Electronic Monitoring: A Key Tool for Global Fisheries – The Pew Charitable Trusts

Overview

Each year, thousands of commercial fishing vessels ply the worlds high seas, hauling in catch ranging from sardines to giant tunas. In 2014, the most recent year for which data are available, vessels operating in these areas beyond national jurisdiction caught 4.4 million metric tons of fish, valued at $7.6 billion.1 To ensure that fishing on this scale is sustainable, regional fisheries management organizations (RFMOs) must be able to accurately track this catch and other vessel activities in the areas they oversee.

But monitoring fisheries is challenging, especially when boats operate far from shore. In an effort to collect complete data on fishing, many RFMOs have mandated that observers be onboard all purse seine vessels. But managers, scientists, and other stakeholders increasingly recognize that more coverage is needed on other vessel types to gather more information on catch, bycatch, fishing effort, and compliance with regulations.

Electronic monitoring (EM) is a proven way for RFMOs to expand coverage of their fishing fleets. EM systems have already been installed on a variety of vessels and have shown that they can generate high-quality, cost-effective monitoring data. Implementing a well-designed EM program that collects and then analyzes data on a fleets catch, fishing effort, and discards will help RFMOs gauge the status of fish stocks and make appropriate decisions for managing them, such as adopting sustainable harvest strategies, and create stronger enforcement tools.

Onboard fisheries observers have traditionally been the primary way to collect independent information on a vessels activities and catch. However, when faced with the possibility of having to increase coverage, fishers often note that placing more observers on vessels can create challenges due to the additional cost and space required onboard.

Electronic monitoring offers an efficient and cost-effective alternative. The systemsusually a central computer attached to gear sensors and video camerasallow authorities to monitor and record a vessels activity in real time. And installing and using EM systems that cover all fishing activities has been demonstrated to be considerably cheaper than placing observers on vessels. While savings estimates vary based on fishery size and type, a 2018 study in Peru estimated that an EM system cost half that of human observers;2 for pot cod vessels out of Alaska, costs were estimated at 27 percent to 41 percent less than observers;3 and for commercial gillnet vessels out of Denmark, they were estimated at 15 percent less.4

Studies tracking the performance of EM over more than 25,000 fishing days at sea have proved that the systems improve the accuracy of onboard logbooks; reduce illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing; increase data collection on bycatch species for biodiversity and conservation concerns; and expand authorities ability to monitor compliance with regulations.5

When standardized and implemented properly, electronic monitoring can increase:

Most important, electronic monitoring can be used to supplement low observer coverage and help managers ensure compliance with sustainable policies.

For these reasons and more, many countries have already embraced these technologies, and more are likely to follow.

Different combinations of electronic monitoring technology can be used to meet regulators needs and make the best use of available resources. Vessels can use the systems to supplement onboard observers, capture the data needed for science, and/or monitor compliance with regulations.6

The type of fishing gear a vessel uses often influences an EM systems effectiveness. Studies on longline vessels have been largely positive, as static cameras can easily capture data on fish that are brought onboard one at a time.7 An Australia-based study that sampled data from both gillnet and longline vessels found that on average, catches reported by the EM analyst and by fishers in their logbook were more similar for longline than gillnet fishing gear.8 But EM has been shown to be effective on a variety of gears, including trawlers and seiners.

EM systems do have some limitations. They cannot collect biological data and also may not capture compliance with mitigation measures that dont happen on deck, such as steps to reduce bycatch and discards. And the technology requires basic maintenance by the crew, such as making sure that cameras are powered and their lenses are clean. However, many of these challenges can be addressed by careful camera placements and crew training, in addition to dockside collection of biological samples, such as otoliths and gonads.

A well-designed EM program should incorporate more than the technology onboard a vessel. Because many high-seas vessels fish in multiple jurisdictions, effectively monitoring them electronically will require agreement on standardscomparable to the standards that regional observer programs useto ensure that the information collected is accurate and consistent. For programs to be effective and efficient, RFMOs should develop standards to accurately and consistently record data that is similar to that collected by observers and ensure that the information is shared, reviewed, and audited in a uniform way.

Advances in electronic monitoring technology offer many possibilities for improving fisheries management and increasing transparency and accountability, which would benefit authorities, fishers, and other members of the supply chain. But significant work by RFMOs remains if they are going to implement effective electronic monitoring programs.

To improve monitoring and increase transparency on the high seas, Pew recommends that RFMOs:

Fixed lens cameras affixed to the forward rigging of a bottom trawler. EDF/Leslie Von Pless

Go here to read the rest:

Electronic Monitoring: A Key Tool for Global Fisheries - The Pew Charitable Trusts