benefits and costs of e-monitoring video technologies for ... · discussion document ... benefits...

Discussion Document

Prepared for:

Australian Fisheries Management Authority Canberra, Australia

Prepared by:

GSGislason & Associates Ltd. Vancouver, Canada

December 2007

Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video

Technologies for Commonwealth Fisheries

Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.

Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page i

Preface

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) retained GSGislason & Associates to

analyze the potential costs and benefits of adopting electronic monitoring (EM) of commercial

fishing operations. This study is labeled “Discussion Document” as several uncertainties in the

AFMA implementation of an EM program exist.

The consultants have benefited from discussions with industry, government, and others.

Notwithstanding this assistance, the analysis is that of the consultants alone.


Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page ii

Summary

1. Introduction

• AFMA has undertaken preliminary work and trials of electronic monitoring (EM or e-

Monitoring) technology

• third party monitoring such as EM can address concerns over the validity of self-reported

logbook data on Threatened Endangered and Protected (TEP) species interactions and on

at-sea discards

• the EM technology is proven in Canada, and the vessel suitability (proof of concept) EM

trials in Australia to date generally have been successful

• there is a need to analyze the costs and benefits of implementing EM as well as identify

outstanding implementation issues

2. Approach and Methodology

• the study assesses the potential benefits and costs of introducing EM to 9

Commonwealth fisheries: 1) Antarctic Trawl & Longline, 2) Northern Prawn, 3) Eastern

Tuna & Billfish, 4) Southeast Trawl, 5) Small Pelagic Trawl, 6) Small Pelagic Seine, 7) Coral

Sea, 8) Shark Gillnet, and 9) Auto Longline

• interviews with 38 industry, AFMA, Science, ENGO and other individuals plus secondary

information/data collection were conducted

• two visits to Australia to conduct interviews & collect data

• the alternative scenario to EM for analysis is at-sea observers

• a spreadsheet model was developed to assess EM costs vs observer costs for the 9

candidate fisheries

3. The Base EM Concepts

• The base assumptions underlying the observer and EM scenarios are illustrative and not

predictions or reflections of AFMA policy (the results can easily be scaled to different

sets of parameters)

• EM - AFMA accredits vessel EM video systems on a capability and function basis

- any equipment system provider that meets or exceeds the specifications

and can successfully give a working demonstration of the equipment would

become an accredited supplier

- outfit each vessel in a fleet with an accredited camera system, conduct a

random 10% audit of the video, and compare video results to logbook data

- significant discrepancies would spur remedial action

- industry pays 100% of camera system costs plus 80% of field, video review

and AFMA administration costs related to EM

• Observer - 10% observer coverage level

- increased rigour in random sampling of fishing trips

- cost sharing of total costs at 80% industry, 20% AFMA


Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page iii

4. Results & Conclusions

• cost analysis

- there is a large fixed cost component to EM from equipment purchase and

maintenance regardless of the share of video reviewed

- observer costs vary directly with the coverage level

- EM is cost effective for most but not all of the 9 fleets at the nominal 10%

benchmark

- fisheries or fisheries components with large numbers of part time operators or

with a coverage need much less than the 10% may find observers more cost

effective

- it is likely that requirements for monitoring of fishing operations will increase in

the future in line with the December 2005 Ministerial Directive, with the

September 2007 Harvest Strategy, and with global standards for monitoring fishing

operations

- as the alternative observer coverage level rises above 10%, cost savings from EM

increase dramatically (and there is increasing pressure on world fisheries to

increase observer coverages)

- accordingly cost savings may be higher than postulated

• there is significant industry interest and support for EM, mainly tied to cost savings

• but there are other benefits of improved monitoring be it observers or EM

- increased compliance, fewer discards, less “highgrading”

- better science/stock assessment

- improved fisheries management

- increase public confidence

- greater trust amongst user groups, ENGOs & the public

- potential market access & product certification

• implementation issues include

- the legislative basis for EM

- the process for addressing non-compliance

- privacy issues i.e., who owns the EM data?

- third party vs AFMA service delivery

- data & analysis systems

- field services support for EM

- cost sharing

- implementation schedule

- integration with other AFMA initiatives

- the need for an evaluation

• the EM opportunity appears promising. EM can deliver cost savings as well as broad

public benefits. AFMA and industry should work together on realizing this potential


Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page iv

Acronyms

ABARE - Australian Bureau of Agricultural & Resource Economics AFMA - Australian Fisheries Management Authority AMCS - Australian Marine Conservation Society BRD - Bycatch Reduction Devices BRS - Bureau of Rural Sciences CCAMLR - Commission for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CCTV - Closed Circuit TV CDR - Catch Disposal Record CFA - Commonwealth Fisheries Association CMAR - CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research CSIRO - Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organization CTS - Commonwealth Trawl Sector (part of SESSF) DFO - Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans DMP - Dockside Monitoring Program EEZ - Exclusive Economic Zone EM - Electronic Monitoring or e-Monitoring ENGO - Environmental Non-Government Organization EPBC - Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ETBF - Eastern Tuna & Billfish Fishery FRDC - Fisheries Research & Development Corporation GN - Gillnet GPS - Global Positioning System GS - Gillnet Shark HIMI - Heard Island & McDonald Islands Fishery ITE - Individual Transferable Effort ITQ - Individual Transferable Quota LL - Longline MAC - Management Advisory Committee MPA - Marine Protected Area MSC - Marine Stewardship Council MOU - Memorandum of Understanding nm - nautical mile NORMAC - Northern Prawn Fishery Management Advisory Committee NPF - Northern Prawn Fishery NHT - National Heritage Trust RAG - Resource Assessment Group RFID - Radio Frequency Identification Tag SBT - Southern Bluefin Tuna SED - Seal Exclusion Device SESSF - Southern and Eastern Scalefish & Shark Fishery SFR - Statutory Fishing Right SPF - Small Pelagics Fishery TAC - Total Allowable Catch TAE - Total Allowable Effort TED - Turtle Excluder Devices TEP - Threatened Endangered Protected VMS - Vessel Monitoring System


Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Table of Contents

Table of Contents

PREFACE ..............................................................................................................................I

SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... ii

ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1

1.1 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Approach................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Report Outline.................................................................................................................................. 2

2.0 FISHING FLEET PROFILES......................................................................................3

2.1 Fleet Activity ...................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Fleet Profitability ............................................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Monitoring.......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Licence Fees....................................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 THE COST-BENEFIT FRAMEWORK & PARAMETERS.......................................7

3.1 EM Technology in Commonwealth Fisheries............................................................................. 7 3.2 The Economic Framework............................................................................................................. 9

4.0 COST ANALYSIS OF MONITORING ALTERNATIVES ....................................16

4.1 Monitoring Cost Parameters .......................................................................................................16 4.2 Monitoring Costs - EM vs Observers ........................................................................................17 4.3 Monitoring Costs - Sensitivity Analysis .....................................................................................18

5.0 BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF MONITORING ALTERNATIVES...............................22

5.1 Compliance and Fishermen Behaviour ......................................................................................22 5.2 Science and Fish Management Benefits......................................................................................22 5.3 Increased Public Confidence ........................................................................................................23 5.4 Engender Trust................................................................................................................................23 5.5 Improve Market Access & Product Certification....................................................................23 5.6 Other Benefits.................................................................................................................................24

6.0 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES..................................................................................25

6.1 The Legislative Basis for EM.........................................................................................................25 6.2 The Process for Addressing Non-Compliance........................................................................25 6.3 Privacy Issues ...................................................................................................................................26 6.4 Third Party vs AFMA Service Delivery......................................................................................26 6.5 Data and Analysis Systems............................................................................................................26 6.6 Field Service Support for EM .......................................................................................................26 6.7 Cost Sharing.....................................................................................................................................26 6.8 Implementation Schedule..............................................................................................................27 6.9 Integration with Other Initiatives ...............................................................................................27 6.10 Evaluation of the EM Program.....................................................................................................27

7.0 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................28

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...............................................................................................................29

APPENDIX A: THE INTERVIEW PROGRAM..............................................................31

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW COMMENTS....................................................................34

APPENDIX C: COMMONWEALTH FISHING FLEET PROFILES ............................42

APPENDIX D: AMR FEE SCHEDULE...........................................................................50


Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 1

1.0 Introduction

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority or AFMA has undertaken preliminary work and

trials of electronic monitoring (EM or e-Monitoring) technology over the past three years. EM

technologies integrate digital video, electronic services and programmable loggers to create

powerful data collection tools for the provision of near real time information.

EM can provide independent, reliable, verified and accurate data on the fishing catch, effort and

practices of Commonwealth commercial fishing vessels. The suite of potential data includes: 1)

fishing effort (e.g., date, time and area of fishing), 2) catch (e.g., species identification, weight, and

numbers), 3) catch disposition (e.g., species retained vs discarded), 4) by-catch mitigation (e.g.,

use of tori lines), and 5) Threatened Endangered & Protected or TEP species interactions (e.g.,

turtles, seals and dolphins).

EM can be used to validate, augment or replace other catch monitoring systems such as logbooks

and on-board observers.

The EM trials to date generally have been successful. And industry interest has been piqued

where cost savings relative to observers, for example, might occur. EM also has interested

scientists due to concerns over the reliability of self-reported logbook data on fish discards and

TEP interactions. In addition, in December 2005 the Minister requested that AFMA:

enhance the monitoring of fishing activity, for example through increased use of vessel monitoring

systems with daily reporting, on-board cameras, and observers

The “Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines” document released in

September 2007 creates additional monitoring requirements for implementation. Increased

monitoring requirements are in line with global standards and increasing trends for fisheries data

validation. The demand for accurate, timely and relevant catch monitoring data is increasing.

There is a need to broadly implement and apply e-monitoring technology to Commonwealth

fisheries. Analysis of the costs and benefits of so doing is an important information piece to guide

the implementation process.

1.1 Study Objectives

For each of nine (9) case study Commonwealth fisheries this study:

• assesses the feasibility and practicality of introducing EM, and

• assesses the potential costs and benefits of introducing EM to the candidate fisheries

AFMA selected the nine case study fisheries to reflect: a broad cross section of fishing

technologies (longline, trawl, gillnet etc.), large and small fisheries, and fisheries for which “lessons

learned” easily could be transferred to other fisheries (e.g., the Eastern Tuna & Billfish Fishery can

provide insights for the Western Tuna & Billfish Fishery).



Case Study Fisheries

1. Antarctic - Heard & McDonald Island Fishery, Macquarie Island Fishery (HIMI)

2. Northern Prawn (NPF)

3. Eastern Tuna & Billfish (ETBF)

4. Southeast Trawl (SE Trawl)

5. Small Pelagic - Trawl (SPF Trawl)

6. Small Pelagic - Purse Seine (SPF Seine)

7. Coral Sea

8. Gillnet, Hook & Trap - Gillnet (Shark GN)

9. Gillnet, Hook & Trap - Hook (Auto LL)

The analysis of monitoring costs is quantitative. The analysis of benefits is qualitative as benefits

such as greater public confidence in management of the fisheries, increasing trust among user

groups etc. cannot easily be quantified.

1.2 Study Approach

The study involved two main information collection activities:

• an interview program with industry, AFMA and other Australian government personnel,

Environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs), and fishing interests and fisheries

management and monitoring interests in Canada.

• secondary information collection from consultant studies, government reports etc.

In particular, we interviewed 38 individuals during the course of the study - see Interview List in

Appendix A, see Interview Comments in Appendix B. We visited Canberra in September 2007 to

interview AFMA staff. During this visit we also participated in AFMA workshops on electronic

logbooks (e-logs) and electronic monitoring (e-monitoring). We also visited Hobart, Perth,

Fremantle and Canberra in October/November 2007 to conduct other interviews.

1.3 Report Outline

The next section briefly describes the Commonwealth fishing fleets under consideration and

comprises the first of the remaining six (6) sections of the report.

Section Subject

2

3

4

5

6

7

Fishing Fleet Profiles

Cost-Benefit Framework

Cost Analysis of EM

Benefit Analysis of EM

Implementation Issues

Conclusions

The text is supported by several Appendices.



2.0 Fishing Fleet Profiles

The nine (9) Commonwealth fishing fleets analyzed operate in a variety of waters outside the 3

nm state water jurisdiction - see map of fishing areas in Exhibit 1. A summary of the key

operating, management and production characteristics for each fleet is given in Exhibit 2 (more

detailed profiles are given in Appendix C).

The Small Pelagic Fishery or SPF has two component parts, a midwater trawl fishery and a purse

seine fishery. The Gillnet, Hook & Trap Fishery has two main parts, the Shark Gillnet (GN)

Fishery and the Hook (Auto Longline) Fishery.

2.1 Fleet Activity

The number of active vessels over all nine (9) fleets currently is approximately 220. There is a

great disparity in scale of operation amongst fleets.

The largest vessels - in term of vessel length and crew complements - are the two vessels

participating in the Antarctic HIMI fishery (each with length in excess of 45m and crew size in

excess of 15). The smallest vessels under 20m in length, with crew size of 2 to 4, operate in the

Shark GN and Auto LL fisheries.

The NPF, ETBF, SE Trawl and Shark GN sectors all have fleet days fished greater than 5,000

annually, whereas each of the other sectors has a fleet days fished base of 1,000 or less.

Currently, the nine fleets have a variety of fisheries management regimes:

• Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) Management - HIMI, SE Trawl, Shark GN, Auto LL

• Fleet Total Allowable Catch (TAC) Management without ITQ - ETBF, SPF Trawl, SPF

Seine, Coral Sea

• Other Management - NPF

All fisheries have a variety of gear, season, and other input restrictions.

The number of active vessels and number of days fished in Exhibit 2 represent projections of

activity after the recent “Buyback” of fishing concessions or licences under the Structural

Adjustment Program i.e., the activity levels can be lower than activity realized in the 2006/07

fishing year.

A precondition for the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF) and the Eastern Tuna & Billfish Fishery

(ETBF) to participate in the Buyback program was their agreement to adopt new management

measures in the future, Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs) for the NPF in 2009 and Individual

Transferable Effort (ITE) Quotas in the form of hook limits for the ETBF in 2008.

2.2 Fleet Profitability

The Exhibits in Appendix C clearly show that gross revenues for all nine fleets are in decline.

At the same time, the fleets are experiencing increasing costs mainly through the appreciation of

the Australian dollar against both the Japanese yen and the US dollar the primary export markets,

increased fuel prices, and insurance costs.

The result from declining revenues and increasing costs is lower profitability.



2.3 Monitoring

The at sea vessel elements of EM trials have been conducted for five (5) of the nine fleets

considered: HIMI (longline), NPF, ETBF, SPF Trawl and Shark GN (reports on trials are cited in

the Bibliography). The trials were funded by the National Heritage Trust.

Present observer coverage varies dramatically across fleets. The HIMI longline and trawl vessels

have two observers on each trip i.e., 100% coverage whereas observer coverage of fishing trips

for other fleets generally is below 10%. Essentially all fleets have VMS (as a requirement of the

Ministerial Direction).

While there is biological port sampling in ETBF and some south eastern fisheries there is no

extensive Dockside Monitoring Program (DMP) in Commonwealth Fisheries - but each fish sale,

at the point of first receiver, has a Catch Disposal Record (CDR) completed by the vessel skipper

and the buyer. The CDR is signed/authorized by both the buyer and seller and sent to AFMA.

AFMA does periodic spot checks.

All fishing fleets have requirements that the skipper complete a logbook detailing retained catch,

discarded catch and Threatened Endangered & Protected (TEP) species interactions for each

fishing trip. Presently both the logbook and CDR data, in most instances, are mailed to AFMA

(but AFMA has been conducting e-log trials in the Northern Prawn Fishery for several years).

2.4 Licence Fees

All Commonwealth fisheries pay a two part licence fee - a base amount plus a second component

tied to fisheries management costs e.g., observers, logbooks, compliance, science, RAG & MAC

meetings etc.

For a non-ITQ fishery, each licence holder, including those which choose not to fish, pays the

same fee i.e., fisheries management charges are shared equally.

For an ITQ fishery, each licence holder pays the same base fee plus a graduated fisheries

management fee based on ITQ holdings e.g., licence holder A with twice the ITQ holdings of

licence holder B would pay twice the management fee (but the same base fee component).

Licence holders do not necessarily pay the full cost of each fisheries management service. For

example, presently the cost of observers is shared 80:20 between industry and government to

reflect the significant “public good” component in the collection of science information on TEP

interactions and other activities.



Exhibit 1: Map of Commonwealth Fisheries



Exhibit 2: Commonwealth Fleet Profiles

Commonwealth Fishery

HIMI

NPF

ETBF

SE Trawl

SPF Trawl

SPF Seine

Coral Sea

Shark GN

Auto LL

Fishery Description

Fishing Technology LL & trawl trawl LL trawl trawl seine mixed gillnet LL

No. Active Vessels 2 50 55 44 3 10 5 48 4

No. Vessel Days Fished 240 8,500 7,500 8,500 200 200 150 5,700 1,000

Average Vessel Length 57m 22m 20m 21m 39m 33m 24m 17m 16m

Crew Size inc. Skipper 25 5-8 4 4 6-9 4-8 3 2-4 2-4

Target Species

#1 toothfish bananas yellowfiin granadier redbait mackerel lujainid gummy trevella

#2 icefish tigers bigeye flathead mackerel school ling

#3 endeavour albacore warehau saw gummy

#4 swordfish

Fisheries Management

Output Controls - TAC yes in 2009 yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

- ITQ yes in 2009 no yes no no no yes yes

Input Controls - TAE no yes in 2008 no no no no no no

- ITE no yes in 2008 no no no no no no

Production 2006/07

Catch Landed tonnes 3,122 5,131 7,695 16,328 4,736 1,671 192 2,870 1,380

Catch Value $000 26,178 63,750 32,601 54,539 1,916 676 1,380 14,949 8,835

Third Party Monitoring?

Dockside Monitoring no no no no no no no no no

At-Sea Observer Coverage 100% <2% ~7% ~5% ~15% <2% ~5% ~2% ~10%

Electronic Video Monitoring LL trial trial trial no trial no no trial no

VMS yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

Note: LL - longline

Trawl - NPF is otter trawl, SE Trawl is demersal trawl, SPF Trawl is midwater trawl

GN - gillnet



3.0 The Cost-Benefit Framework & Parameters

This section describes the EM video technology, its application to Commonwealth fisheries, and

the key cost and benefit items to be covered.

3.1 EM Technology in Commonwealth Fisheries

Generic Description of Technology. The electronic monitoring (EM) system consists of a

multicamera system - usually two cameras, a GPS receiver and a sensor on the winch and on the

hydraulics rigged into a control box. When the vessel hauls the gear, the sensor activates the

camera and the GPS records (see Exhibit 3).

Imagery recorded by an EM system provides a permanent event record that can be later analyzed

in a controlled setting, thereby providing the ability for simultaneous observation of a number of

areas on the vessel and reducing the possibility for observational error.

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. (AMR) of Victoria, BC Canada have successfully employed EM

systems on a variety of gear types and commercial fishery monitoring applications around the

world, including some EM trials in Australia. The technology is “proven” in the Canadian context.

Commonwealth EM Experience to Date. EM trials using the AMR technology have been

conducted for five Commonwealth fisheries:

• Antarctic Longline,

• Northern Prawn,

• Eastern Tuna & Billfish,

• Small Pelagic & Trawl, and

• Shark Gillnet (part of Gillnet Hook & Trap)

Trial results indicate that the EM technology provides good resolution of landings for each fishery

and for bycatch for each fishery except Northern Prawn. Some problems in non-prawn fisheries

were noted, but easily-implemented remedies to these problems also were identified.

The issue for Northern Prawn is the small size of fish and sea snakes that comprise the target and

non-target catch. Higher resolution imagery would be desirable. Much of the non target species

are small and are often highly reflective when wet - a camera system with the capability of

triggering a series of time lapse high definition digital still images with a circular polarising filter

system would be preferable. (Bob Stanley pers. comm.).

Feasibility of EM vs Observers. EM technology has variable suitability to monitor different

types of fishing events or activities (Exhibit 4). The experience in Australia and around the world

suggests the following constraints or issues:

• EM technology may be more useful for documenting TEP interactions, especially with

large marine mammals such as porpoises or seals, than for documenting catch

• fisheries with diverse catch composition and large hauls, e.g., SE trawl, may have difficulty

using EM for species resolution in the catch unless they agree to appropriate modification

in their catch handling practices.

• you need a single control point along side or on the vessel through which all fish and

bycatch captured passes before the “keep-discard” decision is made (this can require

altering onboard handling procedures)



Observer monitoring programs have their own problems or issues. The two most vexing are:

• the difficulty due to logistical constraints, such as small vessel size, remote port locations,

or variable fishing plans, of implementing random sampling procedures for observer

assignments

• the occurrence of “observer bias” i.e., a vessel with an observer will change fishing

practices, its logbook completion practices etc. (Babcock & Pikitch 2003, GSGislason &

Archipelago 2004, Erikson 2007)

As a result, the sample of trips observed and fishing activities on observed trips may not be

representative of the fleet as a whole. Due to these two concerns of bias and the multispecies

catch composition, the Canadian Pacific groundfish demersal trawl fishery, similar in nature to

AFMA’s Great Australian Bight and SE Trawl Fisheries, has mandatory 100% observer coverage.

It is very difficult, if not impossible, to circumvent bias problems in observer monitoring

programs. This in turn means that EM programs can provide better unbiased data, regardless of

cost, than can observer programs unless the observer program has 100% coverage.

Observer data is not pure and can contain errors (Ames et al 2007). Vessel physical limitations,

such as bed space, can act as a constraint for putting an observer on small vessels (these physical

constraints do not exist for EM systems).

The AFMA EM Delivery Concept. AFMA currently is developing an implementation strategy,

roles and responsibilities, and protocols for EM of Commonwealth fisheries. Current thinking

suggests that (Bob Stanley pers. comm.):

• AFMA will accredit EM video on-vessel systems on a capability and function basis. Any

equipment/system provider that meets or exceeds the specifications and can successfully

give a working demonstration of the equipment would become an accredited supplier..

• the collection of logged data and EM data processing will be conducted by third party

contractors, preferably a single contractor in the early years as per both the NMFS and

the Canadian service delivery systems.

• there will be a contractor audit process to ensure that the contractor is adhering to

agreed protocols, policies and terms of the contract.

• data will be forwarded to AFMA or accessed by AFMA via a secure portal for loading

data holdings through an ETL (Extract Transform & Load) tool.

• AFMA will conduct the comparison of logbook data to EM product, at least initially.

Should this prove problematic for AFMA, then the contractor could be approached to

provide this service for most fisheries. AFMA will compare a random slice of the video

data to corresponding logbook data (100% share for Antarctic fisheries).

• the latter validation task likely would occur several weeks after the fishing event and, in

the cases of Antarctic (HIMI) and Northern Prawn fisheries - fisheries characterized by

long fishing trips - may occur after the season.

• the video footage would be kept for a three month period post analysis to allow for an

audit process and for 12 months for any unanalyzed video.



• the industry would be responsible for purchase and maintenance of camera equipment,

but the actual cost of data handling, review etc. under current arrangements would be

split 80:20 between industry and government (similar to the 20% contribution to the cost

of observer services that the government now pays).

• the analysis of video would be to the design specified by the specific fishery RAG and the

cost recovered through the levy base.

• the cost of any additional analysis etc that is attributable to onboard equipment

tampering may be recovered from the operator.

AFMA has not articulated their proposed actions in cases where there are significant differences

between the logbook records and the video data, e.g., taking another 10% slice of video data for

comparison purposes, insisting on observer coverage on the next (several) fishing trips, revoking

fishing privileges. Our understanding is that AFMA is having discussions with industry and their

legal department on this matter.

The AFMA EM delivery concept differs in several ways from Canadian EM delivery practice - see

Exhibit 5. These delivery differences in part reflect differences in the particular fisheries in each

jurisdiction.

3.2 The Economic Framework

EM & Alternative Monitoring Scenarios. Cost-benefit analysis of a new initiative such as an

EM program requires explicit recognition as to what is the alternative for comparison purposes

i.e., to focus on incremental effects and to compare benefits and costs “with” the measure to

benefits and costs “without” the measure.

We will use at-sea observer overage as the alternative - observers are the only alternative that

can provide objective information on fish discards, seabird, turtle & other interactions etc. Cost-

benefit analysis should be forward looking. It is likely, given current developments, that in the

foreseeable future all fisheries will need to provide defensible, transparent, third party monitoring

of all fishing activities i.e., if a fishery sector does not go to EM, “no monitoring” will not be the

alternative or option in the future.

In fact, future observer requirements or coverage, in the absence of adopting EM technology,

likely will be higher than the current low levels (see Exhibit 2, Section 2). The December 2005

Ministerial Directive to AFMA indicated that monitoring requirements in the future will increase.

Antarctic vessels presently have the requirement to have two observers - this current situation

will be the alternative scenario, i.e., no EM. The EM scenario for the Antarctic fishery will be to

retain one observer and replace the second observer with a camera system.

Cost and Benefit Categories. Exhibit 6 displays the key cost and benefit categories underlying

the analysis in the next two sections (Section 4 on Costs, Section 5 on Benefits).

The cost of Electronic Monitoring (EM) includes lump sum capital and on-going operating costs

associated with the camera equipment, and includes the cost of labour needed to view video and

match video data to the logged data. The key “cost drivers” are the number of camera systems

installed, the hours of labour required to retrieve and view the video, and AFMA administrative

effort to manage the EM program (e.g., system evaluation and accreditation, auditing 3rd party

contractors, data validation and matching).



The cost of Observer Monitoring programs include the costs for observers to travel to and from

fishing ports, observer food while on the vessel, observer wages, and the cost of labour needed

to enter and analyze observer data. The key “cost drivers” are: travel distance, the number of

days at sea and on land for observers, and the administrative overhead in the management of the

observer program and in the handling of the observer data.

Cost differences between monitoring alternatives can represent a cost savings or benefit (or a

cost escalation or disbenefit). In addition, monitoring alternatives can affect:

• compliance and fishermen behaviour e.g., discarding & “highgrading”

• the quality of data collected and hence the utility to science/stock assessment interests

• fisheries management measures e.g., TAC levels, closed areas, ”no go” zones

• the efficiency of regulatory processes including RAGs (Resource Assessment Groups) and

MACs (Management Advisory Committees)

• public confidence in the commercial fishery

• trust & relationships with other users, such as the recreational sector, and AFMA

• market access & product certification schemes e.g., MSC

Benefits such as these from having stronger, more comprehensive monitoring will be assessed in

qualitative terms.



Exhibit 3: Archipelago Marine e-Monitoring Equipment

The e-Monitoring systems supplied by Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. (“AMR”) for the

Commonwealth EM trials in Australia integrates an assortment of available digital video and

computer components with a proprietary software operating system to create a unique and

powerful data collection tool. The system can operate on AC or DC voltage. The video

recording device is configured to start autonomously whenever a line hauler or other primary

fishing equipment is activated. The system components are schematically depicted below.

Control Box. The heart of the AMR electronic monitoring system is a metal tamper-proof

control box (approx. 400mm x 250mm x 200mm) that houses the digital data logger and video

computer circuitry. The control box most often is mounted in the vessel wheelhouse.

Video and Digital Data Storage. The EM system has 120 to 480 gigabyte computer hard

drives that are used for video data collection. Drives can be swapped on the vessel when it is

serviced to allow review of the video imagery to occur on shore. GPS and sensor data are

recorded on media that can be downloaded to a field technician’s laptop.



Exhibit 3: Archipelago Marine e-Monitoring Equipment (cont’d)

CCTV Cameras. Waterproof armored dome closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras are

used. The camera design has proven reliable in extreme environmental conditions for long-term

deployments on vessels in other fisheries. A choice of lenses from fisheye to telephoto enables

the installation technician to optimally adjust the field of view and image resolution on each

vessel. Up to four cameras are available on standard e-Monitoring systems. In some specialized

trawl applications there have been up to 8 camera options available

Color cameras with 480 TV lines of resolution (high resolution) and low light capability (0.6 lux)

can be used. The cameras have an electronic iris that adjusts automatically to reduce the effects

of glare or low light levels on image quality. The output signal is composite video (NTSC)

delivered to the digital video recorder by coaxial cable. And 12 volt DC power is carried to the

camera on conductors packaged in a single sheath with the coaxial cable.

GPS Receiver. An independent Garmin 17N GPS receiver is installed with the EM system. The

GPS receiver and antenna are integrated into a single plastic dome that is wired directly to the

data-logger - there is no attached display interface. The GPS receiver is fixed to mount on top of

the wheelhouse away from other antennae and radars.

The Garmin GPS receiver is a 12 channel parallel receiver, meaning it can track up to 12 GPS

satellites at once while using 4 satellites that have the best spatial geometry to develop the

highest quality positional fix. The factory stated error for this GPS is less than 15 metres (Root

Mean Square). This means that if the receiver is placed on a point with precisely known

coordinates, a geodetic survey monument for example, 95% of its positional fixes will fall inside a

circle of 15 metres radius centered on that point.

The GPS time code delivered with the Garmin positional data is accurate to within 2 seconds of

the Universal Time Code (UTC = GMT). The AMR EM software uses the GPS time to

chronologically stamp data records and to update and correct the real time clock on the data-

logging computer. In an Australian application with many time zones it is recommended that all

times are recorded in UTC.

When 12 volts DC is applied to the GPS, the system delivers a digital data stream to the data-

logging computer that provides an accurate time base as well as vessel position, speed, heading

and positional error. The EM system records the latitude and longitude in degrees and minutes to

three decimal places thereby providing a theoretical resolution of 1.85 metres (1 minute of

latitude = 1,852 meters). Speed is recorded in nautical miles per hour (knots) to one decimal

place and heading to the nearest degree.

Rotation Sensor. A photoelectric rotation sensor is mounted at the hauling station or winch

looking at a prismatic reflector which is attached to the hauler or winch.

Hydraulic Pressure Transducer. A hydraulic pressure sensor is attached to the line hauler or

winch to provide a record of hauling activity and to serve as a video trigger. The sensor has a 0

to 2500 pound per square inch (psi) range and a 15,000 psi burst rating.



Exhibit 4: Reliability of Current e-Monitoring Technology for Various Types of Monitoring Activities

Monitoring Activity Examples Reliability of e-Monitoring

Vessel Activities Location and activity of vessel High

Fishing Operations Time, location, duration of fishing events such as shooting or hauling gear

High

Determine if, when and where discarding takes place

High Compliance with Regulations

Verifying use of bycatch mitigation measures e.g., Tori lines

High

Rare Events Monitoring rates of TEP interactions e.g., seabird and dolphin catches (particularly in conditions hazardous for observers)

High

Industry Codes of Practice Validate application of industry codes of practice. Also able to provide information to develop responses to ameliorate TEP interactions

High

Total Catch Validation Validate total logbook catch (fishery and method dependent)

Medium-High

Discard Quantification Accurately identify discard species and quantify discarding (fishery and method dependent)

Medium

Target Species Catch Accurately separate closely related fish species

Medium

Bycatch Accurately identify TEP species e.g., seabird species

Medium

Biological Parameters Sample catch e.g., fish lengths, weights otoliths, guts, etc.

Not possible

Fishermen Information Industry perceptions, understanding, views, etc.

Not possible

Source: AFMA



Exhibit 5: Delivery of EM Video Services in Pacific Canada Groundfish Fisheries

1. Four trap and hook & line fisheries with significant overlap in species caught

• sablefish (“K” licence) • rockfish (“ZN licence)

• halibut (“L” licence) • lingcod & dogfish (“Schedule II” licence)

2. Issues of the late 1990s

• fleets & individuals not accountable for catch • one fleet’s directed catch was another fleet’s discards (by regulation) • little faith in logbooks/self-reported discard data • TAC management ignored discards

3. EM critical part of 3 Year Groundfish Pilot Integration Program 2006 to 2008

• 100% monitoring of landings through Dockside Monitoring Program (DMP) • 100% monitoring of trips: choice of EM or observers • ITQs for all sectors, “cap and trade” system among sectors • made sectors accountable for total catch (landings & discards) • improved stock specific management/TAC

4. Key elements of EM program component

• equipment provision (private sector to meet DFO specifications) • validate logbook data against video data, validate logbook data to DMP data

5. The role of Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. (“AMR”), Victoria Canada

• only company so far to be certified to provide EM equipment • has gov’t contract for DMP & associated logbook data collection • provides the EM audit service to individual fishermen

6. The EM service delivery model

• operator purchases or leases equipment, contracts with EM service provider • pre 1st trip at dock - test EM equipment • post 1st trip at dock - retrieve video, install new hard drive

- test equipment again • all vessels allowed to take next (2nd) trip (subject to having unfished quota) • 10% random audit of video compared to logbook data, logbook-DMP data

comparison • result of review : pass - cleared to fish 3rd trip

: marginal - revisit data, talk to fishermen : fail - take observer on 3rd trip

7. The 10% audit of video made EM affordable

• 100% EM video review onerous & time consuming • EM total costs now 30 to 40% of costs of 100% observer coverage • cost sharing for EM & observer costs about 2/3 industry - 1/3 gov’t

8. Change in fishermen behaviour & other benefits

• substantial reduction in discard/less “high grading” • industry providing more reliable logbook data on discards • scientists can trust/use discard data to calculate total mortalities • better information should lead to better management • greater trust/transparency among - industry, other user groups, gov’t, ENGOs, public • program lauded by wide variety of disparate interests



Exhibit 6: Cost & Benefit Categories

Cost Categories*

EM Observers

• Travel/Relocation

• At-Sea - Observer Wages - Food - AFMA Admin

• Land/Office - Observer Wages - AFMA Admin

• Equipment - Installed Capital - Annual Admin - O&M

• Data Collection/Review - Field - Video Review

• AFMA Program Administration

vs

Benefit Categories**

• Compliance & Fishermen Behaviour

• Science/Stock Assessment

• Fisheries Management

• Efficiency of Regulatory Process

• Public Confidence

• Trust & Relationships

• Market Access & Product Certification

* to be addressed in quantitative terms

** to be addressed in qualitative terms



4.0 Cost Analysis of Monitoring Alternatives

This section outlines the cost repercussions of the two third party monitoring scenarios -

Electronic Monitoring and Observer Monitoring - for each of the nine example Commonwealth

fishing fleets. The consultants built a simple spreadsheet model to assess cost impacts.

4.1 Monitoring Cost Parameters

Exhibit 7 presents the key assumptions or parameters underlying the monitoring cost results in

the next section. The base assumptions are illustrative and not predictions or reflections of

AFMA policy. The results for these cost scenarios easily can be scaled or adjusted to different

sets of cost parameters.

Canadian e-monitoring costs provide a benchmark from which to project EM costs for

Commonwealth fisheries (see AMR Fee Schedule in Canada per Appendix D).

Fishing Parameters

• Activity Measures (lines #1 to #4) - projections of current 2007/08 activity after the

2006/07 licence buyback

E-Monitoring Parameters

• Camera Installation Rate (line #5) - each vessel will have a camera

• Video Audit Share (line #6) - 10% audit of video imagery for all fleets except

Antarctic and SPF Trawl. The Antarctic fleet requires 100% video review to meet

CCAMLR and regulatory commitments. The SPF Trawl fishery video audit share of

20% reflects the greater coverage needed to address concerns regarding TEP

interactions.

• Review Time to Real Time as a Share of Real Time Video (line #7) - varies by fishery

to reflect a number of factors: 1) monitoring objectives e.g., review for TEP requires

less time than review for catch retained & discards, 2) discard rate, 3) species

mix/diversity, and 4) proximity to MPA boundaries, 5) fishing technology etc. (the

shares provided by Bob Stanley, AFMA pers. comm.).

• Installed Capital Cost (line 8) - $14,000 reflects costs of standard 2 camera AMR

technology plus exchange rate adjustments ($1AU ~ $0.85 CDN) plus a 10% increase

to adopt to Australian circumstances plus $2,500 cost for initial training etc, also

includes 3 hours of technician time to install (some fisheries may require an extra

camera at a cost of about $750 each).

• Annual Admin (line #9) - $1,300 annually reflects AMR costing to recover

administrative & overhead costs tied to warranties, supplier services etc. (plus

exchange rate adjustments plus a 10% increase).

• Expected Life (line #10) - 3 years common for electronic technology.

• Real Interest Rate (line #11) - 7% is the value ABARE prefers to use.

• Annual O&M (line #12) - used 3% of capital cost (normal EM equipment maintenance

can be 2 to 4% of capital cost, Howard McElderry, AMR, pers. comm.).



• Field Hours per Trip (line #13) - 2 hours needed to set up video in office for viewing

(1-3 hours depending on type of fishery, Howard McElderry, AMR, pers. comm.).

• Video Hours per Day Fished (Line #14) - reflects typical time per fishing day that the

gear is retrieved (see details in Appendix C.

• Labour Rate for Field (line #15) - used $75/hour including payroll burden (Bob

Stanley, pers. comm.).

• Labour Rate for Video (line #16) - used $50/hour including payroll burden (Bob

Stanley pers. comm.).

• AFMA Admin (line #17) - approximately $2,000 per vessel per year to cover supplier

accreditation, data validation & matching etc (Bob Stanley pers. comm.).

• Gov’t Contribution (line #18) - 20% cost of field & video review hours (same 20% as

government pays for observer costs).

Observer Monitoring Parameters

• No. Observers per Observed Trip (line #19) - 2 observers for Antarctic fisheries,

and 1 for other fisheries (the present situation).

• Coverage Level (line #20) - 100% for Antarctic, 20% for SPF Trawl, 10% for others

(Bob Stanley pers. comm.).

• Ratio Land to At-Sea Days (line #21) - variable depending on logistics of fishery (Bob

Stanley pers. comm.).

• Costs - Travel, Wages Admin, Gov’t Contribution (lines #22, #24-27) - quoted daily

rates in AFMA policy.

• Food Costs (line #23) - $20 per day (based on interviews with industry).

4.2 Monitoring Costs - EM vs Observers

Exhibit 8 presents the cost of Electronic Monitoring vs Observer Monitoring under the

assumptions or parameters in Exhibit 7.

For SPF Seine and Coral Sea Trap fisheries, observers are a cheaper alternative than EM. For all

other fisheries, EM is cheaper than observers.

Apart from the Antarctic fishery, SPF Seine and Coral Sea have the lowest number of fishing trips

per year and hence a 10% observer coverage rate is not costly. The costs of EM are concentrated

in EM equipment and annual operating costs, and not in human video review time.

Over all nine (9) fleets, the EM and observer costs total (see Exhibit 8):

Total Costs $000 at 10% Benchmark

EM Costs Observer Costs

Industry 2,414 92% 2,919 82%

Government 208 8% 661 18%

Total 2,622 3,580



Over all fleets considered at the benchmark , EM costs are one quarter less than observer costs.

The government contribution to total costs is 8% for EM and 18% for observers. The much lower

contribution level, in relative terms, for EM reflects the fact that the 20% government contribution

only applies to video review costs and not to camera system capital and ongoing costs.

The cost analysis of observer costs does not address difference in quality, value, or use of EM and

observer data e.g., it is much easier to take a random 10% sample of video data than a random

10% sample of fishing trips for which to position an observer.

We also note that there may be cost effective opportunities to combine EM and observer

monitoring within a particular fleet. For example, the 48 vessel Shark GN fleet has 25 full time

operators and 23 part time operators. It appears cost effective at the benchmark for the part

time operators to use observers and the full time operators to use EM (see below).

Shark GN Fleet

Full Time Part Time Total

No. operators 25 23 48

Deliveries or Trips 592 148 740

Days at Sea 5,280 1,320 6,600

EM Costs @ 10% Audit $000 307 228 536

Observer Costs @ 10% Coverage $000 489 122 611

It is likely that requirements for third party monitoring of fishing operations will increase in the

future in line with the December 2005 Ministerial Directive, with the September 2007 Harvest

Strategy, and with global standards for monitoring fishery operations. The 10% observer coverage

rate used for most fisheries under consideration therefore may well be too low to meet future

needs. The result would be much greater cost savings from implementing EM in the future than

projected in the short term (observer costs for a particular fleet are proportional to the

observer coverage level).

For this reason it is important to analyze EM vs observer costs under different scenarios,

particularly different observer coverage levels, as below.

4.3 Monitoring Costs - Sensitivity Analysis

It is possible to calculate EM and observer costs under parameter assumptions different from

those in Exhibit 7 e.g., different video audit shares, different observer coverage rates.

Exhibit 9 gives EM total costs and observer total costs under a variety of video audit shares and

observer coverage levels respectively. For example, for all fleets except HIMI EM costs at 10%

video audit are less than 20% of observer costs at 100% coverage.



Exhibit 7: EM vs Observer Costs - Base Model Parameters


HIMI

NPF

ETBF

SE Trawl

SPF Trawl

SPF Seine

Coral Sea

Shark GN

Auto LL

Fishery Parameters

1. No. Active Vessels 2 50 55 44 3 10 5 48 4

2. Total No. Fishing Trips 5 100 620 620 60 50 25 740 120

3. Total No. Vessel Days at Sea 325 9,300 8,000 9,500 200 200 200 6,600 1,240

4. Total No. Vessel Days Fished 240 8,500 7,500 8,500 200 200 150 5,700 1,000

Electronic Monitoring Parameters

5. Vessel - Camera Installation Rate (%) 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

6. - Video Audit Share (%) 100% 10% 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10%

7. - Review to Real Time (%) 35% 50% 30% 20% 10% 10% 50% 45% 30%

8. Camera - Installed Capital Cost ($) 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000

9. - Annual Admin ($) 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300

10. - Expected Life (years) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

11. - Real Interest Rate (%) 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%

12. - Annual O&M (% of capital) 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

13. Review - Field Hours (per trip) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

14. - Video Hours (per day fished) 13 2 8 3 1 3 7 7 8

15. - Labour Rate - Field ($ per hour) 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

16. - Labour Rate - Video ($ per hour) 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

17. - AFMA Admin ($ per vessel) 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000

18. - Gov’t Contribution (%) 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 20%

Observer Monitoring Parameters

19. Vessel - No. Observers (per observed trip) 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

20. - Coverage Level (%) 100% 10% 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10%

21. - Ratio Land to At-Sea Days .27 .29 .60 .27 .38 .38 .50 .50 .50

22. Observer - Travel Costs ($ per observed trip) 4,000 2,500 600 600 100 200 200 600 600

23. - Food Costs ($ per observer day) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

24. - At-Sea : Wages/Admin ($ per day) 498 498 498 498 498 498 498 498 498

25. - : Gov’t Contn($ per day) 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125

26. - Land : Wages/Admin ($ per day) 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344 344

27. - : Gov’t Contn ($ per day) 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86 86



Exhibit 8: EM vs Observer Costs - Base Model Results


HIMI*

NPF

ETBF

SE Trawl

SPF Trawl

SPF Seine

Coral Sea

Shark GN

Auto LL

MONITORING SCENARIO

Electronic Monitoring (EM)*

1. Camera Installation Rate 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

2. Video Hours per Day Fished 13 2 8 3 1 3 7 7 8

3. Video Audit Share 100% 10% 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10%

4. Video Review to Real Time 35% 50% 30% 20% 10% 10% 50% 45% 30%

Alternative (Observer) Monitoring*

5. No. Observers per Observed Trip 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

6. Observer Coverage Level 100% 10% 10% 10% 20% 10% 10% 10% 10%

7. Ratio Land to At-Sea Days .27 .29 .60 .27 .38 .38 .50 .50 .50

MONITORING EFFORT

8. EM Labour Hours (Field & Video) 1,102 870 1,924 634 28 16 58 1,944 264

9. Alternative Obs Days (At-Sea & Land) 826 1,200 1,280 1,207 55 28 30 990 186

COSTS BY FUNCTION/ACTIVITY $000

Electronic Monitoring

10. Equipment Capital Costs 11 267 293 235 16 53 27 256 21

11. Equipment Admin Costs 3 65 72 57 4 13 7 62 5

12. Equipment O&M Costs 1 21 23 18 1 5 2 20 2

13. Field, Review & Admin Costs 58 144 209 123 8 21 13 197 22

14. HIMI Single Observer Costs* 267 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

15. Total 340 497 597 433 29 92 49 535 50

Alternative (Observer) Monitoring

16. Observer Travel Costs 40 25 37 37 1 1 1 44 7

17. Observer Food Costs 13 19 16 19 1 0 0 13 2

18. Observer Wages & Admin 480 695 705 702 31 16 17 554 104

19. Total 533 739 758 758 33 17 18 611 113

COSTS BY INCIDENCE $000

Electronic Monitoring

21. Industry Costs 280 468 555 408 27 88 46 496 46

22. Government Costs 60 29 42 25 2 4 3 39 4

23. Total 340 497 597 433 29 92 49 535 50

Alternative (Observer) Scenario

24. Industry 437 600 617 617 27 14 115 500 92

25. Government 96 139 141 141 6 3 3 111 21

26. Total 533 739 758 758 33 17 18 611 113

* The EM scenario for HIMI involves one camera system plus one observer. The alternative scenario for HIMI involves two observers.



Exhibit 9: EM vs Observer Costs - Sensitivity Analysis


HIMI*

NPF

ETBF

SE Trawl

SPF Trawl

SPF Seine

Coral Sea

Shark GN

Auto LL

EM Total Costs $000*

10% Audit Share 291 497 597 433 28 92 48 536 50

20% ‘’ 296 541 697 468 29 93 51 636 64

30% ‘’ 302 585 796 503 30 94 54 737 78

40% ‘’ 307 629 895 538 31 95 57 838 91

50% “ 313 673 995 572 32 96 60 939 105

60% “ 318 717 1,094 607 33 97 63 1,040 119

70% “ 324 761 1,193 642 34 98 66 1,141 133

80% “ 329 805 1,292 677 35 99 69 1,242 147

90% “ 335 849 1,392 712 36 100 72 1,343 160

100% “ 340 893 1,491 746 37 101 75 1,443 174

Observer Total Costs $000*

5% Observer Coverage 27 369 379 379 8 9 9 305 57

10% ‘’ 53 739 758 758 17 17 18 611 114

15% ‘’ 80 1,108 1,137 1,138 25 26 26 916 170

20% ‘’ 107 1,478 1,516 1,517 33 34 35 1,221 227

25% “ 133 1,847 1,895 1,896 42 43 44 1,527 284

30% “ 160 2,217 2,274 2,275 50 51 53 1,832 341

35% “ 187 2,586 2,653 2,654 59 60 62 2,137 398

40% “ 213 2,956 3,032 3,033 67 69 71 2,443 454

45% “ 240 3,325 3,411 3,413 75 77 79 2,748 511

50% “ 267 3,695 3,790 3,792 84 86 88 3,053 568

.

.

.

100% “ 533 7,390 7,580 7,583 167 171 177 6,107 1,136

* HIMI EM scenario includes 1 observer 100% of the time plus EM at designated audit share. HIMI observer scenario includes

2 observers 100% of the time.



5.0 Benefit Analysis of Monitoring Alternatives

This section outlines the benefits, apart from cost savings, of improved monitoring of fishing

operations through EM. The commentary draws on our Interview Program in Appendix A plus

developments in other parts of the world such as Canada.

5.1 Compliance and Fishermen Behaviour

Effective third party monitoring can change fishermen behaviour. For example, the 100% observer

program for groundfish bottom trawl and the 100% EM program for groundfish hook and trap

fleets in Pacific Canada has led to a substantial decline in discards.

Third party monitoring can also curtail “highgrading” and induce greater compliance with fisheries

regulations. One fleet manager/owner that we interviewed welcomed EM because it can provide

a mechanism for checks and balances as to fishing practices of each vessel, and its hired skipper

and crew, in his fleet.

5.2 Science and Fish Management Benefits

At present Australian fisheries scientists are dependent on logbook data for catch effort and

discards in TAC and/or ITQ fisheries. Logbook misreporting issues are well-recognized in other

parts of the world such as Canada. Logbooks are a self-reporting mechanism and therefore do

not have third party, independent oversight.

The EM audit review function will provide a logbook validation procedure and, depending on the

AFMA compliance action to deal with inaccurate logbooks, should increase the accuracy of

logbooks substantially. Observers can also be tasked with validation as necessary.

For example, this has happened in Canadian Pacific groundfish fisheries where, for the first time,

Canada scientists: 1) trust the logbook discard data and use it to calculate total mortalities, 2)

identify management alternatives including TAC levels based on these mortality calculations. The

potential exists for fisheries managers to authorize a higher catch or TAC level since the scientific

analysis has less “risk” attached to it i.e., more intensive fishing can be authorized and still be

consistent with the precautionary approach.

Observer data on discards, because of the potential “observer bias”, often do not provide

unbiased estimates of discards. At much higher observer rates this bias should lessen.

The recently-announced Harvest Strategy in Australia increases monitoring requirements and the

need for timely, accurate data. EM can meet the needs of the Harvest Strategy and the

precautionary approach to fisheries management.

We note that the 1995 CREA review of the observer program in Commonwealth fisheries

estimated that, without the observer program, the Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT) TAC would be

reduced by 25 to 50% (estimate based on interviews with fisheries managers). This indicates the

importance of monitoring,validation and accountability.



5.3 Increased Public Confidence

The Australian government has the responsibility to manage the commercial fisheries in

Commonwealth waters in a precautionary manner for present and future generations. The key to

public confidence in fisheries management is demonstrable evidence or proof that fisheries are

being managed sustainably. Criteria for assessing sustainable fishing practices contain three

common principles (Gislason 2007):

• sustainable harvest of target species and stocks,

• limiting impacts of fishing on non-target species, species and ecosystem, and

• an effective fisheries management system

These sustainability criteria require that independent, rather than self-reporting, monitoring

systems be employed.

A key advantage of catch monitoring is that it provides a transparent, easily-understandable

system for demonstrating actual catch, retained and discarded. This feature in turn instills

confidence amongst other users of the fish resource and the public at large as to the sustainability

of commercial fishing activities.

The fact that fisheries with 100% of boats having cameras under an EM program leads to greater

public confidence is important as the ocean environment has many competing interests or

potential users. EM can provide a “social licence” to operate in the ocean environment (or as one

person put it in a previous study “you need public approval to maintain access to a public

resource”).

In particular, ENGOs generally support fisheries with good catch monitoring. TEP interactions

are a primary concern of ENGOs and the public in Australia. And EM is very good at identifying

TEP interactions.

5.4 Engender Trust

Many fisheries issues and management processes are characterized by acrimony and mistrust.

Mistrust often results from misinformation or lack of information.

Rigid catch monitoring protocols, such as EM and observers, provide much better, defensible,

transparent information and help to dissolve mistrust among commercial fisheries interests, other

users (e.g., recreational), ENGOs, AFMA and the public at large.

5.5 Improve Market Access & Product Certification

Monitoring systems are a key criteria of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) in assessing

certification of fisheries. And increasingly ecolabelling certification of fishing practices is becoming

a requirement for access to certain seafood markets, especially in Europe. Ecolabelling can also

increase prices. Traceability is becoming a market requirement but you need strong catch

monitoring for traceability.

EM and other monitoring options can help the Australian industry demonstrate its sustainability

to world markets and ecocertifiers.



5.6 Other Benefits

EM can also ease restrictions on vessel travel near or through sensitive areas such as MPAs,

closed fishing grounds etc. since it is readily apparent from the video footage whether the vessel

is fishing or not. Existing VMS systems can not easily discern fishing activity.

By replacing observers, in whole or in part, EM can alleviate health & safety concerns tied to the

observer being onboard a fishing vessel.

And finally EM can instill greater fairness or equity as the whole fishing fleet shares the

monitoring burden. In contrast, observer burden is borne by a narrow group of vessels.



6.0 Implementation Issues

There are several implementation issues that need to be addressed before e-monitoring can

become a reality for Commonwealth fisheries:

• the legislative basis for EM

• the process for addressing non-compliance

• privacy issues i.e., who owns the data?

• third party vs AFMA service delivery

• data systems and analysis systems for EM

• service support for vessel installed systems

• cost-sharing i.e., “public good” share of EM activities

• implementation schedule i.e., “roll out” schedule for fisheries

• integration with other initiatives such as e-logs and VMS

• evaluation of the EM program

Many of these issues were raised in our discussions with industry. And industry suggested that

these issues need to be addressed in a transparent manner within each fishery’s Management Plan

and/or a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between AFMA and industry.

6.1 The Legislative Basis for EM

It is unclear whether the legislative base presently exists to implement e-monitoring requirements

i.e., to force fishing operators to adopt EM or to take an at-sea observer. This same issue exists

for other electronic monitoring/data collection programs such as e-logs.

Legislation may also need to clarify how such data can be used e.g., can video data be used for

prosecutions? There also is a need to ensure consistency with other Commonwealth legislation,

such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act of 1999, and

international commitments.

Our understanding is that the legal department of AFMA is investigating these issues.

6.2 The Process for Addressing Non-Compliance

The main point of the EM initiative is to improve the reliability of logbook data and their efficacy

for science and management purposes. To achieve this goal will require that some form of

penalties or sanctions be imposed on those operations where there is a significant discrepancy

between the 10% random audit of EM video data and the corresponding logbook data.

It is unclear at this point what these sanctions will be e.g., paying the cost of additional video

review, having to take an observer on the next (several) trips. And it is unclear whether these

sanctions would occur in-season or be implemented in the next season.

In addition, AFMA needs to determine how logbook collection, input and analysis will occur so

that logbook data can be matched to EM video data in an expeditious, effective manner.



6.3 Privacy Issues

There likely will be great interest in the EM data as video can portray a very powerful image -

good or bad - of the fishing industry. A major concern about EM raised by industry in our

discussions was data privacy i.e., who will own the EM video data? Who will have access to the

video data?

The views of industry included the following:

• industry owns the data since they are paying for the camera system and its upkeep

• industry is willing to share the data with AFMA but industry retains ownership

• industry does not want third parties, including other government departments and

ENGOs, having access to the data

• industry will want assurances from AFMA in writing as to approved use of the data e.g.,

through an MOU or explicit statements in the Management Plan.

AFMA need to engage further with industry on this topic.

6.4 Third Party vs AFMA Service Delivery

An EM program could entail a completely in-house AFMA initiative in that AFMA could hire

people to conduct field collection/training re camera systems and to view video. Alternatively,

AFMA could contract the EM function to a third party service provider on a fee-for-service basis.

In either case, AFMA would need to provide a management function to the program including

testing/authorizing equipment and monitoring service delivery.

Industry has expressed a clear preference for third party service delivery for several reason: cost

savings, greater flexibility, less risk, and faster response/implementation times.

6.5 Data and Analysis Systems

The data systems, the matching of logbooks, and the analysis systems and protocols that need to

be developed to support an EM program are significant. In the case of BC groundfish, these

systems and tools are the intellectual property of Archipelago Marine Research Ltd.

6.6 Field Service Support for EM

Industry will need to access the best possible technical support for the instillation of EM

equipment. The level of reliability and the service support infrastructure to support EM in

Australia will be critical in the accreditation and authorizing of equipment.

6.7 Cost Sharing

The cost of the existing at-sea observer program presently is shared 80% industry, 20% AFMA.

The rationale for the 80:20 cost sharing is the “public good” benefit of having better data or

marine activities including TEP interactions.

In our analysis, we used this same cost sharing formula for field, video review and AFMA

administration data functions in the EM cost projections (but the purchase cost and maintenance

of the camera system falls completely on the fishing operator).



A valid argument may exist for having a public good benefit share for EM program larger than

20% since EM programs in Commonwealth fisheries largely would be focused on TEP

interactions. TEP interactions data may have a larger public good component than say retained

catch data.

6.8 Implementation Schedule

The implementation of EM could occur “all at once” or be staged for various fleets/groups of

fleets over time. Fleet readiness factors could include: 1) having conducted an EM trial, 2) having a

mature industry organization that speaks in a cohesive manner for the vast majority of operators,

and 3) having privacy and other important issues settled through an MOU with AFMA.

We also note that AFMA needs an internal implementation process that includes a Request for

Proposal (RFP) for potential equipment suppliers, for system accreditation, for matching logbook

data to video data and so on.

6.9 Integration with Other Initiatives

Industry has raised the question of how the EM initiatives fit with other electronic programs such

as e-logs or VMS now implemented or being trialed. The view is that the EM camera data system

needs to link into other AFMA monitoring programs.

Specifically AFMA requires a monitoring needs assessment that first identifies monitoring needs,

next identifies monitoring options, and third examines what (mix of) monitoring options best

meets the needs.

Hook limits are planned for the ETBF fishery in 2008 and ITQs are planned for the NPF fishery in

2009. There is a need to integrate monitoring requirements, including EM, into the planning and

implementation of major fisheries management initiatives.

6.10 Evaluation of the EM Program

It is prudent to plan for an evaluation of any major fisheries management change such as EM. It is

important to identify the key questions/issues of concern, indicators to address the issues, and

information collection needed to provide evidence.

An EM program may be launched as a “pilot” with a 3 to 5 year trial period with several

evaluations needed through the trial period. These evaluations would provide guidance as to

whether or not to continue the program as is, to continue with some modifications, or to

terminate.

Key evaluation issues likely would include: 1) has logbook confidence improved? 2) what is the

cost and other burdens industry and AFMA are bearing? 3) what are the science and fisheries

management benefits so far? 4) is there the will from industry and others to make EM central to

monitoring of AFMA fisheries in the future?

Formal evaluations of public sector initiatives are consistent with good governance practice.



7.0 Conclusions

This analysis of the benefits and costs of using on-vessel video camera systems for monitoring of

fishing operations suggests that electronic monitoring (EM) shows significant economic and other

net benefits.

The concept is to outfit each vessel in a fleet with a camera system, conduct a random 10% audit

of the video (for most fisheries considered), and compare the video results to the fishing events

recorded by the vessel operator in the vessel’s fishing logbook. Significant discrepancies would

spur action.

The intent is to improve the accuracy and usefulness of self-reported logbook data particularly

for TEP interactions and at-sea discards. EM trials for five different Commonwealth fisheries have

occurred. The trials, based on proven Canadian technology, generally were successful.

The alternative to EM in the economic analysis is 10% at-sea observer coverage. The base

assumptions for EM audit share and observer coverage are illustrative and not predictions or

reflections of AFMA policy. The cost results for EM vs observers easily can be scaled or adjusted

to different audit shares and different observer coverage levels.

The results show that EM is cost effective for most but not all of the nine (9) example fleets

considered at the nominated benchmark. Fisheries with large numbers of part-time operations,

however, would still have the option of choosing observers rather than EM.

There is significant industry interest and support for EM, mainly tied to these cost savings.

Industry is undergoing reduced margins and profitability through unfavourable currency exchange

rate changes and lower prices, and through higher fuel, insurance and other costs. An additional

financial concern is the prospect of increases in management costs per vessel due to the

reduction in numbers remaining in the fishery after the recent “Buyback” of fishing licences.

However, in the medium to long term, the benefits of having better science, improved

management, greater public confidence and other broad-based benefits through better data will

be increasingly important.

Monitoring requirements in the future likely will be greater as Commonwealth fisheries come

under greater scrutiny, as pressure increases on industry and government to prove that fishing

operations are conducted in a sustainable manner, and as competing uses of the ocean

environment such as Marine Protected Areas gain prominence. Accordingly, the cost savings

under the 10% observer coverage alternative well may be conservative as standards for observer

coverage continue to increase around the world.

Industry has signalled a clear preference for third party delivery of EM services rather than in-

house AFMA delivery. Industry also has identified data privacy as a key concern in any EM

program. These and other implementation issues need to be addressed.

In conclusion, the EM opportunity appears promising. EM can delivery cost savings as well as

broad public benefits. AFMA and industry should work together on realizing this potential.



Bibliography

ABARE, “Australian Fisheries Statistics 2006”, May 2007

ABARE, “Australian Fisheries Surveys Report 2006”, June 2007

ABARE, “Australian Fisheries Surveys Report 2007”, October 2007

ACIL Consulting, “Role and Management of AFMA Observer Services”, Prepared for AFMA, June

1998

Ames, Robert, Bruce Leaman and Kelly Ames, “Evaluation of Video Technology for Monitoring of

Multispecies Longline Catches”, North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 27:955-964,

2007

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., “Groundfish Hook & Line Catch Monitoring Program 2007/08

Fee Schedule”, 15 March 2007 available at:

http://www.archipelago.ca/MEDIA/DOCS/2007_GHLCMP_Fee_Schedule.pdf

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. & Australian Fisheries Management Authority, “Report for the

Electronic Monitoring Trial in the Gillnet Hook and Trap Fishery” [n.d.]

Archipelago Marine Research Ltd. & Australian Fisheries Management Authority, “Report for

Antarctic Longline Electronic Monitoring Trial” [n.d.]

Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences, “Fisheries Status Reports 2006”, Department of Agriculture,

Fisheries & Forestry

Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences, “Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy - Policy and

Guidelines”, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry, September 2007

Australian Fisheries Management Authority, “Report for Electronic Monitoring in the Northern

Prawn Fishery” [n.d.]

Australian Government, “Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries”,

Department of Environment and Water Resources (DEW), 2007

Babcock, Elizabeth A. and Ellen K. Pikitch, “How Much Observer Coverage is Enough to

Adequately Estimate Bycatch?”, Pew Institute for Ocean Research, 2003

Centre for Regional Economic Analysis (CREA), “A Review of the Australian Fisheries

Management Authority’s Observer Program”, Prepared for AFMA, July 1995

Cotter, A.J.R. and G.M. Pilling, “Landing, Logbooks and Observer Surveys: Improving the

Protocols for Sampling Commercial Fisheries”, 8:123-152, 2007

Cusick, Jonathon and Howard McElderry, “At-Sea Observing Using Electronic Monitoring: The

US Shore-Based Hake Fishery”, Proceedings of the 5th International Observer Conference,

Victoria Canada, 15-18 May 2007: 141-143, 2007

Diamond Management Consulting Inc., “Commercial Industry Caucus Pilot Integration Proposal”,

June 2006

Elliston, Lisa, Paul Newton, David Galeano, Peter Gooday, Tom Kompass and Jonathon Newby,

“Economic Efficiency in the South East Trawl Fishery, ABARE - eReport 4.21, November 2004



Erikson, Wes D., “The British Columbia Fishery: A Commercial Fisherman’s Perspective”,

Proceedings of the 5th International Observer Conference, Victoria Canada, 15-18 May 2007: 60-

62, 2007

Fisheries Economics, Research & Management Specialists (FERM), “Cost/Benefit Study of an

Integrated Electronic Data Management System (IEDMS)”, Prepared for AFMA, June 1998

Gislason, Gordon, “Commercial Catch Monitoring: Gatekeeper to Sustainability and Public

Confidence in Pacific Canada”, Proceedings of the 5th International Observer Conference,

Victoria Canada, 15-18 May 2007: 37-41, 2007

GSGislason & Associates Ltd. & Archipelago Marine Research Ltd., “Catch Monitoring Programs

for BC Groundfish Longline: Halibut Case Study”, Prepared for Canada Fisheries and Oceans,

April 2004

Kaufman, Barry, “Fisheries Data Management in AFMA: Collection, Storage and Dissemination”,

Prepared for AFMA, August 1996

Koolman, John, Brian Mose, Richard D. Stanley and Diana Trager, “Developing an Integrated

Commercial Groundfish Strategy for British Columbia - Insights Gained about Participatory

Management”, Biology Assessment and Management of North Pacific Rockfishes Program, Alaska

Sea Grant College, AK-SG-07-01, 2007

McElderry, H.R., R. Stanley, M.J. Pria, D. Edwards, D. Trager, G. Cormier and J. Koolman, “At-Sea

Observing Using Video-Based Electronic Monitoring: An Audit-Based Tool for Fishing Logbooks”,

Proceedings of the 5th International Observer Conference, Victoria Canada, 15-18 May 2007:

156-157, 2007

MRAG Americas Inc., “Fisheries Monitoring Technologies”, Project Report Submitted to North

Pacific Fishery Management Council, April 2004

MRAG (Marine Resources Assessment Group), “Observer Programmes - Best Practice Funding

Options and North Sea Case Study”, Report to World Wildlife Fund, 2006

Rose, Roger and Ian Kompass, “Management Options for the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery

- An Economic Assessment”, ABARE Report 4.12, August 2004



Appendix A

The Interview Program



Exhibit A.1: People Interviewed

Discussions re Specific Industry Sector

General

Discussions

HIMI

NPF

ETBF

SE Trawl

SPF Trawl

SPF Seine

Coral Sea

Shark GN

Auto LL

Australian Industry

1. Albert, Gegory X

2. Bibby, Tom X

3. Binns, Geoff X

4. Brown, Denis X

5. Carter, David X

6. Drenkahn, Fritz X

7. Exel, Martin X X

8. Farrell, Cathal X

9. Freeman, Ian X X X

10. Geen, Gerry X X

11. Heilman, Gary X

12. Mure, Will X

13. O’Brien, Mike X

14. Parker, Seth X

15. Peovitis, Norman X

16. Prendergast, Andy X

17. Richey, Stuart X

18. Risely, Peter X

19. Scott, Les X X

20. Taylor, Brett X

21. Thomas, Michael X

22. Wilson, Michelle X

AFMA/CSIRO/Other

23. Davies, Campbell (CSIRO) X

24. Dichmont, Cathy (CSIRO) X

25. Knuckey, Ian (Scientist) X X

26. Prince, Jeremy (Scientist) X X

27. Skousen, Thim (AFMA) X

28. Stanley, Bob (AFMA) X

29. Tuck, Geoff (CSIRO) X X

30. Vieire, Simon (ABARE) X

Australian ENGOs

31. Hegerl, Eddie (AMCS) X

32. Leadbitter, Duncan (MSC) X

33. Sant, Glenn (TRAFFIC) X

Outside Australia

34. Koolman, John (CDN Fisherman) X

35. McElderry, Howard (CDN EM Provider) X

36. Stanley, Rick (CDN Scientist) X

37. Trager, Diana (CDN Fisheries) X

38. Walker, Nathan (NZ Fisheries) X



Exhibit A.2: Attendees at E-Logs and E-Monitoring Workshops Canberra, Australia 19 September 2007

Name Affiliation

1. Gordon Gislason GSGislason & Associates Ltd.

2. Bob Stanley AFMA

3. Gary Heilman East Coast Tuna

4. Peter Franklin CFA

5. Steve Auld AFMA

6. Gavin Begg AFMA

7. Michael Tudman AFMA

8. Stuart Richey Northern Prawn Chair, Small Pelagic

9. Andy Prendergast Northern Prawn

10. Fritz Drenkahn SE Trawl, Small Pelagic

11. Jeff Moore Trawl and Longline

12. Simon Cunow AFMA VMS

13. Michelle Wilson CFA

14. Graham Hill AFMA

15. Mark Farell AFMA CIO



Appendix B

Interview Comments



Interview Comments

The following six (6) panels or exhibits present selected interview comments under the headings:

• the rationale for electronic monitoring

• EM vs observer feasibility issues

• cost impacts

• compliance & science impacts

• other impacts

• implementation issues

Note that we do not necessarily agree with each of the comments presented. The intent is to

display the diversity of opinion.



Exhibit B.1: Selected Interview Comments - The Rationale for Electronic Monitoring

1. “EM makes monitoring possible for all boats, including small boats - it gets rid of the excuse not

to take an observer - to date it has been easy for some operators to avoid having an observer,

the bulk of observer work has fallen to a few boats”

2. “discards are very poorly recorded in logbooks. Most discards occur in trawl fisheries”

3. “ENGOs greatest concern is TEP species. You need 3rd party monitoring to pick up TEP species

because the skipper is always reluctant to put them down in the logbook”

4. “EM can answer different questions in different fisheries”

5. “in Canada, EM is a validation process for logbooks”

6. “in non-TAC fisheries, the benefits may be concentrated in TEP interactions rather than catch

validation”

7. “fish stocks are a public resource used for private benefit - you need good data to be

accountable to the public”

8. “I no longer hold much confidence in logbook data”

9. “misreporting in logbooks stems from the fear industry has regarding ramifications of reporting

the truth. AFMA needs protocols in the Management Plan re implications of truthful reporting.”

10. “the EPBC Act says any TEP species mortality is bad so there is an incentive to report zero

mortality”

11. “a prime mover behind the move to EM in Canada was the ENGOs - the Sierra Club made the

point forcefully that you can not manage the resource effectively without managing/counting

discards”

12. “for longline fisheries it is important to video the setting of the gear to monitor adherence to

tori line measures, interactions with seabirds etc”

13. “Northern Prawn logbooks generally only report retained catch and TEP interactions, not

discards”

14. “high fuel costs and the higher dollar have hurt us - we need to cut costs. Observer and other

compliance costs are high”

15. “will it work? We can’t afford to spend money on something that does not work”

16. “discards in logbooks are reasonably accurate”

17. “the conservation movement is very concerned with TEP interactions - TEP is an emotive

issue”

18. “we need a sufficient body of evidence to defend the industry, its fishing practices and the like

from ill-informed assertions from conservation groups”

19. “there are many other ways besides EM to detect illegal fishing”

20. “bycatch reduction devices such as TEDs have greatly reduced TEP interactions”

21. “there needs to be a credible deterrent against wrongdoing”



Exhibit B.2: Selected Interview Comments - EM vs Observer Feasibility Issues

1. “unless you have 100% observers, observer bias will always be there”

2. “the diversity of catch and size of hauls in SE trawl makes it difficult to use EM to measure

retained catch and discards - but monitoring interactions with seals would be a good use of

cameras”

3. “you need random assignments of observers to get credible data. In one instance, a non-AFMA

entity was supplying observers to a fleet on a voluntary basis but the observers reported very

few TEP interactions. When an AFMA observer went on a trip the observer saw and reported

much greater TEP interactions”

4. “it is easier to monitor retained catch and discards through EM for longline fisheries, as

compared to trawl fisheries, since the fish are unloaded one at a time”

5. “many observers are not well-trained”

6. “observers have been very good”

7. “when we have 8 crew in Northern Prawn at the beginning of banana season, we may not be

able to take an observer i.e., we can’t safely accommodate another person onboard. Sometimes

there is very little notice from AFMA that an observer wants to come aboard”

8. “in fisheries without ITQs, there is no real issue with highgrading - but EM will prevent

highgrading in ITQ fisheries”

9. “observers can slow down processing, EM is less intrusive”

10. “AFMA has a problem retaining observers”

11. “today’s observers in hook fisheries are used mainly for high risk stuff like TEP - but hook limits

are coming in for Eastern Tuna & Billfish”

12. “if you have EM on all vessels, you have potentially 100% observer coverage”

13. “the EM technology worked well in the trials”

14. “some fisheries are weather dependent, the boat’s plans may change at the last minute - this

creates problems with observers”

15. ”with EM you need to establish a single control point through which are fish brought onboard

passes - this may require the boat to change onboard handling processes”

16. “AFMA wants zero discards of trawl species but SE Trawl is a multispecies fishery with significant

discards - we don’t have the carrying capacity. Discards can be up to 80% some times of the year”

17. “I have no objection to carrying a camera but will it be able to differentiate species in trawl

fishing?”

18. “it could be difficult to reliably determine species mix with EM but this information can be

obtained on offloading”

19. “the atmosphere onboard a boat can change with an observer, observers can have a positive

impact on effecting cultural change”

20. “it’s too easy for someone with an observer to change their fishing behaviour for that one trip,

data from 10% observer coverage could be a long way from 10% of normal activity”

21. “cameras may be more useful for measuring prawn catch of bananas than for tigers - tigers have

too much bycatch”

22. “in any discussion of rolling out MPAs, EM keeps popping up as one of the tools”

23. “the present observer program is plagued by small sample sizes”



Exhibit B.3: Selected Interview Comments - Cost Impacts

1. “cameras represent a major cost reduction from observers”

2. “unlike a person, an EM camera does not get sick. In the Antarctic fishery if an observer gets

sick, you have to steam to port a week or more away to pick up another one”

3. “now ‘no go’ zones are broader than the real area of concern since you need to detect vessels

coming and going - with electronic technology, the ‘no go’ zones could be smaller”

4. “if you are traveling below the 5 knot threshold in a closed area, then you are guilty unless

proven innocent - you have to justify why you were there. EM would get rid of this nonsense.

We could travel and search more freely”

5. “EM could result in other savings such as lower aircraft surveillance costs”

6. “EM may provide the impetus to merge compliance and observer/EM programs within AFMA.

Now observer data is not supposed to be used for compliance”

7. “an important benefit is to determine the location and approximate size of catches to

overcome the need for observers on multi-jurisdictional or multi-zone trips”

8. “there are defacto buffer zones where boats do not dare to travel i.e., in and around marine

parks. EM could improve flexibility in travel patterns”

9. “the boat pays for meals of observers - some boats try to get the observer to help out with

some boat work”

10. “if all you are looking for in the video is turtles, then review time will be very fast”

11. “looking at 40% of hooks set in the Antarctic longline fishery for bycatch and unintended catch

of seabirds is a waste of human time”

12. “sometimes observers need to fly in from long distances”

13. “the start and end point of an observed trip may not be the same”

14. “EM should reduce overall compliance costs and not just observer costs e.g., aerial surveillance”

15. “under user pay, EM is the only viable option”

16. “AFMA spends a lot of time and money chasing logbook data, going back to operator etc”

17. “the long term cost of the observer program will be crippling”

18. “Northern Prawn may need a different, more high resolution, more costly camera system in

light of the small size of both target and bycatch species”

19. “for TEP species with occasional interactions, EM could be very cost effective relative to 100%

observers”

20. “third party monitoring is the cost of doing business in this day and age, those who don’t like it

can leave”



Exhibit B.4: Selected Interview Comments - Compliance & Science Impacts

1. “science uses and compliance uses of monitoring data - EM or observers - really are

inseparable. Better compliance means better science”

2. “EM may not change the fundamental management of certain fisheries re setting TACs, but EM

could have a significant impact on TEP measures”

3. “future management of fisheries will require extremely timely analysis of data - cameras can

facilitate this”

4. “EM should make logbook data more reliable - skippers will be more diligent in completing”

5. “now logbook data can be criticized by ENGOs but with EM this criticism should decrease

dramatically”

6. “EM provides a better chance of seeing what is actually going on - it is relatively easy to take a

random sample of the video footage, but it is hard to allocate observers in a random manner

due to logistical constraints”

7. “our fishery now has a low compliance rating with AFMA - EM would increase compliance and

our image with AFMA”

8. “with observers you have to be clean on that one trip, with EM you have to be 100% clean”

9. “EM is good for compliance - the fishermen does not know whether the camera is working or

not, whether footage will be reviewed. It is similar to a security camera in a bank or retail

store”

10. “you can’t really use or trust logbook discard data”

11. “scientists don’t believe fishermen, fishermen don’t believe scientists - perhaps EM can change

this”

12. “even a small rate of EM video analysis will result in high levels of logbook compliance”

13. “the mere fact a camera is onboard will improve compliance rates”

14. “Northern Prawn is an input control fishery - there is no real incentive to lie about retained

catch”

15. “the RAG process may be more productive with EM data”

16. “the introduction of EM stands the greatest chance of promoting behavioural change and getting

compliance with management plans and objectives”



Exhibit B.5: Selected Interview Comments - Other Impacts

1. “the EM audit tells the public to have confidence in the logbook data”

2. “the camera system will provide footage that can demonstrate nil environmental impact”

3. “in Canada, the EM audit of groundfish hook & line fisheries provides for the first time: 1)

confidence in the logbook data, 2) use of logbook data to estimate discard mortalities and

hence total mortalities (landings plus discards). Each management option/potential TAC level

under consideration in turn has less risk, uncertainty. Management may decide to go to a higher

TAC level than they would have if they did not have confidence in the data”

4. “the more data you have, the less precautionary you need to be in getting your TACs”

5. “a camera system in Antarctic fishery would eliminate health & safety concerns for one

observer - it can be dangerous to have an observer on deck if it is blowing, snowy, icy etc”

6. “fisheries are under a microscope - with EM nobody has room to question, it will engender

trust”

7. “the rest of the world does not trust us - EM would verify logbooks and provide transparency

to our fishing operations”

8. “observer data is not used to measure landings or discards - but has been used to allay fears of

the conservation movement. Public confidence is important”

9. “EM will provide a fear factor or deterrent to the crew, evidence will be undisputable -

absentee owners can see what is going on”

10. “better data can mean less precautionary management/less risk and potentially higher TACs”

11. “EM would probably get rid of a lot of the paranoia AFMA has re the current management

regime”

12. “EM gives the public that warm fluffy feeling”

13. “there is always a bit of mistrust between fishermen and ENGOs - EM could help build trust”

14. “EM is an opportunity to showcase to the world how sustainable we are”

15. “the fishery has a public perception problem in some quarters. EM could address this”

16. “EM will generate increased confidence amongst other stakeholders about the extent of

bycatches in the fishery”

17. “EM is a way to rescind draconian rules”

18. “public confidence is a major issue”

19. “EM should stop rumours regarding the commercial fishing industry”

20. “EM would help dissolve mistrust, help the allocation debate”

21. “you have the ability to re-sample footage with different operators and reduce operator error”

22. “EM can be an electronic host on a vessel for other functions”

23. “the precautionary approach requires better data or you manage in a more conservative

manner”

24. “there is greater equity with EM as everybody shares the monitoring load”



Exhibit B.6: Selected Interview Comments - Implementation Issues

1. “in Canada, if a vessel passes the 10% EM video audit then the video is destroyed immediately. If

video shows some problems, then the video is archived at the contractor facility”

2. “the Government of Canada very rarely asks for video - they are concerned it could be subject

to access to information or interdepartmental information-sharing arrangements”

3. “video images can be very powerful. The fear is video imagery will be used to define the

industry”

4. “public outrage and response usually start off with an ‘incident’ e.g., seal interactions. Take one

idiot fisherman (who shoots seals) and one - 10 second camera image and you could have a

whole fishery go down the drain”

5. “industry wants EM data to be the property of the boat owner and not AFMA: since industry is

paying for the camera, it is industry’s data”

6. “all monitoring services should be contracted out”

7. “AFMA may work as an EM service provider but it will have to work differently than any other

government department”

8. “government should pay part of EM costs since there is a public good aspect to it”

9. “there should be a risk-based system - the better your compliance history, the less your EM or

observer burden”

10. “VMS, observer, logbook, EM data should all have the same confidentiality - there should be a

narrow distribution unless a border security issue arises”

11. “industry wants to retain ownership of data but share it with AFMA”

12. “AFMA should be managers and contract out all services”

13. “governments are very inefficient - they have no incentive or will to reduce costs”

14. “you need a penalty for non-compliance e.g., compulsory observer coverage for so many days

until proven clean”

15. “third party monitoring can meet short time frames, provide less risk”

16. “government should set specs and have the private sector deliver”

17. “the 10% base audit seems reasonable - but the conservation movement may want 100%

review”

18. “EM may be cost efficient to AFMA but is it cost efficient to industry? Cost to smaller vessels

may still be too high”

19. “government is generally very slow and inefficient at rolling out new technologies - the project

is best placed in the hands of the private sector”

20. “the inclusion of crew activity in camera coverage is unacceptable to industry. Any video that

shows human action not subject to the Fisheries Act, such as Occupational Health & Safety

issues, should be edited out”

21. “do we have the legislation in place to implement EM? We need to adapt the Fisheries Act to

accommodate new technology”

22. “there is a broad-based ‘public good’ aspect with believable data on TEP species interactions or

counts - and this public good component may be larger for EM than for observers”

23. “there is a need to investigate how EM integrates with other technologies or projects, such as

E-logs and VMS”

24. “how can/will EM be used for compliance and prosecution purposes?”



Appendix C

Commonwealth Fishing Fleet Profiles



Exhibit C.1: Commonwealth Fishing Fleet Profile - Antarctic

1. Target Species #1 patagonian toothfish 6. Fleet Income Statement NA

#2 icefish $000 %

#3 Revenues - Seafood

#4 - Non Fishing

Less: - Wages inc. Skipper

2. Fleet Management 2006/07 - Fuel

No. of Licences 3 - Bait

Fishing Technology demersal longline & trawl - Licence Fees & Levies

Output Controls - TAC yes - Repairs & Maintenance

- ITQ yes - Freight, Marketing, Packaging

Input Controls - TAE no - Insurance

- ITE no - Other

Equals: Net Return/EBITDA*

3. Fleet Operations 2006/07

No. Active Vessels 2 7. Typical 24 Hr Day on Fishing Grounds**

Av. Vessel Length 48-66 m Setting the Gear 4 hrs

Fishing Depth of Gear 700-1800 m Soaking the Gear 5 hrs

Av. Crew Size inc. Skipper 25 Retrieving the Gear/Catch 13 hrs

Fleet Boat Days at Sea ~400 Search/Transit/Other 2 hrs

Fleet Boat Days Fished ~275 24 hrs

Fleet Landing Events/Deliveries ~10

8. Typical Catch Diversity/Disposition (check one) Fleet Major Ports: Albany (Australia), Nelson (New Zealand), Port Louis (Mauritius) Common Species Diversity in Catch : Low <5 species x

4. Fleet Aggregate Harvest : Mid 5-15 species

Production Value : High >15 species

tonnes $000 Discard Share of Catch : Low <5% x

2002/03 4,982 24,476 : Mid 5-15%

2003/04 3,727 37,320 : High >15%

2004/05 4,615 30,244

2005/06 2,773 20,427 9. Existing Catch Monitoring Activities

2006/07 3,122 26,178 Self-Reporting : Catch Disposal Records (CDRs) yes

: Logbooks yes

5. Fleet Harvest 2006/07 : Self-Sampling no

Production Value

tonnes $000 Third Party : Dockside Monitoring no

: At-Sea Observers yes

All Species 3,122 26,178 : Electronic Monitoring trials only (for longline)

: VMS yes

10. Catch Monitoring Objectives

Primary - catch speciation

Secondary - TEP species - biosampling

* Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, & Amortization ** After traveling to fishing grounds from port *** Includes receipts & costs incurred by Antarctic longline vessels operating in other fisheries

Source: AFMA, ABARE, industry interviews



Exhibit C.2: Commonwealth Fishing Fleet Profile - Northern Prawn

1. Target Species #1 banana prawns 6. Fleet Income Statement 2005/06***

#2 tiger prawns $000 %

#3 endeavour prawns Revenues - Seafood 79,200

#4 - Non Fishing 5,100

Less: - Wages inc. Skipper 20,600 24%

2. Fleet Management 2006/07 - Fuel 31,600 37%

No. of Licences 125 - Bait 0 -

Fishing Technology bottom trawl - Licence Fees & Levies 2,800 3%

Output Controls - TAC planned for 2009 - Repairs & Maintenance 11,800 14%

- ITQ planned for 2009 - Freight, Marketing, Packaging 2,100 3%

Input Controls - TAE yes - Insurance 3,200 4%

- ITE yes - Other 9,700 12%

Equals: Net Return/EBITDA* 2,500 3%



Av. Vessel Length 22 m Setting the Gear 2 hrs


Av. Crew Size inc. Skipper 5 to 8 Retrieving the Gear/Catch 2 hrs

Fleet Boat Days at Sea NA Search/Transit/Other 10 hrs

Fleet Boat Days Fished 10,467 24 hrs

Fleet Landing Events/Deliveries NA

Fleet Major Ports: Darwin, Karumba, Cairns 8. Typical Catch Diversity/Disposition (check one)

Common Species Diversity in Catch : Low <5 species


Production Value : High >15 species x

tonnes $000 Discard Share of Catch : Low <5%

2002/03 5,763 82,544 : Mid 5-15% x

2003/04 6,277 73,979 : High >15%

2004/05 5,124 64,999



: Logbooks yes

5. Fleet Harvest 2006/07 : Self-Sampling yes

Production Value


Banana Prawns 2,674 24,762 : At-Sea Observers yes

Tiger Prawns 1,834 33,302 : Electronic Monitoring trials only

Endeavour Prawns 356 3,828 : VMS yes

King Prawns 28 363

Other Prawns 1 15 10. Catch Monitoring Objectives

Other Species 238 1,480 Primary - temporal & spatial effort/closed times and areas

Total 5,131 63,750 Secondary - effort levels

* Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, & Amortization ** After traveling to fishing grounds from port *** Includes receipts & costs incurred by Northern prawn vessels operating in other fisheries




Exhibit C.3: Commonwealth Fishing Fleet Profile - Eastern Tuna & Billfish

1. Target Species #1 yellowfin tuna 6. Fleet Income Statement 2004/05***

#2 bigeye tuna $000 %

#3 albacore tuna Revenues - Seafood 61,900

#4 broadbill sword fish - Non Fishing 6,000



No. of Licences 231 - Bait 4,700 7%

Fishing Technology surface longline - Licence Fees & Levies 1,800 3%

Output Controls - TAC yes - Repairs & Maintenance 7,400 11%

- ITQ no - Freight, Marketing, Packaging 12,900 19%

Input Controls - TAE planned for 2008 - Insurance 2,300 3%

- ITE planned for 2008 - Other 6,300 9%







Fleet Boat Days at Sea 12,836 Search/Transit/Other 5 hrs



8. Typical Catch Diversity/Disposition (check one) Fleet Major Ports: Mooloolaba, Ulladulla, Cairns, Coffs Harbour, Southport, Sydney Common Species Diversity in Catch : Low <5 species




2002/03 8,523 67,913 : Mid 5-15% x

2003/04 6,967 46,832 : High >15%

2004/05 6,261 42,471



: Logbooks yes


Production Value


Albacore 2,814 5,910 : At-Sea Observers yes

Yellowfin 1,800 11,358 : Electronic Monitoring trials only

Billfish 1,633 9,017 : VMS yes

Bigeye 642 4,867 10. Catch Monitoring Objectives

Skipjack 68 62 Primary - TEP species

Other 738 1,387 Secondary - catch speciation

Total 7,695 32,601 - discard practices

* Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, & Amortization ** After traveling to fishing grounds from port *** Includes receipts & costs incurred by Eastern tuna & billfish vessels operating in other fisheries

Note: 99 of 231 longline permits surrendered in late 2006 during fish permit buyback scheme




Exhibit C.4: Commonwealth Fishing Fleet Profile - SE Trawl

1. Target Species #1 blue grenadier 6. Fleet Income Statement 2001/02***

#2 tiger flathead $000 %

#3 spotted warehou Revenues - Seafood 53,600

#4 orange roughy - Non Fishing 5,500



No. of Licences - Bait 0 -

Fishing Technology trawl - Licence Fees & Levies 1,900 3%


- ITQ yes - Freight, Marketing, Packaging 7,200 12%

Input Controls - TAE no - Insurance 1,900 3%

- ITE no - Other 3,700 6%









Fleet Landing Events/Deliveries 6,500-7,000

8. Typical Catch Diversity/Disposition (check one) Fleet Major Ports: Lakes Entrance, Eden, Bermagui, Ulladulla, Portland Common Species Diversity in Catch : Low <5 species




2002/03 30,559 65,734 : Mid 5-15% x

2003/04 28,089 54,549 : High >15%

2004/05 25,055 58,926



: Logbooks yes


Production Value


Blue Grenadier 3,756 13,896 : At-Sea Observers yes

Tiger Flathead 2,628 12,245 : Electronic Monitoring no

Spotted Warehau 2,409 4,383 : VMS yes

Orange Roughy 907 2,891

Pink Ling 646 3,782 10. Catch Monitoring Objectives

Other 5,982 17,342 Primary - TEP species

Total 16,328 54,539 Secondary - discard/retention practices

* Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, & Amortization ** After traveling to fishing grounds from port *** Includes receipts & costs incurred by SE trawl vessels operating in other fisheries




Exhibit C.5: Commonwealth Fishing Fleet Profile - Small Pelagic

1. Target Species #1 redbait 6. Fleet Income Statement NA

#2 blue mackerel $000 %

#3 jack mackerel Revenues - Seafood

#4 - Non Fishing




Fishing Technology mid water trawl or purse seine - Licence Fees & Levies


- ITQ no - Freight, Marketing, Packaging


- ITE no - Other




Av. Vessel Length 33-39 m Setting the Gear 1 hrs






Fleet Major Ports: Triabunna 8. Typical Catch Diversity/Disposition (check one)

Common Species Diversity in Catch : Low <5 species x


Production Value : High >15 species

tonnes $000 Discard Share of Catch : Low <5% x

2002/03 5,703 1,704 : Mid 5-15%

2003/04 8,412 2,451 : High >15%

2004/05 8,158 2,638



: Logbooks yes


Production Value


Redbait 4,260 1,576 : At-Sea Observers yes

Blue Mackerel 1,497 719 : Electronic Monitoring trials only

Jack Mackerel 623 274 : VMS yes

Other 27 23

Total 6,407 2,592 10. Catch Monitoring Objectives

Primary - TEP species

Secondary -

* Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, & Amortization ** After traveling to fishing grounds from port *** Includes receipts & costs incurred by small pelagic vessels operating in other fisheries




Exhibit C.6: Commonwealth Fishing Fleet Profile - Coral Sea

1. Target Species #1 luijainids 6. Fleet Income Statement NA

#2 $000 %

#3 Revenues - Seafood

#4 - Non Fishing




Fishing Technology trap - Licence Fees & Levies


- ITQ no - Freight, Marketing, Packaging


- ITE no - Other



No. Active Vessels <5 7. Typical 24 Hr Day on Fishing Grounds**







Fleet Major Ports: Bundaberg, Cairns, Townsville 8. Typical Catch Diversity/Disposition (check one)

Common Species Diversity in Catch : Low <5 species




2002/03 167 1,251 : Mid 5-15% x

2003/04 200 854 : High >15%

2004/05 188 1,108

2005/06 256 1,250 9. Existing Catch Monitoring Activities

2006/07 192 1,380 Self-Reporting : Catch Disposal Records (CDRs) yes

: Logbooks yes


Production Value


All species 192 1,380 : At-Sea Observers yes

: Electronic Monitoring no

: VMS yes

10. Catch Monitoring Objectives

Primary - catch speciation

Secondary - discard/retention practices

* Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, & Amortization ** After traveling to fishing grounds from port *** Includes receipts & costs incurred by coral sea trap vessels operating in other fisheries




Exhibit C.7: Commonwealth Fishing Fleet Profile - Gillnet Hook & Trap

1. Target Species #1 gummy shark 6. Fleet Income Statement 2003/04***

#2 ling $000 %

#3 blue eye trevalla Revenues - Seafood 31,100

#4 school shark - Non Fishing 2,600



No. of Licences - Bait 800 2%

Fishing Technology gillnet & demersal longline - Licence Fees & Levies 1,500 4%


- ITQ yes - Freight, Marketing, Packaging 1,000 3%

Input Controls - TAE no - Insurance 1,200 4%

- ITE no - Other 2,800 8%





Fishing Depth of Gear 20-200 m gillnet/>200 m longline Soaking the Gear 5 hrs




Fleet Landing Events/Deliveries ~2,100

8. Typical Catch Diversity/Disposition (check one) Fleet Major Ports: Lakes Entrance, San Remo, Robe, Port Fairy, Port Lincoln Common Species Diversity in Catch : Low <5 species




2002/03 4,666 21,595 : Mid 5-15%

2003/04 4,926 23,500 : High >15% x

2004/05 5,041 24,591



: Logbooks yes


Production Value


Gummy Shark 2,194 12,622 : At-Sea Observers yes

Blue Eye 614 4,629 : Electronic Monitoring trials only (for gillnet)

Ling 381 2,234 : VMS yes

School Shark 256 1,635

Saw Shark 200 509 10. Catch Monitoring Objectives

Other 606 2,155 Primary - TEP species & catch speciation

Total 4,251 23,784 Secondary - biosampling

* Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, & Amortization ** After traveling to fishing grounds from port *** Includes receipts & costs incurred by gillnet hook & trap vessels operating in other fisheries




Appendix D

AMR Fee Schedule

benefits and costs of e-monitoring video technologies for ... · discussion document ... benefits...

Documents