News

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance from Policy to Implementation

By Sandy Davies and Per Erik Bergh, NFDS Africa

 

Robust national monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) systems and strong regional cooperation on MCS are essential elements in the fight to stop IUU fishing.

MCS systems are established and operated to perform various tasks. They gather information on the fishery and fishers that can help in the setting and monitoring of the ‘rules of the fishery’. This includes information on fishing vessels and their fishing gear, the type and amount of the catch, where the fish were caught and what happens to the fish once it has been caught. Through this information and surveillance of the fishing vessels, those working within the MCS system hope to deter any fishers or companies from violating the rules of the fishery and in cases where they still do so to catch and punish them.

There are many different types of MCS systems that range from the sophisticated to the simple and that vary from a military type enforcement approach through to a community driven compliance approach. The organisation that is responsible for setting up and maintaining the MCS system is one of the key players in implementing fishery management plans and they are usually a Section, Division or Directorate within the Ministry responsible for fisheries. One of their jobs is to establish and maintain links nationally, regionally and possibly internationally to others engaged in the fishery and, in particular, the aspect of ensuring the legality of fishing operations.

Within the SADC region the capacity for MCS has generally improved over the last decade. Almost all of the coastal States have a firm foundation of relatively new legislation on fisheries and many countries now have MCS human resources, including inspectors and observers, that have basic training in monitoring and surveillance. The quality of the information systems to support MCS activities have also improved and in some cases include integrated and functioning vessel monitoring systems (VMS). The associated hardware to support MCS (such as patrol vessels and planes) have in some cases improved, although the neglect of equipment and the lack of funds to maintain it have often hampered this hardware really becoming an asset to MCS operations.

 

Box 1: Definition of MCS   There are various definitions of MCS. This one by the FAO is commonly used when a formal definition is required:   ‘Monitoring’ the collection, measurement and analysis of fishing activity including, but not limited to: catch, species composition, fishing effort, by-catch, discards and area of operations. This information is primary data that fisheries managers use to arrive at management decisions. If this information is unavailable, inaccurate or incomplete, managers will be handicapped in developing and implementing management measures.   ‘Control’ involves the specification of the terms and conditions under which resources can be harvested. These specifications are normally contained in national fisheries legislation and other arrangements that might be nationally, subregionally, or regionally agreed. The legislation provides the basis for which fisheries management arrangements, via MCS, are implemented.   ‘Surveillance’ involves the regulation and supervision of fishing activity to ensure that national legislation and terms, conditions of access and management measures are observed. This activity is critical to ensure that resources are not overexploited, poaching is minimised and management arrangements are implemented

 

 

Establishing an MCS system

 

MCS systems can be developed for either specific fisheries or a group of interacting fisheries.

 

Different fishery types require different MCS responses. For example, with an industrial fishery the emphasis is more likely to be on enforcement than compliance, and involve a range of more traditional components such as vessel registers, observer programmes, VMS, and patrol vessels and aircrafts. The monitoring requirements are generally simpler than in artisanal fisheries as vessel logbooks can be implemented, VMS and observers can be placed on larger vessels, and the landing of fish can be directed through certain ports that facilitate landings monitoring.

 

In an artisanal or small scale fishery the combination of large numbers of fishers and landing places, mixed gears and migrant fishers makes MCS an often complex task. The combined approach of community based management and the more traditional use of government data collectors, frame surveys and some enforcement personnel are often required.

 

People are at the core of any MCS organisation. No technology, strategy or plan will be able to replace the demand for qualified and reliable personnel. A realistic evaluation of the personnel available in relation to: the MCS needs, the financial resources, the time available, and the feasibility for long and short-term training is an important step in planning for MCS activities. Training programmes and education are usually required to be sure that personnel can achieve the required duties.

 

Hardware is another key consideration and the choices are numerous with different types of equipment on the market. When considering new hardware it is always worthwhile asking how much it is necessary or sensible to spend. For example, although it is well acknowledged that larger patrol vessels have a strong deterrence effect on commercial fishing operations other more simple and less costly options do exist: a VMS could be implemented with the main cost of the system being borne by the industry; a simple observer compliance and data collection programme could be established to compensate for the weaknesses of VMS; and fishing vessels could be channelled to certain harbours or checkpoints before leaving the fishing zones for control purposes. This type of system would be able to address a wide combination of management measures on an already licensed fleet.

 

Fishers operate in an environment rigorously controlled by the authority, yet an environment that is isolated and without witnesses or law enforcement units present, so temptation to break the law is never far away. One way to reduce this temptation lies in balancing the enforcement and compliance aspects of the MCS system, to encourage an environment where maximum compliance from fishers occurs and to use enforcement in areas where this is not adequate.

 

Fisher compliance, called voluntary compliance, has a role to play in all MCS systems and it is considered to be one of the positive outputs of adopting a participatory approach. Fishers are more inclined to obey rules that they feel are legitimate, rightful, justifiable and reasonable. Creating this sense of legitimacy towards the management strategy can reduce MCS cost considerably. However, voluntary compliance is more of a process than an end point; it tends to take longer to nurture and for results to become apparent. This may not be fast enough if violations are critical to the sustainability of the stock, in which case, the best option may be immediate enforcement action with a longer term view to increasing voluntary compliance.

 

Fisheries are managed by managing the fishers not the fish, that is to say that MCS relates to the fishers and fishing related activities and not to the fish stock. This includes routine fishery operations in four key dimensions, i.e. before fishing, during fishing, during landing of the fish and post landings. Considering these dimensions help to gain the optimal level of monitoring and surveillance at the least cost. For example, if all the MCS effort is placed on the ‘during fishing’ dimension, this would not facilitate any crosschecking or validation across these dimensions and ultimately not provide the best solution.

 

The use of targeted MCS is also a useful consideration, random checks are an important part of a sampling strategy, but for surveillance targeting known or suspected offenders can be more effective. This targeting of routine offenders increases detections and is a visible deterrent to potential offenders.

 

Cost-effectiveness is a primary consideration for all MCS systems and a comparison between the costs and benefits from different MCS options is necessary. The MCS strategy should provide guidelines on the financial resources available and generally, if the cost of the MCS system exceeds the benefits, less costly options should be explored.

 

MCS plans can be used to justify budget discussions, but this should not be the other way around.

 

Finally, assessing MCS system performance has no single defined methodology but by calculating costs and compliance levels the trends and problem areas become apparent and provide a basis for planning. Some general questions that can be asked during the process are given in Box 2.

 

Box 2: Questions to ask when measuring MCS system performance   What are the objectives of compliance in the different fisheries and are these being achieved?   What were the expectations of the system; have these been defined?   Are all the MCS strategies being implemented?   Have there been changes in the fishing fleet or their habits?   Is there new technology or other means that can improve the MCS system?   Do the fishers accept and comply with the fisheries legislation (if not find out why)?   Are the MCS personnel performing as expected (if not find out why)?

 

Future outlook

 

Over the last decade, the MCS manager on the ground has seen little change in the practical options available for combating illegal fishing. What has changed is the approach to MCS: it is now viewed as an interlinked and integrated element of the fishery management system. A more analytical and integrated approach is being adopted in some countries.

 

Another area of change for the MCS manager has been in the growth of the regional and international arena, and the need for engagement in a far wider and more far reaching sphere of discussions than previously. For example, the range of international fisheries instruments that now define the role that States and Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) should or could play in effectively combating illegal fishing has increased in the last decade. One of the most recent is the, now voluntary, Model Scheme on Port State Measures and discussions are afoot on the possibility of future trade certification programmes for ‘legal fish’.

 

International and regional cooperation in MCS may hold one of the solutions to this ever increasing pressure on national MCS systems. Fish stocks, fishers, fishing operations and fisheries trade are either by nature or by impact trans-boundary. Due to this, national fisheries policies and MCS strategies cannot be formulated in isolation. Regional fisheries management approaches and cooperation provide a framework for cooperation among countries in facing the major challenges of tackling illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and developing MCS approaches that can benefit each other.

 

In summary although the MCS systems in the SADC region have improved over the last decade it is not a time for complacency; as the MCS systems improve so do the methods of the illegal fisher. Many MCS systems within the SADC coastal States can improve significantly through greater knowledge, improved information exchange and a more analytical approach to MCS.

 

 

Box 3: Tackling regional collaboration in MCS of the Western Pacific Example

The shared tuna fishery of the Western Pacific is managed under the umbrellas of the Forum Fishery Agency (FFA) and the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).

 

The FFA provides guidance on management of the fishery within the national waters of the 17 FFA island State members, while the WCPFC provides the management framework for the high seas waters.

 

The catches of tuna within this overall Western Pacific area are estimated at around 2.2 million tonnes per year. These are caught by vessels from a registered vessel list of over 1 000 licensed vessels that are flagged by nearly 30 countries. This magnitude of fishing over such a large area provides a challenge for national MCS systems and opens the door for regional cooperation through the platform of the FFA. In response to this, the FFA countries have chosen some innovative ways to ensure that fisheries in the Western Pacific operate by the rules, and that the tuna fishery within their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and the adjacent high seas waters are legal.

 

The concept behind the regional monitoring and compliance programme is to support and strengthen national MCS operations and to ensure benefits from the regional cooperation in order to strengthen the successful implementation of national tuna fishery management plans. There is also an overlap and synergy between strong MCS systems applied nationally within the respective EEZs of the FFA countries and the impact that this has on the compliance within the WCPFC convention area (high seas surrounding the islands).

 

Legal and technical elements of the FFA MCS system are applied nationally or regionally and include a harmonised approach to minimum terms and conditions for foreign vessels such as: a vessel register for these vessels; a Treaty on cooperation in fisheries surveillance and law enforcement (the Niue Treaty); and a Lacey Act-style arrangement allowing regional cooperation relating to penalties for fish caught illegally in the EEZ of another FFA member.

 

Regional collaboration on port State enforcement, harmonisation of national laws, observer programmes, aerial surveillance, maritime surveillance and a vessel monitoring system are also essential elements of the system.

 

The FFA is continually striving to improve their MCS capacity and capability. Their most recent efforts are towards a regional fishery MCS strategy and a review of the national VMS that make up the FFA VMS. The future approach of the FFA is to base enhanced regional compliance collaboration on the findings of analytical studies into compliance and the associated risks to non-compliance. This approach is becoming more common in fisheries MCS, with the realisation that targeting high risk areas (such as specific fleets or fish stocks) increases the chances of successful fishery management.

 

The FFA, like some member States of SADC, are looking into a regional MCS support centre as a future move to facilitate the sharing and management of MCS information and to support regional MCS strategies. The SADC region, although different in its fishery make-up, may benefit from following closely the progress and lessons learned by the FFA that cover the core areas of information management, coordination, capability, capacity, legislation and governance.