Content uploaded by Ian A Knuckey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ian A Knuckey on Jul 14, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
COMMISSION
Tenth Regular Session
2th December – 6th December 2013
Cairns, AUSTRALIA
POTENTIAL FOR E-REPORTING AND E-MONITORING IN THE WESTERN AND
CENTRAL PACIFIC TUNA FISHERIES WCPFC10-2013-16
(previously posted as WCPFC10-2013-IP03)
23 November 2013
Potential for E-Reporting and E-Monitoring in the
Western and Central Pacific Tuna Fisheries
Steve Dunn and Ian Knuckey
2013
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey i 2013
Potential for E-Reporting and E-Monitoring in the
Western and Central Pacific Tuna Fisheries
Steve Dunn and Ian Knuckey
November 2013
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey ii 2013
Title: Potential for E-Reporting and E-Monitoring in the Western and Central Pacific Tuna
Fisheries
Authors: Steve Dunn1 and Ian Knuckey2
1 IC Independent Consulting
82 Hilder St Weston ACT 2611
steve.dunn@icic.net.au
www.icic.net.au
2 Fishwell Consulting Pty Ltd
27 Hesse St Queenscliff VIC 3225
ian@fishwell.com.au
www.fishwell.com.au
Date: November 2013
© Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. This work is copyright. Except as
permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth of Australia), no part of this publication may be
reproduced by any process, electronic or otherwise, without the specific written permission of
the copyright owners. Neither may information be stored electronically in any form
whatsoever without such permission.
DISCLAIMER
The authors do not warrant that the information in this document is free from errors or
omissions. The authors do not accept any form of liability, be it contractual, tortious, or
otherwise, for the contents of this document or for any consequences arising from its use or
any reliance placed upon it. The information, opinions and advice contained in this
document may not relate, or be relevant, to a reader’s particular circumstance. Opinions
expressed by the authors are the individual opinions expressed by those persons and are not
necessarily those of the publisher, research provider or the WCPFC.
ISBN: 978-0-9873286-6-3
Preferred way to cite: Dunn, S. and Knuckey, I. (2013). Potential for E-Reporting and E-
Monitoring in the Western and Central Pacific Tuna Fisheries. Report to the Western and
Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 128 pp.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey iii 2013
Executive Summary
This report defines E-Reporting and E-Monitoring, and documents products and programs
involving both. It makes recommendations about what the Commission, regional
organisations, and Commission members should be doing next. The project has involved
discussions and consultations with a wide range of stakeholders including flag States, coastal
States, fishing companies, and technology and solution providers (Appendix 8).
Those responsible for fisheries management are becoming increasingly dependent upon
electronic solutions for information management. These solutions have continued to evolve
to the point where computers and tablets can be used to capture fishery data through
electronic logsheets, observer reports, and offload records; cameras can record fishing
activity and catch, and sensors can report on winch, drum, hydraulic system pressure, and
engine activity. Geo-fences can be readily set up to report EEZ transits, and protected area
incursions. Data can be transmitted in near real time, or stored for retrieval at a later date.
E-Reporting and E-Monitoring both involve electronic technology; they are interwoven
through logistics, communication demands, and the need for effective information
management, but distinguished by their specific purpose and goals. For the purpose of this
report the following definitions have been developed:
E-Reporting is generally considered to be “open system” because manual inputs are
required and accepted, for example from skippers and observers. Examples of E-Reporting
include electronic entry and transmission of catch logsheets, observer reports, transhipment
reports, and offload records. E-Reporting provides the opportunity for real time reporting of
critical information through satellite transmission or mobile networks, as well as to store
data for download at the end of a trip.
E-Monitoring is generally considered to be “closed system” because it does not accept
external or manual input that impacts on its core functionality. It relies on automated
operations, and sealed and tamper-evident equipment. The most common example of E-
Monitoring is a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), where GPS position and time data are
collected automatically, and securely transmitted at prescribed intervals to relevant
agencies.
This project reviewed E-Reporting technology revealing an abundance of products and
worldwide adoption of this technology in both large and small fisheries. The ability to record
catch and effort logbook data and observer information with simple-to-use software loaded
on computers or other purpose-built hardware is well established. E-Reporting brings
improved data quality through ease-of-use tools such as drop-down boxes, data input
checking, and the automatic capture of GPS data. E-Reporting is revolutionizing fisheries
information in terms of timeliness, convenience, efficiency, and quality, as well as driving
down total cost. There are now no barriers to implementation of electronic logsheets in
developed countries, and no insurmountable barriers in developing countries. The capacity
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey iv 2013
to transmit data in near real time provides a range of further opportunities for research,
compliance and management.
The review of E-Monitoring products and programs shows a worldwide adoption of VMS
technology, but only very limited adoption of video, sensor, and other systems. There is a
steady adoption of enhanced mobile transmission units (E-MTU) on VMS which enables the
use of VMS communication channels for other purposes. Whilst the definitions for E-
Monitoring are broad, and other technologies are mentioned, this project has ultimately
confined itself to consideration of E-Monitoring using video and sensors, and E-Monitoring
using just sensors. The use of the terms E-Monitoring or E-M in this report should therefore
be read narrowly, with that in mind. Technologies such as VMS are already well established,
and other technologies were not sufficiently advanced or significant enough to distract us
from the principle E-Monitoring technologies under scrutiny.
There is significant potential for video and sensor systems to improve the quality of fisheries
information, and to support science and compliance in the Western and Central Pacific
Ocean (WCPO). This technology can go where observers cannot, can supplement human
observer programs, can underpin management objectives, provide a wealth of data in
support of stock assessment and other scientific programs, and can support regulatory and
enforcement programs.
There are barriers to implementation of this technology including politics, bureaucratic
change, cost, human capacity, logistics, and geographical remoteness. But none of these are
insurmountable.
Video and sensor technology are in common use in other environments. We see it every day
in the street, in workplaces, and on public transport. But it has not developed in the
fisheries sector to the point it can be considered mainstream. There are only a handful of
hardware and software providers focussed on the fisheries sector and just four we have
identified who have implemented E-Monitoring with video and E-Monitoring with sensor
programs to meet regulatory requirements in a fishery.
The progress the Commission makes in implementing E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
solutions will depend on undertaking a comprehensive preparatory and planning process,
and consideration of a number of key factors. These include the regulatory framework, an
effective approach to the development of standards, specifications and type approvals, the
benefits to stakeholders in terms of cost and efficiency, the preparedness to invest time and
money, and effective collaboration at all levels, in particular the involvement of industry. It
will be challenging and the implementation project will need to be properly resourced.
This report has determined:
• E-Reporting will offer significant benefits to improving both the quality and timeliness
of fisheries data, and should be implemented without delay across all fisheries with
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey v 2013
significant adoption anticipated within five years. E-Reporting is a critical step
towards improving the science and compliance upon which the tuna fisheries
depend.
• The use of video and associated sensor monitoring systems is a feasible option to
monitor the Commission’s Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs). Such
technology should be progressively rolled out based on a comprehensive program
design phase, which would see staged implementation over a ten year timeframe. Its
use should initially be focussed on vessels where observers are not deployed to an
adequate level (e.g. longline, pole and line, and carrier vessels), and should further be
considered for purse seine vessels operating at certain times and in certain places
(e.g. during FAD closures or when risks of interactions with threatened, endangered
and protected TEPs are deemed likely).
This report does not recommend any particular hardware or software for either E-Reporting
or E-Monitoring. Rather, we recommend the development of standards, specifications, type
approvals, and certification as a key basis of the proposed framework. If these processes are
done well, the market will respond and the widely available products will be introduced into
the fishery.
This report recommends the establishment of E-Project Working Groups (EWGs) for each
technology, under the guidance of an Internal Governance Committee. Technical experts
and technology providers must be involved in this process. The two technologies are at quite
different stages in terms of their development and implementation, and in many ways
operate exclusively. They are not the same, they have different requirements, and separate
programs should be established for each. Further, given their different stages of
development, we believe that including them under a single program would hold back the
implementation of E-Reporting.
To make progress with the implementation of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring, the report
recommends that the Commission Secretariat lead a substantial part of the implementation
process. We also envisage leadership roles will be essential for the Secretariat to the Pacific
Community (SPC) with respect to E-Reporting, and for the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries
Agency (FFA) in terms of E-Monitoring.
There are a number of areas of preparation that need to occur prior to any coordinated
implementation of either E-Reporting or E-Monitoring. The development of the standards,
specifications and type approval process is a critical first step for both technologies, and the
process to progress this phase needs to commence as a first order priority. Also, a more
detailed and comprehensive analysis of the costs/benefits of implementation needs to be
undertaken at the CCM level. Further, and also at the CCM level, there must be a full review
of both national and regional legislation to ensure the transition to E-Reporting and E-
Monitoring meets all legal obligations and requirements.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey vi 2013
Finally, it’s important that Pacific Island countries understand that whilst the review
recommends a common approach to standards and specifications, and a coordinated
approach to implementation, within their jurisdictions, these programs will be under their
control.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey vii 2013
Strategic Recommendations
Strategic Recommendation 1: To improve quality and timeliness of the data available for
science, compliance, and management, to enhance and streamline reporting obligations, and
to provide an additional means of effective observer monitoring, this report recommends the
Commission, its members, and its partner regional organisation within the WCPO implement
both E-Reporting and E-Monitoring programs without delay.................................................. 30
Strategic Recommendation 2: The Commission should adopt an approach of developing
standards, specifications, and certification procedures for both E-Reporting and E-Monitoring,
against which any provider can seek to be certified, in preference to seeking a single provider.
.................................................................................................................................................. 31
Strategic Recommendation 3: The implementation of E-Reporting for logsheets, observer
reports, and CMMs should be undertaken in a phased approach determined by technical
feasibility, and practical considerations and constraints. The process for development of E-
Reporting standards, specifications and type approvals should be led by the Commission
Secretariat as amongst the first and high priority actions. ........................................................ 44
Strategic Recommendation 4: E-Monitoring be formally recognised and adopted as a
legitimate, appropriate and acceptable monitoring tool as both an alternate to human observer
programs and a supplement to observer programs, for certain WCPO tuna fisheries. The
process for development of E-M standards, specifications and type approvals should be led by
the Commission Secretariat as a priority and E-M should be progressively rolled out to
support compliance with Commission’s CMMs, improve fishing practices, and increase
fisheries knowledge. The use of E-M using sensors alone should be considered as appropriate,
based on fishery monitoring goals. ........................................................................................... 45
Strategic Recommendation 5: Implement separate but parallel processes to move E-Reporting
and E-Monitoring technologies forward towards implementation. These processes should
involve the establishment of an Implementation Working Group (IWG) for each technology,
each with a Project Manager, and both under the oversight, direction and control of an
Internal Governance Committee (IGC) to monitor project risks, budgets, potential conflicts of
interest, and progress against agreed goals. .............................................................................. 52
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey viii 2013
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ iii
Strategic Recommendations ........................................................................................... vii
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... viii
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ xii
List of Recommendations .............................................................................................. xiii
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1
2. Project Objectives..................................................................................................... 2
3. Definition of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring ........................................................... 2
E-REPORTING ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
E-MONITORING ................................................................................................................................................... 3
4. Current Situation ..................................................................................................... 3
DATA COLLECTION – PAPER-BASED ..................................................................................................................... 3
DATA COLLECTION – ELECTRONIC ...................................................................................................................... 8
DATA STORAGE AND MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................. 13
USES OF WCPO TUNA FISHERY DATA ................................................................................................................ 17
5. Current Situation – Global ..................................................................................... 18
E-REPORTING .................................................................................................................................................... 18
E-MONITORING ................................................................................................................................................. 20
6. Stakeholder issues and responses ........................................................................... 20
SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................................................ 20
COMPLIANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 21
EMPLOYMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 22
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH & SAFETY .................................................................................................................. 25
RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
EFFICIENCY ....................................................................................................................................................... 26
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey ix 2013
E-REPORTING AND E-MONITORING SOLUTIONS FOR CMM OBLIGATIONS ........................................................ 28
7. A Future Framework .............................................................................................. 30
SELECTING A PREFERRED E-R AND E-M PROVIDERS ......................................................................................... 30
ELECTRONIC DATA OPTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 31
DATA STANDARDS ............................................................................................................................................. 32
CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................................................................. 34
A FUTURE FRAMEWORK FOR E-REPORTING ...................................................................................................... 34
A FUTURE FRAMEWORK FOR E-MONITORING WITH VIDEO AND SENSORS ........................................................ 45
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY............................................................................................................................ 52
SWOT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................. 56
INTEGRATION OF E-REPORTING AND E-MONITORING INFORMATION ................................................................ 59
E-REPORTING AND E-MONITORING SOLUTIONS TO CMM REPORTING OBLIGATIONS ........................................ 60
DISCUSSION ON COSTS AND BENEFITS .............................................................................................................. 61
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES ..................................................................................................................................... 64
8. References ............................................................................................................... 67
Appendix 1 – Terms of Reference .................................................................................. 68
OBJECTIVE 1: DEVELOP A COMMON UNDERSTANDING AND LANGUAGE OF WHAT E-REPORTING AND E-
MONITORING WILL MEAN IN THE WCPFC TUNA FISHERIES............................................................................... 68
OBJECTIVE 2: DOCUMENT AND EVALUATE CURRENT AND FUTURE E-REPORTING TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE
POTENTIALLY SUITABLE FOR COLLECTING INFORMATION IN THE WCPFC TUNA FISHERIES, AND RECOMMEND
THE BEST POTENTIAL OPTIONS FOR WCPFC TUNA FISHERIES............................................................................ 68
OBJECTIVE 3: DOCUMENT AND EVALUATE CURRENT AND FUTURE E-MONITORING TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE
POTENTIALLY SUITABLE FOR WCPFC TUNA FISHERIES. .................................................................................... 69
OBJECTIVE 4: PROPOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MOST PRACTICAL AND EFFICIENT FRAMEWORK OF E-
REPORTING AND E-MONITORING IN THE WCPFC FISHERIES TO GUIDE DISCUSSIONS OF A DEDICATED SMALL
WORKING GROUP. .............................................................................................................................................. 69
Appendix 2 – Global E-Reporting products ................................................................... 71
Appendix 3 - Summary of E-Reporting Product Specifications ..................................... 86
Appendix 4 – Global E-Monitoring products ................................................................. 89
Appendix 5 – Data serialisation formats ........................................................................ 99
Appendix 6 – Potential of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring to support CMM reporting103
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey x 2013
Appendix 7 – Acronyms ............................................................................................... 117
Appendix 8 – Acknowledgments .................................................................................. 119
Appendix 9 - FFA Approved MTU List 2013 ............................................................... 127
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey xi 2013
List of Tables
Table 1. Some examples of CMM assessment process. .......................................................... 29
Table 2. A summary check list of preparation activities required prior to implementation of
E-Reporting. ............................................................................................................................. 35
Table 3. A summary check list relating to areas of activity for E-M program development and
implementation. ........................................................................................................................ 51
Table 4. Range of serialisation formats used for data storage and transmission (from
Wikipedia Comparison of data serialization formats (Accessed 08/10/13). ............................ 99
Table 5. Examples of CSV field headings and line records with each field separated by
commas. .................................................................................................................................. 100
Table 6. Examples of XML field specification and syntax with actual “information”
highlighted in bold black. ....................................................................................................... 101
Table 7. Examples of NAF field-codes, data-elements, syntax, contents and examples. ..... 102
Table 8. Potential of E-Monitoring and E-Reporting to support CMM reporting – Current
Resolutions (Non-binding) ..................................................................................................... 104
Table 9. Potential of E-Monitoring and E-Reporting to support CMM reporting – Current
CMMs (Binding) .................................................................................................................... 105
Table 10. Potential of E-Monitoring and E-Reporting to support CMM reporting - Replaced
and expired resolutions ........................................................................................................... 113
Table 11. Potential of E-Monitoring and E-Reporting to support CMM reporting - Replaced
CMMs ..................................................................................................................................... 114
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey xii 2013
List of Figures
Figure 1. General schematic of data pathways and processing for current paper-based
logsheets – Model 1. .................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2. General schematic of data pathways and processing for current paper-based
logsheets – Model 2. .................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 3. General schematic of data pathway and processing for current paper-based end-of-
trip observer report. .................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4. Tasks undertaken by observers and the potential for E-Monitoring to undertake that
task based on current technology. ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of the preparation and three phases of introduction of E-
Reporting projects, their timing and implementation periods. ................................................. 36
Figure 6. General schematic of data pathways and processing for end-of-trip E-R observer
report for FFA/SPC members. ................................................................................................. 38
Figure 7. General schematic of data pathways and processing for end-of-trip E-R observer
report for non-FFA/non-SPC members.................................................................................... 38
Figure 8. General schematic of data pathways and processing for real time E-R logsheet
reports....................................................................................................................................... 41
Figure 9. General schematic of data pathways and processing for real time E-R observer
reports....................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 10. General schematic of data pathways and processing for real time and end of trip E-
R CMM reports from vessel to fisheries agency...................................................................... 44
Figure 11. Organisational elements for the proposed implementation strategy. .................... 54
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey xiii 2013
List of Recommendations
Recommendation 1: To facilitate implementation of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring, to the
fullest extent possible, use current data requirements and reporting timeframes at this time. . 31
Recommendation 2: Agree on the information for which E-Reporting will be applied and
fully specify the data formats and protocols for electronic entry, storage and transmission. .. 32
Recommendation 3: Evaluate the use of XML as the standard serialisation format for all E-
Reporting not requiring satellite transmission. ......................................................................... 33
Recommendation 4: Evaluate the most appropriate serialisation format (CSV, NAF or others)
for all E-Reporting and E-Monitoring requiring satellite transmission. ................................... 34
Recommendation 5: Acknowledging that some countries have already instigated E-Reporting
trials, preparation work involving development of data standards and certification should be
undertaken as a priority to enable coordinated cross-jurisdictional implementation of any E-
Reporting process. .................................................................................................................... 36
Recommendation 6: Establish an E-Reporting logsheet data pathway in which the primary
data transfer goes from the vessel in parallel to the fishing company, fisheries agency and
SPC (e.g. as the central regional data collection point and on behalf of the WCPFC). A
secondary transfer of final edited data together with the change audit will be shared between
each of these agencies............................................................................................................... 39
Recommendation 7: To facilitate buy-in by CCMs and industry, the initial implementation of
E-Reporting logsheets should focus on end-of-trip reporting. Technical and practical factors
determine that uptake of E-Reporting logsheets will be more feasible in the short term for
vessels in the purse seine fleet, and a longer process will be required for the longline fleet. .. 39
Recommendation 8: Minimum real time E-Reporting logsheet fields should include: vessel
code, date, time and position together with species code and weight for Skipjack Tuna, and
species code, weight and grade (large/small) for Yellowfin Tuna and Bigeye Tuna. Fields
identified in the CMMs as critical for real time availability for management of the fishery
should also be provided. ........................................................................................................... 40
Recommendation 9: The introduction of real time E-Reporting logsheet reporting should only
be considered as a second phase of E-Reporting to begin once end of trip E-Reporting
logsheet reporting is well established. ...................................................................................... 40
Recommendation 10: End of trip E-R observer reporting should be introduced alongside E-
Reporting logsheets during the introduction of the first phase of E-Reporting........................ 42
Recommendation 11: In addition to any OH&S requirements, minimum real time E-Reporting
observer fields should include: vessel code, date, time and position together with species code
and weight for Skipjack Tuna, and species code, weight and grade (large/small) for Yellowfin
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey xiv 2013
Tuna and Bigeye Tuna. Fields identified in the CMMs as critical for real time availability for
management of the fishery should also be provided. ............................................................... 42
Recommendation 12: If capacity to implement real time E-Reporting logsheet reporting is
delayed or impractical, then there should be additional focus on the implementation of real
time E-Reporting observer reporting. ...................................................................................... 43
Recommendation 13: The initial implementation of E-Reporting of CMM obligations should
focus on transmissions between the vessel and the fisheries agency. ...................................... 43
Recommendation 14: Implementation of E-Reporting of CMMs between the fisheries agency
and the Commission should be considered only when a large proportion of the fleet is
undertaking E-Reporting of CMMs to the fisheries agency. .................................................. 44
Recommendation 15: It is recommended that the development and approval process for
standards, specifications, type approvals; the certification process for hardware and software;
and maintenance of standards; should be led by the Commission Secretariat with the
participation of representatives with technical expertise from regional organisations, flag
States, and coastal States. ......................................................................................................... 48
Recommendation 16: Certification to standards should be administered by an independent
third party. ................................................................................................................................ 48
Recommendation 17: It is recommended that the development and maintenance of high level
policies and procedures be led by the Commission Secretariat. .............................................. 48
Recommendation 18: It is recommended the focus of E-M administration be through existing
sub-regional observer programs, and national fishery agencies. ............................................. 48
Recommendation 19: It is recommended that hardware and software be purchased, installed,
and maintained by vessel owners. ............................................................................................ 49
Recommendation 20: It is recommended that procedures be developed to facilitate all four
options for data retrieval, based upon a risk assessment of the circumstances of each type and
variation of data retrieval. ........................................................................................................ 49
Recommendation 21: It is recommended that national fishery agencies, and regional observer
programs be responsible for analysis of video and sensor data. .............................................. 50
Recommendation 22: It is recommended these matters be referred to the EWG tasked with
progressing E-M for resolution. ............................................................................................... 50
Recommendation 23: EWGs be established for both E-Reporting and E-Monitoring, with the
delegation and resources to call on technical advisers and industry expertise, operating under
a strict policy of declaring potential conflicts of interest. SPC should be involved in some
capacity in the E-Reporting Working Group and FFA should be involved in the E-Monitoring
Working Group. ....................................................................................................................... 52
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey xv 2013
Recommendation 24: The EWGs comprise a maximum of eight country members with
nominations for members with relevant technical skills to be provided to the Commission
Secretariat by 31 January 2014. ................................................................................................ 53
Recommendation 25: The Commission Chair in consultation with the Secretariat appoints
independent IWG chairs. .......................................................................................................... 53
Recommendation 26: The Secretariat establishes an Internal Governance Committee (IGC)
chaired by the Compliance Manager, and with three members. .............................................. 53
Recommendation 27: Project managers should be procured either through engagement of
suitably experienced contractors known to the Secretariat, or as a potential secondment from a
CCM agency, or as a secondment from FFA or SPC. .............................................................. 55
Recommendation 28: The Commission Secretariat should facilitate E-M demonstration trials
and develop a broad communication strategy. ......................................................................... 55
Recommendation 29: The Commission Secretariat should develop IWG terms of reference
based on relevant decisions of the Commission concerning this report, and including the
program of meetings. ................................................................................................................ 55
Recommendation 30: Planning workshops involving full CCM participation should be held
immediately in advance of an initial joint meeting of IWGs. .................................................. 56
Recommendation 31: A detailed study of costs and benefits, as well as the potential impacts
on regional employment would be useful projects should resources permit. ........................... 64
Recommendation 32: The development of model fisheries legislation, with a focus on
supporting Pacific Island Countries, be developed by the Commission Secretariat. ............... 66
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 1 2013
1. Introduction
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC/the Commission) was
established under the Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (the Convention). The
Convention draws on many of the provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA),
whilst reflecting the special political, socio-economic, geographical and environmental
characteristics of the region.
The Convention seeks to address problems in the management of high seas fisheries in its
area of competence resulting from unregulated fishing, over-capitalization, excessive fleet
capacity, vessel re-flagging to escape controls, insufficiently selective fishing gear, unreliable
databases, and insufficient multilateral cooperation in respect to conservation and
management of highly migratory fish stocks.
The Commission’s members are Australia, China, Canada, Cook Islands, European Union,
Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, Japan, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Republic of
Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa,
Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America, and Vanuatu. The
Commission supports three subsidiary bodies that each meets annually: the Scientific
Committee; Technical and Compliance Committee; and the Northern Committee.
The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) is the Pacific Island region's principal
technical and scientific organization, delivering technical, scientific, research, policy and
training support to its 22 Pacific Island country and territory members. The Oceanic
Fisheries Programme (OFP) is part of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems
Division of SPC, and is the Pacific Community’s regional centre for tuna fisheries research,
fishery monitoring, stock assessment and data management. The WCPFC is responsible for
the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and
Central Pacific Ocean.
The Pacific Islands Forum Fishery Agency (FFA) has a key role in strengthening national
capacity and regional solidarity to support its 17 members to manage, control and develop
their tuna fisheries. The FFA plays a lead role in E-Monitoring through its administration of
the largest VMS program in the region, covering about 1500 vessels operating over some 30
million square miles
Globally, a great deal of effort is going into the development of E-Reporting and E-
Monitoring systems. This is recognised by the Commission, the SPC, and the FFA, and in
particular, that the use of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring technology can improve knowledge,
efficiency, quality, timeliness, with long-term positive cost benefits. These benefits have
seen E-Reporting and E-Monitoring become increasingly popular and in demand from fishing
companies, and fisheries management organisations. Given this, the Commission
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 2 2013
membership has a common interest in investigating the potential for E-Reporting and E-
Monitoring in the region’s tuna fisheries.
The consultants engaged to undertake this project are Dr Ian Knuckey and Mr Steve Dunn.
Dr Knuckey is a fisheries scientist with extensive experience in research and stock
assessment. He has been involved in the development, trial and successful implementation
of E-Reporting systems. Mr Steve Dunn is a former senior public servant in Australian state
fishery and maritime agencies, and a former Deputy Director General of the FFA. In his
current role as an independent consultant he is involved in the implementation of E-
Monitoring for the Australian tuna longline fleet.
2. Project Objectives
Objective 1: Develop a common understanding and language of what E-Reporting and E-
Monitoring will mean in the WCPFC tuna fisheries.
Objective 2: Document and evaluate current and future E-Reporting technologies that are
potentially suitable for collecting information in the WCPFC tuna fisheries, and recommend
the best potential options for WCPFC tuna fisheries.
Objective 3: Document and evaluate current and future E-Monitoring technologies that are
potentially suitable for WCPFC tuna fisheries.
Objective 4: Propose recommendations for the most practical and efficient framework of E-
Reporting and E-Monitoring in the WCPFC Fisheries to guide discussions of a dedicated small
working group.
3. Definition of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
For the purposes of this report the following definitions have been developed:
E-Reporting
Electronic reporting is the combination of hardware and software for recording and
transmission of fisheries data. Although there may be some aspects of E-Reporting that are
automatically recorded (e.g. position, date and time from GPS), it is generally considered an
“open system” that can accept various manual inputs from skippers, observers, port
measurers etc. Examples of where E-Reporting has been introduced globally include catch
and effort logbooks (catch, species composition, fishing effort, bycatch, discards, area of
operations, etc), on-board data collection by scientific observers of target, non-target
species, biological and length frequency measurements of the catch, and survey reports. All
this information needs to be collected in a formal manner and meet the management and
scientific needs of the fishery.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 3 2013
• E-Reporting is generally considered to be “open system” because manual inputs are
required and accepted, for example from skippers and observers
• Examples of E-Reporting include catch logsheets, observer reports, transhipment
reports, and port sampling records
• E-Reporting provides the opportunity to store data for download at the end of a trip, as
well as for real time reporting of critical information through satellite transmission or
mobile networks
E-Monitoring
E-Monitoring is a combination of hardware and software that collects and transmits fisheries
information in an automated manner that is closed to external or manual input. Because it
is an automated operation confined within a “closed system’, E-Monitoring data is a
significant tool for compliance purposes. Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) are a well known
example of an E-Monitoring system: time and position data is collected automatically via
GPS into tamper-evident hardware on the boat that securely transmits this information
automatically to the relevant agency. There is generally no manual data input or external
data manipulation throughout an E-Monitoring process. The use of video, electronic and
hydraulic sensors, vessel Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), and satellite tracking of fish
aggregating devices (FADS) are other examples of E-Monitoring. Within this definition the
term Asset Tracking System (ATS) is being used to describe a grouping of E-Monitoring
services including FAD tracking, vessel monitoring, observations of fleet support vessels, and
tracking of human observers.
• E-Monitoring is generally considered to be “closed system” because it does not accept
external or manual input
• A commonly used example of E-Monitoring is a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), where
GPS position and time data are collected automatically, and securely transmitted at
prescribed intervals to relevant agencies
• There is generally no manual data input or external data manipulation throughout an E-
Monitoring process
4. Current Situation
Data collection – paper-based
Nearly all WCPO fisheries information is entered manually into a range of paper logbooks
and reporting forms. The range of forms is documented in SPC (2011) and can be broadly
categorised as: Catch and Effort; Observer; Unloading and port sampling; Artisanal; and
Other (e.g. game fishing, fishing trip, port visit, FAD, MCS).
Logsheets
Catch and effort logsheets are initially filled out by the skipper or another ship’s officer.
Most companies like to receive at least daily reports of the catch obtained by their vessels.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 4 2013
To achieve this, one of the ship’s officers will use a range of media to transfer this
information, depending on the vessel capabilities and position relative to transmission
networks. The simplest and cheapest method of transfer is through the use of VHF or HF
radio. Obviously, this is unsecure and can be intercepted by other vessels in the region.
Another method is to use the ships fax to transfer catch information to the company office.
The most sophisticated method of daily catch transfer observed during this project was
where a ships officer entered all of the set by set catch and effort data into the approved
SPC Excel spreadsheet, and then emailed this spreadsheet to the company office.
Once the paper logsheets are filled out for each set, they are retained on board until the end
of the trip. Depending on the requirements of the vessel’s owner, the paper logbooks may
then be sent directly to the coastal state’s fishery management agency, or more often, are
sent back to the company so that they can be checked by company officials before being
sent to the fishery management agency. There were numerous reports that this second
pathway for the paper logbooks can involve significant delays (often months and up to more
than a year) in the logsheets reaching the coastal state’s fishery management agency.
Data is keypunched once the paper logsheets arrive at the fishery management agency,
often after the company has also been keypunched them. Depending on the resources
available at the agency, they may be stored for several months. Depending on the coastal
state, the logsheets data may be keypunched into an in-house database, or into the
country's TUFMAN database. A scanned copy of the logsheets is sent to SPC. If the
country’s TUFMAN database has been audited, then the digital data is directly loaded into
SPC’s TUFMAN database. Otherwise, the data are double keypunched into the SPC’s
TUFMAN database. Thus, depending on the transfer and entry process, keypunching of the
same data may occur up to 4 times.
A general schematic showing two models of the current paper-based logsheet data
pathways and processing is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 5 2013
Legend: paper transmission; digital transmission; satellite transmission; keypunching, database
Primary transfer; Secondary transfer
Figure 1. General schematic of data pathways and processing for current paper-based logsheets –
Model 1.
Legend: paper transmission; digital transmission; satellite transmission; keypunching, database
Primary transfer; Secondary transfer
Figure 2. General schematic of data pathways and processing for current paper-based logsheets –
Model 2.
End of trip
Coastal State
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 6 2013
Observers
Observer programs are administered by most coastal states for fishing in their national
waters, the FFA for vessels operating under the US Treaty, and the PNA Office for vessels
operating under the FSM Arrangement. There are more than twenty observer programs
operating in the Commission’s area of competence. Key challenges are therefore
consistency of data standards and operating procedures. To address these challenges a Data
Collection Committee meets biennially, and an Observers Coordinators Workshop is
convened annually.
Currently, it is a requirement that all purse seine vessels carry an observer 100% of the time
they are within the Commission’s area of competence. For other fisheries, coverage is
patchy and inadequate to meet the Commission’s agreed levels of coverage.
Observers enter all of their data into an observer workbook. Different workbooks are
required, depending on the fishing method being observed. The example used here is
required for an observer on a purse seine vessel. Observers are required to carry one
observer workbook for every 30 days at sea as well as sufficient catch monitoring forms (PS -
4) for the entire trip. They are also required to carry a book containing line pages to be used
as their diary during the trip. They are required to fill out numerous forms, whilst
conducting their work at sea:
• The PS – 1 form is to record information on the trip details, vessel characteristics,
fishing gear comment vessel electronics, well contents, and crew details
• The PS – 2 form is a daily log on which information is recorded about the position of
the vessel, the EEZ in which its operating, the activity code, and any association of a
set with FADS
• The PS – 3 form is to record information at the set level, including the set sequence
times, retained and discarded catch of target species and other species, the fate of
the catch and whether any tags were recovered. If tags were recovered or there
were interactions with marine mammals or turtles, then a further set of forms is
required to be filled out
• The PS – 4 form is used to record the sampling method and length frequencies for
the catch of different species
• The PS – 5 form is a vessel logsheet and well loading reconciliation form which allows
scientists to match vessel logsheets data to observer data and to improve the port
sampling strategy
The forms above are specific to purse seine vessels, but a number of generic forms are also
filled out by the observers:
• The GEN – 1 form is used to record vessel and aircraft sightings, bunkering, fish
dumping and fish transfers
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 7 2013
• The GEN – 2 form records information on catches or interactions with species of
special interest such as marine mammals, turtles or birds
• The GEN – 3 form must be completed at the end of every trip and is a record of
whether the master or crew of the vessel violated any fishing regulations or hindered
the work of the observer
• The GE – 6 form is a record of a pollution incident
In addition to all of the above, the observer is required to fill out a comprehensive trip report
that includes a written summary of all of the above.
Once observers return from a trip, which can be up to 120 days duration, they undergo one
or more debriefing sessions with trained debriefers. The debriefing session covers a range of
issues and includes checking the data sheets for missing fields, incomplete reports, possible
incorrect data entries, overall data quality, and any issues that occurred on the vessel.
When debriefing is completed the observer workbook and all additional data forms are sent
to the coastal state fisheries management agency for key punching. Similar to the logsheets,
depending on the resources available at the agency, the hard copies of the observer data
may be stored for many months prior to keypunching. Again, scans of the hard copies of
every datasheet are sent to the SPC.
A general schematic showing a model of the current paper-based end-of-trip observer report
pathway and processing is shown in Figure 3.
Legend: paper transmission; digital transmission; satellite transmission; keypunching, database
Primary transfer; Secondary transfer
Figure 3. General schematic of data pathway and processing for current paper-based end-of-trip
observer report.
Coastal State / Flag State / FFA / PNA / WCPFC
End of trip
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 8 2013
Unloading and port sampling
Port samplers record information on unloadings, during which vessels transfer their catch to
carrier vessels, air transport, canneries, or other receivers, as well as recording information
on the size frequency of the catch unloaded.
Unloading data provides an independent estimate of the trip catch, which can be used to
verify logsheets and catch totals for vessels that do not submit logsheets. They also provide
more accurate weights associated with the longline fresh sashimi-target longline fishery
(WCPFC-SC4-2008/ST IP-4). Over time, unloading data can provide useful estimates of the
total catch by the fleet. The unloading form includes general information about the port and
the date, information on the vessel, the number and weight of fish landed and whether that
fish is being transhipped for export or retained locally. Unloading data must be identified to
the “vessel trip” to ensure useful comparisons to other types of data (e.g. logsheets and
observer data).
Length frequency information obtained on the main target species is a crucial input for stock
assessments. It is important that the port sampler collects random samples and the method
of sampling varies depending on the vessel type being unloaded. For sampling the length
frequency of the catch from purse seiners, the aim is to identify wells which contain fish that
were caught with the same school association, caught in the same month, and caught in the
same area, and then to randomly sample five fish from every net that is unloaded from the
well. Information collected on the port sampling form consists of general data on the port
and date, set details (obtained from the vessel’s logbooks) and species length data.
CMM Reporting
Apart from the logsheets, there are numerous other forms and reports that need to be
submitted by vessel operators as part of complying with the Commission’s many CMMs in
the fishery or with specific coastal state fishery management agency requirements. Among
these are transhipment reports, bunkering activity reports, non-fishing day (NFD) reports
under the PNA purse seine vessel day scheme (VDS), refuelling reports, species of interest
interaction reports, and zone entry and exit reports. There are specified fields required in
each of these reports but the method of recording and transmission is varied. Depending on
the requirements of the coastal state and the capabilities of the vessel, the content of these
forms may be radioed, faxed or emailed from the vessel to the coastal state management
agency where it is recorded.
Data Collection – electronic
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS)
The only well-established form of electronic data collection in the WCPO tuna fisheries is the
Vessel Monitoring System (VMS). This is a satellite-based E-Monitoring system that
monitors the position, speed and direction of registered fishing vessels. The Commission
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 9 2013
Secretariat maintains a list of approved devices based on the VMS Standards Specifications
and Procedures.
There are two VMS operating in the fishery, the Commission VMS and the FFA VMS. Whilst
these are separate systems, they use the same background system. The system that
provides VMS information to the FFA VMS and the Commission VMS systems is referred to
as the Pacific VMS. As stated in TCC-03 (2012), the purpose of the Commission VMS is to
“cost-effectively monitor the activities of fishing vessels authorized by flag States to fish for
highly migratory fish species in the Convention Area in areas beyond jurisdiction of the Flag
State” i.e. the high seas. The FFA VMS allows FFA members to track and monitor fishing
activities in their own EEZs. The Commission VMS came into operation during 2009 and is
provided by FFA under a Service Level Agreement (SLA). The Commission has approximately
1,500 registered vessels that report to the Commission VMS through the Pacific VMS. In
addition the Commission VMS receives, through the SLA with FFA, high seas VMS
information relating to FFA-registered vessels. Both the FFA and the Commission Secretariat
maintain lists of type approved VMS MTUs. The FFA list is attached at Appendix 9.
To ensure compatibility between national and high seas vessel monitoring systems,
members that have existing national VMS programs may choose to have the Commission
provide the in-zone VMS data for vessels reporting to the Commission VMS who enter
waters under their national jurisdiction directly to their national VMS (WCPFC9-TCC04-
2013). The combination of the two VMS systems helps to achieve compliance with
Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs), provide information for fisheries
scientific analysis and enable sound fisheries management decision-making in the
Convention Area.
There is 100% VMS coverage in the Commission area of competence. Every vessel either
fishing for tunas or involved in fishing for tunas, is captured by someone’s VMS:
• The Commission VMS monitors all fishing and carrier vessels when fishing or transiting
international waters, but not in national waters. Some members have included their
national waters as part of the Commission VMS including Australia, FSM, New Caledonia,
New Zealand, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, Nauru, USA, and Tokelau
• The FFA VMS monitors all fishing and carrier vessels registered with FFA and fishing or
transiting the national waters of members
• The FFA VMS enables its members to monitor vessels in high seas areas if the vessel
holds a licence from the coastal state
• Other coastal state Commission members generally monitor their fleets when fishing,
transhipping or transiting their national waters, as well as in international waters
• The Commission VMS gives coastal states the option to monitor vessels operating in the
high seas, up to 100 nautical miles beyond its EEZ
• Many companies monitor their vessels in all waters
VMS helps achieve compliance with CMMs, provide information for fisheries scientific
analysis and supports fisheries management decision-making in the Convention area.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 10 2013
In the event of a malfunction or failure of a vessel’s VMS, a vessel is required to submit
manual position reporting.
Other E-Reporting and E-Monitoring projects
In addition to the established VMS System, there have been only a few instances where
electronic capture and reporting of data have been introduced and are operational, but
there are several trials of electronic data capture and transmission occurring in different
CCMs. Within the Commission area of competence, the following E-Reporting and E-
Monitoring projects have been identified by this project:
• AIS – FFA is investigating the value of AIS information to augment VMS information
and registration information to support compliance activities
• FIMS – Papua New Guinea (PNG) National Fisheries Authority (NFA) has implemented
E-Reporting of port sampling using customised tablet interface. Trials of electronic
observer reports are ongoing
• PNA FIMS – The Parties to the Nauru Agreement allow vessels fishing in the purse
seine vessel day scheme (VDS) the option of submitting E-reports claims for non-
fishing days through a web-based portal
• A subset of observers are trialling the use of DeLorme inReach handheld satellite
communicators for daily real time transmissions, focussed largely on safety at sea
issues, but moving towards event reporting
• eTunalog – SPC is conducting trials of PDF logsheet data entry by both vessel
skippers, and observers
• There have been several trials using video cameras and equipment sensors to record
fishing activity in the Commission area, but it currently appears to be mandatory in
only one fishery (the Australian Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery) where it is currently
being implemented
• This project has identified a significant number of larger purse seine fishing vessels
already using video monitoring equipment for their own reasons – to monitor fishing
and other vessel operations, safety, and crew activities
• The Philippines purse seine fleet is using the CLS Argos Marlin e-log for high seas
activity reporting
Vessel Automatic Identification Systems (AIS)
AIS relies on radio signals to provide ship details and position, both from ship to ship, and
ship to shore. Vessel AIS is typically visible at distances of around 30 miles, but is also visible
to satellites resulting in global monitoring coverage with no transmission cost. Carriage of
AIS is an International Maritime Organisation (IMO) requirement on all ships of 300 gross
tonnes and upwards engaged on international voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross tonnes and
upwards not engaged on international voyages, and all passenger ships irrespective of size.
Some ports require other vessels operating within port limits to also carry AIS. Ships fitted
with AIS are generally required to maintain AIS in operation at all times.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 11 2013
AIS:
• Provides information — including the ship's identity, type, position, course, speed,
navigational status and other safety-related information — automatically to
appropriately equipped shore stations, other ships and aircraft
• Exchanges data with shore-based facilities
This means every bunker, carrier, purse seine, and long line vessel greater than around
50 metres, is required by international regulation to have AIS and can be tracked
continuously through its AIS signal.
The FFA has done some preliminary work in this area looking at the potential value of AIS to
augment VMS and registration information for compliance purposes.
E-form for VDS non-fishing days
Under the VDS, purse seine vessel owners can purchase and trade fishing days in EEZs
subject to the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA – Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati,
Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau).
Designed to constrain and reduce catches of target tuna species and increase returns from
access fees paid by Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFNs), the VDS sets an annual total
allocation of fishing days that are apportioned between PNA members for one-year periods
up to three years in advance.
Beyond of its use by the NFA, the rollout of access to iFIMS by 200 of the 270 purse seine
vessels has occurred on the back of the need for vessels to regularly transmit VDS non-
fishing days while operating in PNA waters, so they can readily fish their full allocation of
days. Vessels and companies can access iFIMS through a web-based portal to submit VDS
non-fishing day (NFD) information as well as view their own VMS and FAD tracking data.
Once a NFD E-form is submitted to a PNA country, it is reviewed, either accepted or rejected,
and notification of such is posted on the database.
Tablet-based port sampling
The other example of a fully implemented electronic data collection and transmission
system is that used by the PNG NFA port measurers. This system consists of an Android
application developed for Samsung tablets specifically for the collection of port sampling
data. All of the fields usually filled out for SPC data have been customised for entry on a
touch-screen tablet. A range of drop-down menus is used on the tablet software to ensure
data input consistency, and there is range-checking validation of data inputs to reduce
spurious data. After entry, the information remains on the tablet until it is in range of
mobile network system, at which time it is downloaded to the NFA FIMS database. The data
is verified and checked prior to being uploaded into the database.
eTUNALOG
eTUNALOG is an application initially developed for the WCPFC purse seine fishery to be used
by vessels to satisfy the logsheet reporting requirements at the national level and sub-
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 12 2013
regional level. The software can be installed on the vessel’s computer, and uses a smart PDF
logsheet into which a skipper can enter catch and effort data directly.
Once data is entered, the vessel can send the PDF logsheet for the trip as an email
attachment to either the fishing company or the coastal state’s fisheries management
agency. It is also possible to send the logsheets on either a daily or weekly basis before the
trip is completed. The data that are entered into the PDF logsheets are converted to XML
format for transmission. In this format, it is readily loaded into the TUFMAN database. In
addition to reports sent to the fisheries management agencies, there are plans for an in-built
reporting system that will allow the vessel and the fishing company to produce custom-
made reports to suit their business requirements. An important characteristic of the PDF
logsheets is that it has been designed to look almost identical to the paper logsheets.
Data can be sent either as a 4kB XML attachment to an email (to multiple recipients), or in
PDF format. At this stage only SPC can read the data, although a program is being developed
to enable companies to read the XML directly and upload them into their own databases. A
range of data checking and validation checks are conducted at the data entry point.
TUFMAN has a function to import and load eTUNALOG data, and an audit function in
TUFMAN is conducted when data are imported.
Initial trials were held in the Solomon Islands with Trimarine, and it is now being trialled on
three vessels operating from Pohnpei (Caroline Fishing Company). It is also installed on one
Japanese vessel and immediate plans for trials with one Korean company vessel (Dong Won),
and RMI flagged vessels. During these trials, skippers could generally operate the system
with a minimum of 2 hours of training. The log is currently only available in English but
translation to other languages is envisaged.
There is ongoing development of the smart PDF logsheets. Future versions will include PDF
digital signatures and fishing company stamps, if required. A function to collect and
populate the form with GPS data automatically is not currently enabled, and although
possible, as yet there is no automatic PDF field population (e.g. time and position) that
would minimise data input errors or aid in data entry.
Company E-Reporting
A number of commercial fishing vessels have their own system of electronic data recording
and transmission back to the company office. This can take various forms, but the most
advanced we observed was where the skipper, or ship’s officer inputs set by set information
into the SPC designed Excel spreadsheets. It would appear that this information remains in
Excel format as separate files at company headquarters rather than being imported into a
database. It was pointed out that even though companies received such information
electronically, the lack of a formal database into which the data could be transferred meant
they could not easily query or write reports based on the information.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 13 2013
Video monitoring
A number of purse seine vessels have video monitoring installed for use mainly with
workplace safety and efficiency issues in mind. These units generally have a hard drive on
which video information from all cameras is recorded and then overwritten on a cyclical
basis. These cameras may be installed on the forward and aft working decks, the engine
room, companion ways and other areas of the vessel when there is concentrated work by
the crew. The control of the system occurs in the bridge and some cameras have tilt-pan-
zoom capacity, controlled from the bridge.
Observer safety
Observers work in an inherently dangerous workplace with a moving and unpredictable
work platform, wet conditions, and in the vicinity of heavy equipment. Observers are
continually placed on new vessels, each of which are different and present unique risks, and
they are expected to play a crucial compliance role. This can place them in difficult and often
uncomfortable situations with respect to the skipper and crew if a compliance breach
occurs. Quick and reliable methods of communication between the observer and employer
is highly desirable to help manage emergencies, and to maintain contact with peers and
managers.
The FFA, NFA and FSM observer programs are currently trialling the use of the DeLorme
inReach satellite communication device. The device offers global SOS capability and real-
time tracking. The screen edition has a virtual keyboard for sending and receiving text
messages, and pairs wirelessly with iPhone, iPad, and Android devices to access other
information such as maps and charts.
Data storage and management
There are a range of databases across the various countries involved in WCPO tuna fisheries.
A critical aspect of the introduction and/or expansion of an electronic reporting system is the
capacity of the databases to accept the electronic data streams that are being sent to them.
The point at which the data are received is also another stage at which error checking and
further verification of data can occur before being accepted into the database.
Tuna Fisheries Database Management System (TUFMAN)
The Tuna Fisheries Database Management System (TUFMAN) was developed by SPC for
Pacific Islands Countries and Territories to allow them to manage the range of tuna data
(licensing, port sampling, logsheets, unloadings, observer trips, packing lists, vessel activity
reports, vessel position reports, VMS) and fishing gear (longline, purse seine, pole-and-line,
artisanal) associated with WCPO tuna fisheries.
TUFMAN has evolved and developed over many years from a simple data storage tool to a
comprehensive system that provides for data entry, data management, data quality control,
administration, and reporting. TUFMAN is network-based and can support any number of
concurrent users. Since 2010, the TUFMAN data has been stored in SQL Server 2008 R2 but
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 14 2013
the front-end interface has been developed in Microsoft Access 2007. This allows the
system to be highly customizable to the differing needs of individual Pacific Island countries.
Special reports have been provided that cater for the countries’ flag state reporting
obligations to the Commission, and produce specific tables and figures defined in the
Commission’s reporting template. Most of the reports can be exported directly to Microsoft
Excel, while the Commission reports, which contain some charts, are exclusively generated
in Excel. TUFMAN is used in all but one of the FFA member countries’ Fisheries
Departments. In some countries, customised versions of TUFMAN are the main fisheries
data management system. Some countries have other systems in addition to TUFMAN.
The system’s data quality tools can perform reconciliation of the different types of data in
the system and can be used to improve the estimates of catch and effort statistics, highlight
under-reporting and missing information, assist with calculation of coverage of data, vessel
position conflicts, etc.
The system has a mapping component than can produce catch and effort maps as well as
tracks of logsheet, position reports, and VMS data. If MapInfo is available to the user,
TUFMAN can generate MapInfo compatible files, and then launch the MapInfo application
and generated map.
TUFMAN now supports the import of the digital logbook XML data exported from the
eTUNALOG application. In the near future TUFMAN will provide more general support in
using XML for importing and exporting data and reports, and will provide extra mapping
functions based on Google Earth. It is also expected the MapInfo-based mapping will be
replaced with an Open-Source mapping tool in the coming years.
Catch and Effort Query System
The Catch and Effort Query System (CES) is a menu-driven system that interfaces with
TUFMAN to allow member countries to extract summaries of operational logsheet data,
aggregate public-domain catch and effort data, and annual catch estimates.
The CES system also has a comprehensive mapping sub-system (based on MapInfo engine)
which allows users to produce maps of catch, effort and catch per unit effort (CPUE) using
numerous parameter categories. CES is commonly used to produce tables, graphs and maps
for member-country National Fisheries Reports.
eTUBS
eTUBS is a web-based OBSERVER database management system developed by SPC to enter
purse seine and longline observer data collected on the standard observer forms. Previous
desk-top versions of this system have been used at SPC for more than 15 years. The web-
based version is installed and operational in the Commission offices, FFA offices, as well as
the offices of PNG NFA and Solomon Islands Fisheries on a trial basis.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 15 2013
Originally developed on Microsoft Access, eTUBS now runs under Google Chrome even when
offline. Observers can enter data into eTUBS while at sea and it can then be downloaded
into regional databases such as TUFMAN. The system dashboard provides all vessel detail
and 80% of the reports the observer would normally enter on paper database. Observers
can also write diary and trip report directly into eTUBS. Unlike the eTUNALOG, the entry
screen of eTUBS is not intended to match the paper form and has been completely
redesigned to facilitate easier and more intuitive screen entry of data. To assist in data
entry, eTUBS comes with help tabs, drop down boxes for most of the fields, range checking
and error messages. Currently, all position information is entered manually but the
potential to upload GPS data from DeLorme to populate position and time fields is being
considered.
At this stage, there are three NORMA (FSM) and two MIMRA (Marshall Islands) observers
that are trained in the use of eTUBS, and placed on vessels. Training involves about three
days per observer. The software is to be amended based on feedback on the trial by the
observers. Until the trial is completed, observers are still required to complete their paper
books alongside the eTUBS reporting. As part of the data security process, observers are
required to conduct manual daily backups of all eTUBS data using a Windows backup, and a
copy is transferred to a separate USB key. It is envisaged that the eTUBS data will be
downloaded by USB key at the end of the trip, but depending on how large the data file is, it
could be sent by email when the observer is out at sea.
ORSE
The Observer Trip Viewer System and the Observer Database Query System (ORSE) allow
member countries to view processed observer data and extract summaries of observer data
in tabular, graphical or mapping formats via a comprehensive reporting menu. Summary
reports can be produced at the observer trip level or by querying their entire member-
country observer database.
Regional Information Management Facility (RIMF)
The Regional Information Management Framework (RIMF) is a cloud-based information
management system coordinated and run by FFA. It is used to varying extents by FFA
member countries. The RIMF is an integration of systems and databases to support national
and regional MCS functions, activities and initiatives. Its aim is to strengthen and improve
national MCS capacities and maximise the availability, timeliness, quality and usability of
secure MCS data and information. The ‘core database’ of RIMF includes the following data:
vessels; licences; VMS; compliance history and Compliance Index (CI); masters;
owners/operators; and standard reference data. Some of the core MCS functions include:
• Find and uniquely identify a vessel in the database
• Based on a location, determine if a specific vessel is authorised to fish
• Review the compliance history for any given vessel
• Review the compliance history for a particular vessel master
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 16 2013
• Plan for targeted surveillance based on vessel and/or master CI
• Extract information as required by a surveillance operation
The value of the RIMF is that it combines data from various individual sources (such as the
national licensing systems and key regional systems) into a comprehensive database that can
be shared between stakeholders. Based on its ability to provide compliance related
information on vessels and vessel masters, including any history of non-compliance, vessels
and masters are evaluated and assigned a Compliance Index (CI). This aims to provide more
targeted MCS activities.
FIMS
The Fishery Information Management System (FIMS) is an example of one of the more
advanced independent electronic data collection and transmission systems currently
operating in WCPO tuna fisheries. It was developed by the Australian company Quick Access
for the PNG NFA to manage the wide range of data associated with tuna fisheries
management, including: licensing; vessel registrations; crew registrations; monitoring,
compliance and surveillance; observer management; observer tracking; FAD tracking; VDS
management; and port sampling. But independent databases are now used by the purse
seine industry (iFIMS) and the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA FIMs) – iFIMS and PNA
FIMs respectively.
FIMS development for NFA has progressed quickly over the last 12 months, with the
development of iFIMS (industry FIMS) a subset of the FIMS database adapted for use by
industry; and PNA FIMS for use by the Parties the Nauru Agreement in particular for
managing day quota for the purse seine vessel days scheme (VDS).
Further development
The FIMS database and iFIMS products are being constantly developed and improved. One
of the current challenges facing the FIMS/iFIMS database structure as well as the storage
transhipment and unloading processes is the need to demonstrably separate FAD-caught
fish from FAD-free fish in order to meet MSC requirements. This can be reasonably
straightforward when the unload is from the vessel directly to the processor, but is
complicated when the vessel tranships to a carrier vessel before the catch is unloaded to the
processor.
The FIMS/iFIMS focus over the next 12 months is on the development of:
• Finalising systems to identify non FAD associated catch
• A FIMS Observer Management Platform for full day-to-day management of observer
booking to vessels and tracking at sea
• The catch and effort logsheet
• Tablet software for observer reporting at sea
• Catch decrementation scheme driven by EU compliance requirements
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 17 2013
• VDS forms in other languages including Chinese, Japanese and Korean in 2014.
Uses of WCPO tuna fishery data
The data collected in the programs highlighted above have a range of science and
compliance uses for WCPO tuna management. Although some data is collected for specific
uses, there is not always a clear distinction between what data is used for which purpose.
For example, VMS has a central role in compliance, but is also very useful for understanding
effort distribution and fleet dynamics in stock assessments; catch composition data from
logsheets and observers is critical to stock assessments but also informs compliance.
Regardless, underlying the collection of most of these data are the numerous CMM
requirements which place obligations on countries to collect and provide information to the
Commission in a timely manner.
Under contract to the Commission, the SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) undertakes
stock assessments and other related analyses of WCPO Bigeye, Yellowfin, and Skipjack Tuna
as well as South Pacific Albacore Tuna. Such assessments are conducted annually and are
reviewed by the Scientific Committee of the Commission in August each year. To meet this
deadline, the Commission calls for the annual provision of scientific data, and all countries
are obliged to provide their data by 30th April to enable the assessments to be completed by
July. These data include: annual catch estimates; operational (logsheet) data; aggregated
catch and effort data; aggregate size composition data; as well as the Regional Observer
Programme (ROP) data. Once received at SPC offices (on behalf of the Commission), the
data undergoes a management process that includes: receipt and acknowledgement of data
submissions; quality control checking of data; importing data into the Commission
databases; and, transmission of Commission databases to the WCPFC Secretariat on a
quarterly basis.
In addition to the work on target species, there is considerable research undertaken on the
impacts of fishing on non-target catch, and threatened, endangered and protected (TEP)
species. Much of the information collected by observers and as part of CMM reporting is
used towards this work alongside specific research projects. Such information supports
ecosystem modelling of the fishery and ensuring that the fishery is conducted with the
sustainability of the ecosystem in mind.
The Commission’s Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Scheme uses information
from a broad range of areas to meet its compliance requirements. Critical information for
compliance includes: the Centralised Vessel Monitoring System (Commission VMS, CMM
2011-02); the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorizations to Fish (CMM 2009-01);
and the WCPFC Interim Register of Fish Carriers and Bunkers. This information is augmented
by extensive reporting requirements abd obligations under numerous CMMs, including:
Procedures for Cooperating Non-members (CMM 2009-11); Specifications for the Marking
and Identification of Fishing Vessels (CMM 2004-03); High Seas Boarding and Inspection
Procedures (CMM 2006-08); Regional Observer Programme (ROP, CMM 2007-01, Annex C),
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 18 2013
WCPFC IUU List (CMM 2010-06); Prohibition on use of large-scale driftnets (CMM 2008-04);
Regulation on Transshipment (CMM 2009-06); Rules for FAD and purse seine catch retention
(CMM 2009-02); Charter Notification Scheme (CMM 2012-05); and the Compliance
Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2012-06).
One of the emerging uses of fisheries data in the WCPO tuna fisheries is for product
traceability and to demonstrate the fisheries meet the criteria expected under various
environmental certification schemes such as Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification.
Whether it is to be used for stock assessments, compliance or ecosystem modelling, due to
current shortfalls in data keypunching, processing and transmission, not all of the data
collected is available in time, or is of sufficient quality to meet the requirements for
compliance or inclusion into the annual stock assessment process.
5. Current Situation – Global
E-Reporting
There is a wealth of examples of fisheries around the world that have trialled or adopted
some form of electronic reporting. These systems range from some very simple generic
programs operating on off-the-shelf hardware that transfer minimal information, to highly
customised software installed on purpose-built hardware that can transfer encrypted data
with digital signatures in multiple formats through multiple transmission pathways. Various
versions of these systems have been established for well over a decade, but their complexity
and capacity is continually evolving as new technology is developed. Increasing computing
power, memory and storage has been fundamental to this evolution, but because a
significant proportion of fisheries data is collected on vessels working at sea, cost and
capacity of data transmission has remained as the critical consideration in E-Reporting,
regardless of the complexity of the system.
Data transmission options range from a virtually no-cost option of manually downloading
data collected at sea to a digital storage device (e.g. CD or USB memory stick), through
transfer via fixed line or mobile (cell phone) telecommunications systems, Wi-Fi or cable
internet, to the most expensive option of digital data transfer via satellite. The quality and
capacity of these options can vary from region to region, but this choice is also highly
influenced by the distance from shore and duration of trip. Further, there are an increasing
number of technical options for each type of data transfer method and a range of costs
associated with each option depending on the frequency and amount of data to be
transferred. Not surprisingly therefore, the question of what data is needed and whether E-
Reporting needs to be made “real time” (immediately), “near real time” (within a day) or at
“end of a trip” is critical.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 19 2013
There are simply too many examples around the world of where E-Reporting products have
been successfully installed and are currently operational to individually name them in this
report. The primary applications of these products are for catch and effort logsheets, on-
board observer monitoring and port-based data collection. Details of just some of the range
of E-Reporting products, the countries where they are installed, and what they are used for,
is provided in Appendix 2. The technical specification of these products are provided in
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 20 2013
Appendix 3.
E-Monitoring
Video monitoring in conjunction with winch, engine, and hydraulic sensors, and monitoring
using sensors alone, use well proven technology, progressively developed over more than
fifteen years and able to provide independent data to support monitoring objectives for
science and compliance.
Wherever there is a need for observers, video monitoring can supplement some aspects of
human activity. It never sleeps, does not require food or companionship, and can be used in
multiple positions on boats where observers cannot be placed.
Whilst observer programs are the traditional and primary method of gathering independent
data, a combination of video and/or sensor monitoring can now supplement and support
these programs. These can be easily added as monitoring programs grow, and can be
targeted at supplementing observer programs to fill gaps or identified limitations. Video
monitoring can be used as an audit tool to verify observer and catch logsheet data, can
monitor use of mitigation measures and can also free up observers to undertake data
collection tasks whilst the video records fishing operations. It has been suggested that in the
future, E-M may well be the only way some sectors can remain fishing if they are to comply
with future CMMs and certification requirements.
An overview of a range of E-M products and services is provided in Appendix 4.
6. Stakeholder issues and responses
A significant component of this project was the requirement for the consultants to liaise
with the broad range of stakeholders. The purpose of this liaison was to develop an
understanding of the current status of paper-based data collection and reporting, and to
understand the perceptions of stakeholders about the potential introduction of E-Reporting
(E-R) and E-M. To this end face-to-face meetings were held with personnel from fishery
agencies, and where possible industry in Australia, Fiji, Hawaii, Marshall Islands, Micronesia,
New Caledonia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Philippines and Solomon Islands. Details
of these can be found in Appendix 8. An interim report was presented at the 8th regular
session of the TCC in September 2013. Numerous teleconferences with data base managers
and technicians and e-product suppliers were conducted during the course of the project.
Based on all these discussions, the following section outlines the main issues that were
raised regarding the implementation of E-R and E-M.
Sustainability
Issue
The major overarching issue across all stakeholder groups is that the WCPO tuna fisheries
remain economically, environmentally and socially sustainable. There is an underlying
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 21 2013
concern from many people that IUU fishing (in all of its various forms) is undermining many
of the management controls in place and represents a significant threat to the sustainability
of WCPO tuna fisheries. To those individuals, companies, and countries whose future
depends on a sustainable fishery, this is their number one issue of critical concern. The
current inefficiencies of the paper-based system leave plenty of room for unsustainable
practices and IUU fishing to continue.
Response
During our discussions, many of these stakeholders recognise that the introduction of E-R
and E-M has the potential to tighten the noose around IUU fishing and improve sustainable
practices within the fishery. They recognised that access to timely and reliable fishery
information is fundamental to achieving this goal and that this is crucial to future economic
returns to CCMs, and the fisheries they support.
Compliance
Issues
The MCS stakeholder group were interested in real time data access for the efficient conduct
of their work. Currently, they have access to real time VMS information and near real time
information on licensing and registrations from which a compliance index is created to focus
MCS activities. They have no access to any real time catch data (species composition and
weight) other than when compliance officers board or inspect a vessel and get access to the
paper logsheets. Compliance officers highlighted that lack of remote access to real time
catch data was a significant shortfall in their office-based assessment of compliance.
Currently, MCS boarding and inspection parties have a limited timeframe on-board a vessel
(4 hours) over which they can collect information to form the basis of any compliance action.
Within this time they have to access and assess the vessel’s entire set of paper logsheets to
determine the record of catches against what is on-board the vessel.
A successful compliance operation requires that numerous forms of information support
each other in highlighting non-compliant activities. Presently, apart from the real time VMS
data, other information that may underpin compliance is received in various formats and at
different times, depending on the source of information and the country collecting /
transmitting it. This presents a significant logistical hurdle in piecing together the various
sources of information that need to be combined to make a strong compliance case. As a
result, an extensive amount of manual manipulation and analysis of data is required for a
compliance issue to be highlighted, much less prosecuted. Furthermore, visual confirmation
of non-compliance is an extremely influential component of this information. Currently, the
only form of visual confirmation is that manually recorded by an observer (if present at the
particular time) or, if deemed important enough, footage and observations made available
from a dedicated compliance “flyover”. Obviously, given the huge geographical extent of
the fishery, the costs associated with the latter approach can be prohibitive.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 22 2013
Response
Real-time E-Reporting of the on-catch composition and weights of target species will provide
a valuable input into a particular vessel’s compliance index. Such information could highlight
discrepancies in catch composition, progressive vessel catch figures, and determination of
vessel non-fishing days.
The improved, timeliness and quality of logsheets, observer reports and CMM reports, offers
a breakthrough opportunity to improve compliance in this fishery. Apart from better access
to real-time information, there would also be significant benefits if all of the logsheet
information, observer reports, catch landings, and port sampling information was available
in a consistent electronic format within a week of the end of a trip. Once such a system was
in place, there would be the ability to run predetermined data queries that could highlight
discrepancies between these various data sources and also between them and the VMS data
that has already been collected. Either continued or significant data discrepancies could be
used as another factor contributing to a vessel’s Compliance Index.
There are already electronic solutions available to compliance officers that could assist in
downloading and analysing a vessel’s logsheet information during a boarding or inspection.
One company has developed a utility program which resides on a compliance officer’s USB
key to automatically extract certain (predefined) information from the vessel’s electronic
logbook without the need to give them access to the entire data set. Using the data
downloaded to the USB key, compliance officers can quickly run reports that summarise
information of interest (e.g. the vessel’s hold contents, when logsheet data was entered with
respect to undertaking a set, whether any data had been changed and when that change
occurred).
Employment
Issues
Throughout the project consultation to date, a key issue raised by many Pacific Island
stakeholders was the potential impact for the implementation of further E-Reporting and E-
Monitoring on current jobs and employment opportunities associated with the WCPO tuna
fisheries.
With particular reference to E-M, the main concern is that observer jobs will be replaced by
the use of on-board cameras whilst with E-Reporting, the concern relates to loss of jobs
associated with data collation, validation and key-punching. These are considered
separately below.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 23 2013
Response
E-Reporting
With respect to implementation of E-Reporting, there will be a loss jobs directly associated
with data collation and key-punching but there is a large opportunity to considerably offset
this through increased employment associated with data analysis and reporting.
At the moment, there is a huge amount of Pacific Islander employment associated with the
collation and keypunching of logsheets and observer data. This single aspect of E-Reporting
also represents a significant bottleneck to information flow throughout the system. The use
of E-Reporting for both logbooks, and observer data will remove this bottleneck, but in doing
so, will make many of the current data entry jobs redundant. However, with the efficiency
gains in electronic data entry and transmission comes the opportunity to redirect
employment and up skill personnel towards data checking, analysis and reporting. Not only
does this mean that there does not have to be any net loss of jobs, this redeployment and
re-training will lead to far more effective research, compliance and management outcomes,
as mentioned in the efficiency section below.
E-Monitoring
Observers undertake a wide range of tasks whilst on-board commercial fishing vessels, only
some of which can be replaced or augmented by an E-M system. Some examples of the
range of tasks undertaken by observers and the potential for current E-M technology to
undertake that task is indicated in Figure 4. To simply state that the use of on-board video
monitoring for example can replace observers is incorrect. The question is rather what level
of coverage of the different tasks is required and what the cost effective means of acquiring
this data is. This should be considered explicitly with respect to monitoring CMM
requirements, and meeting scientific and compliance objectives.
The current mindset may need to change from achieving “x percent observer coverage” to “x
percent information coverage”. For example in the longline fleet, video monitoring offers a
realistic option to increase the current 2-3% of observer coverage to 100% information
coverage with only 5% of this achieved through the on-board deployment of observers.
Rather than a reduction in observer employment, there would be an increase in information
monitoring employment. E-M may also resolve some the significant OH&S issues associated
with observer coverage for a large proportion of the fleet.
The use of E-M technology does not imply a simple replacement of people with technology.
It may, however, mean some level of retraining of people from data collection to data
analysis. For example, if a decision was made to monitor say 20% of the longline fleet with
E-M, there would be considerable onshore human resources required for the video footage
be catalogued, analysed and particular events be scrutinised and reported. The ability for
event marking on video footage, and for the analysis of these events to be conducted using
fast play technology (where the video footage is viewed at 2x to 10x normal speed) means
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 24 2013
that one trained shore-based observer could monitor the activities of many more vessels
through E-Monitoring than could be achieved through an on-board observer. Importantly,
there will always remain the need to continue to use on-board observers for validation and
ground truth in of the data collected by E-M.
There is a real opportunity for E-R and E-M to create additional and better quality
employment with advancement opportunities in data analysis and reporting from data
collection and entry. This would be likely to result in a net gain in employment, an increase
in the quality of employment, and a marked increase in the efficiency and effectiveness of
compliance, research and management.
Figure 4. Tasks undertaken by observers and the potential for E-Monitoring to undertake
that task based on current technology.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 25 2013
Occupational Health & Safety
Issues
Fishing vessels remain one of the world’s most dangerous workplaces due to a moving,
unpredictable and often wet and slippery work platform, a harsh and unforgiving
environment, and the use of heavy equipment. Despite the extensive safety training that
observers receive prior to their deployment on fishing vessels and their ongoing education
about developing safe working practices, accidents are still likely in such an environment.
Further, observers play a crucial compliance role while working on fishing vessels, that
places them in difficult and often uncomfortable situations with respect to the skipper and
crew if a compliance breach occurs. Agencies and companies that employ observers for this
work have an obligation to make the work environment as safe as possible. Quick and
reliable methods of both emergency and routine communication between the observer and
his employer are becoming increasingly realistic.
Response
Recent developments in personal electronic communication devices has been both rapid and
extensive. There are now a plethora of off-the-shelf devices available that have position
fixing (GPS) capacity and either text or voice communication capabilities. Many of these are
designed to operate effectively in remote and harsh environments using satellite
communication facilities. When provided to an observer, this combination of GPS and
communication facilities affords both the employer and the observer a valuable tool for
meeting workplace health and safety requirements.
Research
Issues
Amongst the researchers, obtaining real-time information was of less importance than
ensuring high quality information from the various data sources. Most of the research
information culminates in its use in annual stock assessments and the only time-related
issue is that the logsheet data, VMS data, observer reports, catch landings and port sampling
from the previous year are available by the time the assessment needs to be conducted.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case and significant portions of logsheet data and
observer reports are not available in time for the annual assessments. As a result,
assessments often need to be made with incomplete data.
The issue of most importance to the scientists is obtaining consistent, high quality data from
all information sources. Currently, verification, validation and quality checking of data prior
to its use in an assessment accounts for an extremely large amount of work by
administrative officers and scientists alike. Debriefing and data checking at the country level
undoubtedly picks up numerous data quality issues prior to the information being sent to
SPC, but there remains significant need for vetting and checking of the data prior to its use in
stock assessment.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 26 2013
One issue of specific concern was the quality of information available on the bycatch of
sharks taken by longline vessels. Shark bycatch (and finning) is an extremely topical issue on
a global scale and there are a number of CMMs relating to this. Due to the general lack of
observer coverage on longline vessels, there is a high degree of uncertainty about the
species composition of non-target catch taken by the longline fleet and, more specifically,
the species composition of the shark catches.
Response
Implementation of E-R logsheets and E-R observer reports will greatly improve the
timeliness of information available prior to stock assessment. It is quite feasible that usually
within a fortnight of a vessel ending a trip, the raw, unvalidated data should be available to
the SPC. The validation process may mean that this data is changed slightly at the company,
fisheries agency, or SPC level subsequent to its submission, but a validated version will then
be made available, together with a change audit trail at all levels. Thus, instead of the SPC
receiving raw logsheet and observer data any time up to April (and not receiving a certain
portion at all), under an E-R framework, it should receive the first digital version of the data
almost immediately after the trip has been completed . Such a change in the timeliness of
data availability has been reported in a number of fisheries that have moved from a paper-
based system to an E-Reporting system. This allows more time for data checking and
conducting the stock assessment. Moreover, it also means that a far greater percentage of
the data will be available in time for inclusion in the stock assessment.
Another aspect of value to researchers from the implementation of E-R is that the quality of
data contained in both E-R logsheets and E-R observer reports will improve markedly. This
occurs for a number of reasons: the person collecting the data is the person entering the
data into a computer, so there is no issue with difficulties in reading handwriting and
remembering or understanding data entry situations as they occur; automatic population of
fields (e.g. from GPS) means skippers and observers don’t need to manually type in date,
time and position fields; there can be automatic population of commonly used operational
data entries such as vessel name, gear type etc.; use of drop-down boxes improves data
accuracy and reduces keypunch errors; range-checking of numeric data entries begins the
validation process; and forced entry of data into mandatory fields minimises unintentional
lack of data entry into fields.
Finally, the extensive amount of time spent by scientists verifying, validating and quality
checking data will be reduced by the above data quality improvements.
Efficiency
Issue
Some of the most inefficient aspects of the current information regime reported by many
countries and agencies is the double handling of data, multiple data entry points and the
considerable (and differing) time lags between data collection and data input into databases.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 27 2013
These inefficiencies at the initial stage of the data management process have a flow-on
effect that cause further inefficiencies for many of the Commission’s research, compliance
and management activities.
The current paper-based system is groaning under the weight of tens of thousands of
logsheets and observer workbooks that have been either stored after keypunching or are
waiting to be keypunched. Keypunching of paper-based data is the greatest bottleneck in
the entire data acquisition and transition process, and one of the major factors in the
inefficiency of the current system. Part of the problem behind this is that the information
doesn’t come in at a steady rate, but in large batches associated with the end of the vessel’s
trip. This issue is further exacerbated because many companies wish to check on the vessel
logsheet information before its submission to a country, and because the extensive observer
information — which can cover up to 3 months of at-sea observations — goes through a
briefing validation process before it is available from keypunching.
Response
Use of E-R could significantly improve the efficiency and cost-benefit of the entire system,
through more efficient use of all fisheries data and enabling a realignment of resources to
optimise the value of the current data that is collected.
Direct on-board input of electronic data into an E-R system by a vessel officer or an observer
has immediate efficiency returns. First, many on-board E-R systems have software designed
to directly capture date, time and location data from GPS, and to retain the data in repeated
fields at either the trip level (e.g. vessel and crew details) or set level (e.g. gear
configuration). In addition, at the point of entry the software can ensure that mandatory
fields are not skipped, data formatting is correct, data is entered within acceptable ranges,
and use of dropdown boxes and lists ensure data consistency in non-numeric variables. This
can significantly reduce the observer debriefing time. Further, problems and mistakes
associated with post-event transcription from hardcopy to computer during keypunching of
logsheets and observer reports is greatly reduced or eliminated. Once entered and
transmitted in an electronic form, the process of data validation and verification can begin
immediately, including cross-verification of data from multiple sources. For example: real
time data from E-Monitoring (e.g. VMS, equipment sensors) can be automatically cross-
checked against near real time E-R of observer daily reports or transhipping reports; or at
the end of a trip, other observer data (e.g. catch composition) can be cross-checked against
the vessel’s logsheets. The current situation, where these multiple data sources are not
received at the same time and then not keypunched and transferred for many weeks (if not
months or years, and sometimes never), undermines timely identification of potential
compliance issues and reduces opportunities to improve the quality of some aspects of the
scientific data.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 28 2013
E-Reporting and E-Monitoring solutions for CMM obligations
A key issue in both the project terms of reference, and raised by stakeholders is whether E-
Reporting and E-Monitoring can assist to satisfy CMM obligations. These obligations are to
comply with a CMM for a vessel to report, and for a CCM to report to the Commission. For
example:
• In terms of complying with a CMM, it is a requirement that purse seine vessels not
undertake a set if a school of fish is associated with a whale shark.
• A vessel is required to report certain events, such as interactions with TEPs.
• And many CMMs contain a provision that CCMs are required to report annually (or
more frequently) on implementation with the CMM.
This review concludes that E-M and E-R can make a significant contribution to both
complying with, and reporting against CMMs.
An overview table listing each active CMM is attached as Appendix 6. This table uses a cross
to indicate that in the opinion of the review, E-M and E-R do not offer a solution; uses a
single tick to indicate a partial solution; and two ticks where the review believes a significant
contribution can be made. The table was compiled with input from the Commission
Secretariat, SPC, and FFA.
In total there are 72 boxes that could be ticked.
• 30 of these boxes, or 42% received 2 ticks
• 22 of these boxes, or 30% received 1 tick
• 20 of these boxes, or 28% received a cross
In short, the review believes 72% of the CMM compliance and/or reporting obligations could
be supported by either E-R, or E-M, or both. Whilst this is not a statistically valid method of
determining potential contribution, it does in the view of this review, satisfy the key
question whether these technologies are worth pursuing.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 29 2013
Table 1. Some examples of CMM assessment process.
CMM 2007-01 FOR THE REGIONAL OBSERVER PROGRAMME
This CMM establishes the Commission’s regional observer program, sets objectives, lays out the obligations of CCMs,
and the respective roles of the Commission, Secretariat and coastal States.
This review assessed for E-M, and for E-R
This review believes E-M and E-R observer logs both present significant opportunities for improvements in efficiency,
effectiveness, quality and timeliness of observer program data and activities, as well as program safety.
CMM 2009-06 FOR REGULATION OF TRANSHIPMENT
This CMM establishes rules for transhipment.
This review assessed for E-M, and for E-R
E-M can assist in ensuring compliance. Transhipment activity can be monitored through hydraulic pressure, engine
activity and winch rotation sensors on the carrier vessel (and reported in near real time), whilst transhipment volumes
can be estimated and fishing vessel details recorded using video. E-R of transhipment can ensure the amount of fish
held by a vessel coming into port or undergoing inspection is known in real time and can help ensure reporting
obligations are met.
CMM 2009-11 COOPERATING NON-MEMBERS
This measure establishes the process for applying for cooperating non-member status.
This review assessed for E-M, and for E-R
Neither technology can make a contribution to this CMM.
CMM 2010-05 FOR SOUTH PACIFIC ALBACORE
This CMM requires CCMs not to increase catches of south Pacific albacore and to report to the Commission on their
implementation of the measure.
This review assessed for E-M, and for E-R
In a broad sense both technologies would gather information that could assist CCMs to report against the measure,
whilst not offering a specific tool for direct compliance. E-M can assist in monitoring whether targeted fishing is
occurring and E-R Catch Log can assist to validate catches.
2012-07 FOR MITIGATING IMPACTS OF FISHING ON SEABIRDS
This CMM encourages CCMs to implement the IPOA Seabirds. The measure requires CCMs to report to the Commission,
and to require their longline vessels to use mitigation measures.
This review assessed for E-M, and for E-R
E-M can provide evidence of compliance with any IPOA requirements, and the use of mitigation measures; E-R can
ensure reporting obligations of interactions with seabirds are met.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 30 2013
7. A Future Framework
Whilst there is no shortage of challenges, the potential benefits of E-R and E-M for countries,
industries, and fishery organisations are significant: timeliness, quality and accurate data,
long run cost savings, efficiency with no duplication of paper logsheet handling and no triple
data entry, potential to efficiently integrate multiple sources of data through information
management systems, resistance to data sanitisation, improved ability to audit, support for
timely decision making, familiar input and support technology (PCs, laptops and tablets),
simple processes to update format and data requirements, simultaneous data provided to
multiple users, readily adapted to multiple languages, easily backed up and protected data,
well proven alternatives to human activities, avoids human issues, doesn’t rely on human
memory, stands alone as a potential tool to support compliance, driver to change
operational practices and changes in compliance approaches and culture, takes the onus off
humans as the sole point of compliance, the technology can enable verifiable review, and
creates a significant deterrent for non-compliant behaviour.
Using the Australian vernacular, a move to E-R and E-M is “a no-brainer1”. For decades now
the world has adopted new technologies to drive up efficiency, effectiveness, and customer
service, and drive down costs. The fishing industry is no exception. Enter the wheel-house of
even the most modest international fishing vessel and you will usually find sonar, radar, RDF,
mobile and satellite communications, GPS plotters, and VMS — usually integrated at some
level with their head office or fish merchants often situated thousands of kilometres away.
And yet to date the region has been unable to settle on an electronic solution for data
collection and reporting. This must change.
Strategic Recommendation 1:
To improve quality and timeliness of the data available for science, compliance, and
management, to enhance and streamline reporting obligations, and to provide an
additional means of effective observer monitoring, this report recommends the
Commission, its members, and its partner regional organisation within the WCPO
implement both E-Reporting and E-Monitoring programs without delay.
Selecting a preferred E-R and E-M providers
The field of electronic data collection and communication is extremely dynamic and new
products and technologies (often well guarded by patents) are regularly entering the market.
As is evident from the previous sections on global developments, there is a wide range of E-R
products available (this is much less the case for both E-M video and sensor, and sensor
alone products).
1 “No-brainer”: something that requires little or no mental effort.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 31 2013
Each of these products has differing and evolving approaches to its application of technology
to fisheries data acquisition, storage, analysis and transmission. It would be possible to run a
selection process by which one of these companies or products is chosen as the preferred
option to meet the Commission’s needs. We believe, however, that the approach of
“picking today’s winner” is fraught with a number of unnecessary financial and technological
risks.
First, if in the future another company develops technology that is more appropriate for
regional needs, the region may find itself locked out of accessing this new technology
because of contractual arrangements with a current provider. Second, once it has entered
into a contract with the preferred provider, it can be a lengthy and costly process to address
any shortfalls if changes in the provider’s circumstances mean they no longer have the
capacity to meet project expectations. Third, the potential for price and product
competitiveness that results from access to the open market is removed. Because of these
issues, it is our recommendation that the Commission does not choose a preferred company
or product to provide E-R or E-M needs, but rather develop an agreed set of data standards
and specifications that technology providers need to meet for their product to be used.
Strategic Recommendation 2:
The Commission should adopt an approach of developing standards, specifications, and
certification procedures for both E-Reporting and E-Monitoring, against which any
provider can seek to be certified, in preference to seeking a single provider.
Electronic data options
There is already a comprehensive paper-based data collection and reporting program in
place, which if timeliness and quality could be improved, would meet the needs of nearly all
stakeholders. Prior to the implementation of any further E-R or E-M systems, the major
stakeholders (industry, managers, compliance officers and researchers) must agree on which
information sources these technologies are going to be applied to and within each, what
electronic data is required in real time or otherwise. It is quite plausible, and probably a very
effective implementation option, for a decision to be made that there will be no initial
change in any of the data requirements associated with a move to electronic technology.
This means, for example, that if there is a move to electronic logsheets for purse seine
vessels, there is no change to the data collected on the logsheets and no change to when
this information is expected to be submitted (at the end of a trip). Once these decisions are
made, implementation of E-R and E-M can proceed to the preparation phase —
development of data and reporting standards and certification procedures.
Recommendation 1: To facilitate implementation of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring, to the
fullest extent possible, use current data requirements and reporting timeframes at this
time.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 32 2013
Data standards
To be both effective and efficient, implementation of an E-R or E-M system requires a
specification document with an explicit statement of, for example: what data fields are
required; whether it mandatory or optional; data format; what is the acceptable data range;
etc. Otherwise, the data that will be arriving at the relevant agency’s database will be of
such poor quality and in such disarray that there will be more effort required in sorting
through and fixing the information than if it was just sent through manually in paper format
and keypunched in the first place. Some examples of the level of detail required in such a
document are provided in NOAA (2009) and AFMA (2008).
Decisions about the data standards should be made with input from management,
compliance and research personnel and need to be made prior to implementation of E-R.
SPC has done much of the above work in determining what data is required in all of the
various hardcopy logsheets and observer reports (WCPFC/PrepCon/WP.15). Similar work
needs to be done for electronic data.
It is recognised that there may be a need for data requirements and formats to change over
time. In such cases, the standards and specifications will need to be altered accordingly and
products will need to be re-certified against these specifications.
Recommendation 2:
Agree on the information for which E-Reporting will be applied and fully specify the data
formats and protocols for electronic entry, storage and transmission.
Data serialisation
For data storage and transmission, “serialisation” (or deflating) is the process of translating
data into a format that can be stored in a file or transmitted before being “deserialised” (or
inflated) to the original data on the same or another computer environment. Some sort of
serialisation is required to transfer logsheet or observer data from the vessel computer back
to the management and research agency databases. There is a large range of data
serialisation formats (Appendix 5, Table 4) that are available and it is outside the scope of
this project to undertake a review of the pros and cons of each of these. However, Comma
Separated Value (CSV), and Extensible Markup Language (XML) formats are commonly used
in fishery E-R software and provide a useful comparison.
CSV format
A CSV file stores tabular data (numbers and text) as a sequence of plain text characters with
each field commonly separated by a comma or tab. CSV files consist of any number of
records containing an identical sequence of fields, separated by line breaks (Appendix
5,Table 5). CSV is a common, relatively simple file format that is widely used to
communicate data between programs that operate on incompatible (often proprietary)
formats. Although it is very commonly used, CSV files have never been formally
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 33 2013
documented or specified, which has led to a wide variety of interpretations of CSV files
(Shafranovich 2005).
XML format
In comparison to CSV, XML is a very structured and well documented format. It is a
commonly used, free, open standard format that defines a set of rules for encoding data in a
document that is both computer-readable and human-readable and designed to be used
over the internet. One of the main advantages of XML is that information sent in this form
can be automatically validated by an XML processor to ensure it has met all of the data
requirements defined in a Document Type Definition (DTD) or an XML “Schema” language.
These definitions constrain the set of elements that may be used in a document, which
attributes may be applied to them, the order in which they may appear, and the allowable
parent/child relationships. These attributes have made XML one of the preferred formats
for transfer of fisheries E-R data and many of the existing E-R software products have the
ability to produce XML outputs.
One of the main criticisms of XML, however, is that it is a very “verbose” and complex
format, in that it takes a lot of script to transfer the actual information (Atwood 2008;
Appendix 5, Table 6). Often this is not an issue, but in the case of sending information from
a vessel via satellite to a fisheries agency, there can be a large monetary cost associated with
the transmission of such a verbose format in real time. For this reason, a more compact
serialisation format such as CSV may be required for real time E-R.
Recommendation 3:
Evaluate the use of XML as the standard serialisation format for all E-Reporting not
requiring satellite transmission.
North Atlantic Format
Unlike the generic CSV and XML formats, NAF was developed specifically for fishery data
transmission. During the 1990's there was considerable work amongst European
Communities to standardise data transmission from fishing vessels. A format was developed
in which a "two letter coding" system separated by slashes ("/") between each code was
used, initially focussed on transmission of VMS data (Appendix 5, Table 7). The main
features of the format were that it could be readable both by humans and by computers,
and that "vessel to shore" transmission could be done using a reduced number of "bytes"
making the transmission affordable. Ultimately, this was consolidated into a standardised
format for data exchange and evolved into the "North Atlantic Format" (NAF) by the end of
the 1990s. Since 2000, the use of NAF has consolidated as a standard for electronic data
transmission in the North Atlantic, and its use has expanded to other fisheries and RFMOs. It
has also been used and/or evaluated in fisheries research projects such as IMPAST, SHEEL
and CEDER.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 34 2013
Recommendation 4:
Evaluate the most appropriate serialisation format (CSV, NAF or others) for all E-Reporting
and E-Monitoring requiring satellite transmission.
Certification
Once the data standards and protocols have been established, there is a need for
“certification” of the E-R or E-M systems to ensure that the created data reports meet the
agreed data reporting standards. Such certification is usually done by an independent
agency or the agency in control of the database into which the data is being transferred.
A typical certification process involves:
• Development of standards, specifications and procedures against which a product
can be certified
• Make available the standards, specifications and procedures to product vendors
• Test the product against the standards and provide feedback to the vendors
• Certify (or not) the product
• Provide potential users with a list of certified products
A Future Framework for E-Reporting
Right now, because the paper-based system already exists, there is a significant opportunity
for E-R to basically replace the paper-based logsheet and observer reporting system in the
purse seine fleet during the next few years.
Recommended Approach
There needs to be agreement on the correct mix of incentives and regulations applied to
assist in the timely transmission to E-R. There is a significant amount of preparation
required before any E-R or E-M technology can be introduced broadly across the WCPO tuna
fisheries. As described above, for each of the components where E–Reporting may be
introduced (logsheets, observer reports, CMMs), broad agreement needs to be achieved on
the adopted approach, standards for data collection and transmission need to be developed,
and a certification process must be developed and implemented. Only then will the
Commission be in a position to introduce E-R across the WCPFC tuna fisheries. This is
represented schematically in Figure 5, and the reasoning for the phased implementation is
described below.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 35 2013
Table 2. A summary check list of preparation activities required prior to implementation
of E-Reporting.
Task Lead Responsibility
1.
Decision that WCPFC will be transitioning to accept E-R
by an agreed date
Commission Secretariat /
SPC
2. Develop formal data entry, storage and transmission
standards for E-R with specific agreement on data flow
protocols
Recommendation at
Commission level
3. Develop data loader program to automatically accept,
validate and load E-R data into the WCPFC operational
databases (managed by SPC as data service provider).
This tool may be the same as used by national fisheries
agencies for their databases. Requires development of
offline data testing capability
Contracted at Commission
level
4. If necessary, modify the WCPFC operational databases so
that they meets the technical specifications required of
the data loader
Contracted at Commission
level (e.g.SPC)
5. Develop standards, specifications and procedures against
which E-R products can be certified to meet WCPFC
operational data standards
Contracted at Commission
level
6. Develop standards, specifications and procedures for
CCM databases so data extraction can be certified to
meet Commission Secretariat operational data standards
Contracted at Commission
level
7. Make available the standards, specifications and
procedures to member countries and potential E-R
product providers
Commission Secretariat
8. Test the E-R product against the standards and provide
feedback to the vendor
3rd Party certifier
8. Test the CCM database data extraction against the
standards and provide feedback to the vendor
3rd Party certifier
8. Certify E-logsheet software 3rd Party certifier
9. Certify CCM database data extraction 3rd Party certifier
10. Provide fleet with a list of certified E-R products WCPFC
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 36 2013
Preparation
Implementation
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of the preparation and three phases of introduction of E-
Reporting projects, their timing and implementation periods.
Recommendation 5:
Acknowledging that some countries have already instigated E-Reporting trials,
preparation work involving development of data standards and certification should be
undertaken as a priority to enable coordinated cross-jurisdictional implementation of any
E-Reporting process.
E-Reporting logsheets
End of trip reporting
The amount of information collected on current paper logsheets is relatively small and
consists of repeated operational fields referring to the vessel, skipper and gear
characteristics as well as set by set information on effort and target / non target catch
weight and species composition. There is an extensive number of E-R products that are
more than capable of replacing the paper logsheets and in doing so, significantly improved
the data quality and efficiency by which it is collected. Use of automated data capture from
Agreement
Data standards
Certification
E-R Logsheets –trip (PS)
E-R Observer –daily (PS)
E-R CMM State
E-R Logsheets / Observer –trip (longline, other)
E-R Observer –trip (PS)
E-R CMM vessel (PS)
E-R Logsheets –daily (PS)
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 37 2013
GPS, pre-populated data fields, drop-down boxes, range-checking on input are just some of
the tools that E-R products use in this respect. Furthermore, many of these E-Reporting
products have the ability to be tailor-made for the specific fishery and fishing gear to which
they are being applied, further improving their efficiency and quality compared to the paper
logsheets. Experience both overseas and within the WCPO tuna fisheries indicates that only
a few hours of training is required for skippers to be able to adequately use these E-R
products.
The WCPO purse seine tuna fleet generally consists of larger vessels with the bridge facilities
and technological capacity for the immediate introduction of E-R logsheets. A number of
these vessels are already using E-R to report to their own companies on a daily basis, but
there is no consistency in how this information is entered or transmitted to the company, or
how the company stores this information. There is certainly no electronic transmission of
this information from the company or the vessel to the fisheries management agency.
Based on the above, the implementation of E-R logsheets on the purse seine fleet is seen as
both feasible and practical, and can occur within a relatively short time frame as part of the
first phase of introduction of E-R in the WCPO tuna fisheries.
Rather than the linear data pathway occurring in the current paper-based system (Figure 1
and Figure 2) whereby the data passes from the vessel through the company, onto the
fishery agency, and then to SPC or the Commission Secretariat, the E-R logsheet system can
facilitate parallel pathways of data flow. Whereas the paper-based linear data flow
compounds any delays in transport, data entry and submission at each of the steps, parallel
data flow through the E-R logsheet system provides the company, fishing agency, and SPC,
with the primary transfer of raw data with minimal delay (Figure 6, Figure 7). There will be
some concern about this process because mistakes at data entry by the vessel will be sent
out to multiple agencies, but the potential for each agency to correct or query any data
remains. Also, a secondary transfer by which the validated data is shared between the
agencies means that each agency will have a copy of the original data, an audit of changes,
and a final copy of the edited data. This is an extremely transparent process that guarantees
the best available information is accessed by each agency.
Some longline vessels have the bridge facilities and technological capacity that could match
the purse seine fleet, but this is probably the exception rather than the rule. In contrast to
the purse seine fleet, generally speaking, the bridge facilities and technological capacity of a
very significant portion of the vast longline fleet has far less capacity for the immediate
introduction of E-R. On many vessels there is a lack of even the most basic computing
facilities, access to a robust 240 V supply may be questionable, and it is more likely that the
skipper and crew have less experience in the application of E-technology to fishing
operations. Thus, although the introduction of E-R logsheets can begin immediately on
some longline vessels as part of Phase 1, implementation across all of the fleet is likely to
take well over a decade.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 38 2013
Legend: paper transmission; digital transmission; satellite transmission; keypunching, database
Primary transfer; Secondary transfer
Figure 6. General schematic of data pathways and processing for end-of-trip E-R observer report for
FFA/SPC members.
Legend: paper transmission; digital transmission; satellite transmission; keypunching, database
Primary transfer; Secondary transfer
Figure 7. General schematic of data pathways and processing for end-of-trip E-R observer report for
non-FFA/non-SPC members.
End of trip
Coastal State
End of trip
Flag State
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 39 2013
Recommendation 6:
Establish an E-Reporting logsheet data pathway in which the primary data transfer goes
from the vessel in parallel to the fishing company, fisheries agency and SPC (e.g. as the
central regional data collection point and on behalf of the WCPFC). A secondary transfer
of final edited data together with the change audit will be shared between each of these
agencies.
Recommendation 7:
To facilitate buy-in by CCMs and industry, the initial implementation of E-Reporting
logsheets should focus on end-of-trip reporting. Technical and practical factors determine
that uptake of E-Reporting logsheets will be more feasible in the short term for vessels in
the purse seine fleet, and a longer process will be required for the longline fleet.
Real time reporting
The reason that end-of-trip reporting for E-R logsheets can be feasibly introduced
immediately is because at the end of a trip, when the vessel is in port, the data can be
transferred via a USB stick or through the land-based or cellular phone network. There are
no significant technical difficulties or cost implications in doing this. Real time reporting on
the other hand, requires transmission of data via satellite, which can have significant cost
implications, and there may be a significant proportion of the purse seine fleet that do not
currently possess this technological capacity. Also, there is no current system in place on
which real time reporting (of logsheet data) can be based, so it is likely that there will be
significant hurdles before the agreement on real time E-R logsheet data transmission can be
reached.
One of the critical decisions to be agreed on prior to the implementation of real time
reporting of logsheet data is exactly what data needs to be reported on a real time basis.
For the stock assessment process and environmental modelling, there was no pushing need
from scientists or managers to access real time information. In fact, across the stakeholder
groups, it was only the compliance officers that put forward any cogent argument for the
need to access real time information. They can already access real time VMS information
and have access to real time information on vessel registrations. Based on this, they
establish a compliance index for each vessel and prioritise and plan their compliance
activities. The one piece of missing information that would significantly improve this process
is real time catch information (species composition and weight) of what is on board each
fishing vessel and carrier vessel. This could be done by either a report of what the vessel has
caught each day, or a daily report of what catch is on board the vessel. We don’t
recommend the former because it requires a full time series of daily catch information to
understand what is currently on board whereas the latter provides this in a single
transmission.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 40 2013
For real time E-R logsheet transmissions from a vessel via satellite, where there is a cost
associated with the amount of data transmitted, we recommend the following data as the
minimum to meet compliance requirements: vessel name; date; time; and, position together
with species code and weight for Skipjack Tuna; and species code, weight and grade
(large/small) for Yellowfin Tuna and Bigeye Tuna. To meet a significant emerging compliance
issue, we would also recommend a field stipulating whether a purse seine FAD activity
(deploying/retrieving, investigation only, setting, fish aggregation lights, etc) has occurred
during the previous day. All of these fields could be easily summarised from within the E-R
logsheet program from the set-by-set information entered by the skipper, but agreement on
which fields to transmit in real time needs to be reached. For all of the above reasons, we
recommend that the introduction of real time E-R logsheet reporting is implemented as a
Phase 2 project.
Recommendation 8:
Minimum real time E-Reporting logsheet fields should include: vessel code, date, time and
position together with species code and weight for Skipjack Tuna, and species code,
weight and grade (large/small) for Yellowfin Tuna and Bigeye Tuna. Fields identified in the
CMMs as critical for real time availability for management of the fishery should also be
provided.
Recommendation 9:
The introduction of real time E-Reporting logsheet reporting should only be considered as
a second phase of E-Reporting to begin once end of trip E-Reporting logsheet reporting is
well established.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 41 2013
Legend: paper transmission; digital transmission; satellite transmission; keypunching, database
Primary transfer; Secondary transfer
Figure 8. General schematic of data pathways and processing for real time E-R logsheet reports.
E-Reporting observer
End of trip reporting
There is an extensive range of information currently being collected and reported through
the paper-based observer reporting system. As detailed previously in this report, within this
paper-based system, there are numerous separate but related forms on which separate
aspects of the data is collected. Although it is possible to implement E-R observer reports
for only particular aspects of data collection, we see no technical reason that the entire
paper-based observer reporting system cannot be converted to E-R observer reports, and
recommend this as the preferred approach.
Again, there are a range of E-R products that are already well placed to collect observer
information, some of which already have proven experience in doing so, including one
recently being trialled specifically in the WCPO tuna fisheries (eTUBS). Once the E-R
observer product is developed, the observers would require a significant level of training in
its use. Due to the complexity of the observer data and reporting requirements, this is likely
to take at least a week before they could be considered as prepared to take the E-R product
to sea, and is also likely to require some level of at-sea technical support during initial use.
Obviously, there will be a need for the purchase of some type of hardware (e.g. laptop,
tablet) that the observers will take on board upon which the E-R observer software is loaded.
Another option for the purse seine fleet could be to insist that each vessel has a laptop on-
board on which the database system installed dedicated to the observer. At the end of the
Onboard catch composition
Daily
Coastal State / Flag State / FFA / PNA / WCPFC
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 42 2013
trip the observer merely backs-up the data before leaving. In this way, both the vessel and
the observer has a copy of the initial data entered. Regardless, strict protocols of at least
daily backups of data onto a secondary device during the trip will need to be developed to
prevent accidents or mistakes from causing irretrievable data loss. These should be
developed as part of the preparation of E-R observer data standards.
Similar to E-R logsheets, if only end-of-trip reporting is required (as currently is the case),
then the entire observer data can be downloaded to a USB stick or through the landline or
cellular telephone network once the trip is completed.
Recommendation 10:
End of trip E-R observer reporting should be introduced alongside E-Reporting logsheets
during the introduction of the first phase of E-Reporting.
Real time reporting
Similar to E-R logsheets above, costs in transmission of large amounts of E-R observer data
via satellite are the main issue in real time reporting. Much of the observer information is
scientific data collected for use in annual stock assessments and is therefore not required on
a real time basis. As stated previously, however, real time reporting of a vessel’s catch
composition has significant potential value for compliance. As such, we again recommend
the following observer data as the priority to meet real time compliance requirements:
vessel name; date; time; and, position together with species code and weight for Skipjack
Tuna; and species code, weight and grade (large/small) for Yellowfin Tuna and Bigeye Tuna.
We also recommend inclusion of a field stipulating whether a purse seine FAD set has
occurred during the previous day. All of these fields could be easily summarised from within
the E-R observer program from the set-by-set information entered by the observer.
The technological hurdle for implementation of real time E-R observer reporting is the
process by which the data is transmitted via satellite. Fortunately, emerging technologies
being considered by the FFA for ROP Occupational Health & Safety reasons offer a potential
solution. There are a number of other off-the-shelf satellite communication devices which
have the ability to transmit “short burst data” (SBD) satellite transmissions. The deLorme
Inreach SE is one such device being trialled by the ROP that has a $60/month package that
can transmit a maximum of 340 bytes per SBD message via the Iridium network. This should
be sufficient to transfer minimal catch on-board data if an appropriate serialisation format is
adopted.
Recommendation 11:
In addition to any OH&S requirements, minimum real time E-Reporting observer fields
should include: vessel code, date, time and position together with species code and weight
for Skipjack Tuna, and species code, weight and grade (large/small) for Yellowfin Tuna and
Bigeye Tuna. Fields identified in the CMMs as critical for real time availability for
management of the fishery should also be provided.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 43 2013
If there is a need to prioritise between implementation of real time reporting of E-R
logsheets compared to E-R observer then we would recommend the initial implementation
of the latter. Strictly speaking, there is no difference in the real time data transmission we
are recommending whether done under E-R logsheet or E-R observer, but we believe the E-R
observer pathway will have fewer implementation hurdles.
Recommendation 12:
If capacity to implement real time E-Reporting logsheet reporting is delayed or impractical,
then there should be additional focus on the implementation of real time E-Reporting
observer reporting.
Legend: paper transmission; digital transmission; satellite transmission; keypunching, database
Primary transfer; Secondary transfer
Figure 9. General schematic of data pathways and processing for real time E-R observer reports.
E-Reporting of CMM obligations
E-R has the potential to satisfy CMM obligations to report from the vessel to the national
fishery agency, and from the national agency to the Commission. It is reasonably feasible
and practical for the purse seine fleet, and some vessels in the longline fleet to provide E-R
CMM reports to the national agency in the immediate future. As with E-R logsheets and E-R
observer reports, the implementation of E-R CMM reporting at the end of a trip has the
potential to begin immediately, whereas the potential for implementation of real time E-R
CMM reporting however will require further work and time before it is realised.
Recommendation 13:
The initial implementation of E-Reporting of CMM obligations should focus on
transmissions between the vessel and the fisheries agency.
It is not a technical issue preventing E-R CMM reporting from the national agency but more
that it just will not be feasible until the bulk of the fleet is complying with this E-R reporting
requirements.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 44 2013
Recommendation 14:
Implementation of E-Reporting of CMMs between the fisheries agency and the
Commission should be considered only when a large proportion of the fleet is undertaking
E-Reporting of CMMs to the fisheries agency.
Strategic Recommendation 3: The implementation of E-Reporting for logsheets, observer
reports, and CMMs should be undertaken in a phased approach determined by technical
feasibility, and practical considerations and constraints. The process for development of E-
Reporting standards, specifications and type approvals should be led by the Commission
Secretariat as amongst the first and high priority actions.
Legend: paper transmission; digital transmission; satellite transmission; keypunching, database
Primary transfer; Secondary transfer
Figure 10. General schematic of data pathways and processing for real time and end of trip E-R CMM
reports from vessel to fisheries agency.
E-Reporting port sampling
This is a small but discreet aspect of scientific length frequency data collection that could be
easily taken from its current paper-based process and converted into an E-R process. In fact,
E-R port sampling is already operational for some of the PNA fleet landing in PNG and these
data get validated and loaded into the FIMS database automatically. Because this is
occurring in port at the end of a trip, this information can be sent real time via land-based or
cellular telephone networks without the issues associated with data transmission via
satellite.
Coastal State / Flag State / FFA / PNA / WCPFC
Inciden t driven –real time
Summary data –end of trip
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 45 2013
A Future Framework for E-Monitoring with Video and Sensors
Recommended Approach
Strategic Recommendation 4: E-Monitoring be formally recognised and adopted as a
legitimate, appropriate and acceptable monitoring tool as both an alternate to human
observer programs and a supplement to observer programs, for certain WCPO tuna
fisheries. The process for development of E-M standards, specifications and type approvals
should be led by the Commission Secretariat as a priority and E-M should be progressively
rolled out to support compliance with Commission’s CMMs, improve fishing practices, and
increase fisheries knowledge. The use of E-M using sensors alone should be considered as
appropriate, based on fishery monitoring goals.
This report is required to provide a recommendation to progress a practical and efficient E-
M framework. The technology involved in E-M is well established. It comprises cameras,
movement sensors for drums and winches, sensors that detect changes in hydraulic
pressure, engine revolutions, and a GPS link to monitor position and time. This all provides a
wide variety of accurate, time appropriate, and validated fisheries data. Cameras and
sensors are linked to a control box where images, sensors, and GPS data are all recorded
either for near real time transmission (sensor and GPS data), or for later retrieval (digital
images). System checks can be undertaken and reported in real time, and in some cases
systems can be interrogated and settings managed remotely. Other features are potentially
available such as event recording, remote login, automated fish measurement, and limited
real time data transfer. The justification and practicality of such features must be carefully
evaluated against potential costs and benefits during the design phase of any program to roll
out the technology.
Some of the most common questions raised during this project were: How much will it all
cost? Who will pay? And does it have a cost benefit? The answers are not easy. E-M will
continue to revolutionise fishery data for both science and compliance. The equipment,
over time, will result in significant behavioural changes in fishing operations, high quality
data for science, a significant increase in compliance capability, with a concomitant
opportunity to focus on high risk compliance targets. This review believes there will need to
be a significant investment by Commission members, and donors through regional
organisations, in both capacity building and information management systems, but that the
recurrent costs of ongoing programs should be fully cost recovered from industry.
Aspects of this technology of key interest to both fisheries managers and industry are the
integrity of the data, that it comes in a form that can be readily viewed, the reliability of the
equipment, and the ability for E-M to fit in with fishing operations — and certainly not to
hinder them.
A small number of fisheries under US and Canadian jurisdictions have now been using this
technology for more than a decade with a high level of performance. E-M has been used for
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 46 2013
research purposes throughout Europe, in Australia, and in the Asia Pacific region. Countless
proof of concept trials have been undertaken almost all of which have demonstrated the
success of the equipment, even if particular fisheries’ data objectives have not been met. It
is fair to say the general concept and technology of E-M is proven.
There are some key challenges around each new use, for example:
• Setting clear goals about what E-M can achieve
• Developing a plan to achieve those goals
• Working with stakeholders from the earliest stage possible in any implementation
• Developing the legislative and policy framework that will give effect to the program
• Initial deployment
• Full deployment
• Program review
The Fisheries Monitoring Roadmap (Lowman et al. 2013) describes the five phases of a
program as: assessment of goals and objectives, outreach and program design, pre-
implementation, initial implementation, and optimal implementation. The Roadmap states
“while some steps may not be relevant to every fishery, phase one assessment of goals and
objectives, will be one of the most important components for ensuring proper program
design. Without a clear understanding of what is needed to properly manage and execute a
fishery, it will be difficult for stakeholders to agree on the components of a monitoring
program”. We agree completely with this statement.
The implementation of E-M is a significant logistical exercise. Whilst there are obvious steps
in the process, these can be undertaken either in parallel or series, depending on particular
circumstances.
Prior to implementation:
• Standards, specifications and type approvals have to be developed for both hardware
and software
• Funding arrangements need to be identified and settled
• Stakeholders must be engaged and brought along with the program
• Governance arrangement established
• Legislation and policy needs to be developed and approved
• New approaches to compliance need to be developed
• Data storage requirements need to be agreed
• Information management systems need to be updated or redesigned
• Video analysis and report preparation training is required
• Human capacity generally needs to be developed across the system
For implementation:
• Infrastructure has to be established (e.g. offices and communications)
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 47 2013
• Staff need to be employed and trained
• Local installers needs to be trained and/or accredited
• Hardware needs to be made available at designated ports
• An inventory of equipment needs to be established
• Support, service and maintenance networks need to be established
• Data recovery arrangements need to be designed
During this process, analysis software has to be installed and a decision made on whether
data will need to be encrypted. The whole process has to be developed bearing in mind the
issue of chain of custody for potential evidence.
Throughout the process a high level governance committee, specifically established for this
purpose and with appropriate levels of delegation, will need to address logistical challenges
in near real time — simply because some issues will emerge whose resolution cannot wait.
Once the program is established and data starts to flow, more issues will emerge that
require careful evaluation, and timely resolution. Within five years a full independent
program review should be undertaken.
E-Monitoring Video Structural Elements
E-MV comprises a number of defined structural elements working together. The first
element uses sensors to detect particular mechanical operations, trigger cameras, and store
sensor data. The second is the capture and storage of video. The third is the software used
to check and validate on-board operations. The fourth is data storage and retrieval. And the
fifth, the software used to analyse and report on the collected video and sensor data.
All these elements work together but it is worth noting that the use of sensors does provide
a stand-alone option. During the course of this project compliance officers noted that
sensor data that detected changes in engine revolutions, the activation of hydraulic systems,
and the use of drums and winches, would in itself be a valuable regulatory tool, especially
because this data could be automatically transmitted in near real time. For example, if fitted
to bunkering and carrier vessels it would be possible to detect precisely when a
transhipment operation was occurring. Example of sensor only fishery monitoring program
were identified in Denmark using the product BlackBox, and in the UK using the product
Succorfish.
In a similar vein, the video analysis element could be used to analyse video data collected by
on-board observers using portable devices.
E-M Program Recommendations
This report does not make a recommendation for a single provider of E-M services but rather
recommends that multiple service providers should be able to meet Commission member’s
E-M needs, providing their equipment is certified. There are already several providers
available, and it is likely others will enter the market. It makes sense for multiple providers
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 48 2013
to be engaged and operating, as such an approach will encourage innovation, bundling of E-
M services and communication needs, efficiency, and price competition.
One of the critical first steps is therefore the development and approval of standards,
specifications and type approvals for hardware and software, as well as an associated
certification process. This process needs to be led by one organisation with the involvement
of a broad range of others. The aim is to have a single WCPO-type approval requirement,
generating a consolidated list of potential providers.
Recommendation 15: It is recommended that the development and approval process for
standards, specifications, type approvals; the certification process for hardware and
software; and maintenance of standards; should be led by the Commission Secretariat
with the participation of representatives with technical expertise from regional
organisations, flag States, and coastal States.
Recommendation 16: Certification to standards should be administered by an independent
third party.2
Administration of E-M programs
The administration of E-M programs will bring many new challenges. The options
considered by this review are to either have a single administrator such as the Commission,
a regional administrator such as the FFA, or multiple administrations through existing
observer programs and national fishery agencies. Whilst a single administrative
arrangement has some attractions, this review considered it would be unlikely to deliver the
best outcomes. This will be a large and geographically challenging program and, whilst
standards and high level policies and procedures should be established and maintained
centrally, there are significant potential benefits from a locally managed program. In
particular these benefits relate to program logistics, employment and service.
Recommendation 17: It is recommended that the development and maintenance of high
level policies and procedures be led by the Commission Secretariat.
Recommendation 18: It is recommended the focus of E-M administration be through
existing sub-regional observer programs, and national fishery agencies.
Procurement, ownership, installation, and maintenance of E-M equipment
This review considered that procurement, ownership, installation, and maintenance of E-M
equipment could be done either through the program, or by vessel owners. There are
benefits associated with both options but key considerations are whether the program
2 The engagement of the fishing industry and technology providers will be critical to program success.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 49 2013
should be bearing the costs of inventory, installation, maintenance, and replacement, and
then recovering those costs through fees and charges; or whether it should be the vessel
owners’ responsibility in the same way as they procure other electronic equipment
(including VMS) and any other essential equipment. There are also incentives for the vessel
owner to look after and properly maintain the equipment if they either own or direct lease
electronic equipment.
Recommendation 19: It is recommended that hardware and software be purchased,
installed, and maintained by vessel owners.
Collection of data
A key logistical challenge is the collection of data from the vessel. This review identified two
means of data retrieval from amongst existing suppliers. The first is a removable /
replaceable hard drive. The second is a data download to a storage device from a fixed hard
drive. It is important to note an E-M program will involve many terabytes of data from each
vessel trip, and that transmission of this volume of data by satellite or mobile phone
network, or by Wi-Fi when in port, are not currently viable options.
This review identified four options for data retrieval from vessels whether by removable
hard drive or data transfer:
• Fisheries regulatory officer
• Other authorised officer
• Observer, or
• Vessel master
Each of these options has the potential to be satisfactory and whilst having a regulatory
officer recover data on all occasions would be desirable, this is highly unlikely to be a feasible
option. It is noted there will be times when data transfer will need to occur during
bunkering or transhipping operations.
The decision about which option is required for data retrieval will need to be determined
based on the particular circumstances of the vessel. If a vessel has a good compliance
record, it could be generally white-listed and the skipper would be authorised to organise
data transfer. For black-listed vessels, and under a random collection program, fisheries
officers would organise data transfer.
Recommendation 20: It is recommended that procedures be developed to facilitate all four
options for data retrieval, based upon a risk assessment of the circumstances of each type
and variation of data retrieval.
Data review
E-M programs involve a high volume of data review. The amount of data to be reviewed
depends on the objectives of the program, and can vary by fishery, and by vessel. If the
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 50 2013
video is being analysed to collect scientific data, the amount of analysis will be determined
based on a determination of a statistically valid sample size; if a particular compliance issue
is suspected, all video might be analysed. Whilst there is no general rule, it is not atypical to
view a sample of between 10 and 20% of all video. This is basically done to provide an
incentive for vessel logbooks to become accurate, and the main fisheries data collection
mechanism.
The options for data review are through either a centralised data review centre, or at a
national fishery agency level. Relevant issues are similar to those for the above discussion
about program administration.
Recommendation 21: It is recommended that national fishery agencies, and regional
observer programs be responsible for analysis of video and sensor data.
Other matters for consideration
To ensure effective implementation of an E-M program there will need to be a commitment
to capacity building and to IMS development across the region. Support for the
development and implementation of model legislative provisions will be required. E-M roll
out trials should be undertaken to demonstrate the equipment, its operations and potential,
and to develop familiarity and confidence with the product. National support will be
required for program management, data analysis, reporting and compliance.
Consideration will need to be given to data storage requirements once video analysis has
occurred having regard to the large volume of data involved. It is normal practice for data to
be overwritten within a few months unless there is a specific need for it be retained for a
longer period (for example to support a compliance action). Legislation may be required to
allow early disposal of data if this conflicts with record retention legislation.
Ownership of data needs to be clarified and this will need to be done for each regional and
fishery agency administering a program. The two models are: 1) that the agency owns the
data and the vessel is required to facilitate its collection; and 2) that the vessel owns the
data but is required to collect and provide it to the agency for analysis and subsequent
disposal.
Video and sensor data can provide unequivocal information that a regulatory breach has
occurred. This creates a new stream of data management challenges for compliance
officers, firstly to ensure video and sensor can be used as evidence, and then ensuring chain
of evidence requirements are understood and met. The following (Table 3) is a summary
check list relating to areas of activity for program development and implementation.
Recommendation 22: It is recommended these matters be referred to the EWG tasked
with progressing E-M for resolution.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 51 2013
Table 3. A summary check list relating to areas of activity for E-M program development
and implementation.
Task Lead responsibility
1. High level program design and goal setting Commission Secretariat
2. Development of standards, specifications, type
approvals, and certification requirements
Commission Secretariat
3. Certification of hardware and software Independent third party
4. Development of policies and procedures Commission Secretariat
5. Development of model legislation Commission Secretariat
6. Program design* - Commission area of
competence
Commission Secretariat
7. Program design– regional Regional bodies and national
fishery agencies
8. Program design - national EEZ Regional bodies and national
fishery agencies
9. Program administration Regional observer programs
and national fishery agencies
10. E-M demonstration trials Commission Secretariat
11. Capacity building and training for industry Regional observer programs
and national fishery agencies
12. Capacity building and training for in-program Regional observer programs
and national fishery agencies
13. Procurement, installation and maintenance of E-
M equipment
Vessel owner
14. Information Management Systems development
and support
Regional bodies and national
fishery agencies
15. Data retrieval or hard drive exchange Regional observer programs
and national fishery agencies
16. Data analysis and reporting Regional bodies and national
fishery agencies
* It is noted the majority of the expertise in program design, administration, data analysis, and capacity building, lies within the current E-
M provider companies. Large parts of this activity should be contracted out.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 52 2013
Implementation Strategy
Strategic Recommendation 5: Implement separate but parallel processes to move E-
Reporting and E-Monitoring technologies forward towards implementation. These
processes should involve the establishment of an Implementation Working Group (IWG)
for each technology, each with a Project Manager, and both under the oversight, direction
and control of an Internal Governance Committee (IGC) to monitor project risks, budgets,
potential conflicts of interest, and progress against agreed goals.
In advance of these discussions it should be stated that an expansive and inclusive process is
proposed as an implementation strategy. This will be expensive in time and resources, but
this expense should be weighed against the magnitude of change envisaged, and long term
gains and benefits.
The key to successful implementation of E-R and E-M will be an effective, transparent, and
clearly understood reporting and control structure, supported by effective project
management (Figure 11). The first step is project initiation, followed by planning, execution,
and closure as the project moves into program implementation. A monitoring and control
process is required throughout the project to ensure risks and conflicts of interest are
managed, the project manages its costs, does not go beyond scope, and delivers to targets.
E-R and E-M are in very different stages in terms of their development and implementation.
• E-R relies on well-established technology, trials in the region have been largely
successful, there is strong industry support because an efficiency dividend is
envisaged, and E-R would replace existing reporting systems. There are challenges to
ensure the data arrives in an appropriate format but these are readily achievable.
• E-M is completely new to most agencies and to industry and has significant
unresolved (but resolvable) logistical and technology challenges. It is seen by many
(including this review) as a potential solution to a range of monitoring challenges
either not currently addressed in a coordinated way, or in some cases yet to be
addressed.
E-R is ready to go, whilst E-M is not. The implementation strategy therefore needs to run as
two processes — running it as a single process would place the potential for rapid progress
with E-R at risk. They are separate technologies with different goals and whilst they clearly
have touch points, for example around the potential to share communication channels, and
for integration of data through fisheries information systems, they are not a single
technology. This review has therefore concluded that separate but parallel processes are
required to move these technologies forward. It should be emphasised it is important these
processes not become silos, and that they collaborate to ensure eventual front end
integration is achieved (see section on integration).
The first step towards implementing E-R and E-M is to initiate discrete projects, and establish
and fund E-project Working Groups (EWGs) for each. The terms of reference for each group
would be built around Commission’s decisions in respect of this report.
Recommendation 23: EWGs be established for both E-Reporting and E-Monitoring, with
the delegation and resources to call on technical advisers and industry expertise, operating
under a strict policy of declaring potential conflicts of interest. SPC should be involved in
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 53 2013
some capacity in the E-Reporting Working Group and FFA should be involved in the E-
Monitoring Working Group.
It is strongly recommended the composition of these EWGs be limited to no more than eight
members, with cross representation from amongst Commission members. This review does
not support a larger group because of the significant risk that larger groups can become
bogged down, accountability can suffer, and progress can stall.
Recommendation 24: The EWGs comprise a maximum of eight country members with
nominations for members with relevant technical skills to be provided to the Commission
Secretariat by 31 January 2014.
IWGs should report to the Commission through the TCC. EWGs should be independently
chaired. We define independent as a person not currently or recently engaged as an
employee by any member or related fishing or technology industries, and with no financial
or other vested or potential direct or indirect conflict of interest.
Recommendation 25: The Commission Chair in consultation with the Secretariat appoints
independent IWG chairs.
EWG member representatives should have a demonstrated strong technical background to
ensure they can make a significant contribution to the project. Membership should include
expertise in E-M and E-R, data standards, legal, policy, and communications.
Experts in each technology should be involved as advisers, and providers of each technology
should be invited to take part at appropriate times. A strict policy of declaring potential
conflicts of interest should be applied.
A high level internal governance committee (IGC) should be established to oversight the
process with appropriate levels of delegated power to address emerging issues and
challenges in real time. Issues will emerge which will require resolution if these processes
are to be delivered in an effective and efficient manner. The IGC Chair should be the
Secretariat’s Compliance Manager with no more than three other members nominated from
amongst Commission members with appropriate experience in project implementation and
governance.
Recommendation 26: The Secretariat establishes an Internal Governance Committee (IGC)
chaired by the Compliance Manager, and with three members.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 54 2013
Figure 11. Organisational elements for the proposed implementation strategy.
The Commission Secretariat, through the IGC should lead the monitoring and control
element of the project including development of terms of reference for the IWGs based on
any decisions of the Commission with respect to this report’s recommendations. The IGC
terms of reference should be developed by the Secretariat and include the role of
developing and monitoring project risks, budgets, potential conflicts of interest, and
progress against agreed goals and output deadlines.
IWGs should commence a program of meetings no later than March 2014 with meetings at a
maximum of 6 weekly intervals. Whilst full advantage should be taken to meet often
through video- and tele-conferencing, it will be important for these groups to meet face-to-
face at regular intervals — at least 4 times before the deadline for TCC reporting.
A project manager should be dedicated to each IWG with agreed outputs to be included in
each position description and terms of reference. There are several options for engagement
of project managers. These include the use of a known contractor, secondment from a CCM
agency, secondment from FFA or SPC, or external recruitment of an employee or contractor.
Secondment (especially with funding) from a CCM agency or from FFA or SPC is attractive
because the project will be dealing with a known entity and the decision can be achieved
within the proposed project time frame. The time frame involved in advertising for direct
employees will however almost certainly mean these projects cannot deliver outcomes
during 2014.
Commission
TCC
Secretariat
Governance
Committee
EWG E-MV
EWG E-R
•
Oversight, control and direction of IWGs through Secretariat,
in line with Commission approvals.
• IWGs reporting to Commission through TCC.
EWG
Project
Manager
EWG
Project
Manager
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 55 2013
Whilst the Project Manager will need to spend time at the Commission HQ, the position does
not, in the opinion of this review need to be based at the Commission’s HQ. A decision that
required the position to be HQ based would push out project deadlines.
Recommendation 27: Project managers should be procured either through engagement of
suitably experienced contractors known to the Secretariat, or as a potential secondment
from a CCM agency, or as a secondment from FFA or SPC.
The initial focus of project officers and the IWGs should be on the tasks to develop:
i. Specifications and standards
ii. Policies and procedures
iii. Model legislative provisions
iv. Indicative cost models and cost recovery approaches, and
v. Program resource material
During 2014, it is highly desirable that E-M demonstration trials are undertaken across the
region to develop support for, and awareness and familiarity with the project. These trials
should be undertaken in as many countries as possible, and involve a cross section of vessels
and fisheries.
A single broad communication strategy should be developed, and include as a minimum,
regular project updates communicated through a newsletter (including trials), local and
regional media, and regular updates of website material. An international database of
fishery organisations and technology providers should be developed for distribution of
project newsletters. A dedicated website should be developed.
Recommendation 28: The Commission Secretariat should facilitate E-M demonstration
trials and develop a broad communication strategy.
These tasks should be substantially complete in advance of the 2014 TCC meeting for
endorsement, prior to submission for endorsement by the Commission.
Prior to attempting these tasks, a planning workshop will be required. It is proposed initial
high level program design and goal setting workshops be held in advance of but in
association with the initial IWG meetings. A broader group should be invited to attend these
workshops and they should be held in conjunction with an initial joint meeting of IWGs.
Recommendation 29: The Commission Secretariat should develop IWG terms of reference
based on relevant decisions of the Commission concerning this report, and including the
program of meetings.
The final role of the IWG is to develop the support material necessary for effective program
implementation. This will take the form of published documents for WCPO E-M and E-R
programs for:
• Standards and specifications
• Type approval and certification
• Program policies and procedures
• Model legislative provisions
• Operational documents (job descriptions, training standards, health and safety etc)
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 56 2013
Recommendation 30: Planning workshops involving full CCM participation should be held
immediately in advance of an initial joint meeting of IWGs.
What next 2015+?
There is a high potential for these initial processes to be substantially complete by the 2014
Commission meeting. This will mean operational programs under the approved program
could become operational during 2015.
For E-R, the roll out of eLogs will begin quickly, building on the existing momentum. Country
and regional databases will need to be actively managed and updated for receipt of
electronic data, and capacity building will be required for observers, industry, and office
based support staff.
For E-M, the next step will involve the program design for the various fisheries and regions,
program by program. Whilst each program will have common characteristics each will also
have unique features. A program design team should be developed to work across all
programs to provide support and ensure consistency during this phase. It is feasible that
early implementation could occur during mid to late 2015. A slow implementation should be
anticipated, starting with a subset of vessels.
For all technologies, including VMS, AIS, and FAD monitoring, the focus will now be on
integration of data, its use for fishery policy, science and compliance to fulfil reporting
obligations, and for communication to members and beyond. The goal of integration must
be kept in mind throughout the IWG process.
SWOT Analysis
Methods
This review undertook a Strength Weakness Opportunity Threats (SWOT) analysis of existing
approaches against both E-M and E-R. The SWOT analysis was undertaken with the support
of staff from FFA and SPC.
SWOT analysis is a tool to help work out the internal and external factors affecting your
project. It is a commonly used business analysis and decision-making tool that helps to
identify and build on strengths, minimise weaknesses, seize opportunities and counteract
threats. A SWOT analysis is conducted with a particular business objective in mind. For
example, a SWOT analysis can help decide whether to introduce a new product or service, or
change your existing processes. It can help you better understand the options and work out
what could be improved without substantial change. It can also help understand the current
situation, and help plan to make sure your project is successful. An important aspect of a
SWOT analysis is that it can help to identify and understand key issues, but it is limited in
that it does not necessarily offer solutions. It is useful for comparing two or more
alternatives, and a key advantage of a SWOT analysis is that it tends to concentrate around
the most important factors. Using SWOT helps to develop strategies.
SWOT analysis has limitations because it:
• Doesn't necessarily prioritise issues
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 57 2013
• Can appear to give equal weight to issues
• Doesn't provide solutions or offer alternative decisions
• Can generate too many ideas — but not help you choose which one is best
• Can produce a lot of information, and not all of it useful
Results
The results of this analysis were useful in helping to develop recommendations. The results
are indicative of the issues the Commission will face in leading a program of implementation
of these technologies.
Paper-based reporting versus E-Reporting
Current approach
The key strengths of the current approach are the low technical / technology requirements,
the readily available human capacity, and the well understood process and requirements.
The current system generates employment, is familiar and the outputs are human readable.
The weaknesses are quality control, timeliness, cost, inefficiency due to poor data flow and
multiple data entry. It suffers from illegible writing, mistakes, inconsistent coding,
inconsistent data formats, and missing fields. It is labour intensive and lacks a consistent
process for change audits. There are massive storage requirements and a high carbon
footprint. Change management of paper requires long lead time, major expense and waste.
It is also easy to sanitise data before it reaches the science provider.
There are no doubt opportunities to streamline processes and standards and opportunities
to make current processes more efficient, but having said that, this has been tried over
many years, without success. The complexity of the international context seems to generate
inertia.
Threats identified included not providing operational data, and decisions and assessments
made on the basis of incomplete data. Changes in fisheries environment can create an
incentive for misreporting, and changes within fisheries authorities and companies that
impact on program management continuity.
Proposed E-Reporting
The strengths of the proposed E-R approach include timeliness, quality and accuracy, long
run cost savings, tried and proven technology, efficiency — no duplication of handling and
data entry, potential to efficiently integrate multiple sources of data through information
management systems, more resistant to data sanitisation, improved ability to audit, and
support for timely decision making. The technology is familiar (PCs, laptops and tablets) and
the transition to new equipment can be managed quickly. Format changes and changes to
data requirements can be easily implemented, data can be provided simultaneously to
multiple users, eLogs can be readily converted to multiple languages, and data can be easily
backed up on a daily basis.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 58 2013
Weaknesses include the potential time for capacity building at management, local, national,
and industry levels, the potential loss of digital data through inadequate storage
arrangements, high dependence on technology and implementation costs.
The opportunities include reduced time for data to arrive at SPC, integration of all systems,
better access to data for industry, and more certainty and transparency around data
processes. There is an identifiable ability for industry to become more efficient in their data
handling, as well as to benefit from detailed access to historical fishing patterns. There are
flow on benefits for traceability, chain of custody, fishery certification, and chain of
evidence.
The threats identified include communication costs, reframing of the employment
environment towards a greater skills requirement, initial hardware costs, political will and
industry resistance, and vested interests (e.g. existing program employees). There will be a
need for coordination of changes to national legislation, and development of enabling
Commission CMMs. Changes within fisheries authorities and companies can impact on
management continuity for the new program. There is also the risk of technology related
effort creep.
Observer Programs versus E-Monitoring
Current approach
The strengths of the current approach include the ability to build human relationships with
industry (and therefore between industry and agencies), the low reliance on technology, low
communications costs, and no risk of mechanical or electrical failure. Observer programs
create regional employment, and generate economic activity. They create regional human
capacity building beyond tuna fisheries. Human observers can collect a range of biological
and length frequency data and are able to describe situations that may not be picked up
electronically.
Weaknesses include increasing costs, the logistics of moving human observers around the
region, staff failing to arrive, injury and death risks, and human elements such as sickness,
boredom, bribery, conflict, and intimidation. It is difficult to exercise quality control over
data. Placing observers on smaller and older vessels creates unacceptable health and safety
risks. Observers need down time and cannot be in two places at once. Key observer data
can take months to be made available, there are issues with paper recording of data,
variations in observer skill and capabilities, a limited pool of potential observers and
observer staff turnover is outside direct program control.
An opportunity for an expanded observer program would be to create additional
opportunities for regional employment.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 59 2013
Identified threats from a weakened observer program include loss of market access as a
result of program failure, decreased standards of catch documentation for fishery
certification requirements and turnover of staff.
Proposed E-Monitoring
The strengths of the proposed E-M include that it is a well proven alternative to human
observers for some tasks, avoids human issues, and data is stored and doesn’t rely on
human memory. It stands alone as a potential tool to support compliance for certain CMMs,
and in certain fisheries. The new program would drive changes in operational practices, and
changes in compliance approaches and culture. Where E-M is augmenting observers, it
takes the onus off them as the sole point of compliance, and the technology can repeatedly
view events and focus on detail. It creates a significant deterrent for non-compliant
behaviour.
The weaknesses include that it is a high user of technology in a harsh marine environment, it
is logistically complex and untried on this scale in such a large area with so many remote
operations and it would require significant development of human capacity. There would
also be significant satellite communication costs, and significant data storage requirements,
and the arrangements for hard drive exchange or data transfer will present some significant
challenges.
The major opportunities identified (see also section on CMM reporting and compliance)
include the longline fleet observer requirements, transhipment monitoring, TEPS
interactions, mitigation compliance and proof of transiting closed areas.
The major threats to program success include geographic remoteness, political or industry
resistance to a dramatic increase in monitoring, conflict of objectives and the reframing of
the employment environment towards greater skill requirements. There is the potential for
industry resistance, the vessel has an incentive to tamper with equipment if an offence has
been committed and communication costs will increase.
Integration of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring Information
Because a system of paper-based logsheets and paper-based observer reports is already in
place, the transition to E-R for these processes is likely to be relatively straightforward. As
such, it is expected that E-R logsheets and E-R observer reports will be established across a
significant part of the fleet within five years. In contrast, the purpose for which E-M will be
applied to the WCPO tuna fisheries, and how it will be applied has yet to be established. As
a consequence the development and implementation of E-M will take a lot longer than E-R.
Nevertheless, there can be a significant amount of integration between the information
obtained from E-R and E-MV sources. With respect to fisheries information, the value of E-
M can be considered at two levels: 1) a primary data collection source and 2) as a secondary
validation for data collected by another source.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 60 2013
E-M can be used as a primary source of information where there is no other opportunity for
such information to be collected. An example of this might be where E-M is used to monitor
the catch composition of longline vessels that do not have an observer on board. Similarly,
E-M camera mounted on the headline of a purse seine could collect primary information on
species of interest encircled by the net.
An example of where E-M is used as secondary validation of data collected by other sources
could be where off / on data from E-M sensors located on fishing gear hydraulics, can be
used to validate the fishing times entered on vessel logsheets. Similarly, E-M hydraulic
sensors on cranes can be used to validate the position, date and time of transhipment
activities.
There are also some situations where the division between what is collected by E-R and E-M
sources is not clearly defined. For example, an observer would use E-R to record the
information that he sees occurring on the vessel and where E-M is installed, this will be
recording footage that can be used as a secondary validation of the observer information.
However, should that observer be on a different part of the vessel or be otherwise
indisposed, E-M takes over as the primary source of data collection.
E-Reporting and E-Monitoring solutions to CMM reporting obligations
A key challenge for E-R and E-M is to be able to satisfy CMM obligations. These obligations
fall into two broad categories. The first is the obligation to comply with a CMM; the second
is to report about a CMM.
In terms of complying with a CMM, it is a requirement for example, that purse seine vessels
not undertake a set if a school of fish is associated with a whale shark. How can E-MV and E-
R assist in this?
In terms of reporting about a CMM for example, many contain a provision that CCMs are
required to report annually (or more frequently) about their particular efforts.
This review concludes that both E-R and E-M can make a significant contribution to both
complying with, and reporting against CMMs.
An overview table listing each active CMM is attached as Appendix 6. This table uses a cross
to indicate that in the opinion of this review E-R and E-M do not offer a solution; uses a
single tick to indicate a partial solution; and two ticks where this review believes a significant
contribution can be made. The table was compiled with input from the Commission
Secretariat, SPC, and FFA.
In total there are 72 boxes that could be ticked.
• 30 of these boxes, or 42% received 2 ticks
• 22 of these boxes, or 30% received 1 tick
• 20 of these boxes, or 28% received a cross
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 61 2013
In short, this review believes 72% of the CMM compliance and/or reporting obligations could
be supported by either E-R, or E-M, or both.
It is fully accepted this is not a statistically valid method of determining potential
contribution but it does in the view of this review satisfy the question whether it is worth
proceeding with further inquiries.
Discussion on Costs and Benefits
Current situation
The current costs and benefits situation is complex for both E-R and E-M. Certain services
are cost recovered either in part or full through specific charges, whilst others are either
hidden within a general levy charge, or not recovered at all. It is doubtful whether even
those services which are apparently fully cost recovered capture all the associated costs.
This lack of transparency and accountability around program costs serves only to create a
range of perverse incentives acting against the implementation of E-R and E-M reforms
which would involve a cost you’re either not currently paying, or which is included in a
general levy which is unlikely to change.
For example:
• Observer programs are funded through a range of sources including regional agency
funds, fishery management levies and charges to vessels. Why would a longline
vessel operating from Hawaii embrace E-M when observers are provided by the
Government at no charge?
• Logbook and observer data entry costs at SPC are paid from its budget which comes
from both the Commission, and from its core and donor funding. Why would a small
Korean longline vessel embrace eLogs when both paper logs and data entry are
provided at no direct cost?
None of this is completely transparent, and it is not clear that funds used for the existing
approach would transfer to a new approach, or whether industry would be paying the costs
of a new approach in full.
In the same way the region has benefited from harmonised minimum terms and conditions
for licenses, so too could it benefit from a common and transparent approach to pricing and
charging. The associated micro-economic reform would be beneficial in the long run —
noting that this review does not hold a view on a States’ right to provide subsidies to its
industry, other than that subsidies should be transparent.
An example in Australia of a positive cost incentive was created for the adoption of eLogs
once the true costs of manual data entry for each log sheet were passed on to industry.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 62 2013
How much does an observer cost?
The following gives an indication of observer program costs both in the region and
elsewhere:
• The US Pacific Islands Regional Observer Program received around $6.5 million in
2012 to support observer coverage in the Hawaii pelagic longline deep-set tuna
fishery, the Hawaii pelagic longline shallow-set swordfish fishery, and the American
Samoa longline fishery3. The program observed a total of 9,790 sea days across all
three fisheries at an average cost per day of around $650
• The average cost of an observer operating in the Australian tuna longline fleet is
around $1,200 per day4
• The cost of an observer in the New England Groundfish Fishery is around $850 per
day8
• Indicative costs associated with the US Treaty observer program administered by FFA
are around $220 per day5
• For the PNA observer program (for vessels operating under the FSM Agreement) the
typical cost of an observer program day is around $2006. The cost recovery structure
includes both fixed and variable components which means the costs for vessels
operating for only limited periods are higher.
How much will E-Monitoring Cost?
The costs associated with E-M programs have two key components: The program
establishment costs involving for example, program design, purchase of equipment,
installation, and training; and the recurrent annual costs associated with program
administration, repairs, maintenance, data analysis, and reporting.
• The Australian Fishery Management Authority (AFMA)7 suggests that for 32 vessels
to be fitted with E-M equipment, the year 1 costs would be around $1 million, with
recurrent operating costs of around $330,000. Over a 5 year period this equates to a
per vessel annual cost of around $10,300 recurrent, or $14,500 with first year capital
costs amortised over the full five year period
• The US West Coast Whiting Fishery8 annual cost including either amortised capital, or
lease costs for equipment, is $405,000 for 35 vessels, an average annual cost per
vessel of around $11,500
• The capital cost of Satlink9 E-M hardware is around $10,600
3 NMFS National Observer Program Annual Report (2012)
4 Pers comm. various
5 Pers comm. Tim Park, FFA Observer Program Manager (Oct 2013)
6 Pers comm. Transform Aqorau, PNA (Oct 2013)
7 Electronic onboard monitoring pilot project for the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery. (FRDC Project 2009/048)
8 Fisheries Monitoring Roadmap (2013)
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 63 2013
• A typical multi-camera system and gear sensors can be significant ($8,000 or more)8
• The BlackBox sensor monitoring system has a capital cost of around $3000; the full E-
M system is around $850010
How much does current manual logbook reporting cost?
Globally, there is significant variation around the costs of paper logbooks and whether or not
this is a cost borne by the government, subsidised, or totally cost recovered back to industry.
As such, it is difficult to get accurate figures on the current costs of paper-based logbook
systems. There are costs associated with the design of the logbook, printing of the paper
logbooks, updating logbooks and recalling obsolete logbooks, postage of the logbooks
through to fishermen and postage back to the management agency. Once received by the
management agency, there are costs associated with data checking and validation, which
includes obtaining feedback from fishermen. Finally, there are costs associated with the
data entry.
Although this information is difficult to obtain, a recent process by the Australian Fisheries
Management Authority took the costs for their paper-based logbook system out of
overheads and cost recovered it back to industry. Depending on the fishery, costs associated
the paper logbooks system, including data entry, ranged between $8 and $12 per logsheet.
Different logsheets contain information between 3 to 5 sets depending on the fishery and
gear type. Based on a standard vessel working 250 days a year, the costs of the paper-based
logbook system could be roughly estimated at $2,500 per year.
How much will E-R cost?
There are many and varied models by which E-R providers charge for their product. Some
companies are paid for the level of data transmission and supply a relatively basic logbook at
no charge. Other companies charge a once off fee will purchase of the product, and there
are no further charges. An increasing number of E-R providers are charging an annual rental
or licence fee for their product which may or may not include a level of training and
technical support in the annual fee. As a consequence, it is again very difficult to make
general statements on how much and E-R products cost. In considering the companies that
charge an annual licence fee for their product, these fees may range between $500 and
$5000 per year depending on the number and level of software components and analysis
procedures included with the software package. It would be safe to say, however, that an E-
R product that meets all of the requirements recommended in this report as a minimum,
could be purchased for an annual fee of less than $1000 per vessel.
9 Pers comm. Leticia Diaz del Rio, Satlink (OctSept 2013)
10 Pers comm. Ole Skov, AnchorLab (Oct 2013)
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 64 2013
Discussion
Electronic solutions are a revolution and offer the potential to streamline and improve
practices at every level. E-R would replace tonnes of paper logs each year, all of which have
to be distributed, filled out, returned and data entered on multiple occasions. E-M will
enable observer style information to be collected from large parts of the unmonitored fleet,
improve our knowledge of fisheries, and create a strong compliance incentive, bringing
about a once in a lifetime change in fishing practices.
The question of how fisheries administrators either reallocate resources or obtain additional
resources to achieve these outcomes using these new technologies is however a matter
requiring close attention.
The costs of implementing E-R and E-M are highly likely to result in a long term and positive
cost benefit. But in the absence of additional funding it will require a willingness to
reallocate resources from existing activities to new ones, and to recover some of the new
costs from industry. It is clear that currently, cost recovery is not applied uniformly, and cost
burdens are not felt in a uniform way. This should in the opinion of this review be a focus of
reform.
Whilst one comment was to the effect of “the question is not so much whether we can
afford to implement this, but whether we can afford not to”, the fact is that implementation
will require investment.
The potential uptake of E-M and E-R solutions in the WCPO tuna fisheries will be critically
dependent on the implementation approach with respect to timing, technology, capacity, a
practical understanding of the political and social environment, and adequate funding for
program implementation.
Recommendation 31: A detailed study of costs and benefits, as well as the potential
impacts on regional employment would be useful projects should resources permit.
Legislative Changes
Prior to implementing E-R or E-M, CCMs should review legislation to ensure current
requirements are updated (for example prescribed logbook formats), that the
implementation of these technologies is lawful and beyond challenge, that the data can be
used lawfully, that data can be used in evidence and to prove offences, to ensure that vessel
operators can be required to install the technologies, to comply with rules regarding the
operation of the technology (including the transmission of data), and to determine whether
equipment has been tampered with or damaged. It is likely that FFA would play a key role in
the review of legislation in the E-R and E-M context.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 65 2013
Tsamenyi (2010) presents a study of fisheries legislation for eleven countries in the region to
determine capacity to fulfil obligations under the Regional Plan of Action (RPOA) to Promote
Responsible Fishing Practices including Combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
Fishing. The study presents a draft framework relevant to a range of benchmarks, which
includes for example VMS and observer data. Drawing on the general approach in that
study, and on personal experience, State legislation should include provisions that enable
States to:
• Compile fishery-related and other supporting scientific data from the use of
Electronic Monitoring and Electronic Reporting in an agreed format and be able to
cooperate and provide such data to relevant subregional or regional organisations
and/or States (subject to confidentiality requirements in accordance with national
law)
• Require, in accordance with regional, subregional and global programs, that flagged
vessels and vessels flagged by other States that fish in its EEZ, install and carry,
Electronic Monitoring and Electronic Reporting equipment on board, and operate
that equipment when so required
• Include appropriate terms and conditions on fishing licence related to the operation
and maintenance of Electronic Monitoring and Electronic Reporting equipment
• Inspect Electronic Monitoring and Electronic Reporting at sea or in port and require
data held on equipment to be provided on demand and to be able to seize or detain
any component of such equipment where reasonable grounds exist to suspect an
offence has been committed
• Investigate and take any action necessary in response to breaches of State legislation,
and for alleged breaches of other States’ legislation based on and using evidence
gathered from Electronic Monitoring and Electronic Reporting equipment
• Take appropriate enforcement action with penalties appropriate to the severity of
the offence which take into account the fisheries offence likely to be provable using
data from electronic monitoring and electronic reporting programs and which could
be avoided by wilful damage or loss of equipment
• Implement a range of fines and other penalties and sanctions (including non court
sanctions such as infringement notices, licence suspensions and cancellations,
mandatory tie-up days, and catch forfeiture) for offences.
• Classify data from Electronic Monitoring and Electronic Reporting programs as
confidential and not generally subject to the provision of freedom of information
provisions, to the extent possible
• Manage the issue of electronic data storage. It is important that each program
identify its data storage needs and that steps are taken to avoid any default records
legislation storage provisions for electronic records which in some cases can be 5
years or longer
• Investigate and prosecute any person who divulges information from Electronic
Monitoring and Electronic Reporting programs to an unauthorised person
• Determine ownership of data collected through Electronic Monitoring and Electronic
Reporting programs
As a general comment, consideration should be given to offences involving Electronic
Monitoring and Electronic Reporting programs being written in such a manner that the
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 66 2013
operator be required to prove that an offence involving failure to operate, failure to report,
and damage to equipment was not committed. Such a reverse onus of proof clause shifts
the burden of proof onto the individual to disprove an element of the information.
As well as each State being able to enforce its own legislation it is also desirable for it to be
able to enforce any Commission CMM. This requires specific recognition of the international
agreement. Consideration should also be given to how coastal and flag States will enforce
provisions relating to electronic monitoring and electronic reporting relating to offences
committed under regional agreements and bi lateral arrangements and by which (either or
both) party.
At the regional level, the Commission will need to approve CMMs that provide for and
require E-R and E-M programs to be established (including all the associated administrative
arrangements), and for CCMs to require their vessels to use them.
Regional organisations such as the FFA and PNA who support their membership with
harmonised minimum terms and conditions (MTCs) should update these provisions to reflect
the introduction of E-R and E-M programs.
Recommendation 32: The development of model fisheries legislation, with a focus on
supporting Pacific Island Countries, be developed by the Commission Secretariat.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 67 2013
8. References
AFMA (2008). AFMA XML Daily Fishing Logbook Schema EDSEINEDanish (Scottish fly)
Seining, Version V1b. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, 111pp.
Atwood, J. (2009): XML: The Angle Bracket Tax.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2008/05/xml-the-angle-bracket-tax.html retrieved
10/10/2013.
Lowman, DM, R Fisher, MC Holliday, SA McTee, and S Stebbins. (2013). Fishery Monitoring
Roadmap.
NOAA (2009). Electronic Logbook Certification Guidelines for Logbook Reporting in Pacific
Island Fisheries, Version 1.7. NOAA Fisheries, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, 61pp.
Shafranovich, Y. (2005). Common Format and MIME Type for Comma-Separated Values
(CSV) Files. The Internet Society, RFC 4180
SPC (2011). Report of the eighth meeting of the Tuna Fishery Data Collection Committee:
16-19 November 2009, Noumea, New Caledonia / Secretariat of the Pacific Community,
Forum Fisheries Agency.
Tsamenyi, M. (2010). Framework study for model fisheries legislation in South East Asia,
report on Australian legislation, ANCORS, University of Wollongong.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 68 2013
Appendix 1 – Terms of Reference
Objective 1: Develop a common understanding and language of what E-
Reporting and E-Monitoring will mean in the WCPFC tuna fisheries.
1. Provide a clear definition and distinction between E-Reporting and E-Monitoring,
drawing on relevant examples in the WCFPC Tuna Fisheries wherever possible
2. Describe the potential uses of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring data for MCS, science,
and broader fisheries management and policy.
3. Provide an overview of current obligations for collecting and managing scientific and
other data in the WCPFC tuna fisheries, highlighting OBSERVER and LOGSHEET DATA
(E-Reporting) – i.e. clearly state what the current data requirements and deliverables
are.
4. Summarise current WCPFC CMM obligations and other regulatory requirements that
could potentially be covered by E-Reporting and E-Monitoring.
5. Provide an overview of the stakeholders in the WCFPC area and their current and
perceived roles in:
• Data collection/management, highlighting OBSERVER and LOGSHEET DATA (E-
Reporting), and
• Management and Compliance (E-Monitoring).
• And identify whether their respective roles may be expected to change with
implementation of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring?
Key stakeholders to include SPC, WCPFC, FFA, PNA, National Fisheries Authorities/Govt.
(coastal-state and flag-state), TVM, and the fishing industry.
Objective 2: Document and evaluate current and future E-Reporting
technologies that are potentially suitable for collecting information in the
WCPFC tuna fisheries, and recommend the best potential options for
WCPFC tuna fisheries.
1. Evaluation of each type of E-Reporting product/initiative, including sections on each
of the following:
• A brief description of the product/initiative, the product provider contact details,
cost, availability, existence of training/documentation, etc. This section should be
concise but refer the reader to any web links and/or publications that elaborate
on the technical and non-technical aspects of the product.
• A description of where the product/initiative has been implemented/trialled,
including scale of implementation, duration of implementation, etc.
• A summary of any evaluations of the product/initiative (indicating whether the
evaluation was independent or not). This should include --
• Specific reference to any opinions of stakeholder(s), particularly noting their
opinions on the success or otherwise of the product/initiative.
• Technical Issues/constraints encountered
• Non-technical issues/constraints encountered, specifically including but not
restricted to legal, logistical, socio-economic issues
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 69 2013
• An appraisal of the identified products by the consultant with respect to
suitability for large-scale implementation in the WCPFC Tuna Fisheries, including
PROS/CONS from both the technical perspective, and the non-technical
perspective
2. A table ranking each product/initiative including a descriptive narrative of pros and
cons according to the consultant’s evaluation which should include: fit with identified
requirements; proven track record of implementation; reliability of technology;
flexibility to adapt and improve; potential for delivery through PICs.
Objective 3: Document and evaluate current and future E-Monitoring
technologies that are potentially suitable for WCPFC tuna fisheries.
1. Evaluation of each type of E-Monitoring product/initiative, including sections on each
of the following:
• A brief description of the product/initiative, the product provider contact details,
cost, availability, existence of training/documentation, etc. This section should be
concise but refer the reader to any web links and/or publications that elaborate
on the technical and non-technical aspects of the product.
• A description of where the product/initiative has been implemented/trialled,
including scale of implementation, duration of implementation, etc.
• A summary of any evaluations of the product/initiative (indicating whether the
evaluation was independent or not). This should include:
i. Specific reference to any opinions of stakeholder(s), particularly noting
their opinions on the success or otherwise of the product/initiative.
ii. Technical Issues/constraints encountered
iii. Non-technical issues/constraints encountered, specifically including
but not restricted to – Legal, Logistical, Economic issues
iv. Could this product also be used for E-Reporting?
2. An appraisal of the product by the consultant with respect to suitability for large-
scale implementation in the WCPFC Tuna Fisheries, including PROS/CONS from both
the technical perspective, and the non-technical perspective (see above)
Objective 4: Propose recommendations for the most practical and
efficient framework of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring in the WCPFC
Fisheries to guide discussions of a dedicated small working group.
A report covering this work should include, but not restricted to, the following: (IK)
1. A summary review of the outputs of OBJECTIVES #1 thru OBJECTIVE #3
2. Describe the current system and recommendations for the most practical and
efficient FRAMEWORK for OBSERVER and LOGSHEET data E-Reporting and E-
Monitoring in the WCPFC Fisheries in the future. For the future framework, include a
description of:
• Processes including data acquisition, data management and data dissemination
• Expected roles of each stakeholder
• The potential conflicts
• What legislation is required to accommodate this scenario at both the national
and regional level.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 70 2013
• Anticipated technical support requirements (e.g. equipment and human
resources)
3. Cost implications
4. Present a SWOT analysis of current arrangements and the potential future
framework, including consideration of a hybrid approach which might best satisfy
WCPFC requirements.
• Identify the critical factors to be considered in the decision making process
including:
• Describing the interrelationships between E-Reporting and E-Monitoring and how
they might be integrated, or where they might operate exclusively
5. Describing the decision making factors to be considered, for example, costs and
benefits to identified stakeholder groups, timely access to data, quality of data, etc.
6. Identifying which factors are likely to be more important to different stakeholders
and how this can be presented and potential conflicts resolved.
7. For the most practical and efficient future FRAMEWORK identified, list the steps
involved and the perceived stakeholder(s) responsibilities in order to proceed with
large-scale E-Reporting and E-Monitoring implementation in the WCPFC Tuna
Fisheries, highlighting important issues that can be documented now or will need
specific attention, such as a detailed breakdown of resource needs, cost recovery,
changes to legislation, etc.
• A short discussion and recommendations section, which should include:
• Reviewing the information at hand, the pros and cons of current approaches, the
potential Framework, and including consideration of a hybrid approach.
• Providing a summary (with explanation) of what the consultant recommends
would be the best way to progress towards the most practical and efficient
framework for E-Reporting and E-Monitoring, including a clear
recommendation for a preferred approach if it is clear there is one.
• Describing a potential process for decision making to move E-Reporting and E-
Monitoring implementation forward through regional meetings/workshops
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 71 2013
Appendix 2 – Global E-Reporting products
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 72 2013
Product
Catchlog
Contact
Company: Catchlog Trading Pty. Ltd
Address: 109 Tills Street, Westcourt, Cairns, Queensland, Australia 4870
Phone: Australia: +61 (07) 4033 132
Email: admin@catchlog.com
Web: www.catchlog.com
Description
Catchlog is a touch screen capable electronic reporting system that has been customized for different
fisheries in several different countries. It can be installed on Windows based PC, laptop or tablet, and
has the facility to record catch and effort information, and an add-on module enables transmission of
data in the required format to the management agency. Catchlog has a range of features including
integration with GPS, mapping and data reporting. There are some aspects that can be customised by
the user, and there are a number of add-ons including Fleet Manager, Quota Manager, and Food
Safety Manager.
Data can be output in XML, PDF, CSV, XLS or RTF formats, and Catchlog uses PgP and HTTPS
encryption. Data transfer can be completed using internet, satellite or email communication.
Transmission can completed using a number of methods including as email attachments, embedded
text email, mobile storage device, dedicated FTP or HTTPS connection, VMS or virtually any Iridium
and Inmarsat based communication.
The usual pricing model is based on a one off cost and subscription. The base unit cost is AUS$395
and E-log Manager (the add-on used to transmit data to the management agency) costs AUS$195 per
year. There is a dedicated support team that can provide online support to the vessel for free during
the first year, and for AUS$140 per year after that. Online support is conducted using Team Viewer.
There is an alternative pricing model, whereby States or organisations buy on bulk, with an annual
fee. This would provide a secure server with “Fishery Manager” program, the owners (Concession
Holders) of the vessels get “Fleet Manager” program, and the Vessels get CatchLog 2 installed and
trained. Instructional videos are also available and can be seen here: http://www.catchlog.com.
Applications
Catchlog is used in Australia and the UK, and is also being trialled in the Maldives and Canada. It has
been adapted to suit a number of different fisheries using a variety of gear types including trawl,
gillnet, long-line, dredge, seine and trap. It has been used in the Northern Prawn Fishery since 2008,
and in the UK since October 2010. There are currently 52 Northern Prawn Fishery (Australia) vessels
43 other vessels in Australia using Catchlog. There are 117 vessels using CatchLog in the UK Fisheries
and 6 in Spain.
Feedback
Independent - Northern Prawn Fishery Industry Association have used Catchlog since 2008, and in
2010 wrote that “The system has been in place in the Northern Prawn Fishery for two years and is
working well.” and “The Catchlog team work closely with the NPFI, AFMA and individual trawler
operators to provide policy and technical support as and when required.“ (Source NPFI letter written
by Annie Jarrett, CEO of NPFI, sent to us by Catchlog staff).
Stakeholder feedback - Feedback from six stakeholders in the Northern Prawn Fishery were supplied
to us by Catchlog staff. All feedback was positive, and highlighted the ease of use and follow up
technical support. Access to their catch and effort data was also highlighted as a great benefit over
traditional paper logbooks.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 73 2013
Product
E-Logbook
Contact
Company: Chartworx
Address: Chartworx B.V., Paleiskade 100, 1781 AR Den Helder, The Netherlands
Phone: Netherlands: 0031 223 684200, Mobile: 0031 6 532 93985
Email: info@chartworx.com, leeke@chartworx.com
Skype: leeke.van.der.poel
Web: www.chartworx.com
Description
E-Logbook is a Windows based system for reporting fishing effort and retained and discarded
catch data. Reporting of interactions with protected species is not yet included, however
this will be available on 1 December 2013. It does include a simple data reporter, and more
advanced data analysis capability is in development. E-Logbook can be integrated with GPS
to record event locations, and also with fish plotters. Some user customization is available.
E-Logbook is not yet touch screen capable, but this is in development.
E-Logbook uses PGB encryption in the UK, while in the Netherlands, encryption software on
a dongle is employed. It primarily exports data in XML format, but also in PDF, and
transmission is via email (GPRS, SatCom). Capacity to transmit via VMS is currently in
development.
There are two different purchase models; a once off cost with the option to buy upgrades, or
an annual license that includes maintenance and upgrades. As an indication, current retail
prices are € 1100 for the once off license purchase (incl maintenance) or € 450 per year for
subscription. Software support is available on request, and digital documentation (including
extensive user manuals and quick start manuals) is provided on installation. “Tool tips” are
also built into the software for each input field. A demo version is available.
Applications
E-Logbook is used by over 160 vessels in the Netherlands and UK, and is available for all FAO
fishing gears. Chartworx have been supplying electronic logbooks since 2010 in the
Netherlands and 2011 in the UK.
Feedback
Independent – Chartworx E-logbook complies with the Electronic Recording and Reporting
system (ERS) of the European Union (EU) as laid down in Council Regulation of the European
Commission (EC) number 1224/2009 including the latest EC amendments and is type
approved by the Netherlands and United Kingdom governmental fishery authorities.
Non-independent – not available
Stakeholder feedback - not available
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 74 2013
Product
Marlin
Contact
Company: CLS France & CLS Argos AU-NZ-South Pacific
Address: PO Box 42, South Yarra, Victoria Australia 3141
Phone: AUS: +61 418 368 917 +61 3 9867 3108
Email: guan@clsargos.com.au
Web: http://automne-halios.cls.fr/files/pmedia/edited/r83_9_fiche_marlin100_an.pdf
Description
The Marlin is a simple eform system that is distributed on a stand-alone ruggardised, touch
screen terminal using a Linux operating system. Marlin can be used to report retained and
discarded catch, as well as effort and interactions with protected species. Catch reports are
based on the SPC purse seine format. It allows some customisation by the user and is linked
to the GPS, and the data can be reviewed by the user after it has been submitted. There is
no mapping of catch and effort. Add-ons can be developed depending on user
requirements. It is touch screen capable.
The Marlin is connected to the FFA type approved CLS MTU (e.g. “Thorium” and/or “LEO”)
and hence uses the same VMS channel to transmit catch and effort data (including discards
and protected species interactions) and transhipment data to CLS servers. From there can
be exported to the fisheries agency in any format required. The system also enables the
user to send email and text messages, and receive weather forecasts including typhoon
alerts.
The purchase model is a once off cost of approximately 350€* for the terminal and eform
plus installation cost and data transmission cost (which depends on the size and frequency of
transmissions and catch and effort data as well as other data that is sent or received). Cost
of the Marlin hardware and VMS unit combined is approximately 1600€*. End user price
depends on quantity and other factors, and there are savings offered to bulk purchases.
Training can be supplied on request, and recent training course have been provided in the
Philippines (Navotas and General Santos) to fisheries staff and fishing industry members.
*prices are indicative only.
Applications
There are currently 20 purse seine vessels using the Marlin in the Philippines, and 400-500
other vessels using the system in Vietnam, potentially expanding up to 3,000 units by 2015
(primarily for weather forecasting to warn fishermen of approaching typhoons). The Marlin
can also be programmed to suit other activities apart from purse seine e.g. such as longline,
pole and line etc…as per SPC logsheet format.
Feedback
Independent – not available
Non-independent - not available
Stakeholder feedback - not available
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 75 2013
Product
eCatch
Contact
Company: Dualog
Address: Alkeveien 14N-9015 Tromsø, Norway
Phone: Norway: T +47 77 62 19 00 (D 965), M +47 M 913 07680
Email: sb@dualog.com
Web: www.dualog.com
Description
eCatch can be installed on PCs, laptops, tablets or smartphone, to report retained and
discarded catch and fishing effort as well as interactions with protected species. Functions
include data reporting and analysis, mapping and recording position information from
connected GPS. User customisation is available, and it is touch screen capable. An add-on
called, Dualog Connection Suite, enables the sending of electronic reports to shore. Another
add-on is eCatch Management, the shore based version that can be synchronised with
eCatch to provide the office with an up-to-date overview of fleet activity.
eCatch outputs Wibu-Key and PGP encrypted data in North Atlantic Format (NFL) or EU-XML
format. Most common communication systems can be used to transmit data to the fisheries
agency including Inmarsat C, Mini-M, Fleet 33, 55, 77, Fleet Broadband, Iridium, Iridium
OpenPort, VSAT, GSM, GPRS, EDGE, 3G, UTMS, CDMA 2000, IMAX and WIFI.
Dualog normally offer a hybrid purchase model, with a once of purchase cost (~USD$2000)
plus and annual subscription to cover maintenance fee and support. Airtime costs are
additional, and depend on the system used and the frequency and size of transmission. 24/7
technical support is available via phone, email and remote login using TeamViewer. A simple
user guide is provided with eCatch.
Applications
Dualog has been providing electronic reporting systems since 2006, and there are currently
over 530 vessels based in Norway and the UK that use eCatch. All FAO defined gear types
are supported.
Feedback
Independent – not available
Non-independent - not available
Stakeholder feedback – Available on request. Some use feedback can be seen at
http://dualog.com/images/stories/Products_and_Services/Fisheries_it_solutions/article_Dualog_elog.pdf
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 76 2013
Product
E-catch
Contact
Company: E-catch
Address: Westwal 2, 8321WG, Urk, Netherlands
Phone: Netherlands: 0031 527 689 701
Email: pvs@e-catch.eu
Web: www.e-catch.eu
Description
E-catch is a touch screen capable electronic reporting system that can be installed on
Windows based computers. It has the facility of capture retained and discarded catch, effort
and interaction with protected species data. It can be integrated with GPS, and has data
reporting and mapping capability. It is customisable, enabling the user to save “favourites”,
such as docking sites, fishing gear configuration and regularly caught fish species. It is built
in a modular package, with upgrades available including weighing systems and quota
management.
Data is exported in any format required by the user, and data is encrypted, however details
of encryption were not revealed to us. Data can be transmitted using any communication
device currently on the market including VMS.
E-catch available on a subscription basis for EU$300 per year (although cost after the first
year may depend on requirements for support and upgrades). This includes upgrades,
maintenance and 24/7 support via a toll-free helpline. User guides and documentation is
provided as part of the instillation, and help files are also available within the software.
Demonstrations and training sessions are available in all areas, and instructional videos are
on their website.
Applications
E-catch began instillations during 2010, includes 61 different gear types and is installed on
over 1000 vessels in 7 different countries including Netherlands, Belgium, United Kingdom,
Scotland and Germany.
Feedback
Independent - ERS 3.1 Technical Audit Report by NCC Group 19 April 2013. The report
recommends the e-Catch v3.21 software as an Approved Product.
Non-independent - not available
Stakeholder feedback - not available
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 77 2013
Product
Turbo Catch
Contact
Company: IXBlue Address: 30, avenue de l'Amiral Lemonnier, 78160 Marly le Roi, France
Phone: France: +33 1 30 08 88 88, +33 6 84 93 37 74
Email: christophe.corbieres@ixblue.com
Web: www.ixblue.com
Description
Turbo Catch is a touch screen capable, Windows based electronic logbook system for PCs,
laptops and tablets. Effort, retained and discarded catch data can be recorded however
reporting of interactions with protected species in not currently included. Latitude and
longitude are directly captured from connected GPS. There is some user customization
available, and Turbo Catch provides catch summaries by day and fishing trip, and an add-on,
SeaXpert (an Electronic Chart Display and Information System based software), enables
geolocalized catch statistics to be displayed. An additional add-on, Fish Book, can combine
ERS mandatory data with additional data from the skipper (fishing conditions, observations,
pictures etc.), and enables geo-statistical analyses and filtering on this combined data set.
Turbo Catch can also be integrated with a wide range of optional interfaces and sensors
including Marel marine scales.
Data is output in proprietary/Access database format, and encrypted using EU type
encryption before being transmitted to IXBLUE operated servers via any of a wide range of
systems including (but not limited to) InmarsatC, Fleet BB, GPRS, 3G, Irridium SBD, Irridium
and Globalstar. Transmission protocols can be customized to suit client needs. It can then
be pushed to fisheries agencies in any format required.
The purchase model is an up-front fee for purchase of the software, as well as an annual fee.
Phone support is split into two levels, Level 1 provides 7/7 support , while Level 2 provides
5/7 support. A demo version is also available on request. There are also transmission costs
that depend on the network used, and size and frequency of transmission. As an indication
of cost, the retail price for the French system is 2000 € (software plus hardware), and the
Vlink beacon transmitter (Irridium SBD based) retails for 1900 €. In order to provide 7/7
service and to maintain servers, a monthly fee is applied to the vessels (about 40 €) in
addition to the Airtime (from 20€ to 80 € about per month). Please note that this is an
indication only, and would depend on the requirements for the particular application.
Applications
Turbo Catch is used by about 450 vessels in France, including the entire French Ocean Tuna
fleet. It is currently configured for use with trawl, net, pot, longline, tuna seiner, and other
seine fishing gear. IXBLUE have been providing Turbo Catch since early 2010 to meet
French/EU ERS requirements.
Feedback
Independent – This product entirely complies with the European Union statutory order
CE1027-2008 officially published on 4 November 2008. (More recent letters of approval
were provided by IXBlue)
Non-independent - not available
Stakeholder feedback - not available
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 78 2013
Product
elogbook
Contact
National Marine Fisheries Service Alaska Region
Address: PO Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668
Phone: US: 907-586-7010
Email: jennifer.mondragon@noaa.gov or suja.hall@noaa.gov
Web: elandings.atlassian.net/wiki/display/doc/eLogbook+Users+Guides+and+Instructions
Description
elogbook is a free, government supported electronic logbook available to longline and trawl
catcher processor vessels fishing in Alaskan waters. It is a Windows compatible system that
allows entry of catch (including some discards), effort and protected species interaction data
on a haul-by-haul basis for fishing operations before transmission via email or directly over
the internet.
Apart from capture of data, it has limited functionality. Users can export their data to Excel
to interrogate their data, and there is some capacity to customise formatting. There is no
GPS integration (latitude and longitude must be keyed in) or mapping, no add-on software
and it is not touch screen capable.
Data is exported in XML format, and there is no encryption. Files are zipped before being
transmitted via email or directly over the internet.
elogbook is supported by the Government, and is free to the fishing industry, however
vessels must provide the computer, printer and internet connectivity. Agency staff are
available to answer questions during business hours (there is a single point-of-contact that
the vessel operators all know to contact). They also maintain a 18x7 help desk where users
can get some help outside of business hours. An email account is also monitored by agency
staff to provide answers to questions. A user guide is available
https://elandings.atlassian.net/wiki/display/doc/eLogbook+Users+Guides+and+Instructions
Applications
eLogbook has been used in Alaska, USA, since January 2011 by the Trawl Catcher Processor
fleet, and since 2013 by the Freezer Longline fleet. There are 119 vessels that have
registered eLogbooks for 2013.
Feedback
Independent - not available
Non-independent - not available
Stakeholder feedback - NOAA hear from stakeholders on a regular basis (via mechanisms
described in "follow up support"). They respond to user discovered bugs and, when
possible, and incorporate user suggestions into new versions of software.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 79 2013
Product
Olrac Dynamic Data Logger (DDL)
Contact
Company: OLRAC SPS
Address: Silvermine House, Steenberg Office Park, Tokai Western Cape, Sth Africa 7945
Phone: South Africa: +1 303 328 6983 6am-7pm MT
Email: clients@olrac.com
Web: www.olrac.com
Description
OLRAC DDL is touch-screen capable software that can be installed on Windows based PCs,
laptops or tablets for collection, analysis, plotting, mapping, reporting, tracing and
transmitting all vessel-related data. It can be customized to suit any commercial fishery, and
is currently installed on vessels operating in a wide variety of fisheries, operating in at least
10 different countries around the world. OLRAC DDL can also be customized by the user to
add or remove species, set valid data limits, change units, hide/unhide fields among others.
Data entry allows capture of retained and discarded catch and effort, as well as interactions
with protected species. In addition, there is a wide variety of add-ons such as capture of text
or multimedia notes, integration with scales, fleet activity optimizer and a fishing trip
advisor.
Data can be output in a variety of formats (XML, CSV, HTML, BMP, SQL scripts, normal text).
End-to-end transmission protocol allows users to transmit secure XML reports, using X.509
digital certificates and W3C XML security standards. XML reports can be signed using XML
signatures and encrypted using hybrid XML encryption prior to transmission. Transmission
can completed using a number of methods including as email attachments, embedded text
email, mobile storage device, dedicated FTP or HTTPS connection, VMS or virtually any
Iridium and Inmarsat based communication.
The pricing model is based on the initial customization, with the cost to be agreed with client
after job assessment is completed, and thereafter an annual licence fee per PC per vessel.
Discounts are offered on bulk orders. A “Lite” version that does not include the GIS
component and some other capabilities can also be offered. Add-on modules are also
available on an annual user licence fee basis. User manual is available to licence holders.
Distributors also provide training on instillation and follow-up support. See the following
website for detailed description http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v67/v67-162.pdf
Applications
OLRAC DDL has been installed on more than 350 vessels, covering numerous gear types
including otter trawl, Danish seine, mussel farming, scallop dredging, lobster and crap
potting, gillnets, demersal and pelagic longlining, charter boat and reel reef fishing. OLRAC
have been providing eLog solutions for about 10 years, and their products have been used in
at least 10 different countries including Australia, Netherlands, Namibia, Chile, New Zealand,
South Africa, United States, UK. http://www.olsps.com/elog/index.php/company/global-
installations
Feedback
Independent - Has successfully passed the UK Fisheries Authorities’ approval process run on
their behalf by the NCC Group, and has been approved by AFMA for use in Australian
fisheries.
Non-independent - http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v67/v67-162.pdf
Stakeholder feedback - http://www.olracnae.com/testimonials
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 80 2013
Product
Pole Star eforms and hardware
Contact
Company: Pole Star
Address: Level 2, ITAMS Building, Innovation Campus, University of Wollongong,
Wollongong, NSW 2522
Phone: AUS: +61 2 4221 5284
Email: richard.bland@polestarglobal.com
Web: www.polestarglobal.com
Description
Pole Star’s electronic logbook solution uses a stand alone, touch screen terminal in the belief
that this provides a more stable, reliable system. The terminal is ruggedized, and designed
to be mounted on vessels. Pole Star provide eForms for a variety of fisheries, that is easily
customized to meet the needs of the client, including capture of retained and discarded
species, and protected species. Analysis of data does not come on standard models, but can
be included if the client requires. It can be integrated with GPS, and has mapping facility.
Add-on software can be included, and depends on the requirements of the client. Updates
to software can be installed remotely.
Data is exported in any format required by the user including XLS, Opendoc, KML and XML.
Encryption is also dependent on the client’s requirements including secure VPN. Data can be
transmitted using any common maritime communication system using satellites or mobile
networks.
The purchase model is usually some payment upfront, as well as cost of airtime on a monthly
payment. Cost often depends on the size of the order. Users manuals come standard on the
terminals, and there is “near” 24/7 phone support. Additional support is available (e.g.
training) depending on the client’s needs. Updates to software can be installed remotely.
Applications
Pole Star’s electronic logbooks have been used since 2006, and cover a range of fishing gears
including Danish seine, trawl, longline and scallop dredge. Pole Star have provided eForms
for several thousand vessels in the US, while 50-100 vessels are using their hardware
systems in Belize.
Feedback
Independent - not available
Non-independent - not available
Stakeholder feedback - not available
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 81 2013
Product
Deckhand
Contact
Company: Deckhand
Address: PO Box 370, Port Elliot, SA, Australia, 5212
Phone: AUS: 0427 262 553
Email: tom@real-time-data.com.au
Web: http://deckhandapp.com
Description
Deckhand is an app designed for mobile devices (iOS, but is being developed for Android) to
record catch and effort information. It is currently available for iPhone 4+ and iPad 2+.
Deckhands comes with a large range of functionality including ability for user to interrogate
their data, report discards and interactions with protected species, links to GPS, mapping
and geo-fencing. Users can also customise the view.
SSL encrypted data is transmitted to management agencies via server to server or email.
Data output formats are CSV and JSON.
The purchase model and costs were not provided by Real Time Data, stating that both are
“by negotiation”. There is an instruction manual, but Real Time Data claim that it “is
intuitive enough to be proficient within 10 minutes of use”. 24/7 phone support is provided.
Applications
Deckhand has been implemented in the South Australian Rock Lobster pot fishery, but can
be converted any other gear type with “low cost customization”. It is currently configured
for 3 different Rock Lobster fisheries, and other fisheries including pipi, trap, blue swimmer
crab and octopus.
Feedback
Independent – “Commercial in confidence”
Non-independent - “Commercial in confidence”
Stakeholder feedback - “Commercial in confidence”
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 82 2013
Product
eLog
Contact
Company: Seatronics
Address: Unit 2, Blackhouse Industrial Estate, Peterhead, AB42 1BN, UK
Phone: UK: +44 (0)1779 480600 M: +44 (0)7801 678709
Email: George.Youngson@seatronics-group.com
Web: www.seatronics-group.com
Description
Seatronics’ eLog is a fully web based electronic reporting system for PCs and laptops. The
user interface is through standard web browsers to report catch, effort and discards. It can
either be connected to the vessels GPS, or a USB GPS can be supplied. Event location is
recorded from the GPS. Although there is no inbuilt mapping functionality, however the
user can view the current location via a Google Map, although the system must be
connected to the Internet for this link to work. eLog is customisable with the ability to edit
species lists, fishing gear and ports. A report function provides the user with a suite of
reports including, logbook, previous trips, GPS current location and an audit trail. eLog also
allows recording of lost fishing gear and prior reporting of return to port.
Encrypted XML data is transmitted to management agencies via email. The email function is
built into eLog, and shows a confirmation pass/fail message. Email can be sent via installed
satellite communication package or by internet USB dongle.
eLog is supplied with a laptop for the once off cost of £2,000, and after the second year
ongoing support costs £400 per year. Seatronics supply 24/7 customer support via phone or
remote access. A user guide is available.
Applications
Seatronics have been providing elogs for 3 years, and eLog has been installed on more than
140 vessels in the UK and Jersey. eLog is used by vessels operating a variety of gear types
including trawlers, pelagic trawlers, scallop vessels and potters.
Feedback
Independent – Has been successfully passed by the UK Fisheries Authorities’ approval
process run on their behalf by the NCC Group.
Non-independent - “Commercial in confidence”
Stakeholder feedback - “Commercial in confidence”
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 83 2013
Product
eTUNALOG
Contact
Company: SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme
Address: SPC Headquarters, BP D5, 98848, Noumea, New Caledonia
Phone: New Caledonia: +687 260158
Email: EmmanuelS@spc.int
Web: http://www.spc.int/oceanfish
Description
eTUNALOG is a free, simple-to-use eForm system for recording catch and effort logbook data
in WCPFC tuna fisheries. The data collected through eTUNALOG can be directly imported
into the Tuna Fisheries Data Manager (TUFMAN) system. It can be installed on Windows
based PCs, laptops and tablets and can easily be adapted for MAC OS. It is not yet touch
screen capable. The PDF forms are identical to those used in WCPFC tuna fisheries, which
do not require detailed reporting of protected species at this stage, but this can be easily
added as required. eTUNALOG is not currently linked to a GPS, but work is underway to
connect the system with vessels’ existing GPS/mapping software or to small portable GPS
devices
. At present, it is not customisable by the user, and the user can not generate reports
through eTUNALOG, however a basic reporting systems for fishing vessels and fishing
companies are planned, and users can generate reports, graphs and maps from the TUFMAN
system once the XML data have been imported.
Data are exported from the eTUNALOG in XML format, and while there is currently no
encryption, options for this are being investigated in addition to support for digital
signatures (which is a current requirement for the current hard-copy logbooks). Data are
transmitted via email as an attachment.
eTUNALOG is free, and it is designed to run on the vessel’s computed or tablet. Email is
required, and this is the only cost to the user. A Users Manual is included with eTUNALOG,
and training can be provided.
Applications
eTUNALOG is currently only used on Purse seine vessels (since January 2013), but trials on
longlines are planned for 2014. There are currently 12 vessels using the system from the
Solomon Islands, New Zealand, Japan, Korea and the Federated States of Micronesia.
Feedback
Independent - not available
Non-independent - not available
Stakeholder feedback - NEW ZEALAND: "I have been filling in the data on eTunalog and find
it user-friendly." - SOLOMONS: "So far the PDF logsheets are good in that it saves time for
the captains to enter data". "This is an excellent program and will receive more positive
feedback as the trials continues." (feedback from industry provided by SPC staff)
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 84 2013
Product
Maritime
Contact
Company: TrackWel
Address: Laugavegur 178, 105 Reykjavik, Iceland
Phone: Iceland: +354 5100 600, +354 5100 603, +354 8600 603
Email: stein@trackwell.com
Web: www.trackwell.com
Description
Maritime is an electronic logbook for Windows based PCs and laptops. Effort, retained and
discarded catch and interaction with protected species data can be recorded, and latitude
and longitude are captured directly from connected GPS. Maritime has a range of functions
including access to catch histories and statistics, and can be connected to sensor devices
such as weather sensors and echo sounders. Add-ons are available for product tracing
(Product Manager), detailed analysis and mapping (CatchViewer web) and for viewing
current positions and past tracks of vessels in a fleet (CatchViewer client).
Standard data output is in XML format, but this can be changed depending on the customer
requirements. Maritime uses private/public key encryption, and like data outputs, alternate
encryption can be used according to customer requirements. Data can be transmitted via all
common maritime communication systems (including Inmarsat-C and Iridium based
BlueTracker), using satellites or mobile networks that support internet connection.
The standard purchase model is once off cost, annual maintenance fee plus transmission
fees that depend of size (typical message size is less than 3kB) and frequency of
transmission. The Base unit cost is USD$2,500. TrackWell offers 24/7 secondary service, and
a local service can be provided upon request. User guide is available, and a demo version
can be provided on request.
For more information see http://www.trackwell.com/maritime/fishing-companies/
Applications
TrackWell have been supplying Maritime since 2007, and there are currently about 500
active users in Iceland, Norway, Faroe Islands and Canada. It supports all main fishing types
including seine nets, surrounding nets, gillnets and entangling nets, longlines, hooks, trap, lift
nets and dredges.
Feedback
Independent – “The system was delivered in time, according to the contract and fulfilled all
requirements. TrackWell has maintained a dedicated service team to provide full support to
the system with regular updates after request from DoF.” Certification from Icelandic
Directorate of Fisheries and Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries (copy of certificate provided
by Steingrimur Gunnarsson, TrackWell)
Approval for use on Norwegian vessels by Directorate of Fisheries, Norway (copy of
notification letter provided by Steingrimur Gunnarsson, TrackWell)
Non-independent - http://www.trackwell.com/maritime/wp-
content/uploads/sites/2/2013/02/Trackwell_Maritime.pdf
Stakeholder feedback - "“We have been using Trackwell eLogbook with excellent results. It
simplifies and saves work with respect to logging catch information and helps planning
future fishing trips.” Gudjon Thorbjornsson, Operation Manager, Ocean Choice International
L.P., P.O . Box 8274, Station A, 1315 Topsail Road, St. John's, NL, Canada, A1B 3N4, Phone:
+1 709-699-6006 (provided by Steingrimur Gunnarsson, TrackWell)
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 85 2013
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 86 2013
Appendix 3 - Summary of E-Reporting Product
Specifications
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 87 2013
Product
Catchlog
E-Logbook
Marlin
eCatch
E-catch
Turbo Catch
Company
Catchlog
Trading
Chartworx
CLS France &
CLS Argos
Dualog
E-catch
IXBlue
System requirements
Platform
PC, Laptop,
Tablet
PC
Standalone
terminal
(rugg. tablet)
PC, tablet,
smartphone
Windows
PC or Tablet
Operating system
Windows XP,
7 and 8
Windows 7/8
32-64 bits
LINUX
Windows XP,
7, 8
Windows XP
or higher
Windows 7,
XP, Vista,8
Minimum RAM
1 GB, rec. 2
GB
2GB
16Mb Flash
32 Mb RAM
2 GB
256MB
1Gb
Minimum
processor
1 GHz
Pentium 2
GHz or faster
ARM920T
EP9307 Cirrus
200MHz
I5
P4
I3
Minimum
memory
700 MB disk
storage
40GB
10 GB
500MB
300 Gb
Min screen
resolution
1024x768
1024x768,
32bit
7’’ Wide 800 x
480
1280 x 768
1024 X 768
1280x1024
Other
requirements
Yes
Serial port,
USB port,
ethernet,
DVD, RS232
cable
Connection to
CLS MTUs -
"Thorium"
and/or "LEO"
Yes
No
Ethernet,
serial comm.
port
Functionality
Data reporter
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Data analysis
Yes
No. In dev.
No
Yes
Yes
No, needs
add-on.
Offline recording
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Report discards
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Report TEP
interactions
Yes
No, in dev.
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
GPS reporting
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Mapping
Yes
No, needs
add-on.
No, supports
weather
maps.
Base version
Yes
No, needs
add-on.
Customisable
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Add-on software
Fleet
Manager,
Quota
Manager,
Food Safety
Manager.
Fish plotters
No ,but
possible.
Dualog
Connection
Suite
Communicatio
n Software
Weighing
system, quota
management,
E-landing.
Seaxpert. Fish
Book
Touch screen
capable
Yes
No. In dev.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Data transmission
Encryption
PgP and
HTTPS
PGB or
encryption
dongle
VMS
Wibu-Key and
PGP
Yes
EU type
Output formats
XML, PDF,
CSV, XLS, RTF
Principally
XML, PDF
Via VMS to
CLS server,
then in any
format rqrd.
North Atlantic
Format (NAF)
or EU-XML
Any
Proprietary/A
ccess
database
format
Transmission
facilities
Internet,
satellite, email
Email (GPRS,
SatCom)
VMS
Most comm.
systems.
All, including
VMS systems
Large variety
of comm.
systems.
Other
communication
Comms. with
shore to send
operational
data.
VMS comm. in
dev.
Email, texting,
weather and
typhoon alerts
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 88 2013
elogbook
OLRAC DDL
Pole Star eforms
Deckhand
eLog
eTUNALOG
Maritime
NMFS Alaska
OLRAC SPS
Pole Star
Real Time Data
Seatronics
SPC
TrackWell
PC
PC, Laptop,
Tablet
Standalone
terminal (rugg.
tablet)
iOS devices
PCs and laptops
PC and tablets
PC
Windows XP, 7
Windows XP,
Prof., Vista, 7, 8
Windows
Embedded CE
6.0 R3 Core,
Prof.
iOS / Android in
development
Windows
Windows XP, 7,8
Windows XP
Prof, Vista, 7, 8
no minimum
specified
4GB
RAM: 256 MB
Flash: 4 GB
iPhone 4+/ iPad
2+ or later
Not supplied
1Gb
128 Mb
no minimum
specified
Marvell¨
XScaleTM
PXA166, 800
MHz (ARM)
As above
Not supplied
1.3 Ghz Pentium
or higher
90 MHz Pentium
or comparable
no minimum
specified
150 MB for
software
As above
Not supplied
5Gb HD
1Ghz CPU, 128
Mb memory
no minimum
specified
800x1024
800 x 480 WVGA
As above
Not supplied
XGA (1024x768)
minimum for
visual comfort
1024x768
No
USB port, GPS
receiver USB,
internet or
thumb drive
Adobe Acrobat
Reader version X
minimum / .NET
3.5 framework
1 Gb free disk
space, serial
ports or USB
ports, preferable
internet
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No. But can do.
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes, tailored to
client
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes, tailored to
client
Yes
No, but can be
added
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes and geo-
fencing
Yes
No, in dev.
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes, needs
internet.
No, in dev.
No, needs add-
on.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Scales Data
Logging, Mini-
reporter, Fishing
Consultant ,
Fleet Activity
Optimiser, other
Depends on
specs of client
Yes
No
CatchViewer
(mapping)
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
X.509 digital
cert. and W3C
XML security
stands. Hybrid
XML encryption.
Depends on
client. VPN
secure
connection.
SSL
Yes
No, in dev.
Private/public
key encryption
or other as rqrd.
XML
XML, CSV, PDF,
HTML, BMP, SQL
scripts, normal
text
XLS, Opendoc,
KML, XML, or
other
CSV, JSON
XML
XML
XML or as rqrd.
Email or directly
on internet
Most comm.
systems incl.
VMS.
All common
maritime comm.
systems, using
satellites or
mobile networks
Server to server
or email
Email via
satellite
communication
package or by
internet USB
dongle.
email
All common
maritime comm.
systems, using
sat. or mobile
networks which
support internet
connection
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 89 2013
Appendix 4 – Global E-Monitoring products
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 90 2013
Product
EM Observe TM, EM RecordTM, EM InterpretTM
Contact
Company: Archipelago Marine Research Ltd
Address: 525 Head Street, Victoria, BC, V91 5S1
Phone: +1 250 383 4535
Email: amr@archipelago.ca
Web: www.archipelago.ca
Description
Archipelago Marine Research (AMR) has led the design and delivery of E-M programs worldwide for
over 20 years. Their products are fully implemented in a number of fisheries, and have underpinned
hundreds of scientific projects and E-M trials. EM ObserveTM comprises a control centre, video
cameras, winch and hydraulic sensors, and GPS receiver. The system runs automatically, mapping the
trip track, and recording sensor and fishing activity. A video record is maintained of all fishing activity
using either analogue or digital cameras with frame rates for digital at up to 30 frames per second. An
uninterruptable power supply is incorporated to allow for orderly shutdown in the event of a power
failure. The system includes an hourly “EM Health Statement” via iridium satellite of time, position,
speed, heading, detailed sensor activity, time video has run, disk space, function testing, and power
failures. This is a duplicate of VMS information and has the potential for type approval. Hardware is
managed using the EM RecordTM data logging software which sits on the onboard control centre. It
organises all the data, and records all sensor and video information for later retrieval and analysis. The
system can be integrated with eLogs and VMS data for comparative analysis (noting VMS is redundant
when EM ObserveTM is fully implemented). EM InterpretTM takes video and sensor data from its
primary form to allow review, annotation, and reporting. AMR prefers to offer a full service to its
customer but will supply equipment (sale or lease), software (under licence), and training for program
staff.
Applications
The British Columbia Groundfish fishery is a line and trap fishery comprising more than 400 longline
and trap vessels, and around 140 trawl vessels, targeting more than 60 different stocks of Groundfish.
The total TAC for all stocks is around 140,000 tonnes, worth around $140 million, with about $85
million of that from line and trap fishing (Turris, B. Management of the BC Groundfish Fisheries
presentation 2009). The Groundfish Hook and Line/Trap Catch Monitoring Program (GHLCMP)
launched in 2006 uses E-M for its independent data collection to support fisheries management and
enforcement, and provide species specific catch records (including discards), by area. Whilst existing
dockside monitoring programs accounted for 100% of landed catch, the fishery lacked at-sea
monitoring creating uncertainty about total catch due to unknown at-sea releases.
The management plan requires all groundfish to be accounted for; for catch to be managed according
to established management areas; for vessels to be individually accountable for their catch; and for
at-sea monitoring standards to meet the above objectives.
The monitoring program was designed with industry to meet a range of requirements including
transferrable quota between all sectors; 100% at-sea and dockside catch monitoring programs;
individual vessel quota (IVQ) management for all sectors; 100% retention of all rockfish;
implementation of consistent management areas; individual vessel accountability for all catch
(retained and released).
The program has been designed to be a cost effective alternative to 100% observer coverage with the
additional benefits of enhanced compliance, reviewable data, no requirement for human observer
needs (food, accommodation and logistics). The E-M program now covers approximately 200 vessels,
1,200 trips, 10,000 sea days, and 20,000 fishing events annually.
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 91 2013
Product
BlackBox
Contact
Company: Anchor Lab K/S
Address: H.C. Andersens Boulevard 37, 5. mf. 1553 Copenhagen V
Phone: (+45) 48 48 15 53
Email: info@anchorlab.net
Web: www.anchorlab.dk
Description
Anchor Lab’s Black Box data collection system provides vessel monitoring and remote/isolated data
collection. The BlackBox System is a modular system that consists of a small sensor data collection
unit (BlackBox R2) that can be used either on its own or in conjunction with a video collection
computer (BlackBox VX), which expands the system to incorporate up to 8 high quality digital IP-
cameras.
The BlackBox R2 is a small and robust aluminum box with a 3.5” TFT screen and numerous
connection possibilities (6 versatile sensor ports, Ethernet, USB). It runs on 12 or 24 VDC and uses
PNP inductive sensors to determine rotation and direction (in/out) of winches. Current loop sensors
(4-20 mA) can be used to record hydraulic pressure or other analog parameters like temperature.
GPS position, speed and heading are also recorded with the sensor values at a customizable
frequency, down to every second.
The internal (expandable) storage can by default hold at least 12 months of data at a logging
frequency of once every 10 seconds - the logging frequency is configurable down to once a second.
The system is capable of automatic over the air updates of its firmware via the built-in GSM module,
which is also used for automatic transmission of data to land. The system can be configured by a
build-in SMS service or directly using the ethernet port.
The BlackBox VX is a passive cooled compact video collecting computer, which is connected to the
BlackBox R2 via ethernet. The VX also runs on 12 or 24 VDC, and includes a small internal battery
UPS, to keep the system running during short term power outage. The VX can supply the BlackBox R2
with power from the UPS via passive POE (Power Over Ethernet) through the connecting network
cable. A 2TB (Tera-byte) dedicated video storage, ensures at least 3 months backup of video
recordings from 4 IP-cameras. A 1TB exchangeable hard drive gives easy access to the data, if the
built-in wireless transmission via Wi-Fi or 3G/4G mobile network is not possible.
The cameras are connected to the VX via an active POE switch, which minimizes the amount of cables
needed for the installation. The VX comes with a small 10” touch screen and a very simple and user
friendly interface, that shows both camera and sensor information, for the user to verify that the
system is running correctly.
Data is analysed using the BlackBox Analyzer software that displays winch and hydraulic activity
against the GPS track and vessel information. Video data, if present, is also presented alongside, and
is synchronised with the time marker in the graph and the GPS track. The software is capable of
automatically estimating where fishing activities have taken place, by analysing the sensor and GPS
information, and plotting it on a GIS map, where custom shapefiles can be added to help identify e.g.
restricted areas, marine protected areas or other local features. The software also includes an
alarm/warning system, where different parameters like period, time of day, position, speed and/or
fishing activity are combined with map layers (shape-files) to produce rules for raising warnings and
alarms, to help users focus their effort. This could for example be an alarm raised due to: a
registered “fishing activity” in a specific “habitat area” within a given “restricted period”.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 92 2013
Applications
In Denmark all vessels fishing for common mussels (Mytilus edulis) are required to be fitted with a
sensor system. The fishery involves around 51 dredge vessels with a catch of around 30,000 tonnes.
The BlackBox R2 system has been installed in the fishery since April 2012 with full functionality and
reliability. The system is designed to meet the fishery objective to monitor where and when fishing is
taking place, in detail, because mussel fishing is mainly conducted in sensitive marine areas with only
5% of the fishery area fished in a given year. Data is recorded every 10 seconds. In this fishery data is
downloaded in near real time through the GSM network.
A number of BlackBox VX systems have been supplied for trials in Denmark, to investigate their
potential for “fully documented fisheries” in regards to enforcing a discard ban and also as
documentation of bycatch of sea mammals.
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 93 2013
Product
Remote Electronic Monitoring System (REM)
Contact
Company: DTU Aqua, Technical University of Denmark
Address: National Institute of Aquatic Resources, Charlottenlund Slot 2920,
Charlottenlund
Phone: (+45) 35 88 33 00
Email: mynd@aqua.dtu.dk
Web: www.aqua.dtu.dk/english
Description
DTU Aqua has undertaken extensive E-M trials in pelagic and demersal fisheries in support of proposed changes
to the European Union Common Fisheries Policy. The program used Archipelago Marine Research (AMR)
hardware and software and whilst AMR provided product training on installation, data analysis, and technical
support, this was a DTU Aqua project. DTU Aqua staff installed and maintained the equipment, retrieved hard
drives, and analysed data. For the case study discussed a four camera array was used, with GPS, hydraulic
pressure sensor, and photoelectric drum rotation sensor. The control box contained data storage capability for 30
days of fishing activity. The control box collected and stored sensor and image data.
Applications
Catch Quota Management (CQM) is a results based management scheme where all fish count against the fishers
quota, choices about harvesting are left to the fishers, and obligations to document targets are fulfilled using e-
log and E-M. CQM was trialled in Danish fisheries from 2010 to 2012 to test whether CQM could provide reliable
accounting for all catches of cod, better scientific data, and whether fishing was more selective with reduced
accidental catches. 22 vessels fishing took part in the North Sea, the Skagerrak and the Baltic Sea.
The Remote Electronic Monitoring (REM) system collected sensor data and images throughout the trial period.
The trial was integrated with eLogs. Vessels were at sea for approximately 80,000 hours, carried out 1,114 fishing
trips and conducted 9,800 fishing operations during the trial period.
The main findings of the program are:
• The REM system can be applied on almost all types of vessels. Modification to vessel deck setups may
be required in some cases. The project demonstrated the system can be applied on almost all types of
pelagic vessels, and larger demersal vessels where it can give documentation of 100% of fishing
activities.
• The REM system has proven its technical reliability.
• CQM with full documentation is a feasible management to ensure that quotas can actually be
administered with an absolute limit, so that catch limits becomes an exact expression of the set fishing
mortality.
• Inspection at sea by inspection vessels is not an efficient tool against discarding and it is in any event
more costly than inspection of REM results.
• It is important that fishermen are given information and guidance. The quality of the detailed
recordings declined over time for some fishermen. Feedback may ensure the fishermen perception of
full documentation as an integrated part of his business.
• In general, the industry has accepted having REM installed on board their vessels. There has been no
negative feedback on the issue of having cameras recording the vessels working areas. Most of the
fishermen are of the opinion that it is important to show what they are doing and what they are
catching. In support of CQM with full documentation they at the same time underline the need to
simplify and remove micro management.
The cost for documenting the fishery using E-M is significantly lower than using onboard observers.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 94 2013
Product
Saltwater EM Solutions
Contact
Company: Saltwater Inc.
Address: 733 N Street, Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 907-276-3241
Email: kathryn.carovano@saltwaterinc.com
Web: www.saltwaterinc.com
Description
Saltwater EM Solutions uses high-resolution digital IP (internet protocol) cameras designed to withstand extreme
environments. These high-resolution cameras provide accurate detail and allow for larger image areas including
360-degree views as an alternative to additional cameras. Data is integrated with independently acquired GPS
coordinates. Location, time and date stamps appear on each video frame. The system records all video and data
files. Data is downloaded to a portable drive in port. Open source review software allows viewers to: speed
review at up to 8 times recording speed, advance review to pre-determined event triggers, and freeze frame.
Both moving video and paused frames can be zoomed in for close up detail.
Applications
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and industry
groups are exploring E-M as a tool for fisheries monitoring in the North Pacific. NMFS and the Council have
expressed their support for a high resolution EM system that is capable of providing data for catch estimation.
Saltwater Inc. was awarded the pilot project over a 5-year period (2013-2018). The focus of the project is to test
an EM system capable of collecting data on catch composition, discard activity, and fishing effort.
The initial focus of the pilot project is on the halibut and sablefish longline fishery in Alaska. In the Alaskan halibut
IFQ fishery, there are 2,699 individual shareholders of whom 66% are fishing for 4.5 tonnes or less. The majority
of these vessels fish with crews of 2-3 people from a variety of small ports around the Gulf of Alaska. Many of
these smaller boats are able to catch their quota with between 15 and 40 days of fishing effort per year.
Deploying human observers in this fishery is logistically difficult and very costly. The project objectives are:
• Deploy EM systems on up to 60 vessels per year in 4 ports scattered across Alaska.
• Provide high-resolution digital images that would allow for the count of individual hooks and identification
of fish to the species level.
• Provide GPS and time/date stamps on every video frame.
• Develop local infrastructure
The project began in April 2013. At October 2013 Saltwater has trained local technicians and completed
installations in 5 ports. The project is providing high-resolution digital images of fishing activity that allow for
individual hook counts and identification of fish species or species groupings. GPS coordinates and time/date
stamps are on every video frame allowing for accurate tracking of fishing effort.
Issues to note from this project are:
• The EM pilot project is voluntary. There are no incentives for fishing vessels to carry an EM system. In 2014,
vessels that volunteer to carry an EM system will be excused from the requirement to carry an observer. We
expect this change to greatly increase the number of vessels carrying EM systems.
• EM systems require an uninterrupted power supply, which can be a challenge, particularly on smaller boats.
A variety of solutions have been tested and the issue resolved through a redesign of set-up and data storage
systems.
• Camera placement, lighting, frame rate, and resolution all affect the quality of the final images captured. It
requires testing and experimentation to resolve these issues, which are particular to every fishery. Different
cameras, lenses, configurations and placement have been tested in this trial to capture consistent, quality
data.
Although NMFS is responsible for data review in this project, Saltwater has provided review software that is
open-source as favoured by NMFS’ national guidelines. The review software allows viewers to: speed review at
up to 8 times recording speed, advance review to pre-determined event triggers, and freeze frame. Both moving
video and paused frames can be zoomed in for close up detail.
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 95 2013
Product
Satlink SeaTube (Tunatube Electronic Observer Onboard);
SeaTube View Manager
Contact
Company: Satlink Sociedad Limitada
Address: Avda. de la Industria, 53. 28108 Alcobendas. Madrid. Spain
Phone: +34 91 327 21 31
Email: info@satlink.es
Web: www.satlink.es/en
Description
SeaTube is a system for recording and real-time monitoring that enables fishing companies, RFOs and
Observer Programs more control over fishing operations.
• SeaTube comprises:
• four cameras, two on deck, two in the fish handling area
• Satlink video server (NAS / NVR)
• VMS with preconfigured EEZs and
• FleetBroadband communications system.
• Videos are stored onboard in the Satlink SeaTube rack and encrypted.
• Videos are extracted locally from HDD for analysis ashore by owner or the Observer Program.
• SeaTube incorporates their type approved VMS, making the second facility redundant.
• SeaTube View Manager extracts GPS data from video to show vessel position, course and
speed for the time of the video, directly from marine chart.
Edit mode allows for full viewing control of video, adding notes to video, adding tags for gear activity,
and report generation.
Applications
Satlink is a leader in the satellite communications industry. Their partnerships with the main satellite
network operators, such as Inmarsat, Thuraya and Iridium, give them the ability to provide global
coverage for voice and data services to any kind of user, regardless of its location whether at sea, on
land or in aircraft. The fishing sector represents the backbone of the company where Satlink has a
strong position in the market.
SeaTube is in use by three tuna fishing companies Albacora, Nicra and Inpesca, on 18 vessels fishing in
the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. The Spanish Oceanographic Institute (Instituto Oceanografico
Español-IOE) also has analysed the data to demonstrate it can substitute for a human observer.
The system gives greater control over onboard operations such as fishing, bunkering, and
transhipment. Data is visible from a PC in the office or from tablets or smartphones and is accessed
through a secure web server. It comprises four cameras and is designed to work via satellite
communications. Video is stored on board the vessel (at least 4 months of recording) and can be
consulted remotely from the shipowner’s office. The system administrator (company) can provide
access to other users and share information with fishery bodies.Then system records activity from one
hour before dawn to one hour after nightfall (these parameters can be adjusted according to
shipowner’s requirements). Every 10 minutes, the video server takes and sends a low resolution
photogram from each of the cameras to the on-shore servers. These photos give an initial view of
what is happening on board the vessel. If more detail is required from an image a corresponding 10
minute video can be ordered remotely. When the vessel comes to port, the recordings can be
collected by hard drive exchange. All video data is encrypted. Each photogram is 13KB . The total
volume of data for a month’s photograms is 33MB. 10 minutes of video are approximately 12MB in
low quality and 35MB in medium quality.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 96 2013
Product
Seatronics Sea Observer CCTV system.
Contact
Company: Seatronics Ltd
Address: Unit 2, Blackhouse Industrial Estate, Peterhead, AB42 1BN, UK
Phone: +44 (0)1779 480600
Email: peterhead@seatronics-group.com
Web: www.seatronics-group.com/fishing-division
Description
The Sea Observer system provides video footage at up to 25fps via HD cameras. Video is
triggered by proximity sensors to monitor drum and winch activity, and hydraulic pressure
sensors. The system has an independent GPS. The system has remote secure desktop sharing
which enables management agency officers to log onto a system to check it remotely.
Sea Observer can be linked with a vessels Scanmar catch control system. Data input is
received from catch sensors mounted in the net. This gives the management agency the
ability to log the catch through the Scanmar system and monitor when the catch leaves the
trawl and boards the vessel. This technology has the potential to look at catch composition
in tuna purse seine nets, and especially to catch interactions with non target catch such as
cetaceans, dolphins, and turtles.
The system cost is around $16,000 plus delivery. Installation costs are around $1100 per day
and may vary based on the origin of installation. From December 2013, the Sea Observer
Analysis software will be available for purchase. The cost of the software has not been
finalised but is envisaged to be around $8,000 per license with an annual fee of around
$3200.
When logged onto our system remotely, the management agency will be able to
stream video (4 cameras) see pressure, proximity and catch sensor data values along
with GPS.
A related is the Trawlcam system that might be useful for underwater monitoring for
example in purse seine nets. Trawlcam video camera system is mounted on the head rope of
the net. The system provides video footage of all species entering the trawl while towing.
The performance and condition of the net can also be monitored.
Applications
Trials have been completed in Scotland. The system will be fully operational in December
this year. After working with Marine Scotland regulatory officers the system will replace the
observers and also include functions unique to onboard vessel monitoring. One function
being the sole licensee of integration into Scanmar catch control systems for the
presentation of the vessels existing Scanmar catch sensors. We also have the capability to
add our Seatronics elog book into the Sea observer to provide a all in one compliance
system.
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 97 2013
Product
Western Australian Fisheries
Contact
Company: Western Australian Fisheries and Marine Research Laboratories
Address: PO Box 20 North Beach, Western Australia, 6920
Phone: +61 (08) 9203 0111
Email: Through website contact page
Web: www.fish.wa.gov.au
Description
Western Australian Fisheries undertook a trial of E-M using readily available products. The
trial involved the use of a Mobotix Q24 camera connected to a Mac Mini. The camera was
mounted on the edge of a canopy frame that covers the back deck, looking over the gunwale
of the vessel. The single camera had a 360° view of the back deck and the water from the
bow to the stern of the port side of the vessel. In the trial the computer saved everything
from the moment the vessel power was turned on until it was turned off. Files were stored
in one-hour blocks. An alternative was to use motion sensors. The data was stored using
“SecuritySpy” software. The data storage requirement was 200 MB per 1-hour file (a 1
Terabyte drive would hold 5,000 hours of data). Data was downloaded manually for this
project although internet transfer was claimed as feasible. Images were recorded at 1 frame
per second for this trial.
Applications
. Gillnet fisheries in Western Australia (WA) have come under scrutiny because of
uncertainty over interaction with marine mammals such as sea lions, interaction with other
TEPS, and perception of net “dropouts” of demersal scalefish. To address these concerns a
pilot evaluations of electronic monitoring was undertaken on a demersal gillnet vessel as an
alternate to human observers.
Data analysis took about 1 hour for 10 hours of fishing. The ability to determine whether and
animal was alive or dead was limited because of the low frame rate. About 80% of species
could be correctly identified with reviewer inexperience, low light images, blurry images,
obscured images, and glare from the deck or water the reasons cited for failing to identify
the remainder. Dropouts were rare, and identification was difficult and only to higher
taxonomic levels. Logbook records indicated two grey nurse shark interactions (TEPS) but
these could not be identified from video.
Towards the end of the study images were obscured by condensation, partially and then
fully. The report states this could have been detected earlier if the data had been
downloaded and reviewed more frequently .
Cost for 4 week study was $20,000 compared with an observer cost of $55,000 noting the
study was note designed to evaluate comparative costs and benefits. The report concludes
the proof of concept aim was achieved, and the results provided valuable information on the
efficacy of E-M in the fishery.
Two further trials have been undertaken but no reports yet released.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 98 2013
Product
Succorfish SC2
Contact
Company: Succorfish
Address: The Barracks Building
Phone: +44 191 447 6883
Email: support@succorfish.com
Web: www.succorfish.com
Description
Succorfish is a leading provider of intelligent M2M data transfer technology, next generation
telematic communication systems and GSM/GPRS asset tracking products
The SC2 monitoring unit uses mobile phone GPRS/GSM technology, with Iridium satellite
reporting as well as bespoke online software to offer a monitoring solution. The system
includes sector specific features including e-log data reporting, SOS emergency alarm, radio
frequency identification (RFID), crew safety systems, and deep sea thermal sensor
attachments for fishing gears.
The system offers 100% data security and allows users to access information through a
password protected online interface. Information is available via Iridium satellite and mobile
devices allowing users to monitor activity in real time. An RFID scanner fitted to winches and
fishing gear allows SC2 to monitor activity across all areas of the vessel’s operations.
A geofence facility manages area access and alerts the operator, agent or compliance
authority by email or text whenever a vessel enters or exits such waters.
Applications
SC2 is currently in use in the UK to monitor marine protected areas to an accuracy of 2
metres providing an exceptional level of confidence in knowing the exact location of their
vessel at any given time.
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 99 2013
Appendix 5 – Data serialisation formats
a. The current d efault format is binary.
b. The "classic" format is plain text, and an XML format is also s upported.
c. Theoretically possible due to abstract ion, but no implementat ion is included.
d. The primary fo rmat is binary, but a te xt format is available.
e. Means that generic too ls/libraries know how to encode, decode, and dereference a reference to another piece of data in the same document. A tool may require the IDL file, but no
more. Excludes custom, no n-standardized referencing techniques.
f. ASN.1 does offer OID s, a standard format for gl obally unique identifiers . However, there is no s tandard for "marking"/"ta gging" an arbitrary piece of dat a in a document with an OID.
There is also no s tandard format for loca lly unique identifiers wit hin a document. Therefore, a generic ASN.1 tool/lib rary can not automatically encode/decode/resolve ref erences within
a document without help fr om custom-written program code.
Table 4. Range of serialisation formats used for data storage and transmission (from
Wikipedia Comparison of data serialization formats (Accessed 08/10/13).
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 100 2013
CALLSIGN,SHOTDATE,SHOTNU,RETPORT,LATSTART,LONGSTART,CSIROCODE,RETWHOLE,DISWHOLE,PROCESS
LET001,16-Mar-97,1,”LAKES ENTRANCE”,380235,1489971,31006,0,12,X
LET001,16-Mar-97,1,”LAKES ENTRANCE”,370437,1491963,120001,0,5,X
LET001,16-Mar-97,1,”LAKES ENTRANCE”,380435,1491954,228002,5,1,W
LET001,16-Mar-97,1,”LAKES ENTRANCE”,393434,1492084,232004,0,1,X
LET001,16-Mar-97,1,”LAKES ENTRANCE”,370435,1493376,232010,0,1,X
PT002,18-Jul-97,3,”PORTLAND”,393660,1421210,228002,10,3,G
PT002,18-Jul-97,3,”PORTLAND”,373657,1401230,232000,0,135,X
PT002,18-Jul-97,3,”PORTLAND”,403663,1411670,255001,0,1,X
PT002,18-Jul-97,3,”PORTLAND”,384540,1431290,264003,20,0,W
Table 5. Examples of CSV field headings and line records with each field separated by
commas.
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 101 2013
Table 6. Examples of XML field specification and syntax with actual “information”
highlighted in bold black.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 102 2013
Table 7. Examples of NAF field-codes, data-elements, syntax, contents and examples.
Field-
code
Data-element
Syntax
Contents
Examples
AC
Activity
Char*3
See code list
//AC/HAU//
AD
Address
destination
Char*3
3-Alpha code (ISO-
3166)
//AD/RUS//
AE
Area of Entry
Char*6
ICES/NAFO Codes of
Division entering into
AF
Apparent
infringement
AI
Assigned
inspectors
Char*3
Num*4
3-Alpha code (ISO-
3166) 1-9999
//AI/NOR333// or
//AI/NLD4425 CEC29
RUS12//
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 103 2013
Appendix 6 – Potential of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring to
support CMM reporting
The legend below describes the scoring used in the following CMM tables.
Legend: Potential relevance of E-M and E-R to Resolutions and CMMs
Yes (significant potential to contribute to program outcomes)
Yes (potential for reporting obligations to be met or enhanced)
No
Replaced Resolution/CMM
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 104 2013
Table 8. Potential of E-Monitoring and E-Reporting to support CMM reporting
– Current Resolutions (Non-binding)
Resolution Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
2005-03 RESOLUTION ON NON-TARGET FISH SPECIES
Resolution requires CCMs to encourage their vessels
to avoid non-target captures and to release
unharmed non target catches that are not to be
retained.
E-M can support analysis of fishing operations and
targeting, and assist to provide evidence for
compliance; E-R observer can provide enhanced
reporting capacity for non-target species.
2008-01 RESOLUTION ON ASPIRATIONS OF SMALL ISLAND
DEVELOPING STATES AND TERRITORIES
2012-01 RESOLUTION ON THE BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE
Resolution requires improved collection and
submission of data, including on by-catches.
Both E-M and E-R offer the potential for a quantum
leap in the quality and timeliness of scientific data.
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 105 2013
Table 9. Potential of E-Monitoring and E-Reporting to support CMM reporting
– Current CMMs (Binding)
CMM Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
2004-03 SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE MARKING AND
IDENTIFICATION OF FISHING VESSELS
Measure requires CCMs to ensure their vessels are
marked with international radio call sign or international
telecommunication union characters.
E-Monitoring can assist in identifying whether vessels
are appropriately marked. E-R observer can report on
sightings of other vessels (Gen-1).
2004-04 RESOLUTION ON CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
MEASURES
2005-03 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
NORTH PACIFIC ALBACORE
Measure requires CCMs to ensure fishing effort does
not increase, report North Pacific Albacore catches
every 6 months, report all catches of albacore and all
fishing effort directed at albacore north of the equator
annually.
E-M can assist to ensure CMM obligations are
monitored in particular to establish whether targeted
fishing is occurring (if albacore targeting can be
defined); E-R catch can assist with catch and effort
reporting obligations. E-R CMM potential reporting to
Commission.
2006-04 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
STRIPED MARLIN IN THE SOUTHWEST PACIFIC
Measure requires CCMs to restrict effort applied to
striped marlin, and requires annual reporting to
Commission.
E-M can assist to ensure CMM obligations are
monitored in particular to establish whether targeted
fishing is occurring (if marlin targeting can be defined);
E-R catch can assist with catch and effort reporting
obligations. E-R CMM potential reporting to
Commission.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 106 2013
CMM Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
2006-07 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
THE REGIONAL OBSERVER PROGRAMME
2006-08 WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC FISHERIES
COMMISSION BOARDING AND INSPECTION
PROCEDURES
Measure establishes procedures for high seas inspection
and established priorities for inspection on certain
vessels.
E-M can be reviewed by inspectors during boarding;
video can assist in prioritising vessels for inspection. E-R
logsheet and E-R transhipment can assist in identifying
IUU catch on board inspected vessels.
2007-01 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
THE REGIONAL OBSERVER PROGRAMME
Measure establishes regional observer program, sets
objectives, lays out obligations of CCMs, role of the
Commission, Secretariat and coastal States.
E-M and E-R observer logs present opportunities for
significant improvements in efficiency, effectiveness,
quality and timeliness of observer program data and
activities, as well as safety.
2008-03 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SEA TURTLES
Measure requires CCMs to implement FAO Guidelines to
Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations, and
to report to Commission.
E-M can provide evidence of interactions, as well the
use of mitigation measures and handling and release; E-
R observer (E-R logsheet) can provide enhanced
reporting capacity for sea turtle interactions and
handling and release. ER-CMM state annual report to
commission.
2008-04 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE TO
PROHIBIT THE USE OF LARGE SCALE DRIFTNETS ON THE
HIGH SEAS IN THE CONVENTION AREA
Measure prohibits the use of large scale drift nets and
requires CCMs to report on MCS relevant activities.
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 107 2013
CMM Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
E-M offers the potential to support enforcement of this
measure (particularly in Nth Pacific), and with E-R
observer can also validate reported sightings of illegal
fishing.
2009-01 RECORD OF FISHING VESSELS AND AUTHORIZATION TO
FISH
Measure requires CCMs to ensure fishing only by vessels
flying the flag of a member, that vessels hold
appropriate authorisations, and that both numbers of
authorisations and effort are managed.
E-R observer can assist to ensure obligations are
monitored.
2009-02 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE ON THE
APPLICATION OF HIGH SEAS FAD CLOSURES AND CATCH
RETENTION
Measure clarifies FAD closure and catch retention
requirements and requires CCMs to ensure their flagged
vessels comply.
E-M can assist in identifying FAD sets. E-R observer and
E-R logsheet can assist in meeting reporting obligations.
E-R observer reporting of FAD sets. E-R CMM PS vessel
to report discards to Commission (within 48 hours).
2009-03 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT FOR SWORDFISH
Measure requires CCMs to not increase fishing vessel
numbers, to limit catch levels, and to not increase effort
in waters north of 20°S.
E-M can assist in monitoring whether targeted fishing is
occurring. E-R logsheeet can validate vessel numbers
and locations and to monitor quotas.
2009-05 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE
PROHIBITING FISHING ON DATA BUOYS
Measure requires CCMs to prohibit their fishing vessels
from fishing on data buoys.
E-M can assist in ensuring compliance; E-R observer can
assist in event reporting.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 108 2013
CMM Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
2009-06 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE ON
REGULATION OF TRANSHIPMENT
Measure establishes rules for transhipment.
E-M can assist in ensuring compliance by monitoring all
transshipment events initiated through hydraulic
sensors; E-R CMM vessel transhipment can assist to
ensure reporting obligations are met. E-R observer
recording of transhipment events.
2009-09 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
VESSELS WITHOUT NATIONALITY
Measure declares fishing vessels without nationality and
operating within the Convention area are presumed to
be operating in contravention of the Convention.
E-M has the potential to support incident reporting of
fishing and transhipment sightings of vessels without
nationality. E-R observer can capture digital image of
vessel in their reports.
2009-10 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE TO
MONITOR LANDINGS OF PURSE SEINERS AT PORTS SO
AS TO ENSURE RELIABLE CATCH DATA BY SPECIES
2009-11 COOPERATING NON-MEMBERS
2010-01 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
NORTH PACIFIC STRIPED MARLIN
Measure places catch limits on flag/chartering CCMs,
requires management measures to be applied, with
reporting to the Commission.
E-M could assist in ensuring obligations are monitored
in particular to establish whether targeted fishing is
occurring; E-R observer and particularly E-R logsheet can
assist to validate catch levels and monitor quota. E-R
CMM State reports to Commission.
2010-02 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
THE EASTERN HIGH-SEAS POCKET SPECIAL
MANAGEMENT AREA
Measure requires flag States to require their vessels to
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 109 2013
CMM Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
report entry and exit from EH-SP, and requires CCMs to
encourage their flagged vessels to report sightings. VMS
is used as a means for monitoring and verifying the
reporting and nature of the activities occurring in the
pocket. VMS and email reporting is the current method
of monitoring this measure.
Both E-M of hydraulic sensors on fishing equipment and
video can indicate fishing in EH-SP. E-R observers have
the potential to support reporting and compliance with
this measure and ER logsheet can use geo-fencing tools
to automatically log vessel movement into these areas.
2010-05 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
SOUTH PACIFIC ALBACORE
Measure requires CCMs not to increase catches and to
report to the Commission.
E-M can assist to ensure CMM obligations are
monitored in particular to establish whether targeted
fishing is occurring (if SP Albacore targeting can be
defined); E-R catch can assist with catch and effort
reporting obligations. E-R CMM potential reporting to
Commission.
2010-06 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE TO
ESTABLISH A LIST OF VESSELS PRESUMED TO HAVE
CARRIED OUT ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND
UNREGULATED FISHING ACTIVITIES IN THE WCPO
2010-07 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
SHARKS
Measure encourages CCMs to implement the FAO
International Plan of Action for the Conservation and
Management of Sharks, and to report to the
Commission. NPOAs to include key species, minimize
waste and discards from shark catches, encourage live
release of incidental catches of sharks, fully utilize
retained catches of sharks.
Measure requires fins to total no more than 5% of the
weight of sharks on board, prohibit their fishing vessels
from retaining on board, transshipping, landing, or
trading any fins harvested in contravention.
E-M can ensure obligations are monitored, in particular
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 110 2013
CMM Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
in respect of handling (particularly finning and life
status) and discard requirements; E-R observer can
assist to ensure reporting obligations are met. E-R CMM
State reporting of catches to Commission.
2011-02 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE
FOR THE COMMISSION VMS
2011-03 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE TO
ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF PURSE SEINE ACTIVITY ON
CETACEANS
Measure requires CCMs to prohibit flagged vessels from
setting a purse seine net on tuna schools associated
with a cetacean, and to report incidents to the
Commission.
E-M can assist to ensure obligations are monitored. E-R
observer reporting of event. E-R CMM vessel real time
reporting of catches to State. E-R CMM State reporting
of catches to Commission.
2011-04 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
OCEANIC WHITETIP SHARKS
Measure requires CCMs to prohibit flagged vessels from
retaining oceanic whitetip shark, and require any caught
to be released without harm.
E-M can assist to ensure obligations are monitored, in
particular in respect of handling (finning and life state)
and discard requirements; E-R observer reporting of
event. E-R CMM State to provide report of discards and
releases to Commission.
2012-01 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
BIGEYE, YELLOWFIN AND SKIPJACK
Measure aims at a minimum to maintain stocks at MSY,
requires CCMs not to undermine measure through
transfer of effort, implements FAD management
controls, limits purse seine effort, implements catch
retention requirements, limits longline catch of bigeye
tuna, and requires more frequent reporting from CCMs.
E-M and E-R logsheet, observer, transhipment and port
monitoring could all play a significant role in supporting
obligations and compliance with this measure, in
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 111 2013
CMM Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
particular the regular reporting requirements. Two
most important areas will be FAD monitoring for purse
seine vessel and Bigeye longline catch.
2012-02 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
COMPLIANCE MONITORING SCHEME
Members receive a draft compliance monitoring report
developed in IMS, delivered to members for their
review and response. Member annual reports on
implementation of measures then received directly into
Commission IMS.
Data from E-M and E-R logsheet , observer and
transshipment used in conjunction with VMS to review
and validate assessments by CCMs of their CMM and
data provision obligations.
2012-03 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROP BY VESSELS FISHING
NORTH OF 20N
Measure requires ROP to be expanded to 5% coverage
of vessels fishing for fresh fish north of 20° north.
E-M and E-R observer logs present opportunities for
significant improvements in efficiency, effectiveness,
quality and timeliness of observer program data and
activities, as well as safety.
2012-04 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE ON THE
PROTECTION OF WHALE SHARKS FROM PURSE SEINE
OPERATIONS
Measure requires CCM to prohibit setting of purse seine
on a tuna associated with a whale shark, with reporting
obligations.
E-M can assist to ensure obligations are monitored. E-R
observer reporting of event. E-R CMM vessel real time
reporting of catches to State. E-R CMM State reporting
of catches to Commission. Use of guidelines for safe
release can be monitored by E-R and E-M and improved
if necessary.
2012-05 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE ON
CHARTER NOTIFICATION SCHEME
Measure requires each chartering member or
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 112 2013
CMM Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
participating territory to notify the Commission of the
charter vessel details in advance of fishing.
Because reporting by Flag States is aggregated data
there are potentially issues of double counting and the
consequent uncertainty in data integrity. This could be
readily addressed through E-R logsheets.
2012-06 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
PACIFIC BLUEFIN
Measure requires CCMs to limit fishing effort, to reduce
catch of juvenile fish, and report to the Commission.
E-M can assist to ensure CMM obligations are
monitored in particular to establish whether targeted
fishing is occurring (if Pacific Bluefin targeting can be
defined) or if juvenile fish are caught; E-R catch can
assist with catch and effort reporting obligations. E-R
CMM reporting to Commission.
2012-07 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
MITIGATING IMPACTS OF FISHING ON SEABIRDS
Measure encourages CCMs to implement IPOA Seabirds.
The Measure requires CCMs to report to the
Commission, and to require their longline vessels to use
mitigation measures.
E-M can provide evidence of seabird interaction and
compliance with the use of mitigation measures; E-R
observer can ensure incident reporting obligations are
met. E-R CMM State annual reporting to Commission.
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 113 2013
Table 10. Potential of E-Monitoring and E-Reporting to support CMM reporting
- Replaced and expired resolutions
Resolution Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
2005-01 RESOLUTION ON THE INCIDENTAL CATCH OF
SEABIRDS (Replaced by CMM 2012-07)
2005-02 RESOLUTION ON REDUCTION OF
OVERCAPACITY
2005-4 RESOLUTION TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF
FISHING FOR HIGHLY MIGRATORY FISH
SPECIES ON SEA TURTLES (Replaced by 2008-
03)
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 114 2013
Table 11. Potential of E-Monitoring and E-Reporting to support CMM reporting
- Replaced CMMs
CMM Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
2004-01 RECORD OF FISHING VESSELS AND AUTHORIZATION TO
FISH (REPLACED BY CMM 2009-01)
2004-02 COOPERATING NON-MEMBERS (REPLACED BY CMM
2008-02)
2005-01 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR
BIGEYE AND YELLOWFIN TUNA IN THE WESTERN AND
CENTRAL PACIFIC OCEAN (REPLACED BY CMM 2008-01)
2005-02 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
SOUTH PACIFIC ALBACORE (REPLACED BY CMM 2010-
05)
2006-01 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR
BIGEYE AND YELLOWFIN TUNA IN THE WESTERN AND
CENTRAL PACIFIC OCEAN (REPLACED BY CMM 2008-01)
2006-02 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE TO
MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF FISHING FOR HIGHLY
MIGRATORY FISH STOCKS ON SEABIRDS (REPLACED BY
CMM 2007-04)
2006-03 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
SWORDFISH IN THE SOUTH WEST PACIFIC (REPLACED BY
CMM 2009-03)
2006-05 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
SHARKS IN THE WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC OCEAN
(REPLACED BY 2008-06)
2006-06 COMMISSION VESSEL MONITORING SYSTEM (REPLACED
BY CMM 2011-02)
2006-09 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE TO
ESTABLISH A LIST OF VESSELS PRESUMED TO HAVE
CARRIED OUT ILLEGAL UNREPORTED AND
UNREGULATED FISHING ACTIVITIES IN THE WESTERN
AND CENTRAL PACIFIC OCEAN (REPLACED BY CMM
2007-03)
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 115 2013
CMM Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
2007-02 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE ON THE
COMMISSION VESSEL MONITORING SYSTEM (REPLACED
BY CMM 2011-02)
2007-03 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE TO
ESTABLISH A LIST OF VESSELS PRESUMED TO HAVE
CARRIED OUT ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND
UNREGULATED FISHING ACTIVITIES IN THE WCPO
(REPLACED BY CMM 2010-06)
2007-04 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE TO
MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF FISHING FOR HIGHLY
MIGRATORY FISH STOCKS ON SEABIRDS (REPLACED BY
CMM 2012-07)
2008-01 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
BIGEYE AND YELLOWFIN TUNA IN THE WESTERN AND
CENTRAL PACIFIC OCEAN (REPLACED BY CMM 2012-01)
2008-02 COOPERATING NON-MEMBERS (REPLACED BY CMM
2009-11)
2008-05 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SWORDFISH
(REPLACED BY CMM 2009-03)
2008-06 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF SHARKS
(REPLACED BY CMM 2009-04)
2009-04 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT FOR SHARKS
(REPLACED BY 2010-07)
2009-07 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
PACIFIC BLUEFIN TUNA (REPLACED BY CMM 2010-04)
2009-08 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
CHARTER NOTIFICATION SCHEME (REPLACED BY CMM
2011-05)
2010-03 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
COMPLIANCE MONITORING SCHEME (REPLACED BY
CMM 2011-06)
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 116 2013
CMM Title E-Monitoring E-Reporting
2010-04 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
PACIFIC BLUEFIN TUNA (REPLACED BY CMM2012-06)
2011-01 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF CMM 2008-01 (REPLACED
BY CMM2012-01)
2011-05 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE ON
CHARTER NOTIFICATION SCHEME (REPLACED BY CMM
2012-05)
2011-06 CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURE FOR
COMPLIANCE MONITORING SCHEME (REPLACED WITH
CMM 12-02)
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 117 2013
Appendix 7 – Acronyms
Acronym
Full description
APFIC
Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission
CAE
Compliance Analysis Engine
CCAMLR
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
CCM
Commission Members, Cooperating non-Members, and participating Territories of the
WCPFC
CCRF
Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries
CCSBT
Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna
CDR FFA
Corporate Data Resource
CFP
Coastal Fisheries Programme
CI
Compliance Index
CITES
Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CMM
Compliance and Management Measure
CPUE
Catch Per Unit Effort
CROP
Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific
CSV
Comma Separated Values
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
EEZ
Exclusive Economic Zone
E-R
Entity-Relationship Modelling Technique
ERD
Entity-Relationship Diagram
ETBF
Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery
EU
European Union
EVR
Electronic Vessel Registration
FAD
Fish Aggregating Device
FAL
Fisheries Agreements and Licenses
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FFA
Forum Fisheries Agency
FFA
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency
FSM
Federated States of Micronesia
IATTC
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission
ICCAT
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas
ICES
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
ICLARM
International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management
IFC
International Fisheries Commission
IFF
International Fishers Forum
IOTC
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission
IRD
Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement
ISSF
International Sustainable Seafood Foundation
IUCN
The World Conservation Union
IUU
Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing
LARS
License Information and Associated Reports Database System
MCS
Monitoring Control and Surveillance
MCSWG
MCS Working Group
MPA
Marine Protected Area
MRAG
Marine Resources Assessment Group
MSC
Marine Stewardship Council
NAFO
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization
NEAFC
Northeast Atlantic Fisheries Commission
NGO
Non-governmental Organisation
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service (United States)
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPOA
National Plan of Action
OFP
Oceanic Fisheries Programme
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 118 2013
OPM
Observer Program Management System
OPRT
Organisation for the Promotion of Responsible Tuna Fisheries
PICT
Pacific Island Countries and Territories
PIFSC
Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Centre
PIOFM
Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management
PNA
Parties to the Nauru Agreement
POD
People and Organisations
PTTP
Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme
REG
Regional Register of Fishing Vessels
RFMO
Regional Fisheries Management Organization
RFV
Record of Fishing Vessels
RIMF
Regional Information Management Facility
RMCC
Regional MCS Coordination Centre
SEAFDEC
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center
SEAFO
South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization SIOFA South Indian Ocean Fisheries
Agreement
SOLIC
Solomon Islands Licensing System
SPC
Secretariat of the Pacific Community (formerly South Pacific Commission)
SPRFMO
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation
SUR
Surveillance and Vessel Sightings System
TAC
Total Allowable Catch
TDW
Tuna Data Workshop
TUBS
TUFMAN Observer Module
TUFMAN
Tuna Fisheries Database Management System
UNCLOS
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNFSA
UN Fish Stocks Agreement
VAP
Violations and Prosecutions System
VBI
Vessel Boarding and Inspection System
VMS
Vessel Monitoring System
VMS
Vessel Monitoring Systems
WCPFC
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission
WCPO
Western and Central Pacific Ocean
WPRFMC
Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council
XML
eXtensible Markup Language
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 119 2013
Appendix 8 – Acknowledgments
This project was driven by Glenn Hurry, Executive Director of the WCPFC Secretariat, and
Peter Williams, Principal Fisheries Scientist with SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Program. They, and
their staff, were a pleasure to deal with throughout. During this review we spoke with a
great many people who gave their time freely, often giving advice and information that went
beyond their products or interests. A lot of this information did not end up in this report
because at the end of the day we were constrained by resources, time, and the terms of
reference. The topic: the history and evolution of fisheries monitoring and reporting
technology deserves to be published.
Some of the people who spent more time than they needed to support this project, and
their respective organisations, are mentioned below:
• Howard McElderry from Archipelago Marine Research is undoubtedly the world’s
expert on E-M.
• Dorothy Lowman is the Chair of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and lead
author of the “Fisheries Monitoring Roadmap”.
• Guan Oon from CLS Argos has been working in the region mainly providing VMS
services for over a decade. His level of historic knowledge and understanding of the
region, its issues and challenges, and the limitations of technology to solve them is
excellent.
• Tom Rossiter from Succorfish spent a great deal of time explaining the inshore fishery
context for their monitoring products.
• Richard Caslake from the Seafish Industry Authority explained the background and
context to projects in the UK, and gave me some great industry and government
contacts.
• David Karis from the PNG National Fisheries Authority was generous with his time
and with information, a passionate advocate for the PNG developed product FIMS.
• Peter Harpin and Mark O’Brien from Faria Watchdog who provided surprisingly
unbiased appraisals of a range of technologies and providers.
We appreciate the time provided by the following people and organisations in meetings to
discuss the potential of E-Reporting and E-Monitoring.
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 120 2013
Honiara, Solomon Islands
4, 5 and 6 June 2013
Organisation
Name Position
Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)
Mr James Movick Director General
Mr Wez Norris Deputy Director General
Ms Alice McDonald Fisheries Management Adviser
Ms Pamela Maru Fisheries Management Adviser
Mr Fraser McEachan MCS Policy analyst
Mr Mark Young Director Fisheries Operations
Mr Filimoni Lutunaika System Analyst
Mr Henry Salonica Network Administrator
Mr Kenneth Katafono Database Administrator
Mr Nicholas Reese IT Manager
Mr William Edeson Legal Adviser
Mr Dennis Yehilomo MCS Analyst
Mr Timothy Park Observer Manager
Ms Agnes Arahauta MCS Officer
Mr Daniel Koroi VMS Liaison Officer
Mr Fred Aleziru MCS Officer
Mr Mike Pounder Surveillance Operations Officer 2
Mr Peter Graham Surveillance Operations Officer 1
Mr Steve Masika VMS Officer
SolTuna,
Trimarine Mr Adrian Wickham Managing Director
Manilla, Philippines
15 and 16 July 2013
Organisation
Name Position
Bureau of Fisheries and
Aquatic Resources (BFAR)
Atty Asis G. Perez National Director
Atty Benjamin F.S.
Tabios
Assistant Director for
Administrative Services
Dr Noel Barut NFDRI Deputy Executive Director
Dr Alma C. Dickson BFAR Agriculture Center Chief IV
Mr Rafael Raminascal
Chief Aquaculturist, Chief Scientist
MV/DA
Mr Marlo Demo-os
National Fisheries Observer
Assistant Coordinator
CLS ARGOS
M. Phillipe
Courrouyan Director ASEAN
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 121 2013
Pohnpei, Federated States of
Micronesia
17, 18 and 19 July
2013
Organisation
Name Position
Western and Central Pacific
Fisheries Commission
Prof Glenn Hurry Executive Director
(WCFPC)
Mr Donald David Data Quality Officer
Mr Albert Carlot VMS Manager
Dr Lara Manarangi-
Trott Compliance manager
Dr Sung Kwon Soh Science Manager
Mr Sam Taufao ICT Manager
National Oceanic Resource
Management Authority
Mr Patrick Mackenzie Executive Director
(NORMA)
Mr Eugene Pangelinan Deputy Director
Dongwon Industries Co
. Ltd. Mr Park Taeson General Manager
Mr Gu-hyun Kang Pohnpei Office Manager
Caroline Fisheries
Corporation Inc.
Mr Marko Kamber Operations/Fleet Manager
Majuro, Marshall Islands
20, 21 & 22 July 2013
Organisation
Name Position
Parties to the Nauru
Agreement
Transform Aquorau Chief Executive Officer
(PNA
) Office Maurice Brownjohn Commercial Manager
Herman Kisokau VDS/VMS Data Officer
Patricia Jack-Jossien VDS Manager
Marshall Islands Marine
Resources Authority
Samuel K. Lanwi, Jr Deputy Director
(MIMRA)
Bernard Fiubala Observer Program Manager
Dike Poznanski Information Management Specialist
Ron Allan V. Doloroso IT Personnel
Marshall Islands Fishing
Venture Inc
. Jin Liang Base Manager
Pan Pacific Foods (RMI) Inc.
WanJun Yang Fleet Coordinator
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 122 2013
Honolulu, Hawaii
23, 24 & 25 July 2013
Organisation
Name Position
National
Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Dr Charles Karnella
WCPFC Chair / International
Fisheries Coordinator
(NOAA)
Mr Raymond Clarke Fisheries Biologist
Ms Valerie Chan Fishery Policy Analyst
Mr Terry Boone VMS Program Manager
Mr Larry Li Information Technology Specialist
Mr John D. Kelly
Program Manager Observer
Program
Western Pacific Regional
Fisheries Management
Council
(WPFMC)
Mr Eric Kingma
Dr Paul Dalzell
NEPA Coordinator
Senior Scientist/Pelagics
Coordinator
POP Fishing and Marine
Mr Jim Cook Co-owner
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 123 2013
Noumea, New Caledonia
28, 29 & 30 July 2013
Organisation
Name Position
Secretariat of the Pacific
Community
Peter Williams Principal Fisheries Scientist
(SPC)
Simon Hoyle Senior Fisheries Scientist
Dr Graham Pilling Fisheries Scientist
Mr Joel Rice Senior Fisheries Scientist
Tim Adams Fisheries Scientist
Tim Lawson Principal Fisheries Scientist
Peter Sharples Observer Support and
Development Coordinator
Deirdre Brogan Fisheries Monitoring Supervisor
Siosifa Fukofuka Observer Training and Support
Officer
Ferral Lasi Data Collection Officer
Dr Simon Nicol Principal Fisheries Scientist
Mme Valerie Alain Fisheries Research Scientist
Bruno Leroy Fisheries Scientist
Sylvain Caillot Tagging Database Developer
Manu Schneiter Fisheries Database
Analyst/Developer
Corey Cole Observer Data Manager
Colin Millar Fisheries Database
Analyst/Developer
Mr. Bryan Scott Fisheries IUU Liaison Officer
Bruno Deprez Fisheries Data Audit Officer
Colley Falasi Observer Data Audit Officer
Malo Hosken Consultant E-Monitoring Trial
Service de la marine
marchande et des pêches
maritimes,
New Caledonia
M. Regis Etaix-Bonin
M. Hugues Gossuin
Tuna Coordinator
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 124 2013
New Zealand
11-12 September 2013
Organisation
Name Position
Ministry for Primary
Industries
Joanna Anderson Senior Policy Analyst
Stephan Brouwer Principal Scientist (Pacific)
Justin Clement Observer Development Officer
Kim George Data Management Team Leader
Matt Hooper Principal Advisor
Andy Wright International advisor – (MCS)
Sanford Limited
Martin De Beer Pacific Tuna Manager
Nadi
, Fiji 13-14 September 2013
Organisation
Name Position
Ministry of Fishery and
Forests
Jone Amoe
Sainaila Naqali Director
Suresh Chandra PFO Management Services
Hilda Lobendahn Compliance and Enforcement
Apenisa Sauturaga Observer Trainer
Timoci Tavusa Observer Co-ordinator
Leba Raketekete
Netani Tavaga
Fiji Revenue and Customs
Authority
Manikam
Kelana
Semesa B
Solander Pacific
Tom Mayo
Golden Ocean Fish
Ma Jingi Kui
Sea Quest (Fiji) Ltd
Brett Haywood
Services Marine Ltd
Peter Shi
Gillett, Preston
& Associates Robert Gillett Senior Consultant
Fiji Fish Marketing Group
Grahame Southwick Executive Chairman
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 125 2013
Papua New Guinea
Organisation
Name Position
National Fisheries Authority
John Kasu Deputy Managing Director
Ludwig Kumoru Executive Manager Fisheries
Management
David Karis Manager - VMS
Alois Kinol Coordinator, Audit and Certification
Brian Kumasi Fisheries Management Officer -
Tuna Fisheries
Phillip Lens Observer Manager
Gisa Komangin Acting Executive Manager MCS
Quick Access Computing
Mark Oates Program Manager
Australia
Organisation
Name Position
Australian Fisheries
Management Authority
Jeremy Richter
Senior Manager Service One
Josh Davis Manager, Electronic Services
Peter Venslovas General Manager Operations
Jim Neely Manager, Foreign Compliance
Policy
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 126 2013
Other contacts
Organisation
Name Position
Te Vaka Moana
David Marx Manager and Coordinator
Pew Charitable Trust
Tony Long Director, Ending Illegal Fishing
Pew Charitable Trust
Adam Baske International Policy
Japan Far Seas
Purse Seine
Fishing Association
Minoru Honda Managing Director
Overseas Fisheries
Development Council of the
Republic of China
Joseph Fu Secretary
WWF South Pacific
Programme
Alfred “Bubba” Cook Western Central Pacific Tuna
Program Officer
Faria
Watchdog Inc Mark O’Brien General Manager
Pete Harpin Business Development Manager
Western Australian Fisheries
and Marine Research
Brett Molony Supervising Research Scientist –
Finfish Branch
Conservation of Albatrosses
and Petrels
Warren Papworth Executive Secretary
US Pacific Fishery
Management Council
Dorothy Lowman Chair
Archipelago Marine Research
Howard McElderry VP Electronic Monitoring
Technologies
Electronic Monitoring
Services
Dawn Mann Director,
Katherine Archibald Data Technician
FAS Seafood Producers
Michael Derry Operations Manager (Victoria BC)
Dept of Fisheries and Oceans
Rick Stanley Former Biologist British Columbia
Saltwater Inc.
Tim Carroll Chief Executive Officer
Kathryn Carovano Program Manager
Satlink
Leticia Diaz del Rio International VMS/ERS Manager
UK Seafish Industry Authority
Richard Caslake Project Manager
CLS Argos
Guan Oon Director, CLS Australia
Taz
-e Australia Nesh Petrovic Director
DTU Aqua
Secretariat for
Public Sector Consultancy
Jorgen Dalskov Senior Fisheries Advisor
Our apologies if we missed your name. Please let us know and the final published version
can include anyone we missed.
WCPFC E- Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 127 2013
Appendix 9 - FFA Approved MTU List 2013
WCPFC E-Reporting and E-Monitoring
Dunn and Knuckey 128 2013
