Electronic monitoring in fisheries: Lessons from global experiences and future opportunities

Aloysius T.M. van Helmond*, Lars O. Mortensen, Kristian S. Plet-Hansen, Clara Ulrich, Coby L. Needle, Daniel Oesterwind, Lotte Kindt-Larsen, Thomas Catchpole, Stephen Mangi, Christopher Zimmermann, Hans Jakob Olesen, Nick Bailey, Heidrikur Bergsson, Jørgen Dalskov, Jon Elson, Malo Hosken, Lisa Peterson, Howard McElderry, Jon Ruiz, Johanna P. PierreClaude Dykstra, Jan Jaap Poos

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

18 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Since the beginning of the 21st century, electronic monitoring (EM) has emerged as a cost-efficient supplement to existing catch monitoring programmes in fisheries. An EM system consists of various activity sensors and cameras positioned on vessels to remotely record fishing activity and catches. The first objective of this review was to describe the state of play of EM in fisheries worldwide and to present the insights gained on this technology based on 100 EM trials and 12 fully implemented programmes. Despite its advantages, and its global use for monitoring, progresses in implementation in some important fishing regions are slow. Within this context, the second objective was to discuss more specifically the European experiences gained through 16 trials. Findings show that the three major benefits of EM were as follows: (a) cost-efficiency, (b) the potential to provide more representative coverage of the fleet than any observer programme and (c) the enhanced registration of fishing activity and location. Electronic monitoring can incentivize better compliance and discard reduction, but the fishing managers and industry are often reluctant to its uptake. Improved understanding of the fisher's concerns, for example intrusion of privacy, liability and costs, and better exploration of EM benefits, for example increased traceability, sustainability claims and market access, may enhance implementation on a larger scale. In conclusion, EM as a monitoring tool embodies various solid strengths that are not diminished by its weaknesses. Electronic monitoring has the opportunity to be a powerful tool in the future monitoring of fisheries, particularly when integrated within existing monitoring programmes.

Original languageEnglish
JournalFish and Fisheries
Volume21
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)162-189
ISSN1467-2960
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Keywords

  • Catch documentation
  • Discard monitoring
  • Electronic monitoring
  • Fully documented fisheries
  • Video-based monitoring

Cite this

van Helmond, Aloysius T.M. ; Mortensen, Lars O. ; Plet-Hansen, Kristian S. ; Ulrich, Clara ; Needle, Coby L. ; Oesterwind, Daniel ; Kindt-Larsen, Lotte ; Catchpole, Thomas ; Mangi, Stephen ; Zimmermann, Christopher ; Olesen, Hans Jakob ; Bailey, Nick ; Bergsson, Heidrikur ; Dalskov, Jørgen ; Elson, Jon ; Hosken, Malo ; Peterson, Lisa ; McElderry, Howard ; Ruiz, Jon ; Pierre, Johanna P. ; Dykstra, Claude ; Poos, Jan Jaap. / Electronic monitoring in fisheries: Lessons from global experiences and future opportunities. In: Fish and Fisheries. 2020 ; Vol. 21, No. 1. pp. 162-189.
@article{91c4628c0cb04044bb03d2fdb30d0ff4,
title = "Electronic monitoring in fisheries:: Lessons from global experiences and future opportunities",
abstract = "Since the beginning of the 21st century, electronic monitoring (EM) has emerged as a cost-efficient supplement to existing catch monitoring programmes in fisheries. An EM system consists of various activity sensors and cameras positioned on vessels to remotely record fishing activity and catches. The first objective of this review was to describe the state of play of EM in fisheries worldwide and to present the insights gained on this technology based on 100 EM trials and 12 fully implemented programmes. Despite its advantages, and its global use for monitoring, progresses in implementation in some important fishing regions are slow. Within this context, the second objective was to discuss more specifically the European experiences gained through 16 trials. Findings show that the three major benefits of EM were as follows: (a) cost-efficiency, (b) the potential to provide more representative coverage of the fleet than any observer programme and (c) the enhanced registration of fishing activity and location. Electronic monitoring can incentivize better compliance and discard reduction, but the fishing managers and industry are often reluctant to its uptake. Improved understanding of the fisher's concerns, for example intrusion of privacy, liability and costs, and better exploration of EM benefits, for example increased traceability, sustainability claims and market access, may enhance implementation on a larger scale. In conclusion, EM as a monitoring tool embodies various solid strengths that are not diminished by its weaknesses. Electronic monitoring has the opportunity to be a powerful tool in the future monitoring of fisheries, particularly when integrated within existing monitoring programmes.",
keywords = "Catch documentation, Discard monitoring, Electronic monitoring, Fully documented fisheries, Video-based monitoring",
author = "{van Helmond}, {Aloysius T.M.} and Mortensen, {Lars O.} and Plet-Hansen, {Kristian S.} and Clara Ulrich and Needle, {Coby L.} and Daniel Oesterwind and Lotte Kindt-Larsen and Thomas Catchpole and Stephen Mangi and Christopher Zimmermann and Olesen, {Hans Jakob} and Nick Bailey and Heidrikur Bergsson and J{\o}rgen Dalskov and Jon Elson and Malo Hosken and Lisa Peterson and Howard McElderry and Jon Ruiz and Pierre, {Johanna P.} and Claude Dykstra and Poos, {Jan Jaap}",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.1111/faf.12425",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "162--189",
journal = "Fish and Fisheries",
issn = "1467-2960",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

van Helmond, ATM, Mortensen, LO, Plet-Hansen, KS, Ulrich, C, Needle, CL, Oesterwind, D, Kindt-Larsen, L, Catchpole, T, Mangi, S, Zimmermann, C, Olesen, HJ, Bailey, N, Bergsson, H, Dalskov, J, Elson, J, Hosken, M, Peterson, L, McElderry, H, Ruiz, J, Pierre, JP, Dykstra, C & Poos, JJ 2020, 'Electronic monitoring in fisheries: Lessons from global experiences and future opportunities', Fish and Fisheries, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 162-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12425

Electronic monitoring in fisheries: Lessons from global experiences and future opportunities. / van Helmond, Aloysius T.M.; Mortensen, Lars O.; Plet-Hansen, Kristian S.; Ulrich, Clara; Needle, Coby L.; Oesterwind, Daniel; Kindt-Larsen, Lotte; Catchpole, Thomas; Mangi, Stephen; Zimmermann, Christopher; Olesen, Hans Jakob; Bailey, Nick; Bergsson, Heidrikur; Dalskov, Jørgen; Elson, Jon; Hosken, Malo; Peterson, Lisa; McElderry, Howard; Ruiz, Jon; Pierre, Johanna P.; Dykstra, Claude; Poos, Jan Jaap.

In: Fish and Fisheries, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2020, p. 162-189.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Electronic monitoring in fisheries:

T2 - Lessons from global experiences and future opportunities

AU - van Helmond, Aloysius T.M.

AU - Mortensen, Lars O.

AU - Plet-Hansen, Kristian S.

AU - Ulrich, Clara

AU - Needle, Coby L.

AU - Oesterwind, Daniel

AU - Kindt-Larsen, Lotte

AU - Catchpole, Thomas

AU - Mangi, Stephen

AU - Zimmermann, Christopher

AU - Olesen, Hans Jakob

AU - Bailey, Nick

AU - Bergsson, Heidrikur

AU - Dalskov, Jørgen

AU - Elson, Jon

AU - Hosken, Malo

AU - Peterson, Lisa

AU - McElderry, Howard

AU - Ruiz, Jon

AU - Pierre, Johanna P.

AU - Dykstra, Claude

AU - Poos, Jan Jaap

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - Since the beginning of the 21st century, electronic monitoring (EM) has emerged as a cost-efficient supplement to existing catch monitoring programmes in fisheries. An EM system consists of various activity sensors and cameras positioned on vessels to remotely record fishing activity and catches. The first objective of this review was to describe the state of play of EM in fisheries worldwide and to present the insights gained on this technology based on 100 EM trials and 12 fully implemented programmes. Despite its advantages, and its global use for monitoring, progresses in implementation in some important fishing regions are slow. Within this context, the second objective was to discuss more specifically the European experiences gained through 16 trials. Findings show that the three major benefits of EM were as follows: (a) cost-efficiency, (b) the potential to provide more representative coverage of the fleet than any observer programme and (c) the enhanced registration of fishing activity and location. Electronic monitoring can incentivize better compliance and discard reduction, but the fishing managers and industry are often reluctant to its uptake. Improved understanding of the fisher's concerns, for example intrusion of privacy, liability and costs, and better exploration of EM benefits, for example increased traceability, sustainability claims and market access, may enhance implementation on a larger scale. In conclusion, EM as a monitoring tool embodies various solid strengths that are not diminished by its weaknesses. Electronic monitoring has the opportunity to be a powerful tool in the future monitoring of fisheries, particularly when integrated within existing monitoring programmes.

AB - Since the beginning of the 21st century, electronic monitoring (EM) has emerged as a cost-efficient supplement to existing catch monitoring programmes in fisheries. An EM system consists of various activity sensors and cameras positioned on vessels to remotely record fishing activity and catches. The first objective of this review was to describe the state of play of EM in fisheries worldwide and to present the insights gained on this technology based on 100 EM trials and 12 fully implemented programmes. Despite its advantages, and its global use for monitoring, progresses in implementation in some important fishing regions are slow. Within this context, the second objective was to discuss more specifically the European experiences gained through 16 trials. Findings show that the three major benefits of EM were as follows: (a) cost-efficiency, (b) the potential to provide more representative coverage of the fleet than any observer programme and (c) the enhanced registration of fishing activity and location. Electronic monitoring can incentivize better compliance and discard reduction, but the fishing managers and industry are often reluctant to its uptake. Improved understanding of the fisher's concerns, for example intrusion of privacy, liability and costs, and better exploration of EM benefits, for example increased traceability, sustainability claims and market access, may enhance implementation on a larger scale. In conclusion, EM as a monitoring tool embodies various solid strengths that are not diminished by its weaknesses. Electronic monitoring has the opportunity to be a powerful tool in the future monitoring of fisheries, particularly when integrated within existing monitoring programmes.

KW - Catch documentation

KW - Discard monitoring

KW - Electronic monitoring

KW - Fully documented fisheries

KW - Video-based monitoring

U2 - 10.1111/faf.12425

DO - 10.1111/faf.12425

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85075163200

VL - 21

SP - 162

EP - 189

JO - Fish and Fisheries

JF - Fish and Fisheries

SN - 1467-2960

IS - 1

ER -