Electronic monitoring in fisheries: Lessons from global experiences and future opportunities
Type | Article | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Date | 2020-01 | ||||||||
Language | English | ||||||||
Author(s) | Helmond Aloysius T.M.1, Mortensen Lars O.2, Plet‐hansen Kristian S.2, Ulrich Clara![]() |
||||||||
Affiliation(s) | 1 : Wageningen Marine Research Wageningen University & Research IJmuiden, The Netherlands 2 : National Institute of Aquatic Resources Technical University of Denmark Kgs. Lyngby ,Denmark 3 : Marine Laboratory Marine Scotland Aberdeen, UK 4 : Thünen Institute of Baltic Sea Fisheries Rostock ,Germany 5 : Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Lowestoft ,UK 6 : Department of Biology Copenhagen University Helsingør ,Denmark 7 : The Pacific Community Oceanic Fisheries Program Noumea, New Caledonia 8 : NOAA NMFS Office of Science and Technology Silver Spring MA, USA 9 : Archipelago Marine Research Victoria BC ,Canada 10 : AZTI Tecnalia Sukarrieta Bizkaia, Spain 11 : JPEC Environmental Consulting Lower Hutt, New Zealand 12 : International Pacific Halibut Commission Seattle WA, USA 13 : Aquaculture and Fisheries Group Wageningen University Wageningen, The Netherlands |
||||||||
Source | Fish And Fisheries (1467-2960) (Wiley), 2020-01 , Vol. 21 , N. 1 , P. 162-189 | ||||||||
DOI | 10.1111/faf.12425 | ||||||||
WOS© Times Cited | 60 | ||||||||
Keyword(s) | catch documentation, discard monitoring, electronic monitoring, fully documented fisheries, video-based monitoring | ||||||||
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. |
||||||||
Full Text |
|