Distant-water fleets, local consequences: lessons from a case study in Liberia

On Oct 31, 2025

To gain an integrated understanding of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the DWF trawl fishery on SSF and coastal communities of Liberia, we triangulate quantitative secondary data on catch composition, total catch, and catch per unit effort over a 15-year period, with qualitative primary data on perceptions and experiences of 337 small-scale fishers and fishmongers from seven coastal counties of Liberia. Consideration of these disparate datasets in tandem is important for corroborating and contextualizing this complex social and environmental issue.

Analysis of catch composition overlap

Eight major stock assemblages (small pelagics, medium pelagics, large pelagics, small demersals, medium demersals, large demersals, sharks and rays, cephalopods and crustaceans, in addition to unclassified species in the “other” category), each consisting of a number of individual fish species, are targeted by the DWF trawl fleet and the SSF fleets in the Liberian EEZ (Fig. 2). The DWF fleet primary targets include: small, medium and large demersals such as cassava fish (Pseudotolithus spp.), butternose (Galeoides decadactylus), solefish (Cynoglossus spp.), catfish (Arius spp.), groupers (Epinephalus spp.), snappers (Lutjanus spp.), grunts (Pomadasys spp.) and sparids (Dentex spp); medium pelagics such as porjoe (Chloroscombrus chrysurus), pike fish (Sphyraena spp.), barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), swordfish (Xiphias gladius), and marlin (Istiophoridae); sharks and rays such as hammerhead shark (Sphyrnidae); and crustaceans such as shrimp, crab, and lobster^17,47. The Kru fleet operating from small dugout canoes primarily targets medium and large demersal fish species like cassava fish (Pseudotolithus spp.), butternose (Galeoides decadactylus), solefish (Cynoglossus spp.), groupers (Epinephalus spp.), snappers (Lutjanus spp.), grunters (Pomadasys spp.)^17,33,48. Equipped with slightly larger canoes and outboard engines, the Fanti fleet targets mainly small pelagics such as bonny (Sardinella spp.), porjoe (Chloroscombrus chrysurus), and Atlantic flying fish (Cheilopogon melanurus)²⁵.

Fig. 2: Catch composition (2004–2019) for both the DWF trawl and the SSF fleets.

Source: Sea Around Us Project⁷⁰.

Overall, the catch composition of target species of the DWF trawlers is similar to that targeted by SSF (Fig. 2). This is exhibited most clearly in the medium demersals functional group, which accounted for, on average, 63.1% of the landed catch for the DWF trawlers, and 19.9% of the SSF fleet catch (mainly caught by the Kru fleet) (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table 1). The two fleets also show strong overlap in the medium pelagics group, with catches comprising 5.2% and 9.1% for the DWF trawl fleet and the SSF fleet, respectively, as well as in the other group, where the fleets are actually catching similar average volumes (around 60,000 tonnes), though relative to overall catch is 4.8% for the DWF fleet, and 16.4% for the SSF. The large demersals, small demersals, large pelagics, and sharks and rays functional groups all exhibited some degree of overlap in landings by the two fleets as well (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 1).

The two exceptions to the catch composition overlap are seen in the cephalopods and crustaceans, and the small pelagic functional groups. Small pelagics represent only 0.4% of the DWF catch, while making up 30.3% of the SSF catch (mainly from the Fanti fleet). Cephalopods and crustaceans accounted for 3.9% of DWF trawler catch, and just 1% of SSF catch (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 1). Though historical data indicates that crustaceans may have previously accounted for more than a third of the total landed catch by the trawlers, suggesting that their target species may have shifted⁴⁹.

Changes in total catch and catch per unit effort

From 2004 to 2008, DWF trawl fleet landings were by far higher than the SSF fleet, varying between 18,855 to 72,804 tonnes (t) per year and averaging 60,303 ± 20,510 t per year (Fig. 3a). DWF trawl catch appeared to have plummeted in 2009, but then quickly recovered and maintained total catch volumes around 75,000 t for the remainder of the data period, which suggests that this anomalous year could be an artifact of inaccurate catch reporting. The SSF fleet catch grew steadily from 2004 to 2009, averaging 13,770 ± 8,205 t per year and ranging from 1816 to 22,896 t per year (Fig. 3a). Then, the total landed catch of the SSF fleet increased from 23,805 t in 2010 to 27,101 t in 2015 (Fig. 3a). Total landings of the SSF fleet declined following 2015 but then showed signs of increasing toward the end of the data series.

**Fig. 3: Catch and effort dynamics of the distant-water trawl and small-scale fleets between 2004 and 2019.**

Nevertheless, the DWF fleet appears to be outcompeting the SSF fleet (Fig. 3b). The number of small-scale vessels from 2004 to 2009 averaged 1200 ± 705 vessels per year and plateaued at nearly 2300 boats in 2009 (Fig. 3b). The SSF fleet grew from 3200 vessels in 2010 to 4600 in 2019 (Fig. 3b). On average, the SSF fleet has grown by 273 boats per year since 2004. In contrast, the number of trawlers peaked at 60 in 2004, and then steadily declined. Since 2013, their numbers have varied between 1 and 10 per year and averaged 6 ± 2 trawlers per year (Fig. 3b). On average, the number of DWF trawlers has declined by 4 vessels per year since 2004. Despite this, total trawler catch still reached a record high in 2019 of over 85,486 t (Fig. 3a).

Broadly, there has been a declining trend in the average catch per unit effort (CPUE) for the SSF fleet, but the opposite is true for the DWF trawl fleet (Fig. 3c, d). CPUE for the DWF trawl fleet exhibits an overall increasing trend, peaking sharply in 2014 at 75,312 t per year, when just one vessel was licensed to fish, but has otherwise remained relatively steady, varying between 8109 and 19,621 t per vessel per year between 2015 and 2019 (Fig. 3c). CPUE for the SSF peaked between 2005 and 2008, maintaining values above 12 t, and then steadily declined until plateauing between 6 and 7 t per year between 2015 and 2019 (Fig. 3d, Supplementary Table 2). While there has been an increase in total catch from the SSF fleet from 2004 to 2019, there has also been a marked increase in effort, leading to an overall average increase in CPUE of 13.08%, while the CPUE for the DWF trawl fleet has increased 59.88% on average, catching increasing quantities of fish with fewer vessels (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 2). Looking at the periods before and after the IEZ was implemented in 2010, SSF CPUE increased on average between 2004 and 2009 by 46.2%, but then exhibited a declining trend by 3.5% from 2010 to 2019. The DWF trawlers’ CPUE increased by 10.9% between 2004 and 2009, and continued to increase by 77.2% from 2010 to 2019 (Supplementary Table 2).

Perceived socio-economic and environmental impacts of the DWF trawl fleet

Interview data on the perceived socio-economic and environmental impacts of the DWF trawlers both corroborate and contextualize our findings on catch composition, cumulative catch, and CPUE interactions between the Liberian DWF and SSF. As interviews were conducted in different time periods (2023 and 2025) and in different coastal areas of Liberia (southeast and northwest), here we present the two datasets as complementary and not in aggregate. Across both time periods and regions of Liberia, a total of 337 people were interviewed, including 169 fishers, 166 fishmongers, and 2 cold storage employees.

Of the 31 fishers from the southeast coastal counties of Liberia interviewed in 2023, 96.7% reported experiencing changes in their catch over time, such as a decrease in the quantity and size of fish caught and landed. According to one fisherman, “In the past our fathers didn’t go so far before they saw and caught plenty of fish, but for us today, we have to travel beyond that distance before we see and catch fish and we can’t even catch plenty fish as before”. This was corroborated by another fisherman who reported that, “the quantity of fish has reduced, and the type and number of fish is reducing and even difficult to catch nowadays.” Similarly, of the 138 fishers from the northwest coastal counties of Liberia interviewed in 2025, 93% reported experiencing significant changes and 4% reported experiencing minor changes in their catch over time (Fig. 4a). This decline in catch was also corroborated by 99% of the 150 fishmongers interviewed in northwest Liberia, who reported significantly fewer fish available in recent years.

**Fig. 4: Perceived socio-economic and environmental impacts of the DWF on the artisanal fisheries and coastal communities of northwest Liberia.**

When asked how DWF affects their fishing activity, 77% of interviewed fishers from southeast Liberia reported that the trawlers have impacted their activity at sea, including destroying their nets, driving away the fish quite far from locals, and competing with locals for fishing grounds, affecting where and how they fish. According to one fisherman, “coastal trawlers carry/destroy our fishing nets and disturb our fishing grounds, which makes it quite difficult for the fishing communities to get access to fish to buy and eat due to the trawlers’ presence.” Another fisherman reported, “I had gone to fish sooner and noticed the trawlers had destroyed my fishing net, but they told me sorry and gave me some fish.” Similarly, 80.4% of fishermen interviewed in northwest Liberia reported gear destruction, 50.7% reported having to travel farther to fish, 45.7% reported a reduction in fish catch, and 15.2% reported a change in the type of fish available (Fig. 4b).

This perceived decline in fish availability and interactions between the two fleets at sea likely has a significant impact, not only on livelihood security for the 28,616 Liberian fishers and fishmongers directly employed in the fishery, but for household food and nutritional security as well. Ninety-three percent of fishers interviewed in northwest Liberia report that high catches from the distant-water fishery are causing a decrease in fish availability in local markets (Fig. 4c), corroborated by 95% of the fishmongers interviewed. Not only is the DWF catch causing declines in artisanal fisheries catch and markets, but DWF product is seemingly not entering local rural markets at all or contributing to the food and nutritional security of rural coastal communities; 55% of fishmongers interviewed in northwest Liberia report rarely seeing DWF catch enter local markets and 44% of fishmongers interviewed report never seeing DWF catch enter rural coastal markets. Interviews with cold storage employees suggest that the DWF catch that is landed in Liberia flows directly to cold storage facilities in Monrovia and other major urban areas (e.g., Buchanan), where rural coastal communities do not have access. So, while it may be possible that consumers in urban areas can access DWF catch, this catch is likely not contributing to the food security of rural coastal communities, where virtually all fish is supplied from the SSF. These findings are further validated by a reported increase in local fish prices, suggestive of a scarcity in supply; 27% of fishers interviewed in northwest Liberia report that the DWF is causing an increase in fish prices (Fig. 4d), and 96% of fishmongers reported higher fish prices in rural markets.

That the DWF is simultaneously causing a reduction in fish catch for the artisanal fishing sector and not contributing to local markets to enhance food security is concerning, given the high reliance of rural coastal Liberian communities on fish for food and nutritional security. Ninety-four percent of respondents interviewed in southeast Liberia reported eating fish daily, indicating that it is a primary source of animal protein for fishing-dependent coastal communities in Liberia. Furthermore, there was consistent agreement among respondents (85%) that fishing is a critical source of livelihood and income provision for their community, allowing them to independently support their families, including sending their children to school.

In addition to reporting DWF impacts on livelihood activities and food and nutritional security, 77% of the fishers surveyed in southeast Liberia believe that DWF operations have significant environmental impacts in coastal areas, including catching juvenile fish, discarding unwanted catch at sea, and polluting the ocean. As one fisherman reports, “coastal trawlers usually abandon destroyed fishing nets on our fishing grounds, catch all the fish-leaving nothing for the locals, and pollute the ocean with unwanted [discarded] catch.” Furthermore, 71% of the fishers surveyed think the coastal trawlers are negatively affecting coastal fishery resources. According to one fisher, “coastal trawlers do come down in inshore waters at night and return when it is almost day.” When the trawlers complete their operations early in the morning, “it is hard for us to catch fish in that same place and sometimes for a week, and thus affect our catch,” another respondent reported.

Overall, these results highlight several key indicators of impacts on SSF by DWF in Liberia, including: reduced fishing opportunities for SSF; reduced access to fish for food and nutrition security; increased competition between DWF and SSF for similar coastal fishery resources; and destruction of SSF gear.

Credit: Source link