equates tothe estimated local and tourist consumption). The whole export
quota may resultantly be unsustainable catch. It should be no
surprise that a snapshot assessment by means of a visual survey

FIGURE 3 | (A,B) Time-series of reconstructed domestic marine catches for
Turks and Caicos Islands by (A) fishing sector (recreational is too small toshow), with data reported by FAO on behalf of the TCI, as well as the adjusted
national reported data overlaid as dashed lines; and (B) by major taxa, with the“others” grouping consisting of 20 additional taxa.

and 2012. The catches were allocated to 17 taxa, with the most
allocated to bonefish, snapper, grunts, and sharks.

Tourist Consumption
For the stopover tourists to the TCI, conch consumption was
estimated to begin at 1.24 t in 1967, which gradually rose as
tourism increased to average 533 t·year−1 for 2011 and 2012.
Tourist lobster consumption was estimated to begin at 0.315 t in1967 which gradually increased to average 134 t·year−1 for 2011
and 2012.
For the cruise ship tourists who spend less than a day ashore,conch consumption was estimated to begin in 2006 at 6.3 t which
gradually increased to average 14.2 t·year−1 for 2011 and 2012.
Lobster consumption of this group was estimated to begin at 0.16
t in 2006, increasing slightly to average 0.36 t·year−1 for 2011 and
2012.

Conch
Total conch catches from the TCI, including both exports anddomestic consumption, amounted to nearly 573,000 t from 1950
to 2012, or 87% of the island’s total catches by weight.

Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org

7

May 2016 | Volume 3 | Article 71

Ulman et al.

Turks and Caicos Catch Reconstruction

et-al-Turks-and-Caicos.pdf, and can also be found at theTurks and Caicos EEZ data page at http://www.seaaroundus.
org/data/#/eez/796?chart=catch-chart&dimension=taxon&meas
ure=tonnage&limit=10.

conducted toward the end of that season signaled a declining
conch population, even with official landings inside the quota.
The TCI government, advised by DEMA, has looked to act onsome of the new data used in this reconstruction. Referencing
the 2013 seafood consumption survey, as well as the underwater
visual survey, they subsequently announced that the sustainable
catch quota will be reduced to just 277 t of processed conch
for the following season. Knowing that over 90% of this quota
would have been taken up by domestic consumption, DEMA
then recommended an export cessation of up to five years.
Reducing domestic consumption would be much more difficult
as much of this fishery is unreported and therefore challenging toregulate. However, the TCI government has delayed in actually
implementing the export cessation, which may further impair theconch stocks. The full reconstruction, as presented here, adds
further weight to the their need to act as soon as possible toreduce conch landings. With the TCI only permitted to export
conch to CITES signatories if it demonstrates a well-developed
management plan, any lack of further action could see CITES
effectively implement an export ban with the TCI.
The TCI is not the only country where marine policy-makers
need to take notice of fishery catch reconstructions. The data
presented here are part of the global study summarized by Paulyand Zeller (2016). Although the TCI is the only country whereartisanal and subsistence catches decreased from the mid-1980s
to the mid-1990s, the increase in artisanal and subsistence catches
over time aligns with the results of other catch reconstructions.
Overall catches in the TCI have noticeably declined, whichfits the regional profile for the Western Central Atlantic ofcatches peaking around 1985 and declining thereafter. In theimmediate neighboring region, the underreporting of fisheries
catches has been a similar issue. Reconstructed catches for Haiti,
the Dominican Republic and Jamaica were found to be over 3, 4
and 5 times (respectively) those reported (Ramdeen et al., 2012;
Van der Meer et al., 2014). Findings in these studies also support
calls for the more regular collection and estimation of local andtourist consumption, so that stock evaluations and catch quota
estimation can be undertaken using the best available data.
In the TCI, only exports were being accurately assessed in
the calculation of quotas. Local consumption, a necessary andsubstantial addition, was omitted or underestimated, as data were
not always available or up-to-date. With this issue brought tolight, it is hoped future catch quotas will be calculated based on
total removals by all sectors. For a nation with limited resources,
the recent seafood consumption surveys are a fairly simple andlow-cost approach to collect the required domestic consumption
data. With a high number of participants enrolled, the surveys
are resistant to being skewed by atypical variations discovered
in individual diets, and can be considered representative. It is
recommended, if possible, they be continued at an interval of
every 5 years.
The detailed technical catch reconstruction report that
underpins the present contribution is freely available at
http://www.seaaroundus.org/doc/publications/wp/2015/Ulman-

Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org

ETHICS STATEMENT
The ethics committee that approved the seafood survey carriedout as part of this study was the School for Field Studies(SFS) Office of Academic Affairs, IRB Administration. The IRB
approval number is TCI-01-14a. The research was exemptedfrom a full IRB process under Category 2 of the U.S. Code ofFederal Regulation Title 45 Public Welfare Part 46 Protection of
Human Subjects 46.101b. Qualification for this exemption wasachieved as the survey procedures ensured (i) information was
obtained and recorded in such a manner that human subjects
could not be identified, directly or through identifiers linked
to the subjects; and (ii) because any disclosure of the humansubjects’ responses outside the research could not reasonably
place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or bedamaging to the subjects’ financial standing, employability, or
reputation.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
The original methodology was decided upon by DZ. EH provided
some of the background data. AU, RR, and DZ helped calculate
the methodology. AU, LB, EH, and DZ contributed to both thewriting and editing of the paper.

FUNDING
This research was funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and The
Paul G. Allen Family Foundation. The School for Field Studies
and DEMA from the Turks and Caicos Islands helped fund theseafood consumption survey.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was completed as part of the Sea Around Us, a scientificinitiative supported by The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation and
The Pew Charitable Trusts. EH gratefully acknowledges the key
financial and logistical support provided by The School for Field
Studies (SFS) and DEMA, as well as the staff and students of
The SFS Center for Marine Resources Studies Fall 2013 Program,
and Kathleen Wood, Luc Clerveaux and Maggie Wisniewski of
DEMA for their assistance with collecting the data for the 2013
tourist and domestic seafood consumption study.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALThe Supplementary Material for this article can be foundonline at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.
2016.00071

8

May 2016 | Volume 3 | Article 71

Ulman et al.

Turks and Caicos Catch Reconstruction

REFERENCES

Pauly, D. (1998). Rationale for reconstructing time-series. EC Fish. Cooperative
Bull. 11, 4–10.
Ramdeen, R., Smith, N., Frotte, L., Lingard, S., Harper, S., Zeller, D., et al. (2012).
“Reconstructed total catches by the marine fisheries of countries of the wider
Caribbean (1950–2010),” in Proceedings of the Gulf and Caribbean FisheriesInstitute (Santa Marta).
Rudd, M. (2003). “Fisheries landings and trade of the Turks and Caicos Islands,” inFisheries Centre Research Reports (Vancouver, BC: Fisheries Centre, Universityof British Columbia), 149–161.
Taylor, O., and Medley, P. (2003). Marine Resource Assessment Group’s (MRAG)
Fisheries Management Science Programme (FMSP). Turks and Caicos Islands
field report. Participatory Fisheries stock assessment project R7947, Marine
Resources Assessment Group Limited, London, 1–56.
TCI Government (2004). Plan for Managing the Marine Fisheries of the Turks andCaicos Islands 2005–2010. Department of Environment and Coastal Resources,
Grand Turk, Turks and Caicos Islands, 8–37.
TCI Government (2012). Turks and Caicos Islands Development Strategy 20132017. Grand Turk: Turks and Caicos Islands Government.
TCI Government (2013). “Turks and Caicos Islands National Report on the Queen
Conch Fishery 2012/2013.” Lower Bight Road, Providenciales: Departmentof Environment and Maritime Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Home
Affairs.
TCI Tourist Board (2003). “Survey of Departing Visitors Report– 2002,” inStatistical Office Department of Economic Planning and Statistics.
TCI Tourist Board (2005). “Survey of Departing Visitors Report June– 2004,” inStatistical Office Department of Economic Planning and Statistics.
Tewfik, A., and Béné, C. (2004). “The Big Grab”: Non-compliance with regulations,skewed fishing effort allocation and implications for a spiny lobster fishery. Fish.
Res. 69, 21–33. doi: 10.1016/j.fishres.2004.04.004
Thiele, S. (2001). “Queen Conch fisheries and their management in the Caribbean,”in TRAFFIC Europe. WWF and IUCN.
Ulman, A., Çiçek, B., Salihoglu, I., Petrou, A., Patsalidou, M., Pauly, D., et al.
(2015). Unifying the catch data of a divided island: Cyprus’s marine fisheries
catches, 1950–2010. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 17, 801–821. doi: 10.1007/s10668014-9576-z
Van der Meer, L., Ramdeen, R., Zylich, K., and Zeller, D. (2014). “Reconstructionof total marine fisheries catches for the Dominican Republic (19502009),” in Fisheries Catch Reconstructions: Islands, Part IV, eds K. Zylich,
D. Zeller, M. Ang, and D. Pauly (Vancouver, BC: Fisheries Centre),
43–54.
Zeller, D., Booth, S., Davis, G., and Pauly, D. (2007). Re-estimation of small-scale
fisheries catches for U.S. flag island areas in the Western Pacific: The last 50
years. US Fish. Bull. 105, 266–277.
Zeller, D., Harper, S., Zylich, K., and Pauly, D. (2015). Synthesis of under-reported
small-scale fisheries catch in Pacific-island waters. Coral Reefs 34, 25–39. doi:
10.1007/s00338-014-1219-1

Béné, C., and Tewfik, A. (2000). Analysis of Fishing Effort Allocation and Fishermen
Behaviour Through a System Approach. University of Portsmouth: CEMARE
Research Paper 155.
Brownwell, W., and Stevely, J. (1981). The biology, fisheries, and management of
the Queen Conch, Strombus gigas. Mar. Fish. Rev. 43, 1–12.
Bryden, J. (1973). Tourism and Development: A Case Study of the Commonwealth
Caribbean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clerveaux, W., and Lockhart, K. (2008). “Fisheries of the Turks and Caicos
Islands,” in A history of the Turks and Caicos Islands, ed C. Mills (Oxford:
Macmillan), 68–78.
Clerveaux, W., Puga, R., and Medley, P. (2003). “National report on the spiny
lobster fishery of the Turks and Caicos Islands,” in Report of the Second
Workshop on the Management of Caribbean Spiny Lobster Fisheries in the
WECAFC Area, Havana, Cuba, 30 September – 4 October 2002 (Rome: Foodand Agriculture Organization), 162–174.
CRFM (2011). “Baseline review of the status and management of the Caribbean
spiny lobster fisheries in the Caricom region,” in CRFM Technical & Advisory
Document - Number 2011/5, ed C. Secretariat (Belize City: Caribbean Regional
Fisheries Mechanism Secretariat, Belize and St. Vincent and the Grenadines),
27–28.
Doran, E. J. (1958). The Caicos conch trade. Geograph. Rev. 48, 388–401. doi:
10.2307/212258
FAO (2012). 2010 Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics Capture Production. Rome:
FAO.
Garibaldi, L. (2012). The FAO global capture production database: a
six-decade effort to catch the trend. Mar. Policy 36, 760–768. doi:
10.1016/j.marpol.2011.10.024
Halls, A. S., Lewins, R., and Farmer, N. (1999). Information Systems for the CoManagement of Artisanal Fisheries. Field Study 2- Turks & Caicos. London:
MRAG Ltd.
Klaus, D. (2001). Baseline Assessment of Commercially Viable Finfish for FutureManagement in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Thesis, BA, Claremont Colleges.
Lockhart, K., De Fontaubert, C., and Clerveaux, W. (2007). “Fisheries of the Turksand Caicos Islands: Status and Threats,” in Proceedings of the 58th Gulf andCaribbean Fisheries Institute, (San Andrés), 66–71.
Lockhart, K., Magnusson, G., and Clerveaux, W. (2006). “Consumption of local
Conch by residents of the TCI,” in Proceedings of the 57th Gulf and Caribbean
Fisheries Institute (St. Petersburg, FL), 791–801.
MacAlister Eliot and Partners Ltd (2003). “Impact of fisheries bycatch on
endangered migratory species,” in Convention on the Conservation of Migratory
Species of Wild Animals (CMS). Twelfth Meeting of the CMS Scientific Council.
Glasgow, 31 March-3 April 2004 (Lymington).
Maitland, T. (2006). Dietary habits, diversity and the indigenous diet of The Turksand Caicos Islands. Implications for Island-specific nutrition intervention.
West Indian Med. J. 55, 1–13. doi: 10.1590/S0043-31442006000600003
Medley, P., and Ninnes, C. (1999). A stock assessment for the conch (Strombus
gigas L.) fishery in the Turks and Caicos islands. Bull. Mar. Sci. 64, 399–406.
Olsen, D. A. (1985). “Fishery resource assessment of the Turks and Caicos Islands,”
in Final Report on FAO Project TCI/83/002 (Rome).
Pauly, D., Ulman, A., Piroddi, C., Bultel, E., and Coll, M. (2014). ‘Reported’ versus‘likely’ fisheries catches of four Mediterranean countries. Scienta Marina 78S1,
11–17. doi: 10.3989/scimar.04020.17A
Pauly, D., and Zeller, D. (2016). Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine
fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining. Nat. Commun. 7, 9.
doi: 10.1038/ncomms10244

Frontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.org

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2016 Ulman, Burke, Hind, Ramdeen and Zeller. This is an open-accessarticle distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC
BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided theoriginal author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in thisjournal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

9

May 2016 | Volume 3 | Article 71