Although seafood is the most highly

Transcription

1 POLICYFORUM ECONOMICS Sustainability and Global Seafood Martin D. Smith, 1,2 * Cathy A. Roheim, 3 Larry B. Crowder, 4 Benjamin S. Halpern, 5 Mary Turnipseed, 1 James L. Anderson, 3 Frank Asche, 6 Luis Bourillón, 7 Atle G. Guttormsen, 8 Ahmed Khan, 9 Lisa A. Liguori, 10 Aaron McNevin, 11 Mary I. O Connor, 5 Dale Squires, 12 Peter Tyedmers, 13 Carrie Brownstein, 14 Kristin Carden, 15 Dane H. Klinger, 16 Raphael Sagarin, 17 Kimberly A. Selkoe 5,18 Tight coupling to ecosystems and dependence on common-pool resources threaten fisheries and aquaculture. Although seafood is the most highly traded food internationally, it is an often overlooked component of global food security. It provides essential local food, livelihoods, and export earnings. Although global capture fisheries production is unlikely to increase, aquaculture is growing considerably. Sustaining seafood s contributions to food security hinges on the ability of institutions, particularly in developing countries, to protect and improve ecosystem health in the face of increasing pressures from international trade. Seafood (fish and shellfish harvested from capture fisheries and aquaculture production in marine and freshwater environments) contributes at least 15% of average animal protein consumption to 2.9 billion people and as much as 50% for some small island and West African states ( 1). Seafood is the main source of omega-3 fatty acids that are essential for brain development ( 2) and provides important micronutrients for the poor ( 3). As a source of livelihood, capture fisheries and aquaculture employed 43.5 million people in 2006, and 520 million people relied on income from seafood production ( 1). Seafood is also the most highly traded food commodity internationally ( 1). Fish and shellfish exports from developing countries exceed the value of coffee, rubber, cocoa, tea, tobacco, meat, and rice combined ( 1). Developing countries benefit from this trade by exporting high-valued seafood to developed countries, importing low-valued seafood, and using the surplus value to purchase other goods and services (fig. S1). However, they often lack the institutions necessary to prevent deleterious ecosystem 1 Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. 2 Department of Economics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA. 3 Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881, USA. 4 Center for Marine Conservation, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Beaufort, NC 28516, USA. 5 National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93101, USA. 6 Department of Industrial Economics, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, 4036, Norway. 7 Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C. (COBI), Boulevard Agua Marina 297, Colonia Delicias, Guaymas, Sonora, 85420, México. 8 Department of Economics and Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432, Aas, Norway. 9 International Coastal Network, Department of Geography, Memorial University, St. John s, Newfoundland A1B 3X9, Canada. 10 Marine Extension Service, University of Georgia, Brunswick, GA 31520, USA. 11 World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC 20037, USA. 12 Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA. 13 School for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 3J5 Canada. 14 Whole Foods Market, Austin, TX 78703, USA. 15 Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA. 16 Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. 17 Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA. 18 Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, Kaneohe, HI 96744, USA. *Author for correspondence: marsmith@duke.edu impacts of seafood production and to sustain trade benefits. Developed countries have a history of these problems, as well, but with less-obvious consequences. Although terrestrial food systems provide protein, support livelihoods, and generate export earnings, two characteristics of fisheries and aquaculture production uniquely threaten food security: tight coupling to ecosystems and dependence on common-pool resources. Fisheries and aquaculture are vulnerable to exogenous shocks to ecosystems such as climate change, but endogenous changes are particularly important. Commonpool fish stocks are often open-access, and fishing effort can push stock levels beyond maximum sustainable yield. In those cases, price increases lead to reduced seafood production ( 4, 5). This scenario does not generally occur in terrestrial food production. Fishing not only reduces target species populations but also can alter marine food webs ( 6) and has cumulative impacts on marine ecosystems ( 7), undermining the productive capacity of fisheries. Ultimately, the total productivity of a capture fishery is limited by the target species ability to reproduce, and poor governance often leads to fish populations being pushed beyond this limit. Aquaculture attempts to decouple fish production from environmental fluctuations by controlling growing conditions, feed input, and disease ( 8, 9). However, poor management can lead to reduced production even when prices rise, partly due to poorly defined property rights in locations where aquaculture is conducted. In estuarine and marine environments, nutrient pollution, farmed fish escapes, disease spread, and the use of capture fish in feed also threaten aquaculture s sustainability ( 10). Consumption is not shared equally among countries ( see the figure on page 785). Levels are high in developed and island countries but low in some developing countries (China and Southeast Asia are notable exceptions). Overlaying net exports, governance, and undernourishment suggests that seafood s contribution as a source of protein and livelihood is precarious. To compare institutional effectiveness across countries, we used an average of four governance indicators developed for the World Bank ( 11) as a proxy. Countries with undernourishment and weak governance often serve as net exporters of seafood to wellnourished countries with strong governance ( see the table on page 786). However, the largest seafood net exporters (China, Norway, and Chile) have neither the weakest governance nor the greatest undernourishment, suggesting that they have some institutional capacity to promote sustainability ( see the figure). At the global scale ( see the table), regions with low undernourishment are net importers of seafood from regions with high undernourishment. In principle, developing countries could consume more seafood simply by exporting less of it. But prevailing conditions in the global seafood market make it advantageous for many countries to be seafood exporters and generate surplus value (fig. S1). A population-weighted average governance score follows the same trend as per capita seafood consumption; regions with more undernourishment tend to have weaker governance ( see the figure and the table). Poor governance ultimately squanders seafood availability, for example, by failing to control overfishing and bycatch, as well as failing to regulate the environmental impacts of aquaculture. Corruption (included in governance) can also prevent export earnings from benefiting the poor. On each continent, the governance index is lower in less-nourished regions. Per capita seafood consumption follows the same pattern, except in Oceania, which has a preponderance of small island nations with abundant seafood sources ( see the table). Asia generates most of the world s net seafood exports from countries with moderate to Downloaded from on February 13, FEBRUARY 2010 VOL 327 SCIENCE Published by AAAS

2 POLICYFORUM severe undernourishment. China, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, India, and Myanmar are large net exporters (>300,000 metric tons) and, with the exception of Taiwan (for which data are unavailable), have moderate to high undernourishment. China illustrates the potential for aquaculture to contribute to food security by expanding export-oriented and domestically consumed aquaculture. This growth contributed to China s recent substantial reduction in undernourishment ( 12). Ninety-two percent of global animal aquaculture production occurs in developing countries, of which 31% is carp that is mostly grown in small Chinese facilities for domestic consumption ( 13). In contrast, Japan is the world s largest net importer (3.82 million metric tons) and has low undernourishment. In Africa, severely undernourished regions, e.g., Namibia and Senegal, are net exporters, but moderately undernourished regions are net importers, e.g., Nigeria ( see the table). Small amounts of exports from Africa also reflect access agreements between countries in West Africa and other regions (mostly Europe and Asia) to exploit their offshore fish stocks. These landings are counted neither as African production nor as African exports, although they come from African waters. The United States and European Union countries are well nourished and among the largest net importers. In contrast, large-scale aquaculture production creates opportunities for countries with all levels of nourishment Per capita consumption (kg/person per year) ND Governance effectiveness ND <5% 5 15% >15% Percent undernourishment Seafood consumption, governance, and undernourishment. (Top) Apparent per capita edible seafood consumption (2003 to 2005 average kg per year in live weight equivalent) from FAO FishStat Plus ( 13). Edible seafood is from fisheries and aquaculture used for human consumption. Apparent consumption is calculated for each nation by adding total seafood production to total imports and subtracting total exports. Per capita consumption divides apparent consumption by population. (Bottom) Governance by nation is the average of four World Bank indicators (each with a score of 2.5 to 2.5 and averaged for 2003 to 2005): rule of law, control of corruption, governmental effectiveness, and regulatory quality ( 11). Undernourishment categories by nation are FAO s average percentage of the population that is undernourished for 2003 to 2005 ( 12). (low, moderate, and high) to be net exporters, e.g., Vietnam, Chile, and Norway. These data highlight the benefits of the seafood trade but also seafood s precarious role in contributing to food security. Weak governance threatens countries abilities to consume seafood domestically or export it and use the trade system to purchase other foods. Because much of the world s seafood production comes from regions with weak governance, improved governance is essential to sustain or increase seafood s contribution to food security. Two very different histories of fish production in Chile and Mexico illustrate the importance of effective governance. Chile s rugged coastline is well suited to salmon farming. Salmon product ion has been primarily an indirect source of food through earnings and employment. Global trade and lax environmental regulations in Chile facilitated rapid expansion of salmon farming, but currently the industry is experiencing its worst disease crisis ever, an outbreak of infectious salmon anemia. Although 670,000 metric tons were produced in 2008, the prediction is that Chile will produce less than 100,000 metric tons in The outbreak has been attributed to institutional failure to react to known risks from lake-based smolt production and unvaccinated fish ( 14). Chile s crisis tells a cautionary tale about expanding aquaculture production without effective institutions to protect the environment. The spiny lobster fishery (Panulirus interruptus) along the central west coast of the Baja California peninsula is the largest lobster fishery in Mexico, with ~1600 metric tons captured every year. Ninety percent of the catch is exported live, and the export is critical for local livelihoods and quality of life. There are 500 fishermen organized into nine fishing cooperatives har- Downloaded from on February 13, SCIENCE VOL FEBRUARY Published by AAAS

3 POLICYFORUM Continent level of undernourishment Percent of world population Seafood net exports (metric tons/year) vesting the resource. Strong comanagement by cooperatives and the federal government has kept the Mexican Baja California lobster fishery from overexpanding to increase shortterm export earnings at the expense of future resource availability ( 15). What policy initiatives can create incentives for better governance and enhance seafood s role in food security? Developing countries rely heavily on common property resource management, in which communities organize themselves to solve the commons problem ( 16, 17). These institutions may fail during rapid change (e.g., new technology) or if they are not buffered from external forces (e.g., international trade) ( 18 20). Thus, developing countries are in a quandary with respect to seafood exports; existing common property institutions are threatened by export-oriented seafood production, and robust rights-based institutions generally require effective governance. Given the high tradability of seafood, trade policy is a natural consideration, and import tariffs theoretically can promote renewable resource sustainability ( 21). But seafood tariffs are likely to violate World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, reduce short-term trade, and fail to differentiate among well-managed and poorly managed fisheries and aquaculture operations. In contrast, private initiatives such as ecolabeling, third-party certification, and direct sourcing have the potential to differentiate among seafood suppliers. Success of these voluntary initiatives may require that consumers are willing to pay a premium for sustainability to cover the costs of investment in sustainable governance (e.g., management), equipment (e.g., fishing gear), and infrastructure (e.g., traceability systems). Whether consumers actually will pay this premium is an open question, which suggests that other funding sources such as direct foreign aid, may be necessary. Aid providers would need to coordinate with WTO to ensure that recipients are not accused of dumping seafood on the global market. Natural resource prices fail to reflect the cost of sustainability in many countries ( 22). In the short run, as producers transition toward environmental stewardship, prices rise for products like shrimp, lobster, Seafood consumption (kg/person per year) Pop. weighted avg. governance World Low ,838, Moderate ,387, High ,182, Africa Low , Moderate , High , Asia Low 6.6 5,462, Moderate ,858, High ,912, Europe Low ,376, Moderate High North America Low 7.0 2,190, Moderate , High , Oceania Low , Moderate , High South America Low 0.9 2,026, Moderate , High 0.1 7, Relation of exports, undernourishment, seafood consumption, and governance. Data were obtained as described in the figure legend. Low, moderate, and high refer to population-weighted averages of countrylevel undernourishment status. They indicate, for each continent, the proportion of the population that lives in countries where <5%, 5 to 15%, and >15%, respectively, of that country s population is undernourished. Undernourishment data are unavailable for countries representing <3% of the population of each continent, with the exception of Oceania (for which 20% of the population lives in countries without data). and salmon. But over the longer term, producers and consumers are better off because seafood supplies and livelihoods are sustainable. Price increases that reward sustainability may also raise prices of low-valued seafood, displacing fish protein from diets of the poorest of the poor in the short term. That is, when the price of the high-value product increases, demand for a substitute low-value product increases, raising its price. Research is needed to determine whether these price increases are large enough to warrant a policy intervention such as direct aid. Finally, bilateral trade between developed and developing countries highlights the importance of governance in developed countries as well. Developing countries import low-valued seafood for consumption, as well as highvalued seafood for processing, from developed countries. Sustaining these contributions to consumption and livelihood requires that developed countries also govern their resources effectively. References and Notes 1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008 (FAO, Rome, 2009). 2. J. R. Hibbeln et al., Lancet 369, 578 (2007). 3. N. Roos, M. A. Wahab, C. Chamnan, S. H. Thilsted, J. Nutr. 137, 1106 (2007). 4. P. Copes, Scott. J. Polit. Econ. 17, 69 (1970). 5. H. S. Gordon, J. Polit. Econ. 62, 124 (1954). 6. D. Pauly, V. Christensen, V, J. Dalsgaard, R. Froese, F. Torres Jr., Science 279, 860 (1998). 7. B. S. Halpern et al., Science 319, 948 (2008). 8. J. L. Anderson, Mar. Resour. Econ. 17, 133 (2002). 9. F. Asche, Mar. Resour. Econ. 23, 527 (2008). 10. R. L. Naylor et al., Nature 405, 1017 (2000). 11. D. Kaufman, A. Kraay, M. Mastruzzi, Governance Matters VIII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4978, World Bank, Washington, DC, 2009). 12. FAO, Prevalence of Undernourishment in Total Population (FAO, Rome, 2008); food-security-statistics/en. 13. FAO, FishStat Plus (2009); statistics/en. 14. F. Asche, H. Hansen, R. Tveteras, S. Tveterås, Mar. Resour. Econ. 24, 405 (2009). 15. L. Bourillón, Biodiversitas-CONABIO 86, 7 (2009). 16. E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990). 17. E. Ostrom Science 325, 419 (2009). 18. B. R. Copeland, M. S. Taylor, Am. Econ. Rev. 99, 725 (2009). 19. T. Dietz, E. Ostrom, P. C. Stern, Science 302, 1907 (2003). 20. J. E. Cinner, S. Aswani, Biol. Conserv. 140, 201 (2007). 21. J. A. Brander, M. S. Taylor, J. Int. Econ. 44, 181 (1998). 22. K. Arrow et al., J. Econ. Perspect. 18, 147 (2004). 23. Supported by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, University of California at Santa Barbara; and the Working Group on Envisioning a Sustainable Global Seafood Market and Restored Marine Ecosystems. Supporting Online Material /science Downloaded from on February 13, FEBRUARY 2010 VOL 327 SCIENCE Published by AAAS

4 Supporting Online Material for Sustainability and Global Seafood Martin D. Smith,* Cathy A. Roheim, Larry B. Crowder, Benjamin S. Halpern, Mary Turnipseed,James L. Anderson, Frank Asche, Luis Bourillón, Atle G. Guttormsen, Ahmed Khan, Lisa A. Liguori, Aaron McNevin, Mary I. O Connor, Dale Squires, Peter Tyedmers, Carrie Brownstein, Kristin Carden, Dane H. Klinger, Raphael Sagarin, Kimberly A. Selkoe This PDF file includes *Author for correspondence. <marsmith@duke.edu> Fig. S1 Tables S1 to S5 References Published 12 February 2010, Science 327, 784 (2009) DOI: /science

5 Real Price ($/kg) Developed export Developed import Developing export Developing import

6 Fig. S1. Real unit prices of internationally traded seafood by country group. Average price per kilogram, in 2005 constant US$ (adjusted by the U.S. GDP deflator), of aggregated seafood imports and exports for developing and developed countries (S1, S2). Exports of seafood by developing countries have a higher unit value than imports, providing trade benefits to that country group. Real prices of developing country imports are also trending down, which suggests that low-value fish protein is becoming more affordable. Both import and export quantities are large, which suggests that developing countries purchase low-valued seafood with export earnings and have surplus earnings available for other uses. By comparison, developed countries are importing higher-valued seafood than they are exporting. References S1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FishStat Plus (2009); S2. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, Table Price indexes for GDP (2009); 1

7 Table S1. Data in support of Fig. S1. Year Quantity (metric tons) Developed countries Export Import Value Quantity (1000s (metric U.S. $) tons) Value (1000s U.S. $)

8 Table S2. Data in support of Fig. S1. Year Quantity (metric tons) Export Value (1000s U.S. $) Developing Quantity (metric tons) Import Value (1000s U.S. $) U.S. GDP Deflator

9 Table S3. Data in support of Fig. 1 ( averages). World Bank Indicators: Gov_eff, governmental effectiveness; Reg_qual, regulatory quality; Rule_law, rule of law; Cont_corrup, control of corruption. Country Code Gov_eff Reg_qual Rule_law Cont_corrup CHINA CHN NORWAY NOR CHILE CHL INDONESIA IDN VIETNAM VNM ICELAND ISL THAILAND THA ARGENTINA ARG TAIWAN TWN INDIA IND NEW ZEALAND NZL RUSSIA RUS CANADA CAN MYANMAR MMR NAMIBIA NAM NETHERLANDS NLD ECUADOR ECU MOROCCO MAR PERU PER IRELAND IRL DENMARK DNK SENEGAL SEN MALDIVES MDV PAKISTAN PAK LATVIA LVA SOUTH AFRICA ZAF KOREA, NORTH PRK URUGUAY URY PHILIPPINES PHL MAURITANIA MRT TANZANIA TZA PANAMA PAN PAPUA NEW GUINEA PNG VANUATU VUT YEMEN YEM ESTONIA EST UGANDA UGA BANGLADESH BGD CAMBODIA KHM OMAN OMN VENEZUELA VEN GUYANA GUY KENYA KEN MARSHALL ISLANDS MHL MADAGASCAR MDG

10 SOLOMON ISLANDS SLB HONDURAS HND COSTA RICA CRI NICARAGUA NIC NIGER NER MICRONESIA FSM SURINAME SUR BELIZE BLZ NETHERLANDS ANTILLES ANT GUINEA-BISSAU GNB KIRIBATI KIR SIERRA LEONE SLE SOMALIA SOM BAHRAIN BHR SUDAN SDN EL SALVADOR SLV BAHAMAS BHS MOZAMBIQUE MOZ COOK ISLANDS COK NEW CALEDONIA NCL TURKEY TUR TUVALU TUV ERITREA ERI AFGHANISTAN AFG AMERICAN SAMOA ASM ANGUILLA AIA BHUTAN BTN FRENCH GUIANA GUF LESOTHO LSO MARTINIQUE MTQ PUERTO RICO PRI REUNION REU VIRGIN ISLANDS (U.S.) VIR WEST BANK GAZA WBG SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE STP BURUNDI BDI PALAU PCI CAPE VERDE CPV MONGOLIA MNG RWANDA RWA CAYMAN ISLANDS CYM NEPAL NPL DJIBOUTI DJI TURKMENISTAN TKM CHAD TCD ETHIOPIA ETH ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES VCT TAJIKISTAN TJK

11 PARAGUAY PRY ST. KITTS AND NEVIS KNA MALAWI MWI TONGA TON COMOROS COM DOMINICA DMA GRENADA GRD ZIMBABWE ZWE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC CAF UZBEKISTAN UZB GAMBIA GMB BERMUDA BMU LIBERIA LBR ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA ATG ARMENIA ARM ARUBA ABW GUINEA GIN IRAN IRN QATAR QAT GUATEMALA GTM ST. LUCIA LCA BOTSWANA BWA LITHUANIA LTU AZERBAIJAN AZE LAOS LAO SAMOA SAM MALI MLI GABON GAB ZAMBIA ZMB KYRGYZSTAN KGZ IRAQ IRQ BOLIVIA BOL LIBYA LBY KAZAKHSTAN KAZ SWAZILAND SWZ SEYCHELLES SYC ALBANIA ALB MACEDONIA MKD EQUATORIAL GUINEA GNQ BARBADOS BRB BRUNEI BRN GEORGIA GEO LUXEMBOURG LUX TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO TTO BURKINA FASO BFA TOGO TGO SLOVENIA SVN MEXICO MEX CONGO COG BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA BIH

12 TUNISIA TUN CYPRUS CYP HAITI HTI MAURITIUS MUS FIJI FJI ANGOLA AGO KUWAIT KWT BULGARIA BGR MACAO MAC ALGERIA DZA MALTA MLT JORDAN JOR SYRIA SYR LEBANON LBN CROATIA HRV HUNGARY HUN MOLDOVA MDA SERBIA YUG BENIN BEN SLOVAKIA SVK CUBA CUB GREECE GRC UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ARE COLOMBIA COL JAMAICA JAM SWEDEN SWE FINLAND FIN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC DOM CZECH REPUBLIC CZE ROMANIA ROM CONGO, Dem. Rep. ZAR AUSTRIA AUT SRI LANKA LKA SWITZERLAND CHE ISRAEL ISR SAUDI ARABIA SAU CAMEROON CMR BELARUS BLR POLAND POL GHANA GHA BRAZIL BRA SINGAPORE SGP MALAYSIA MYS COTE D'IVOIRE CIV BELGIUM BEL EGYPT EGY HONG KONG HKG AUSTRALIA AUS UNITED KINGDOM GBR PORTUGAL PRT

13 UKRAINE UKR NIGERIA NGA SPAIN ESP GERMANY DEU ITALY ITA KOREA, SOUTH KOR FRANCE FRA UNITED STATES USA JAPAN JPN

14 Table S4. Data in support of Fig. 1 ( ). Amount (metric tons) Code Production Imports Exports Food supply Population (n 10 3 ) CHN NOR CHL IDN VNM ISL THA ARG TWN IND NZL RUS CAN MMR NAM NLD ECU MAR PER IRL DNK SEN MDV PAK LVA ZAF PRK URY PHL MRT TZA PAN PNG VUT YEM EST UGA BGD KHM OMN VEN GUY KEN MHL MDG SLB

15 HND CRI NIC NER FSM SUR BLZ ANT GNB KIR SLE SOM BHR SDN SLV BHS MOZ COK NCL TUR TUV ERI AFG ASM AIA BTN GUF LSO MTQ PRI REU VIR WBG STP BDI PCI CPV MNG RWA CYM NPL DJI TKM TCD ETH VCT TJK PRY KNA MWI

16 TON COM DMA GRD ZWE CAF UZB GMB BMU LBR ATG ARM ABW GIN IRN QAT GTM LCA BWA LTU AZE LAO SAM MLI GAB ZMB KGZ IRQ BOL LBY KAZ SWZ SYC ALB MKD GNQ BRB BRN GEO LUX TTO BFA TGO SVN MEX COG BIH TUN CYP HTI

17 MUS FJI AGO KWT BGR MAC DZA MLT JOR SYR LBN HRV HUN MDA YUG BEN SVK CUB GRC ARE COL JAM SWE FIN DOM CZE ROM ZAR AUT LKA CHE ISR SAU CMR BLR POL GHA BRA SGP MYS CIV BEL EGY HKG AUS GBR PRT UKR NGA ESP

18 DEU ITA KOR FRA USA JPN

19 Table S5. Percentage of people who are undernourished. NA, not available. Code Undernourished (%) Code Undernourished (%) Code Undernourished (%) CHN 9 SLB 9 ETH 46 NOR <5 HND 12 VCT 6 CHL <5 CRI <5 TJK 34 IDN 17 NIC 22 PRY 11 VNM 14 NER 29 KNA 15 ISL <5 FSM NA MWI 29 THA 17 SUR 7 TON NA ARG <5 BLZ <5 COM 52 TWN ANT <5 DMA <5 IND 21 GNB 32 GRD 22 NZL <5 KIR 5 ZWE 40 RUS <5 SLE 47 CAF 43 CAN <5 SOM NA UZB 14 MMR 19 BHR NA GMB 30 NAM 19 SDN 21 BMU 8 NLD <5 SLV 10 LBR 40 ECU 15 BHS 6 ATG 28 MAR <5 MOZ 38 ARM 21 PER 15 COK NA ABW NA IRL <5 NCL 9 GIN 17 DNK <5 TUR <5 IRN <5 SEN 26 TUV NA QAT NA MDV 7 ERI 68 GTM 16 PAK 23 AFG NA LCA 8 LVA <5 ASM NA BWA 26 ZAF <5 AIA NA LTU <5 PRK 32 BTN NA AZE 12 URY <5 GUF NA LAO 19 PHL 16 LSO 15 SAM <5 MRT 8 MTQ NA MLI 11 TZA 35 PRI NA GAB <5 PAN 17 REU NA ZMB 45 PNG VIR NA KGZ <5 VUT 7 WBG 15 IRQ NA YEM 32 STP 5 BOL 22 EST <5 BDI 63 LBY <5 UGA 15 PCI NA KAZ <5 BGD 27 CPV 15 SWZ 18 KHM 26 MNG 29 SYC 9 OMN NA RWA 40 ALB <5 VEN 12 CYM NA MKD <5 GUY 6 NPL 15 GNQ NA KEN 32 DJI 32 BRB <5 MHL NA TKM 6 BRN <5 MDG 37 TCD 39 GEO 13 LUX <5 MDA NA BRA 6 TTO 10 YUG <5 SGP NA 14

20 BFA 10 BEN 19 BLR <5 TGO 37 SVK <5 POL <5 SVN <5 CUB <5 GHA 9 MEX <5 GRC <5 BRA 6 COG 22 ARE <5 SGP NA BIH <5 COL 10 MYS <5 TUN <5 JAM 5 CIV 14 CYP <5 SWE <5 BEL <5 HTI 58 FIN <5 EGY <5 MUS 6 DOM 21 HKG NA FJI <5 CZE <5 AUS <5 AGO 46 ROM <5 GBR <5 KWT <5 ZAR 76 PRT <5 BGR <5 AUT <5 UKR <5 MAC NA LKA 21 NGA 9 DZA <5 CHE <5 MYS <5 MLT <5 ISR <5 CIV 14 JOR <5 SAU <5 BEL <5 SYR <5 CMR 23 EGY <5 LBN <5 BLR <5 HKG NA HRV <5 POL <5 AUS <5 HUN <5 GHA 9 GBR <5 15