benefits and costs of e-monitoring video technologies for ... · discussion document ... benefits...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
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).
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 2
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 3
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 4
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 5
Exhibit 1: Map of Commonwealth Fisheries
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 6
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 7
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)
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 8
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 9
• 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).
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 10
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 11
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 12
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 13
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 14
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 15
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 16
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.).
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 17
• 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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 18
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 19
Exhibit 7: EM vs Observer Costs - Base Model Parameters
Commonwealth Fishery
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 20
Exhibit 8: EM vs Observer Costs - Base Model Results
Commonwealth Fishery
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 21
Exhibit 9: EM vs Observer Costs - Sensitivity Analysis
Commonwealth Fishery
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 22
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 23
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 24
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 25
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 26
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).
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 27
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 28
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 29
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 30
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 31
Appendix A
The Interview Program
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 32
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 33
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 34
Appendix B
Interview Comments
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 35
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.
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 36
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”
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 37
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”
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 38
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”
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 39
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”
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 40
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”
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 41
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?”
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 42
Appendix C
Commonwealth Fishing Fleet Profiles
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 43
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
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 44
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%
3. Fleet Operations 2006/07
No. Active Vessels 78 7. Typical 24 Hr Day on Fishing Grounds**
Av. Vessel Length 22 m Setting the Gear 2 hrs
Fishing Depth of Gear 10-45 m Soaking the Gear 10 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
4. Fleet Aggregate Harvest : Mid 5-15 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
2005/06 5,400 72,847 9. Existing Catch Monitoring Activities
2006/07 5,131 63,750 Self-Reporting : Catch Disposal Records (CDRs) yes
: Logbooks yes
5. Fleet Harvest 2006/07 : Self-Sampling yes
Production Value
tonnes $000 Third Party : Dockside Monitoring no
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
Source: AFMA, ABARE, industry interviews
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 45
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
Less: - Wages inc. Skipper 15,800 23%
2. Fleet Management 2006/07 - Fuel 10,900 16%
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%
Equals: Net Return/EBITDA* 5,800 9%
3. Fleet Operations 2006/07
No. Active Vessels 90 7. Typical 24 Hr Day on Fishing Grounds**
Av. Vessel Length 20 m Setting the Gear 4 hrs
Fishing Depth of Gear 12-200 m Soaking the Gear 7 hrs
Av. Crew Size inc. Skipper 4 Retrieving the Gear/Catch 8 hrs
Fleet Boat Days at Sea 12,836 Search/Transit/Other 5 hrs
Fleet Boat Days Fished 7,584 24 hrs
Fleet Landing Events/Deliveries ~370
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
4. Fleet Aggregate Harvest : Mid 5-15 species
Production Value : High >15 species x
tonnes $000 Discard Share of Catch : Low <5%
2002/03 8,523 67,913 : Mid 5-15% x
2003/04 6,967 46,832 : High >15%
2004/05 6,261 42,471
2005/06 5,758 28,704 9. Existing Catch Monitoring Activities
2006/07 7,695 32,601 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
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
Source: AFMA, ABARE, industry interviews
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 46
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
Less: - Wages inc. Skipper 17,300 30%
2. Fleet Management 2006/07 - Fuel 10,700 18%
No. of Licences - Bait 0 -
Fishing Technology trawl - Licence Fees & Levies 1,900 3%
Output Controls - TAC yes - Repairs & Maintenance 8,500 15%
- ITQ yes - Freight, Marketing, Packaging 7,200 12%
Input Controls - TAE no - Insurance 1,900 3%
- ITE no - Other 3,700 6%
Equals: Net Return/EBITDA* 7,900 13%
3. Fleet Operations 2006/07
No. Active Vessels 84 7. Typical 24 Hr Day on Fishing Grounds**
Av. Vessel Length 21 m Setting the Gear 1 hrs
Fishing Depth of Gear 50-900 m Soaking the Gear 14 hrs
Av. Crew Size inc. Skipper 4 Retrieving the Gear/Catch 3 hrs
Fleet Boat Days at Sea 11,574 Search/Transit/Other 6 hrs
Fleet Boat Days Fished 9,992 24 hrs
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
4. Fleet Aggregate Harvest : Mid 5-15 species
Production Value : High >15 species x
tonnes $000 Discard Share of Catch : Low <5%
2002/03 30,559 65,734 : Mid 5-15% x
2003/04 28,089 54,549 : High >15%
2004/05 25,055 58,926
2005/06 19,937 43,627 9. Existing Catch Monitoring Activities
2006/07 16,328 54,539 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
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
Source: AFMA, ABARE, industry interviews
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 47
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
Less: - Wages inc. Skipper
2. Fleet Management 2006/07 - Fuel
No. of Licences 76 - Bait
Fishing Technology mid water trawl or purse seine - Licence Fees & Levies
Output Controls - TAC yes - Repairs & Maintenance
- ITQ no - Freight, Marketing, Packaging
Input Controls - TAE no - Insurance
- ITE no - Other
Equals: Net Return/EBITDA*
3. Fleet Operations 2006/07
No. Active Vessels 12 7. Typical 24 Hr Day on Fishing Grounds**
Av. Vessel Length 33-39 m Setting the Gear 1 hrs
Fishing Depth of Gear 5-40 m Soaking the Gear 5 hrs
Av. Crew Size inc. Skipper 6 to 9 Retrieving the Gear/Catch 1 hrs
Fleet Boat Days at Sea NA Search/Transit/Other 17 hrs
Fleet Boat Days Fished ~200 24 hrs
Fleet Landing Events/Deliveries ~60
Fleet Major Ports: Triabunna 8. Typical Catch Diversity/Disposition (check one)
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 5,703 1,704 : Mid 5-15%
2003/04 8,412 2,451 : High >15%
2004/05 8,158 2,638
2005/06 9,118 2,893 9. Existing Catch Monitoring Activities
2006/07 6,407 2,592 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
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
Source: AFMA, ABARE, industry interviews
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 48
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
Less: - Wages inc. Skipper
2. Fleet Management 2006/07 - Fuel
No. of Licences 18 - Bait
Fishing Technology trap - Licence Fees & Levies
Output Controls - TAC yes - Repairs & Maintenance
- ITQ no - Freight, Marketing, Packaging
Input Controls - TAE no - Insurance
- ITE no - Other
Equals: Net Return/EBITDA*
3. Fleet Operations 2006/07
No. Active Vessels <5 7. Typical 24 Hr Day on Fishing Grounds**
Av. Vessel Length 24 m Setting the Gear 3 hrs
Fishing Depth of Gear 20-50 m Soaking the Gear 12 hrs
Av. Crew Size inc. Skipper 3 Retrieving the Gear/Catch 7 hrs
Fleet Boat Days at Sea NA Search/Transit/Other 2 hrs
Fleet Boat Days Fished ~150 24 hrs
Fleet Landing Events/Deliveries ~25
Fleet Major Ports: Bundaberg, Cairns, Townsville 8. Typical Catch Diversity/Disposition (check one)
Common Species Diversity in Catch : Low <5 species
4. Fleet Aggregate Harvest : Mid 5-15 species
Production Value : High >15 species x
tonnes $000 Discard Share of Catch : Low <5%
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
5. Fleet Harvest 2006/07 : Self-Sampling no
Production Value
tonnes $000 Third Party : Dockside Monitoring no
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
Source: AFMA, ABARE, industry interviews
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 49
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
Less: - Wages inc. Skipper 11,800 35%
2. Fleet Management 2006/07 - Fuel 3,000 9%
No. of Licences - Bait 800 2%
Fishing Technology gillnet & demersal longline - Licence Fees & Levies 1,500 4%
Output Controls - TAC yes - Repairs & Maintenance 3,300 10%
- ITQ yes - Freight, Marketing, Packaging 1,000 3%
Input Controls - TAE no - Insurance 1,200 4%
- ITE no - Other 2,800 8%
Equals: Net Return/EBITDA* 8,300 25%
3. Fleet Operations 2006/07
No. Active Vessels 86 7. Typical 24 Hr Day on Fishing Grounds**
Av. Vessel Length 16 m Setting the Gear 3 hrs
Fishing Depth of Gear 20-200 m gillnet/>200 m longline Soaking the Gear 5 hrs
Av. Crew Size inc. Skipper 2 to 4 Retrieving the Gear/Catch 8 hrs
Fleet Boat Days at Sea 9,392 Search/Transit/Other 9 hrs
Fleet Boat Days Fished 6,587 24 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
4. Fleet Aggregate Harvest : Mid 5-15 species
Production Value : High >15 species x
tonnes $000 Discard Share of Catch : Low <5%
2002/03 4,666 21,595 : Mid 5-15%
2003/04 4,926 23,500 : High >15% x
2004/05 5,041 24,591
2005/06 4,502 21,340 9. Existing Catch Monitoring Activities
2006/07 4,251 23,784 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
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
Source: AFMA, ABARE, industry interviews
Benefits and Costs of E-Monitoring Video Technologies for GSGislason & Associates Ltd.
Commonwealth Fisheries - Discussion Document Page 50
Appendix D
AMR Fee Schedule